United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Impact Assessment
(2014-2016) of Proposed
Code Changes Regarding
^ Individual Sewerage Systems
in Suffolk County, New York
Office of Research and Development
Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment
EPA/600/R-21/186F | September 2021 | www.epa.gov/reseafch
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-21/186F
September 2021
www.epa.gov/research
Health Impact Assessment (2014-2016) of
Proposed Code Changes Regarding Individual
Sewerage Systems in Suffolk County, New York
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
Notice
The Health Impact Assessment (2014-2016) of Proposed Code Changes Regarding Individual Sewerage
Systems in Suffolk County, New York was supported by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff
and contractors. EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities research program and existing contracts
within its Office of Research and Development (ORD) partially funded and provided personnel for the
research described here; and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Sandy Recovery
Office provided funding for travel through an Interagency Agreement with EPA. Members of Suffolk
County, New York government; non-government organizations; and community residents also provided
input for this report. It has been subjected to review by ORD and approved for publication. The views
expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This HIA Report and supporting materials are located at www.epa.gov/healthresearch/health-impact-
assessments.
Suggested Citation:
U.S. EPA. Health Impact Assessment (2014-2016) of Proposed Code Changes Regarding Individual
Sewerage Systems in Suffolk County, New York. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-21/186F, 2021.
For more information about this HIA, contact:
EPA Office of Research and Development
EPA Region 2
(513) 569-7174
(212) 637-4448
griffin.shannon@epa.gov
kieber.rabi@epa.gov
Page ii of xxiii
-------
HIA Participants
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Participants
HIA Leadership Team
Florence Fulk
Shannon Griffin
Rabi Kieber
Grace Musumeci
Lauren Adkins
Justicia Rhodus
HIA Research Team*
Elizabeth Codner-Smith
Ellen D'Amico
Anthony Dvarskas
Michael Jahne
John Johnston
Joseph Memory
Kate Mulvaney
Mark Myer
Sally Pope
Amy Prues
Nadia Seeteram
Samantha Shattuck
*Members of the HIA Leadership Team also served as members of the HIA Research Team.
EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD)
EPA, ORD
EPA, Region 2
EPA, Region 2
CSS-Dynamac, contractor to EPA
CSS-Dynamac/Pegasus Technical Services, contractor to EPA
The Nature Conservancy
CSS-Dynamac/Pegasus Technical Services, contractor to EPA
The State University of New York (SUNY)-Stony Brook
EPA, ORD
EPA, ORD
Earlham College
EPA, ORD
ORISE Fellow at EPA, ORD
CSS-Dynamac, contractor to EPA
CSS-Dynamac/Pegasus Technical Services, contractor to EPA
ORISE Fellow at EPA, ORD
Pegasus Technical Services, contractor to EPA
Technical Advisory Committee
Glynis Berry
Paul Beyer
Marci Bortman
Alison Branco
Chris Clapp
Steven Colabufo
Walter Dawydiak
Dan Gulizio
Jonathan Halfon
Julie Hargrave
Kristina Heinemann
Anhthu Hoang
Amy Juchatz
Chris Lubicich
Kevin McDonald
Jaymie Meliker
Mitch Pally
John Pavacic
Holly Rhodes-Teague
Janice Scherer
John Sohngen
Larry Stipp
Peconic Green Growth
New York State Department of State
The Nature Conservancy
Peconic Estuary Program
The Nature Conservancy
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Peconic Bay Keeper
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Region II
Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission
EPA, Region 2
EPA, Region 2
SCDHS
SCDHS
The Nature Conservancy
SU NY-Stony Brook
Long Island Builders Institute
Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission
Suffolk County Office of Aging
Town of Southampton Planning Division
SCDHS, DEQ Office of Wastewater Management
SCDHS, DEQ
Page iii of xxiii
-------
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sarah Lansdale, Director of Planning, Suffolk County Department of
Economic Development and Planning, who participated in the Screening step and facilitated
communications between the HIA Leadership Team and Suffolk County Government. The authors would
also like to thank the members of the HIA Research Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and the peer
reviewers, Dr. Michael Piehler (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/UNC Coastal Studies Institute)
and James Dills (Georgia Health Policy Center).
Page iv of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Background
This report documents the process and findings of a health impact assessment (HIA) conducted on the
proposed changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for single family residential individual sewerage
systems. Suffolk County, New York is the eastern region of Long Island, the second largest county in total
area in New York (including land and water), and with a population of nearly 1.5 million people, has
more people than 11 U.S. states. In a town hall meeting held January 23, 2014, County Executive Steven
Bellone announced "nitrogen pollution is public enemy number one for our bays, waterways, drinking
supply and the critical wetlands and marshes that protect us from natural disasters like Super Storm
Sandy.... Nitrogen pollution adversely affects our coastal resiliency, our environment, our economy, our
land value, our tourism industry, and our recreational use of our waters."1
Much of the nitrogen pollution in Suffolk County has been linked to unsewered, single-family residences
that rely on individual sewerage systems - onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS; i.e., cesspools) or
septic tank-leaching pool systems ("conventional" onsite wastewater treatment systems or C-OWTS) -
to manage their wastewater. These individual sewerage systems provide no treatment of nutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen) and limited treatment of pathogens (i.e., viruses, bacteria, and protozoa that can cause
disease) before discharging the wastewater into the ground.
Revisions to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code went into effect on January 1, 1973, requiring the use of
C-OWTS for single-family residences. However, individual sewerage systems constructed prior to 1973
were grandfathered in, and since that time, residents have been allowed to replace the systems in-kind
(i.e., cesspools have not been required to be upgraded to "conventional" OWTS to meet the County
standards). Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) is proposing changes to the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code that would require upgrading existing individual sewerage systems to meet
current County standards (in place as of September 2016), as one of many strategies for addressing
nitrogen pollution in Suffolk County's waterways. The overarching goal of updating the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code is to improve water quality and help protect public health. Suffolk County anticipates the
code changes will help decelerate 1) the impairment of regional waters; 2) the frequency of harmful
algal blooms; and 3) the loss of native eelgrass and wetland area, which are important for coastal
resiliency.
This report documents the HIA as it was conducted, including the conditions, sanitary code in effect, and
proposed code changes under consideration by Suffolk County at the time of analysis (December 2014 -
September 2016). It should be noted that since completion of the HIA analysis and reporting of
preliminary findings and recommendations to the decision-makers and stakeholders in the fall of 2016,
1 Suffolk County Government. (2014a, January 23). Tele-Town Hall Meeting on the Water Quality Crisis in Suffolk County.
Hauppauge, New York, United States of America. Retrieved September 10, 2015, from http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/
Departments/CountyExecutive/WaterResourcesManagementPlan.aspx
Page v of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
Suffolk County entered into a period of robust activity working to change the local nutrient pollution
paradigm. This included, among other things, consideration of different sanitary code changes than
those assessed in this HIA. The activities and code changes undertaken after completion of the HIA
analysis are noted throughout the report for informational purposes, but were not considered in the HIA
analysis. A summary of actions and proposed wastewater upgrade recommendations that have occurred
since the time of the HIA analysis can be found in the County's Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan
(https://reclaimourwater.info/TheSubwatershedsWastewaterPlan.aspx).
Why was an HIA performed?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified HIA as one of many decision-support
tools that can be used to provide science-based resources and information for community-driven
initiatives and to promote sustainable and healthy communities. An important factor in deciding to
conduct the HIA was the potential human health and environmental consequences of high-density,
substandard (e.g., inadequately designed, sited, or maintained), and/or malfunctioning individual
sewerage systems in Suffolk County - namely cumulative loading of nutrients and pathogens to
groundwater. In Suffolk County, groundwater is the sole source of public drinking water and has a major
influence on recreational waters and waters of economic importance. An HIA would broaden the health
discussion and could be used to not only show how the proposed changes could impact health directly,
but also indirectly through various health determinants like those identified by Suffolk County Executive
Steve Bellone-the environment, coastal resiliency, economy, property value, tourism, and recreational
water use. Suffolk County agreed to host an HIA, supported by EPA, to help inform the decision about
the proposed code changes.
Who performed this HIA?
Staff in EPA guided the HIA process. They established the HIA Project Team, which consisted of EPA
staff, contractors, research fellows, and professional stakeholders (e.g., individuals from academia;
community organizations; local, county, and state government agencies; and environmental
organizations) who served on the HIA Leadership Team and/or HIA Research Team. The HIA Project
Team conducted the HIA with input and guidance from an HIA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
made up of technical experts and representatives from several stakeholder groups. A TAC and
Community Stakeholder Steering Committee (CSSC) were both initially established for the HIA, but the
CSSC was later consolidated into the TAC due to low participation.
What methods were used in this HIA?
HIA is "a systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytical methods and considers
input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan, program or
project on health of a population and the distribution of those impacts within the population. HIA
provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those effects."2 The systematic HIA process
2 National Research Council. (2011). Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Page vi of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
includes six steps - Screening, Scoping, Assessment, Recommendations, Reporting, and Monitoring and
Evaluation.
This HIA utilized a variety of methods to inform the assessment of health impacts, including the methods
listed below. Beyond community and stakeholder engagement activities, this HIA did not involve
primary data collection efforts, such as water sampling, water quality testing, or administration of
human health surveys.
S Pre-existing and publicly-available data
S Geographic information systems (GIS) modeling, mapping, and spatial analyses
S Statistical and graphical analysis
S Systematic literature review
S Community engagement and expertise from local public health professionals, researchers, and
other stakeholders
S Measurable (quantitative) and relative (qualitative) characterization of impacts
NOTE: Although scientific literature is useful and informative, it may sometimes be limited in its
generalizability and broad applicability.
What was the scope of this HIA?
This HIA assessed the potential health impacts of four decision scenarios under consideration at the
time of the HIA (Table ES-1) - the baseline (i.e., the existing conditions, should none of the alternatives
be implemented) and the three alternatives outlined by SCDHS in the proposed code changes.
Based on input from stakeholders, including community members, scientific experts and decision-
makers, the HIA Project Team identified pathways through which the proposed code changes could
potentially impact health. The five pathways that were prioritized for assessment included:
Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure;
Water Quality;
Resiliency to Natural Disaster;
Vector Control; and
Community and Household Economics.
The HIA assessed each of these pathways by answering the following questions: What are the current
conditions? - How will each decision alternative impact the current conditions? - What is the
connection to health? - and - How might health be impacted by each decision alternative?
Page vii of xxiii
-------
Table ES-1. Decision Scenarios Assessed
Decision Scenarios Details
Executive Summary
Baseline*
The existing conditions at the time of the HIA analysis.
Alternative 1
All existing individual (onsite) sewage disposal systems1 serving single-family
residences must conform to current County Sanitary Code and standards (in
place as of September 2016). All existing cesspools must be upgraded to the
County-defined C-OWTS* - a septic tank and leaching pool.
Alternative II
All existing individual (onsite) sewage disposal systems serving single-family
residences in high priority areasฎ must conform to current County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place as of September 2016). All existing cesspools on lots
located in high priority areas must be upgraded to the County-defined C-OWTS -
a septic tank and leaching pool.
Alternative III
All existing individual sewerage systems (either cesspool-only systems or C-
OWTS)" serving single-family residences in high priority areas must be upgraded
to SCDHS-approved innovative/alternative OWTS1''**.
* The baseline is used as a point of comparison. The baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual
sewerage systems are made.
f Onsite sewage disposal system (OSDS) describes the pre-1973 type of individual sewerage system that includes a disposal unit
alone (i.e., a cesspool) serving single-family residences in Suffolk County.
* "Conventional" onsite wastewater treatment system (C-OWTS) describes the post-1973 type of individual sewerage system
that includes a septic tank and disposal unit (leaching pool) serving single-family residences in Suffolk County.
5 At the time of the HIA analysis, SCDHS designated "high priority areas" as areas in the 0-50 year groundwater contributing
zone to public drinking water wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater contributing zone to surface waters, areas located
in SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) zones, and areas located where groundwater is less than 10 feet
below grade. Priority area designations have since been revised and can be found in the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan
released by the County (https://reclaimourwater.info/TheSubwatershedsWastewaterPlan.aspx ).
"individual sewerage system describes the overall category of individual (onsite) systems used to treat and/or dispose of
wastewater from single-family residences in Suffolk County.
11 Innovative/alternative onsite wastewater treatment system (l/A OWTS) describes the innovative (pending approval) type of
individual sewerage system designed for nitrogen reduction/control used as an alternative to the C-OWTS serving single-family
residences in Suffolk County.
**Effluent nitrogen concentrations of 19 mg/L or less are a requirement for l/A OWTS approval.
Main Findings of the HIA and Recommendations for Decision-makers
Wastewater and Water Quality in Suffolk County
Nitrogen loading to waterbodies can come from a number of present-day sources, including wastewater,
atmospheric deposition, fertilizer use, as well as legacy sources (i.e., past land use practices). Wastewater
effluent from individual sewerage systems (and sewage treatment plants) has been shown to be a major
source of nitrogen loading to Suffolk County waters. The type of individual sewerage system, its design,
siting, operation, and maintenance all determine the ability of the system to control the wastewater
constituents discharged to the environment, including nitrogen and pathogens. These systems discharge
wastewater effluent into the soil, where it can make its way into the groundwater - the sole source of
drinking water for the County. Due to hydrogeology and soil composition, constituents in wastewater
Page viii of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
effluent discharged into the soil can also have a major influence on surface, recreational, and, ultimately,
coastal waters.
Although modeling shows that not all sewerage-derived nitrogen loading to the environment reaches
receiving waters (i.e., waterbodies downgradient in the watershed), some modeling efforts indicate 60-
70% of the nitrogen in individual sewerage system effluent may make its way through the groundwater
to the estuaries of Long Island. This nitrogen loading can impact not only the water quality of Suffolk
County estuaries but, through subsurface flow and overland transport of groundwater during heavy
precipitation and overflow events (e.g., shallow groundwater flooding), can also affect freshwater
resources and wetlands. In addition to nitrogen, wastewater can contain pathogens and other
constituents that make their way through the aquifer and can impact the quality of groundwater and
surface waters, cause human illness, and affect the local shellfish economy.
Nutrient and pathogen loading to Suffolk County waters can come from a number of sources. Regardless
of source, potential problems associated with nitrogen and pathogen loading to Suffolk County waters
include human illness; harmful algal blooms; beach closures; contamination and/or loss offish and
shellfish; promotion of mosquito habitat; coastal wetland loss; declines of stabilizing vegetation and
eelgrass; declines in residential property values; and loss of revenue and employment from tourism,
aquaculture, and recreation industries. Declines in coastal wetlands, stabilizing vegetation, and eelgrass
can ultimately have an impact on shoreline resiliency to coastal flooding and lower-intensity storms.
Predicted Impacts of the Proposed Sanitary Code Changes
Soil characteristics, load rate to the system, age of the system, and operation and maintenance all play
roles in the treatment performance of individual sewerage systems. The "conventional" OWTS (i.e.,
septic tank-leaching pool systems) called for in Decision Alternatives I and II can potentially provide a 1-
logio (10-fold)3 reduction in pathogens in the effluent coming from the system, but are essentially
ineffective at reducing nutrients (e.g., nitrogen). As a result, there would be no change in nitrogen
loading and a limited reduction in pathogen loading to the environment expected with Alternatives I or
II as compared to the baseline (current conditions). The innovative/alternative OWTS (l/A OWTS) in
Alternative III, however, can provide a considerable reduction in nitrogen as compared to the baseline
(particularly if the 19 mg/L or less total nitrogen effluent concentration required for SCDHS approval of
these systems is achieved) and potentially a 1-logio or greater reduction in pathogens in individual
sewerage system effluent, when treatment/disinfection options are included.
3 "Log reduction" is a mathematical term used to show the relative number of pathogens eliminated by treatment or
disinfection. A 1-logio reduction means lowering the number of pathogens by 10-fold. That is, if the raw wastewater going into
the individual sewerage system had 100,000 pathogens in it, a 1-logio reduction would reduce the number of pathogens in the
liquid effluentwhat comes directly out of the individual sewerage system, taking into account settling/treatment within the
system and pumping from the system (if any)to 10,000. This level of reduction may not be protective of human health.
Page ix of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
The HIA demonstrated that the proposed decision alternatives could have both positive and negative
effects on health through a number of health determinants (i.e., factors known to directly or indirectly
impact human health), but only Alternative III would result in a net positive public health impact (Figure
ES-1).
Community and Household
Economics. There are considerable
costs associated with all three
Decision Alternatives, which could reduce the
amount of expendable household income
available for nutrition and essential health-
related goods and services if funding assistance
is not provided. However, upgrades could also
result in new employment opportunities, and
the improvements in water quality from
Alternative III could result in increased
property values and bolster revenue
and employment from water-related
industries.
A
Water Quality. Alternatives I and II ("conventional"
OWTS or C-OWTS) would provide no nitrogen
reduction and limited reduction in pathogens. The
innovative/alternative OWTS (l/A OWTS) in Alternative III would
provide a considerable reduction in nitrogen and may also
reduce pathogens, especially when treatment/disinfection
options are included. Water quality improvements in
groundwater could influence the quality of surface, recreational,
and coastal waters, all of which are essential to public health, the
economy, and the desirability of living in Suffolk County.
Resiliency to Natural
Disasters. Nitrogen
loading can contribute
to the loss of native eelgrass and
the wetlands that protect the
shoreline from storm and tidal
surges, flooding, and erosion,
especially during lower intensity
storms and coastal flooding. While the
reduction in nitrogen loading from
implementing Alternative III should help
increase wetlands and eelgrass, the degree of
improvement in shoreline protection is
unknown, as there are other factors
contributing to the loss of eelgrass and
wetlands (e.g., legacy nitrogen loading,
accelerated sea level rise, etc.). Storm and tidal
surges and coastal flooding can lead to property
and infrastructure damage, evacuations, and
human injury and death.
The proposed
decision has the
potential to affect
the risk of water-
related illness,
vector-borne
disease, injury, and
premature death;
stress; and overa
health and well-
being.
Individual Sewerage System Performance
and Failure. All three alternatives would
reduce the risk of system failures and likely
improve system performance through upgrades to
existing systems, many of which are at the end of their
useful lives (i.e., 25+ years old). Upgrades would also
likely lead to reduced risk of injury due to structural
failure (as long as original system components are no
longer present or, if present, are filled with soil or
gravel) and reduced risk of illness from exposure to
untreated wastewater in cases of hydraulic failure (i.e.,
backup into the home or surfacing above ground),
provided the systems are properly designed, sited, and
maintained.
Vector Control. Upgrades to individual sewerage
systems would reduce the number of old, failing
systems and reduce potential mosquito breeding
habitats and mosquito populations near residential areas, if
systems are maintained. Alternative III would lead to a further
reduction in mosquito populations by reducing nitrogen-
enriched waters. Reductions in mosquito habitat would reduce
the spread of mosquito-borne diseases and the need for
pesticide application for mosquito control.
Figure ES-1. Predicted impacts of the proposed sanitary code changes on health and health determinants through
five pathways examined in the HIA.
Page x of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
The HIA determined that there might be unequal sharing of the burdens and/or benefits of the
proposed code changes within the population. Some subgroups within the population may be more
sensitive to or more affected by the changes in the physical and natural environment, social
environment, and/or economic environment as a result of the decision, including:
low-income households,
minority households,
young children (under 5 years of age),
pregnant and/or nursing women,
older adults (over 65 years of age) and physically disabled,
populations residing in unsewered residences constructed over 25 years ago or in flood-prone
or high groundwater areas,
residents with individual sewerage systems and private drinking water wells, and
coastal populations and those living and working in areas experiencing Sea, Lake, and Overland
Surges from Hurricanes (i.e., SLOSH zones).
Recommendations for Managing These Impacts
The HIA Project Team identified recommendations for maximizing the potential positive health impacts,
minimizing or avoiding the potential negative health impacts, and offering decision alternatives and
health supportive measures. Adoption of any of these recommendations is at the discretion of the
decision-maker, Suffolk County. Recommendations were developed related to:
General Recommendations;
Planning and Implementation of the Proposed Code Changes;
Outreach and Communication;
l/A OWTS Evaluation;
System Siting, Design, and Installation;
System Maintenance;
Cost Control and Funding Measures;
Employment and Hiring; and
Protection of Water Resources.
In addition to these recommendations related to the proposed sanitary code changes themselves,
additional recommendations beyond the code changes were developed to address some of the issues
identified by the County (e.g., nitrogen loading and resiliency). These health-supportive measures relate
to Wetland Protection/Restoration, Wetland/Green Infrastructure Creation, and Resiliency Planning.
Conclusion
The proposed code changes will have health impacts, both positive and negative; although only
Alternative III could result in a net positive public health impact. Recommendations for promoting the
positive health impacts and reducing the negative health impacts of all three decision alternatives are
provided in this report. It should be noted that since completion of the HIA analysis and reporting of
Page xi of xxiii
-------
Executive Summary
preliminary findings and recommendations to the decision-makers and stakeholders in the fall of 2016,
Suffolk County entered a period of robust activity working to change the local nutrient pollution paradigm.
The County revised the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and the residential and commercial construction
standards to define requirements for the design and construction of innovative/alternative onsite
wastewater treatment systems (l/A OWTS) and developed standards for management and approval of
l/A OWTS. The County has provisionally approved six l/A OWTS for use in Suffolk County and completed
reports summarizing the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 performance of the l/A OWTS installed in Suffolk
County and neighboring jurisdictions. The County has implemented a Septic Improvement Program to
provide grants and low-interest financing to make system upgrades more affordable for homeowners,
and several individual town-septic upgrade assistance programs are now in place in Suffolk County, as
well. County-specific nitrogen loading models have been completed for several areas and a countywide
modeling effort has recently been completed to delineate subwatersheds, establish travel times, and
establish nitrogen load reduction goals for all surface waterbodies and public supply wells in Suffolk
County. To learn more about these and other efforts undertaken by the County since the completion of
the HIA, visit: https://reclaimourwater.info/.
Page xii of xxiii
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Participants iii
Acknowledgements iv
Executive Summary v
Table of Contents xiii
Abbreviations/Acronyms xx
1. Introduction 1
1.1 HIA: ATool for Sustainable and Healthy Communities 1
1.2 HIA in Suffolk County 4
1.3 What is this HIA about? 5
1.4 HIA Reader's Guide 6
2. Screening for an HIA 8
2.1 The Proposed Decision: Changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code 8
2.1.1 Details of the Proposed Code Changes at the Time of HIA Analysis 9
2.1.2 Motivation for the Proposed Code Changes 10
2.2 The Decision to Conduct the HIA 11
3.Scoping the HIA 13
3.1 Goals of the HIA 13
3.2 HIA Kickoff Meeting and Initial Public Meetings 14
3.2.1 HIA Kickoff Meeting 14
3.2.2 March 2015 Public Meetings 15
3.3 Establishing the HIA Project Team and Advisory Committees 16
3.3.1 HIA Project Team 17
3.3.2 HIA Advisory Committees 17
3.4 HIA Timeline and Plans for Stakeholder Engagement, Communications, and Reporting 18
3.4.1 HIA Timeline 18
3.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Plans 19
3.4.3 Communications and Reporting Plans 19
3.5 Setting the Scope of the HIA 20
3.5.1 Defining the HIA Study Area 20
3.5.2 Establishing the Pathways of Impact 21
3.5.3 Identifying Populations Potentially Affected 26
3.5.4 Developing the Assessment Workplan and Data Acquisition 29
4. Assessment of Existing Conditions and Potential Health Impacts 30
4.1 Profile of the Suffolk County Population at the Time of the HIA Analysis 32
4.1.1 Population Size and Density 32
4.1.2 Population Demographics 34
4.1.3 General Health in Suffolk County, NY 35
4.1.4 Baseline Rates of Illness Associated with Pathogens That Can Be Found in Human Waste 36
4.2. Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts 38
4.2.1 Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Pathways of Impact 38
4.2.2 Impact of Code Changes on Individual Sewerage System Policies 38
Page xiii of xxiii
-------
Table of Contents
4.2.3 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Policy Changes on Presence of Individual
Sewerage System Technologies 43
4.2.4 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage System Technology on System Failure 52
4.2.5 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Hydraulic Failure on Human Illness 63
4.2.6 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Structural Failure on Injury and Death 67
4.2.7 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage System Technology on Treatment Performance 71
4.2.8 Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Health Impact Summary 81
4.3 Water Quality: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts 82
4.3.1 Water Quality Pathways of Impact 84
4.3.2 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Performance on Cumulative Pollutant Loading 85
4.3.3 Impact of Changes in Pollutant Loading on Quality of Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) 89
4.3.4 Impact of Changes in Quality of Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) on Human Illness 95
4.3.5 Impact of Changes in Pollutant Loading on Quality of Surface Waters 101
4.3.6 Impact of Changes in Quality of Surface Waters on Illness from Aquatic Recreation 117
4.3.7 Impact of Changes in Quality of Water Resources on Perceived Quality of Water Resources ....122
4.3.8 Impact of Perceived Quality of Water Resources on Stress and Well-being 124
4.3.9 Water Quality Health Impact Summary 127
4.4. Resiliency to Natural Disasters: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts 128
4.4.1 Resiliency to Natural Disasters Pathways of Impact 128
4.4.2 Impact of Changes in Water Quality on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function 130
4.4.3 Impact of Changes in Water Quality on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage 135
4.4.4 Impact of Coastal/Tidal Wetlands on Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges 139
4.4.5 Impact of Shoreline Resiliency on Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to Storm
and/or Tidal Surges 149
4.4.6 Impact of Shoreline Resiliency and Property/Infrastructure Damage on Evacuation and
Displacement Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges 160
4.4.7lmpact of Changes in Property/Infrastructure Damage and Evacuation on Capacity
for Emergency Responders to Respond 164
4.4.8 Impact of Changes in Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges on Human Injury and Death 165
4.4.9 Impact of Changes in Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges on Overall Health
and Well-being 169
4.4.10 Resiliency to Natural Disasters Health Impact Summary 174
4.5. Vector Control: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts 175
4.5.1 Vector Control Pathways of Impact 175
4.5.2 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage Performance and Failure, Water Quality,
and Resiliency on Mosquito Habitat and Infestation 176
4.5.3 Impact of Changes in Mosquito Habitat and Infestation on Insecticide Application to Control for
Mosquitoes 180
4.5.4 Impact of Mosquito Habitat and Infestation and Insecticide Application on
Perceived Quality of the Environment 184
4.5.5 Impact of Changes in Vector Control on Human Illness from Vector-borne Pathogens 187
4.5.6 Impact of Changes in Vector Control on Stress and Well-being 193
4.5.7 Vector Control Health Impact Summary 197
4.6 Community and Household Economics: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts 198
4.6.1 Community and Household Economics Pathways of Impact 198
4.6.2 Impact of Changes in OWTS and l/A OWTS Community Costs/Revenues and Household Costs on
Community and Household Economics 199
Page xiv of xxiii
-------
Table of Contents
4.6.3 Impact of Change in Employment Opportunities in OSDS/OWTS Industry on Community and
Household Economics 211
4.6.4 Impact of Change in Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/ Revenues from
Commercial Fishing and Recreational Industries on Community and Household Economics 213
4.6.5 Impact of Change in Residential Property Values on Community and Household Economics....218
4.6.6 Impact of Costs Due to Damage from Storms and Flooding and Costs Due to Vector Control on
Household and Community Economics 222
4.6.7 Impact of Changes in Household Economics on Nutrition-related Outcomes
(Food Insecurity and Health) 224
4.6.8 Impact of Changes in Community and Household Economics on Overall Health
and Well-being 229
4.6.9 Community and Household Economics Summary of Health Impacts 235
5. Recommendations: Considerations for Managing Impacts of the Decision 236
5.1 Developing the Recommendations 236
5.2 Final Recommendations to Decision-Makers 237
6. Reporting 250
6.1. HIA Reporting Activities 250
6.2. Reporting of HIA Findings and Recommendations 253
6.2.1 Input Solicited on Preliminary Findings and Recommendations 253
6.2.2 Draft HIA Report 253
6.2.3 Final HIA Reporting 254
7. Monitoring and Evaluation 255
7.1 Plan for Process Evaluation 255
7.1.1 HIA Goals Achieved 255
7.1.2 Successes Identified by the HIA Project Team 257
7.1.3 Challenges Identified by the HIA Project Team 258
7.1.4 Lessons Learned Identified by the HIA Project Team 259
7.1.5 External Peer-Review of HIA 260
7.2 Plan for Impact Evaluation 260
7.3 Plan for Outcome Evaluation 267
8. References 272
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Regarding Sewerage Systems and Algal Blooms A-l
Appendix B: The Proposed Code Changes B-l
Appendix C: Innovative/Alternative OWTS Under Consideration at the Time of the HIA Analysis and Development
of Sanitary Code Article 19 C-l
Appendix D: Key HIA Community and Public Meetings D-l
Appendix E: HIA Rules of Engagement E-l
Appendix F: Pathways Excluded from the Final Scope of the HIA F-l
Appendix G: Quality Assurance: Peer Review, Data Sources, and HIA Methodology G-l
Appendix H: Resiliency Pathway Supporting Materials H-l
Appendix I: Federal Funding Opportunities to Support Implementation of Proposed Code Changes 1-1
Appendix J: Case Studies: Rhode Island and Maryland Onsite Sewage Disposal System Replacement Programs ... J-l
Appendix K: Activities that Have Occurred in Suffolk County Since the HIA Analysis was Complete K-l
Page xv of xxiii
-------
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Predicted impacts of the proposed sanitary code changes on health and health
determinants through five pathways examined in the HIA ix
Figure 1-1. Overview of HIA and the role of health determinants in overall health 2
Figure 1-2. Suffolk County, New York, eastern Long Island 4
Figure 3-1. Final HIA timeline 19
Figure 3-2. Suffolk County elevation and towns 20
Figure 3-3. Designated high priority areas for reduction of wastewater-derived nitrogen 21
Figure 3-4. Pathway diagram showing the interconnections of the five pathways assessed
in the HIA and their connection to health 23
Figure 4-1. Strength of evidence grade descriptions 32
Figure 4-2. Total population and housing unit trends over time in Suffolk County, NY 33
Figure 4-3. Population density across Census block groups in Suffolk County, NY 33
Figure 4-4. Demographic Index reflecting the average of % minority and % low income
in each Suffolk County block group 35
Figure 4-5. Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Pathway Diagram 38
Figure 4-6. "Conventional" OWTS in Suffolk County consisting of a septic tank and
leaching pool 44
Figure 4-7. Unsewered single-family residences 47
Figure 4-8. Census block groups ranked by a) number of all (single and multi-family)
housing units built before 1970, b) number of housing units that are single-family,
and c) a compilation of those two indicators relative to the location of high priority
areas (HPAs) in Suffolk County 49
Figure 4-9. Reported complaints to SCDHS of individual sewerage system hydraulic failure from
January 2008 to December 2015 54
Figure 4-10. Average complaints to SCDHS of individual sewerage system hydraulic failure,
by month, from January 2008 to December 2015 55
Figure 4-11. Total incoming scavenger waste to two sewage treatment plants in Suffolk County,
2009-2014 56
Figure 4-12. Incoming scavenger waste to each of two sewage treatment plants in
Suffolk County by month from January 1993 to July 2015 56
Figure 4-13. Correlational plots between incoming scavenger waste, individual sewerage system
complaints, and average monthly precipitation 57
Figure 4-14. Photo of a collapsed cesspool after a recent rain event 58
Figure 4-15. Census block groups by a) percentage of single and multi-family housing units
built before 1990 and b) density of unsewered residences in flood-prone/high
groundwater areas, using a one-mile by one-mile polygon grid 59
Figure 4-16. a) SCDHS-reported complaints of individual sewerage systems across
Suffolk County and b) the likelihood/frequency of individual sewerage system
complaints, based on hotspot analysis showing where most of the reported
complaints originated 60
Figure 4-17. Individual sewerage system treatment performance 75
Figure 4-18. Water Quality Pathway Diagram 84
Figure 4-19. Locations of unique private wells tested 2005-2015 in Suffolk County, NY with
a) positive detections of total coliforms and b) positive detections of E. coli 92
Figure 4-20. Locations of impaired waters, with those impaired by potential wastewater-
related causes highlighted in pink 106
Page xvi of xxiii
-------
Figure 4-21. Percent of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) surveillance samples testing positive
in Suffolk County, NY 2006-2015 110
Figure 4-22. Brown tide samples above 35,000 cells/mL in Suffolk County, NY 2001-2015 Ill
Figure 4-23. Location of sewage and wastewater treatment plants across Suffolk County,
including those found to be non-compliant with Clean Water Act effluent standards
at least once from 2014-2016, per EPA's ECHO database 113
Figure 4-24. Bathing beach water quality monitoring results for fecal indicator bacteria
2005-2015, Suffolk County, NY 114
Figure 4-25. Density of unsewered parcels near beaches 118
Figure 4-26. Resiliency to Natural Disasters Pathway Diagram 129
Figure 4-27. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) 131
Figure 4-28. Grid ditched wetland. Source: Tiner & Herman (2015) 133
Figure 4-29. Current-day Suffolk County wetlands coverage per the 2015
National Wetland Inventory 137
Figure 4-30. Storm surges are amplified by sea level rise 140
Figure 4-31. The impact of rising sea level on nuisance flooding 141
Figure 4-32. Suffolk County shoreline types per NOAA's Environmental Sensitivity Index 142
Figure 4-33. The USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index shows the relative susceptibility of the
Suffolk County coast to sea level rise when compared to the entire Atlantic coast 143
Figure 4-34. Ranking of physical variables considered in the USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index
for Suffolk County - (a) coastal slope risk, (b) geomorphology, (c) tidal range,
(d) historical sea level rise, (e) wave height, and (f) shoreline erosion 144
Figure 4-35. Illustration of dune erosion due to collision, overwash, and inundation 145
Figure 4-36. Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Zones 1-4 146
Figure 4-37. Shallow coastal flooding areas currently exposed to nuisance flooding
(Source: NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer) and the nuisance flood events
(cumulative hours and impacted days) recorded at the Montauk, NY tide gage 147
Figure 4-38. Example of a hardened shoreline 150
Figure 4-39. A subset of critical facilities in Suffolk County deemed essential, some of which
are at risk of exposure to coastal hazards 152
Figure 4-40. Suffolk County parks, greenspace, beaches, and lakes, some of which are at risk
of exposure to coastal hazards 153
Figure 4-41. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas for Suffolk County 153
Figure 4-42. Suffolk County extreme risk, high risk, and moderate risk erosion hazard areas 155
Figure 4-43. Suffolk County roads, including those located in SLOSH Zones and likely impacted
by storm surge and other coastal hazards 157
Figure 4-44. Ranking of community vulnerability to coastal hazards, which takes into account social
vulnerability (demographics) and vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure 162
Figure 4-45. Emergency shelters and evacuation routes in Suffolk County 163
Figure 4-46. Vector Control Pathway Diagram 176
Figure 4-47. Spatial Trends in Vector Control Treatment in Suffolk County, 2001-2012 178
Figure 4-48. Methods of Adulticide Vector Control Treatment in Suffolk County, 2001-2012 183
Figure 4-49. Cases of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, 2005-2009 by zip code 188
Figure 4-50. Cases of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, 2010-2015 by zip code 189
Figure 4-51. Community and Household Economics Pathway Diagram 199
Figure 4-52. Ocean jobs in Suffolk County 2013 214
Figure 4-53. Assessed value of residential property in Suffolk County, 2005-2015 219
Figure 4-54. Percentage change in assessed value of residential property in Suffolk County,
2008-2015 220
Page xvii of xxiii
-------
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table ES-1.Decision Scenarios Assessed viii
Table 1-1. Steps of the HIA Process 3
Table 2-1. Proposed Sanitary Code Changes at the Time of HIA Analysis 9
Table 3-1. Scope and Pathways 23
Table 4-1. Demographics among residents of Suffolk County, NY as compared to New York State 34
Table 4-2. Baseline Rates of Illness Associated with Select Pathogens That Can Be
Found in Human Waste in Suffolk County and New York State, 2012 37
Table 4-3. Impact of Decision on Policies Regarding Individual Sewerage Systems 41
Table 4-4. Number of Single-family Residential Parcels and Persons Served by
Individual Sewerage Systems in Suffolk County 50
Table 4-5. Impact of Decision on Presence of Individual Sewerage System Technologies 51
Table 4-6. Census Block Groups by Housing Age and Area in Flood-prone/High
Groundwater Areas in Suffolk County 59
Table 4-7. Communities Identified by GIS Analysis with Higher Susceptibility to Failure and
Reported Individual Sewerage System Complaints 61
Table 4-8. Impact of Decision on Individual Sewerage System Failure 62
Table 4-9. Impact of Decision on Illness from Individual Sewerage System Hydraulic Failure 65
Table 4-10. Location, Outcome, and Date of Incident from Reported Individual
Sewerage System Structural Failure 67
Table 4-11. Impact of Decision on Injury/Death from Individual Sewerage System
Structural Failure 69
Table 4-12. Wastewater Quality Parameters 71
Table 4-13. Impact of Decision on Individual Sewerage System Treatment Performance 78
Table 4-14. Impact of Decision on Cumulative Pollutant Loading 88
Table 4-15. Impact of Decision on Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) Quality 94
Table 4-16. Impact of Decision on Human Illness from Source Drinking Water 99
Table 4-17. Surface Water Quality Parameters 101
Table 4-18. Summary of Cyanobacterial Blooms in Suffolk County, NY 2013-2015 112
Table 4-19. Impact of Decision on Surface Water Quality 115
Table 4-20. Impact of Decision on Illness from Aquatic Recreation in Surface Waters 120
Table 4-21. Impact of Decision on Perceived Quality of Water Resources 123
Table 4-22. Impact of Decision on Stress and Well-being from Perceived Water Quality 125
Table 4-23. Impact of Decision on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function 134
Table 4-24. Impact of Decision on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage 138
Table 4-25. Long Island Long-term and Short-term Shoreline Change Rates 145
Table 4-26. Observed Non-Tidal Surge and Significant Wave Height Associated with
Nor'easters at Montauk, NY 146
Table 4-27. Forecast of Accelerated Sea Level Rise for Long Island, NY 147
Table 4-28. Impact of Decision on Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges 148
Table 4-29. Risk of Exposure to Flooding in Suffolk County 154
Table 4-30. FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Statistics for Suffolk County from
January 1,1978-January 31, 2014 154
Table 4-31. Risk of Exposure to Coastal Erosion in Suffolk County 155
Table 4-32. Risk of Exposure to Storm Surges in Suffolk County 156
Table 4-33. Impact of Decision on Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to Storm
and/or Tidal Surges 159
Table 4-34. Vulnerable Populations to Storm Surge by SLOSH Zone 161
Table 4-35. Risk of Displacement and Short-Term Sheltering Due to Storm
Surges in Suffolk County 163
Table 4-36. Impact of Decision on Human Injury and Death from Storm and/or Tidal Surges 167
Table 4-37.Impact of Decision on Overall Health and Well-being from Storm and/or
Tidal Surges 172
Page xviii of xxiii
-------
List of Tables
Table 4-38. Impact of Decision on Mosquito Habitat and Infestation 179
Table 4-39. Number of Adulticide Vector Control Treatments by Application Method
in Suffolk County, 2001-2012 183
Table 4-40. Impact of Decision on Insecticide Application to Control for Mosquitoes 184
Table 4-41. Impact of Decision on Perceived Quality of the Environment 186
Table 4-42. Mosquito-Borne Disease Surveillance in Suffolk County, 2008-2015* 188
Table 4-43. Mosquito-Borne Disease Cases in Suffolk County, 2008-2014 190
Table 4-44. Impact of Decision on Human Illness from Vector Borne Pathogens 191
Table 4-45. Impact of Decision on Stress and Well-being 195
Table 4-46. Suffolk County Revenues for Year Ending December 31, 2015 200
Table 4-47. Households and Income in Suffolk County 202
Table 4-48. Estimate Household Costs for Septic Tank Installation and Repair 206
Table 4-49. Estimated Household Costs for Individual Sewerage Systems by Proposed Alternative 207
Table 4-50. Impact of Decision on County Costs/Revenues and Household Costs 209
Table 4-51. Impact of Decision on Employment in the OSDS/OWTS Industry 213
Table 4-52. Fishing Engagement and Reliance Indicators for Select Suffolk County Towns 215
Table 4-53. Impact of Decision on Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/
Revenues in Commercial Fishing and Recreational Industries 217
Table 4-54. Impact of Decision on Residential Property Values 221
Table 4-55. Impact of Decision on Nutrition-related Outcomes (Food Insecurity and Health) 227
Table 4-56. Impact of Decision on Overall Health and Well-being Due to Changes
in Community and Household Economics 232
Table 5-1. Final Recommendations Related to the Proposed Code Changes 239
Table 5-2. Final Recommendations Beyond the Proposed Code Changes 248
Table 6-1. Summary of Key HIA Public Reporting Activities 251
Table 7-1. Evaluation of HIA Goal Achievement 256
Table 7-2. Proposed Plan for Monitoring Health Impacts Post-decision 269
Page xix of xxiii
-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
Abbreviations/Acronyms
C Context Clue I I I Limitation ~W~ Recommendations
ACS
American Community Survey
ADD
attention deficit disorder
APHA
American Public Health Association
BAT
best available technology
BNR
biological nutrient removal
BOD
biological oxygen demand
BRFSS
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
B.t.i.
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis
CDC
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDESS
Communicable Disease Electronic Surveillance System
CEHA
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
CEQ
Council for Environmental Quality
CERT
Community Emergency Response Team
CFU
colony forming units
CHNA
community health needs assessments
cm
centimeters
C-OWTS
conventional onsite wastewater treatment system
CPF
Community Preservation Fund
CRRA
Community Risk and Resiliency Act
CSO
combined sewer overflow
esse
Community Stakeholder Steering Committee
CSSLP
Community Septic Service Loan Program
CWSRF
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DDT
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality
DHS
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DIN
dissolved inorganic nitrogen
DO
dissolved oxygen
DON
dissolved organic nitrogen
DOT
Department of Transportation
DSP
diarrhetic shellfish poisoning
DWRLF
Drinking Water Revolving Loan Program
ECHO
Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EEEV
eastern equine encephalitis virus
EFC
Environmental Facilities Corporation
EFDC
Environmental Fluids Dynamic Code
EHEC
enterohaemorrhagic E. coll
EJ
environmental justice
Page xx of xxiii
-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
EMS emergency medical services
ENR enhanced nutrient removal
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIB fecal indicator bacteria
FIRM flood insurance rate maps
g grams
GEBCO General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans
GEIS General Environmental Impact Statement
GIS geographic information systems
GNIS Geographic Names Information System
HAB harmful algal bloom
HAZUS-MH Hazards U.S.-Multihazard
HIA Health Impact Assessment
HPA high priority area
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IA individual assistance (FEMA)
l/A OWTS innovative/alternative onsite wastewater treatment system
ICU intensive care unit
IMM integrated marsh management
IPM integrated pest management
ISPF individual sewerage system performance and failure
kg kilograms
L liters
LICAP Long Island Commission for Aquifer Protection
LILWA Long Island Liquid Waste Association
LiMWA Limit of Moderate Wave Action
LINAP Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan
LIRPC Long Island Regional Planning Council
LIS Long Island Sound
LIVOAD Long Island Voluntary Organization Active in Disaster
m meters
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
mg milligrams
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
mL milliliters
mm millimeters
MPN most probable number
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
N2 nitrogen
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NGDC National Geophysical Data Center
Page xxi of xxiii
-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
NHD
National Hydrography Dataset
nh3
ammonia
NLM
Nitrogen Loading Model
no3-
nitrate
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC
National Research Council
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSFC
National Small Flows Clearinghouse
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
NYCRR
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH
New York Department of Health
NYSDOS
New York State Department of State
O&M
operations and maintenance
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OSDS
onsite sewage disposal system
OWTS
onsite wastewater treatment system
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PEP
Peconic Estuary Program
PPD
Presidential Policy Directive
PSP
paralytic shellfish poison
PTSD
posttraumatic stress disorder
RIWPCRF
Rhode Island Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
RME
responsible management entity
ROE
Rules of Engagement
RPA
Regional Plan Association
SAV
submerged aquatic vegetation
SCDEDP
Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning
SCDEQ
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Quality
SCDHS
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
SCDPW
Suffolk County Department of Public Works
SC SWP
Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan
SCUPE
Septic/Cesspool Upgrade Program Enterprise
SCW A
Suffolk County Water Authority
SEQRA
State Environmental Quality Review Act
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Area
SHC
Sustainable and Health Communities
SIP
Septic Improvement Plan
SLOSH
sea, lake, and overland surges from hurricanes
SNAP
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SOPHIA
Society of Practitioners of HIA
Page xxii of xxiii
-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
sso
sanitary sewer overflow
STEC
Shiga toxin-producing E. coli
STILF
Sewer Tie-in Load Fund
STP
Sewage treatment plant
SUNY
The State University of New York
SWAP
Source Drinking Water Assessment Program
SWSD
Southwest Sewer District
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee
TCA
1,1,1 trichloroethane
TKN
total kjeldahl nitrogen
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TN
total nitrogen
TNC
The Nature Conservancy
TP
total phosphorous
TSS
total suspended solids
Hg
microgram
ULV
ultra-low volume
USFWS
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WHO
World Health Organization
WIC
Women, Infants, and Children
WNV
West Nile Virus
WQFA
Water Quality Financing Administration
WSC
Wetlands Stewardship Committee
WWTP
wastewater treatment plant
yr
Year
Page xxiii of xxiii
-------
Introduction
1. Introduction
Many communities across the United States are facing issues related to aging infrastructure, limited
financial resources, and impaired surface and ground waters. Additionally, population growth can mean
a growing need for development and businesses and an additional stress on aging infrastructure. The
accelerated development of land can put a strain on the local ecosystem and surrounding natural
resources. Decisions are often a result of trade-offs between the needs of people and the needs of the
environment in which they live. Such trade-offs may yield short-term benefits, but also long-term
adverse consequences.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to test models, tools, and best practices that
enable the shift from trade-off to mutual benefit so that communities can move towards more
sustainable and healthy states. This is achieved by "creating and maintaining the conditions under which
humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit the fulfilling of social, economic and
other requirements of present and future generations" (EPA, 2016a). EPA's Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC) Research Program, in the Office of Research and Development (ORD), has identified
health impact assessment (HIA) as one of many decision-support tools for providing science-based
resources and information to decision-makers and for promoting sustainable and healthy communities.
. . for Sustainable 1 aitl mr* . . es
The pursuit of more sustainable solutions has steered public health professionals to promote the use of
more comprehensive and integrated approaches to addressing public health challenges. HIA is one of
the many tools used to consider health in traditionally non-health related decision-making processes.
HIA has been used to manage potential impacts of proposed decisions to promote and protect the
health of individuals and the community.
What is HIA?
The National Research Council (NRC) defines HIA as "a systematic process that uses an array of data
sources and analytic methods and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects
of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the health of a population and the distribution of
those effects within the population. HIA provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those
effects" (National Research Council, 2011). HIA was developed based on the awareness that health,
which is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1948) as "a state of complete physical,
mental, and social well-being; not merely the absence of disease and infirmity," is influenced by a
spectrum of determinants (Figure 1-1). These health determinants are factors known to directly or
indirectly impact an individual's health.
Page 1 of 305
-------
Introduction
Evaluate how a proposed
project, plan, policy, or
program... ... may affect...
L health outcomes
and provide recommendations for Impact management.
Figure 1-1. Overview of HIA and the role of health determinants in overall health.
Five essential "core values" guide the design and implementation of HIA (Quigley, et al., 2006):
Comprehensive approach to individual and community health issues (i.e., the analysis of
potential health impacts is guided by the wider determinants of health, including physical,
social, and economic factors that impact health);
Equity in the opportunity for healthy living (i.e., includes authentic participation of the
community and vulnerable populations, consideration of the distribution of health impacts
across the population (paying specific attention to vulnerable groups), and recommendations to
improve the proposed decision for affected groups and ensure equitable distribution of health
benefits;
Democracy in the decision-making process (i.e., community members and other stakeholders
are engaged throughout the process to help inform and influence decisions that affect their
lives);
Sustainable development (i.e., both short-term and long-term goals and impacts of the decision
are examined to ensure that the decision is sustainable both in the present and for future
generations); and
Ethical use of evidence that includes transparent and rigorous methods (i.e., use of the best-
available qualitative and quantitative evidence to determine potential impacts and inform
recommendations, remaining neutral to the decision result and advocating only for health and
wellness, and communicating the evidence, findings, and recommendations of the HIA to
decision-makers and stakeholders).
There are six major steps in the HIA process - Screening, Scoping, Assessment, Recommendations,
Reporting, and Monitoring and Evaluation - each of which have several tasks involved (Bhatia R., 2011;
Page 2 of 305
-------
Introduction
Human Impact Partners, 2011; National Research Council, 2011; Bhatia, et al., 2014; Human Impact
Partners, 2014)
Table 1-1 lists the six steps of the HIA process and provides a brief description of each step.
Table 1-1. Steps of the HIA Process
HIA Step
Description
Screening
Determines whether HIA is an appropriate approach to evaluate the pending
decision and whether the HIA will provide information useful to the
stakeholders and decision-makers. The proposal, any decision alternatives, and
the anticipated added value of the HIA are explicitly identified.
Scoping
Establishes the purpose, goals, and team that will perform the HIA. Boundaries
of the assessment are defined, including the geographic area, timeframe in
which the HIA will be completed, health impacts that will be appraised, and
the population and vulnerable sub-groups that will be impacted by the
proposal.
Assessment
Involves a two-part process that a) describes the existing (baseline) status of
health and related factors, and b) forecasts potential impacts that may result
from the decision. A variety of data sources and analytical methods are used.
Recommendations
Identifies actions or strategies to manage the health impacts of the decision, if
any are predicted. Recommendations are developed to maximize potential
benefits and minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts.
Reporting
Documents the HIA activities, materials developed, and communicates the
findings and recommendations of the HIA to stakeholders and the public.
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Involves (or provides a plan for) follow-up activities that track how the HIA was
implemented, the result of the decision, and impacts of the decision.
Evaluations should be included that assess the HIA's impact on the decision
and/or decision-making process (i.e., impact evaluation), whether the HIA met
its intended goals/objectives and practice standards (i.e., process evaluation),
and whether the decision affected health (i.e., outcome evaluation).
The steps of HIA provide a structured, yet flexible framework for conducting an HIA, and are not
necessarily performed in a linear sequence. For instance, although the decision as to which impacts will
be examined in the HIA is made in the Scoping step, this decision may be revised as a result of evidence
collected in the Assessment step of the process. In addition, impact and process evaluation (part of the
Monitoring and Evaluation step) and Reporting can be performed throughout the process.
Page 3 of 305
-------
Introduction
1.2 HIA in Suffolk County
Suffolk County, New York is the eastern region of Long Island, the fourth most populated county in New
York and larger in population than 11 states (Figure 1-2). Suffolk County was home to over 1.4 million
people as of the 2010 Census (and as of publication of this report, the population of the County was
nearing 1.5 million).
Figure 1-2. Suffolk County, New York, eastern Long Island.
In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy, one of the costliest hurricanes in the history of the United States,
struck Long Island. Shortly thereafter, EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), New
York State Department of State (NYSDOS), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), Long Island counties (Nassau and Suffolk), and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(i.e., the Partnership) began collaborating on several efforts on Long Island to promote more resilient
and sustainable recovery. This partnership was, in part, an outgrowth of a broad collaboration through
the National Disaster Recovery Framework, Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-8), in addition to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, 2013) Hurricane Sandy Federal Recovery
Support Strategy.
EPA, in collaboration with FEMA Region 2, delivered a two-day HIA training as part of Hurricane Sandy
recovery efforts in January 2014. In attendance were individuals from EPA, FEMA, American Red Cross,
and Suffolk County government. In May 2014, the Partnership organized a conference, "Accepting the
Tide: A Roundtable on Integrating Resilience and Smart Growth on a Post-Sandy Long Island," which
brought together a wide variety of stakeholders from across the island. EPA gave a presentation at the
roundtable about HIA and how HIA is used to support decision-making processes. As a result of the
Roundtable, the Partnership decided to focus efforts on ecosystem services valuation and health impact
assessment to guide Hurricane Sandy recovery and redevelopment efforts on Long Island. Suffolk
Page 4 of 305
-------
Introduction
County agreed to host a pilot HIA that would help the County's recovery efforts and achieve resiliency
and sustainability goals.
1.3 W
Because of a growing concern about increased nitrogen
loadings to Long Island waterways and the need to rebuild
more resiliently after Hurricane Sandy, Suffolk County
proposed changes to their sanitary code (Suffolk County
Code Chapter 760) that would require upgrading existing
onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS) - the pre-1973 type
of individual sewerage system serving single family
residences in Suffolk County that includes only a disposal
unit - to meet current County code and standards (in place
as of September 2016; https://www.reclaimourwater.info/
regulatory.aspx), as one of many strategies for reducing
nutrient loading to regional waterways from residential
sewage systems.4 The overarching goal of these code
changes is to reduce nutrient and pathogen loading to surface and ground waters from residential
sewerage systems in order to improve water quality and help protect public health. Suffolk County
anticipates the code changes will help decelerate 1) the impairment of surface waters, 2) the frequency
of harmful algal blooms, and 3) the loss of native eelgrass and wetland area, which are important for
coastal resiliency. Suffolk County hosted an HIA, guided by the EPA, to help inform the decision about
the code changes. Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), its administrative Board of
Health, and the Suffolk County Legislature ultimately make the decision on which code changes get
adopted.
EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), the scientific research arm of EPA, supported this HIA.
ORD conducts research for EPA that informs Agency decisions, provides the foundation for credible
decision-making to safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants, and
supports the emerging needs of EPA stakeholders, including the Agency's state, tribal, and community
partners. Although this HIA was conducted to help inform a county-level policy decision around sanitary
code changes, it is important to note that policy-making is outside the purview of EPA ORD. Any action
by Suffolk County to implement any "Recommendations" shared in this report is entirely voluntary and
at the discretion of Suffolk County, as the decision-maker. As indicated in the Notice (on page ii), the
Individual Sewerage Systems
Because there are many different types
of systems that receive and dispose of
wastewater coming from a residence,
decentralized, individual (onsite)
systems will collectively be referred to
as individual sewerage systems in this
report. Appendix A defines the various
individual sewerage system terms used
in this HIA.
4 At the time the HIA started, the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Suffolk County Code Chapter 760, revised November 2011) and
its implementing standards were in effect. The standards and articles of code applicable to the decision, and considered in the
HIA, included Article 6 (6/28/1995), General Guidance Memorandum #12 (6/8/2000), and Standards for Approval of Plans and
Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single Family Residences (1/9/2004). During the course of the HIA analysis,
Article 19 was added to the Sanitary Code (7/2016) and interim revisions were adopted to the Standards for Approval of Plans
and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single Family Residences (9/21/2016).
Page 5 of 305
-------
Introduction
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the
policies of the EPA.
1.4 HIA Reader's Guide
This report documents the process and findings of this HIA, including potential health impacts of the
proposed code changes and whether the code changes have the potential to achieve the outcomes
anticipated by Suffolk County.
Key findings of the HIA are shown in bold. Throughout the report you will also find context clues,
limitations of analysis, and recommendations for the decision-maker indicated as follows:
E Context Clue - indicates information unique to Suffolk County and/or extenuating
circumstances (e.g., effect of sea level rise, climate change, and soil erosion)
m Limitation - indicates assumptions made and/or limits of analysis
Recommendation - indicates the initial recommendations developed during the HIA
Assessment step that could be used to help manage the impacts of the decision; these are
presented in the context of the Assessment discussion to help tie the recommendation to the
HIA findings. The process that was undertaken for development and vetting of the
recommendations, along with the final recommendations developed as part of this HIA, are
presented in Section 5.
The HIA Report is organized into the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction. Provides background and an introduction to HIA in general and more
specifically to this HIA conducted in Suffolk County, NY.
Section 2: Screening for an HIA. Documents the sanitary code changes considered in Suffolk
County and how the decision to conduct an HIA was made.
Section 3: Scoping the HIA. Explains the process that was used to identify HIA participants,
engage stakeholders, determine the scope of the HIA, and develop an overall methodology for
conducting the HIA.
Section 4: Assessment of Existing Conditions and Potential Health Impacts. Documents the
qualitative and quantitative evidence used to assess five pathways through which the proposed
sanitary code changes could potentially impact health and discuss the findings of that
assessment.
Section 5: Recommendations: Considerations for Managing Impacts of the Decision. Identifies
evidence-based recommendations for managing the predicted health impacts of the sanitary
code changes, so that potential benefits are maximized, and potential harms are avoided and/or
minimized.
Section 6: Reporting. Documents how communication and reporting of HIA findings and
recommendations were accomplished.
Page 6 of 305
-------
Introduction
Section 7: Monitoring and Evaluation. Provides an evaluation of the HIA process, including
successes, challenges, and lessons learned, and outlines actions that can be taken to determine
the impact of the HIA on the decision-making process and monitor the impact of the code
changes on health.
Section 8: References. Documents the evidence used in the HIA.
Appendices. Contain supporting data and information.
Note: The HIA Project Team recognizes that this HIA Report is an extensive document and due to the
level of detail provided in the report may not be easy to manage or use for advocacy and/or raising
awareness within the community. Therefore, a summary of the full HIA Report and a fact sheet on the
findings of the HIA have also been produced. All of these documents are located on EPA's HIA website
(h ttps://www. epa. gov/healthresearch/health-impact-assessmen is).
Page 7 of 305
-------
Screening
2. Screening for an HIA
Screening is the first step in the HIA process in which the proposed decision is clearly defined, including
any alternative scenarios, and stakeholders consider whether an HIA is needed, feasible, and would add
value to the decision-making process (National Research Council, 2011). Not all screenings result in an
HIA, because an HIA is not always warranted and may not be the best approach for bringing human
health into a decision. HIAs should be initiated when health is not already being considered in the
decision, the decision has the potential to significantly impact health, or disproportionate health
consequences are likely. In addition, there should be enough time for the completed HIA to inform the
decision, and sufficient stakeholder interest and capacity for conducting the HIA. The outputs of the
Screening step in an HIA include:
A description of the proposed policy, program, plan, or project that will be the focus of the HIA,
including the timeline for the decision and intervention points at which HIA information will be
used (see Section 2.1).
A statement of why the proposed decision was selected for screening and which factors were
considered in making the decision to conduct an HIA (see Section 2.2).
A description of the potential for the proposed decision to impact health (see Section 2.2).
The expected resource requirements of the HIA and the capacity that exists to meet them (see
Section 2.2).
A description of the political and policy context of the decision and consideration for the
opportunities to influence decision-making or otherwise make health-oriented changes (see
Section 2.2). (National Research Council, 2011)
The following individuals participated in the HIA Screening discussions in Suffolk County: Florence Fulk,
EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD); Anhthu Hoang, and Rabi Kieber EPA, Region 2; John
Halfon, FEMA Region II; and Sarah Lansdale, Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and
Planning (SCDEDP). Screening participants agreed that the proposed decision to change the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code regarding individual sewerage systems would benefit from an HIA and decided to
move forward with conducting the HIA.
- 1 11 . , cision: Changes 1 1
le
Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCDHS, 1995) lays out the wastewater treatment
requirements in Suffolk County for new construction, but does not give Suffolk County the authority to
enforce upgrades of existing OSDS when there is no new construction proposed. SCDHS (2014a)
proposed the following changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (original document provided in
Appendix B) to allow enforcement of OSDS upgrades (Table 2-1):
Page 8 of 305
-------
Screening
Table 2-1. Proposed Sanitary Code Changes at the Time of HIA Analysis
Alternatives
Details
Alternative 1
All existing individual (onsite) sewage disposal systems serving single-family
residences must conform to current County Sanitary Code and standards (in place
as of September 2016). All existing cesspools must be upgraded to the County-
defined "conventional" OWTS (septic tank and leaching pool).
Alternative II
All existing individual (onsite) sewage disposal systems serving single-family
residences in high priority areas* must conform to current County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place as of September 2016). All existing cesspools on lots located
in high priority areas must be upgraded to the County-defined "conventional"
OWTS (septic tank and leaching pool).
Alternative III
All existing individual sewerage systems (either cesspool-only systems or
"conventional" OWTS) serving single-family residences in high priority areas* must
be upgraded to SCDHS-approved innovative/alternative (l/A) OWTS.
* At the time of the HIA analysis, SCDHS designated "high priority areas" as areas in the 0-50 year groundwater contributing
zone to public drinking water wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater contributing zone to surface waters, areas located
in SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) zones, and areas located where groundwater is less than 10 feet
below grade. Priority area designations have since been revised and can be found in the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan
released by the County (https://reclaimourwater.info/TheSubwatershedsWastewaterPlan.aspx ).
This report documents the HIA as it was conducted, including the conditions and proposed code changes
under consideration by the County at the time of analysis. It should be noted that since completion of
the HIA analysis and reporting of preliminary findings and recommendations to the decision-makers and
stakeholders in the fall of 2016, Suffolk County entered into a period of robust activity working to
address nutrient pollution. This included further demonstration testing, sampling, and provisional
approval of l/A OWTS for use in the County; convening of an Article 6 Working Group; consideration of
different sanitary code changes than those assessed in the HIA; development of standards for approval
and management of l/A OWTS; development of a Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan to guide future
policy and implementation procedures; as well as other actions taken in accordance with Suffolk
County's Reclaim Our Waters initiative (http://www.reclaimourwater.info/) and the Long Island
Nitrogen Action Plan (LI NAP). For more on the activities conducted in the County since completion of
the HIA analysis, please see the last Appendix of this report (Appendix K).
2.1.1 Details of the Proposed Code Changes at the Time of HIA Analysis
In the SCDHS (2014a) proposal, three potential strategies for implementing the proposed code changes
were outlined, although final implementation methods had not yet been determined:
1) Upon Failure of existing QSDS - As part of their licensing obligations, cesspool contractors would
be required to report to SCDHS when a system has been pumped multiple times in a given
period or is in need of replacement, as part of their licensing obligations. SCDHS would then
send a legal notice to the property owner requiring them to apply for a permit to upgrade their
OSDS.
Page 9 of 305
-------
Screening
2) Upon property transfer - In order to initiate the sale of a property, the current property owner
would be required to obtain a certificate from SCDHS indicating their existing sewerage system
complies with current code requirements or submit an application to obtain a permit to upgrade
their OSDS, if not in compliance.
3) Fixed schedule by region - SCDHS would prioritize areas of the County with parcels that rely on
individual sewerage systems and assign a fixed schedule (by region) for property owners to
provide proof to SCDHS that their existing sewerage system meets current code requirements or
upgrade the system.
When the code changes were proposed, no l/A OWTS was permitted for general use in Suffolk County
for single family residences. In December 2014, Suffolk County launched a Septic Demonstration Pilot
Project to evaluate l/A OWTS technologies that, at a minimum, are designed to reduce total nitrogen
(TN) in treated effluent to 19 mg/L (Suffolk County Government, 2015a; SCDHS, 2016a). Three firms
were demonstrating their systems on private residential properties (selected via lottery) - BUSSE Green
Technologies (which utilizes the membrane bioreactor treatment process), Hydro-Action Industries, and
Norweco (both of which utilize extended aeration and activated sludge processes) - and a fourth firm
was demonstrating its system on County municipal property (SCDHS, 2014b).
In July 2016, the Suffolk County Legislature approved an amendment to the Sanitary Code, adding
Article 19, which gave SCDHS the authority to develop procedures, protocols, and standards for
approving the use of l/A OWTS throughout the County and establishing effluent TN concentrations of 19
mg/L or less as a requirement for l/A OWTS approval (SCDHS, 2016b). The 19 mg/L TN performance
requirement mimics the requirements established in Rhode Island and Massachusetts l/A OWTS
programs. Six weeks later, it was announced that for the first time in Suffolk County history, an l/A
OWTS had been provisionally approved for residential use. The approved system was manufactured by
Hydro-Action Industries (one of the three firms that participated in the pilot program).
See Appendix C for more details on Article 19, these l/A OWTS technologies, the demonstration process
at the time of the HIA, and the provisional approval of the Hydro-Action system for residential use in the
Suffolk County5.
2.1.2 Motivation for the Proposed Code Changes
In a tele-town hall meeting on January 23, 2014, County Executive Steven Bellone announced "nitrogen
pollution is public enemy number one for our bays, waterways, drinking supply and the critical wetlands
and marshes that protect us from natural disasters like Super Storm Sandy.... Nitrogen pollution
adversely affects our coastal resiliency, our environment, our economy, our land value, our tourism
industry, and our recreational use of our waters" (Suffolk County Government, 2014a). Suffolk County
asserts, "much of the nitrogen pollution in Suffolk County waters has been linked to unsewered, dense
5 See Appendix K for information on demonstration testing, sampling, and provisional approval of additional l/A OWTS that
occurred after completion of the HIA analysis.
Page 10 of 305
-------
Screening
suburban sprawl" (Suffolk County Government, 2015a) and therefore, the County needs to address the
problems associated with unsewered residences.
In 1958, the first countywide standards for construction of
OSDSs went into effect, requiring concrete block cesspools
for single-family homes. On January 1, 1973, updates to the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code went into effect, requiring all
new construction and/or renovations of single-family
residences to utilize a conventional OWTS consisting of a
900-gallon septic tank upstream of a reinforced precast
concrete leaching pool (cesspool), when a community
sewage disposal system was not available (SCDHS, 2014a).
At the time that the proposed code changes were being
considered, the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Suffolk
County Code Chapter 760, revised November 2011) and
implementing standards allowed property owners of failed
cesspools and conventional OWTS to replace the systems
in-kind (i.e., it did not require cesspools to be upgraded to
meet the current standards).
By 1990, an estimated 70.7% of total Suffolk County
housing units (estimated at 340,519) were served by
individual sewerage systems (National Environmental
Services Center, n.d.) and today, Suffolk County
Department of Economic Development and Planning
(SCDEDP) estimates that approximately 74% or 360,000
residences utilize individual sewerage systems (Suffolk
County Government, 2015a). Of those approximately
360,000 residences, about 252,000 were built prior to 1973
and are assumed to be served by cesspools alone (i.e., no
septic tank). According to SCDEDP, approximately 209,000
of the unsewered residences are located in environmentally
sensitive areas, referred to as the "high priority areas"
(Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
Suffolk County is looking to curtail nitrogen discharge to groundwater from residential sewerage
systems as one means to help reduce nitrogen loading to County waters (SCDHS, 2014c).
2.2 11 sion to C
Screening participants agreed that the proposed decision to change the Suffolk Sanitary Code regarding
individual sewerage systems would benefit from an HIA. It was determined that the HIA was needed,
feasible, and would add value to the decision-making process. HIA would broaden the health discussion
Unsewered Areas in Suffolk County
Unsewered areas in Suffolk County are
served by decentralized sewage
treatment plants (STPs) - smaller-scale
sewage treatment plants - or individual
sewerage systems.
Decentralized STPs are typically used for
apartment buildings, condos, hotels, or
commercial buildings built on single lots.
The majority of these decentralized STPs
are designed to control nitrogen. SCDHS
has undertaken efforts to require those
STPs that lack nitrogen removal
capabilities and those with under-
performing treatment performance to be
renovated or replaced (Dale, 2017). The
sanitary code requirements for these
types of buildings are detailed separately
from requirements for single-family
residences.
The vast majority of Suffolk County
residences (360,000 or more) and most
commercial buildings (over 39,000) use
individual sewerage systems - cesspools
or septic tank-leaching pool systems -
that provide little to no treatment of the
wastewater before discharging it into the
ground (Dale, 2017).
Page 11 of 305
-------
Screening
and could be used to not only show how the proposed code changes could directly impact human
health, but also impact human health indirectly through various health determinants, like those
identified by Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone - the environment, coastal resiliency, economy,
property values, tourism, and recreational water use.
The potential human health and environmental consequences of copious, substandard (e.g.,
inadequately designed, sited, or maintained), and/or malfunctioning individual sewerage systems,
namely cumulative loading of nutrients and pathogens to groundwater, was a major factor in deciding to
conduct the HIA. In Suffolk County, individual sewerage systems are the primary mode of wastewater
management for residences. Also, groundwater is the sole source of public drinking water in Suffolk
County and has a major influence on recreational waters and waters of economic importance; the
quality of groundwater is essential to ensuring public health protection. Households that rely on private
drinking water wells may be more at risk of health impacts from water quality issues, if drinking water is
not properly treated before consumption. Another factor was that the information provided by the HIA
would be timely and relevant to the decision-making process. SCDHS proposed the sanitary code
changes as part of a larger initiative to address growing issues from nutrient loading of Suffolk County
soil, groundwater, and surface waters. The HIA process could help inform the decision to change the
County Sanitary Code, assuming that the County's priorities remain the same. The HIA provides
information to the County and to the public about the potential beneficial and adverse impacts to health
that may result from the decision.
Based on the information provided and resources
available to conduct the HIA within the Agency, EPA
agreed to oversee an HIA to evaluate the proposed code
changes in Suffolk County from a health-focused
perspective. As an EPA HIA Case Study, the HIA would be
conducted from a neutral position (i.e., not advocating for
or against any code change alternative) and help make the
relationships between nature (ecosystem goods and
services) and health more explicit, broadening the "health
conversation."
This HIA would be conducted primarily using existing
resources (funding and personnel) from EPA's Sustainable
and Healthy Communities Research Program, Region 2,
and contracts within ORD. These staff would be
augmented, as needed, by EPA researchers and supported
by advisory committees made up local stakeholders and
community members. FEMA provided funding for EPA
travel through a cooperative agreement with EPA.
Ecosystem Goods and Services
Ecosystem goods and services are the
tangible and intangible benefits people
receive from an ecosystem or nature. For
example, water resources, such as
groundwater and surface waters, provide
invaluable ecosystem services, such as
drinking water, habitat for food sources,
recreational opportunities, protection from
storms and/or tidal surges, and
social/cultural benefits. Each of those
ecosystem services, in turn, have impacts
on human health and well-being. For more
on the linkages between human health and
ecosystem services, see EPA's Eco-Health
Relationship Browser.
Page 12 of 305
-------
Scoping
3. Scoping the HIA
In the Scoping step, the HIA Project Team establishes the goals of the HIA; HIA participants and
participant roles; timeline for the HIA; plans for stakeholder engagement; communication and reporting
strategies; the scope of the HIA (e.g., study area, potential health impacts of the proposed decision and
pathways of impact that will be assessed in the HIA, and the populations potentially affected); and the
data sources and methods to be used (National Research Council, 2011). The choice of what to include
in the HIA scope reflects the specific social, political, and policy context of the decision; the needs,
interests, and questions of stakeholders and decision-makers; and the health status of the affected
population. Scoping results in a framework for the HIA and a written project plan that includes the
following:
A brief summary of the pathways through which health could be affected and the health effects
to be addressed, including a rationale for how the effects were chosen and an account of any
potential health effects that were considered but were not selected and why. Any logic models
or scoping tables that were completed should also be included (see Section 3.5.2).
Identification of the population and vulnerable groupssuch as children, the elderly, racial or
ethnic minorities, low-income people, and communitiesthat are likely to be affected (see
Section 3.5.3).
A description of the research questions, data sources, methods to be used, and any alternatives
to be assessed (see Section 3.5.4).
Identification of apparent data gaps and data collection efforts that could be undertaken to
address the gaps (or a rationale for not undertaking data collection; see Section 3.5.4).
A summary of how stakeholders were engaged, the main issues that the stakeholders raised,
and how they will be addressed or why they will not be addressed (see Sections 3.2, 3.4.2 and
3.5.2). (National Research Council, 2011)
3.1.
The purpose of this HIA was to provide information about the potential health impacts that may result
from proposed changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, from a neutral position (i.e., not advocating
for or against any alternative), and provide recommendations aimed at optimizing health benefits
and/or mitigating potential adverse impacts to the people of Suffolk County. The health effects
examined and the extent to which the effects were assessed was based on stakeholder input and
available resources and timing.
As a decision-support HIA, the individuals who participated in the Screening of the HIA (from EPA, FEMA,
and Suffolk County) established the following goals for the HIA to achieve:
Develop a comprehensive HIA that addresses stakeholder concerns for sustainability, resiliency,
environmental justice, and health equity.
Page 13 of 305
-------
Scoping
Bring evidence-based information to help inform Suffolk County's decision on proposed code
changes regarding OSDS.
Provide a neutral and inclusive platform for stakeholders to discuss the needs and issues in
Suffolk County related to the proposal, founded on a common objective to advocate for health
and wellness, and enhance stakeholder consensus and ownership of the decisions made.
Raise awareness of HIA as a decision-support tool that considers direct and indirect
consequences, both benefits and harms, before the decision is made.
In the Monitoring and Evaluation step (discussed in Section 7), the HIA was evaluated as to whether
these goals were achieved.
* : ' . , : c Meetings
3.2.1 HIA Kickoff Meeting
EPA and Suffolk County Government co-hosted a kickoff meeting to launch the HIA on December 19,
2014 at the Suffolk County Office in Yaphank, NY; attendance was by invitation only. The launch event
started with a half-day HIA 101 training (short course) that introduced participants to the concept of
HIA, the importance of HIA in decision-making, and the principles and methods used in HIA practice. The
training also introduced a few examples of completed HIAs and opportunities for HIA in the New
York/New Jersey area. Following the training, a workshop was held that included an introduction to the
HIA in Suffolk County and a series of exercises to kick off the Scoping step of the HIA. Participants
included representatives from county government, local environmental advocacy groups, federal
government agencies and contractors, and a local university.
During the workshop, HIA Leadership introduced the decisions leading up to the HIA (i.e., conclusions
from the Screening step); Walt Dawydiak, from Suffolk County Division of Environmental Quality
(SCDEQ), provided background on the issues and current policies behind the proposed code changes, as
well as the anticipated outcomes of the proposed changes; and attendees participated in group
activities that informed tasks associated with the Scoping step. Participants were asked to identify key
stakeholder groups and potential mechanisms in which the "no change" decision could affect conditions
in Suffolk County and lead to health outcomes. The group consensus was that if no changes are made to
the Suffolk County Sanitary Code regarding OSDS, individual and community health could be affected
through:
A change in risk of illness from toxics and/or
pathogens in the water and soil;
A change in physical activity (a health-related
behavior) as a result of beach closures, fish advisories,
and the avoidance of recreational spaces due to the
spread of harmful algal blooms (HABs);
Algal Blooms
Throughout this report, you will
find discussion of algal blooms;
however, not all algal blooms are
the same. Algal blooms can be
harmless, harmful, or toxic.
Appendix A defines the various
algal bloom terms used in this HIA.
Page 14 of 305
-------
Scoping
A change in outdoor air quality as a result of increased vehicle emissions, because residents
have to travel farther to reach safe beaches and other recreational areas;
A change in employment/unemployment as a result of decreased demand on fishing, shellfish,
and recreation industries due to beach closures, fish advisories, and loss of patronage;
A change in diet/nutrition, specifically the consumption of fish and shellfish, as a result of the
increased spread of HABs and die-off of native species;
A change in housing security/insecurity as a result of the increased risk of flooding and storm
damage from reduced shoreline resiliency;
A change in costs of living as a result of increased property insurance costs, increased municipal
costs to remove pollutants and pathogens from drinking water, and reduced real estate tax from
loss in property values;
A change in funding available for public services (e.g., sanitation, public works, recreation
management) as a result of reduced tax revenue; and
A change in blight and/or crime resulting from increased transience and decreased stewardship
of the community due to loss of perceived quality of the environment and community.
EPA documented and summarized the discussions from the HIA Kickoff Meeting to present to the
broader, Suffolk County public in March 2015. Refer to Appendix D for the HIA Kickoff Meeting agenda,
notes, and list of attendees.
3.2.2 March 2015 Public Meetings
EPA held a set of public meetings to provide information to residents and other stakeholders about the
proposed code changes and HIA and to solicit their input. Three meetings were scheduled for March 4
and 5, 2015 in Cold Spring Harbor, Riverhead, and Brentwood, New York. Unfortunately, EPA had to
cancel the last community meeting in Brentwood due to inclement weather. The agenda for the public
meetings followed the same outline as the HIA Kickoff Meeting, but in a shorter, expedited format. For
the Scoping workgroup activity, attendees were asked to identify how the proposed code changes
would affect "daily life" in Suffolk County, NY.
The group consensus was that if the Suffolk County Sanitary Code was not changed, "daily life" could be
affected through:
A change in social cohesion/disruption in the valuation of ecosystem-based assets;
A change in household financial benefit/cost for the property owner, as an immediate benefit
would exist from avoiding the costs and inconveniences of upgrading the sewerage system, but
there would be long-term costs associated with the monetary depreciation of the home due to
degradation of the surrounding environment;
A change in employment/unemployment in the aquaculture industry and potential expansion
to the tourism and/or recreation industries; and
A change in human illness from exposure to polluted waters during aquatic recreation and/or
eating contaminated fish/shellfish.
Page 15 of 305
-------
Scoping
If the Suffolk County Sanitary Code is changed to require existing OSDS to be upgraded to meet current
standards (countywide or in high priority areas), the group identified that "daily life" could be affected
through:
A change in political support/opposition due to increases in regulations of individual sewerage
systems, taxes/fees, and code enforcement;
A change in household financial benefit/cost for the property owner - and potentially renters -
related to the cost of upgrading the sewerage system;
A change in community financial benefit/cost for residents in an area that may be displaced
from increasing housing costs; and
A change in perceived advantages/disadvantages for upgrading the system against realized
advantages/disadvantages (e.g., market value of the home, ability of system to control nutrients
and pathogens).
If the Suffolk County Sanitary Code is changed to require existing individual sewerage systems to be
upgraded to l/A OWTS in high priority areas, the group identified that "daily life" could be affected
through:
A change in social cohesion/disruption on attitudes and behaviors related to management of
individual sewerage systems;
A change in household financial benefit/cost for the property owner - and potentially renters -
related to the cost of upgrading the sewerage system and convenience of operating and
maintaining that system, considering innovative/alternative systems are more expensive and
require more management;
A change in community financial benefit/cost from the increase in demand for manufacturing,
installing, inspecting, and servicing individual sewerage systems, which may lead to the creation
of a new industry/market;
A change in employment/unemployment in the wastewater management industry from
demand increases; and
A change in quality of water resources from a reduction in nutrient (e.g., nitrogen) and
pathogen loading, assuming innovative/alternative systems perform as expected.
EPA documented and summarized the discussions from the public meetings. Refer to Appendix D for the
March 2015 Public Meeting agendas, notes, and lists of attendees.
3.3. Establish'! ; ; . sor imittees
At the kickoff meeting in December 2014 and the public meetings in March 2015, EPA asked attendees
to inform others about the plan to perform the HIA in Suffolk County and to invite fellow stakeholders to
participate in the HIA process. In addition, EPA reached out to community organizations and other
agencies involved in Suffolk County to solicit participation. In July 2015, EPA sent invitations to individual
stakeholders requesting them to participate in the HIA. Formal roles, in which stakeholders could
Page 16 of 305
-------
Scoping
participate, included the HIA Project Team, HIA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and HIA
Community Stakeholder Steering Committee (CSSC).
3.3.1 HIA Project Team
The HIA Project Team included a small group of EPA staff, contractors, research fellows, and local
professional stakeholders that served either on the HIA Leadership Team and/or on the HIA Research
Team.
Members of the HIA Leadership Team were responsible for:
Designing the HIA processes, managing HIA progress, and making final decisions regarding the
HIA;
Planning logistics for upcoming HIA meetings and activities;
Scheduling, attending, and facilitating HIA meetings and managing HIA tasks;
Participating in scheduled quality assurance (QA) audits;
Contributing to the development of HIA materials and approving HIA materials for distribution;
Securing funding vehicles and personnel to perform HIA activities; and
Communicating with stakeholders and distributing final HIA products.
By September 2015, the HIA Research Team was established. Members of the HIA Research Team were
responsible for:
Assisting in the development and completion of the assessment plan and apprising the HIA
Leadership Team of task progress and any challenges with completing specific tasks;
Performing other specific tasks related to collecting, synthesizing, and analyzing data;
Participating in scheduled QA audits;
Contributing to the development of HIA materials;
Attending HIA Research Team meetings; and
Identifying and developing HIA recommendations.
3.3.2 HIA Advisory Committees
The HIA Leadership Team established two advisory committees to help guide the HIA - the TAC and the
CSSC - with equal responsibilities and "voice" for guiding the HIA process. The TAC and CSSC held their
first meetings in August 2015.
mln November 2015, the CSSC was consolidated into the TAC due to low participation. This was
unfortunate because the community voice is often the voice that is unheard in decision-
making; HIA strives to bring community members to the table and give them a role in
decisions that impact their lives. It should be noted that many of the TAC members, although
representing particular organizations, were also residents of the County and could be
impacted by the proposed code changes. For more on the challenges of public participation
and possible reasons for the limited engagement, see Section 7.1.3.
Page 17 of 305
-------
Scoping
Members of the TAC were responsible for:
Advising the HIA Project Team on technical and non-technical aspects of the proposed changes
(e.g., implementation, enforcement, funding, local knowledge, history, and interests and/or
concerns of other community stakeholders);
Attending TAC meetings (or providing a representative); and
Providing input and feedback on the HIA goals, assessment plan, recommendations, follow-up
activities, HIA materials, and implementation of the HIA process.
The formal participants in this HIA were identified in the opening pages of the report in the HIA
Participants section. Appendix E provides the HIA Rules of Engagement Agreement to which each of
these individuals consented in order to participate in the HIA.
ฆ ฆ ฆ ฆ 1 ฆ ฆ loit -merit,
11 . itic . porting
3.4.1 HIA Timeline
The HIA timeline was first drafted in the Screening step; further refined in the Scoping step; and then
updated as the process progressed through the last steps of the HIA. Figure 3-1 provides the final HIA
timeline.
The HIA analysis was complete in 2016 and preliminary HIA findings and recommendations were
presented to stakeholders and decision-makers in August of that year. The HIA was slated to be
complete and published in 2016; however, due to changes in EPA priorities at the end of 2016, the
completion of the HIA Recommendations, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Reporting steps was
postponed until 2017. In July 2017, the Draft HIA Report was presented to Suffolk County and
distributed to the TAC and external peer reviewers for review. Competing priorities within EPA, including
support of hurricane recovery efforts in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, caused
resolution of review comments and finalization of the HIA Report to be postponed until 2020. Following
the presentation of preliminary findings and recommendations in August 2016, the County continued to
move forward with a number of efforts to address nitrogen loading to Suffolk County waters, including
changes to the sanitary code; those efforts are described in Appendix K.
Page 18 of 305
-------
Scoping
~ HIA community meetings, series one
3/4/2015
^ FEMA/EPAled HIA
^ training in Queens,
1/15/2014
i, NY ^
EPA presented on H...
to stakeholders on Long 8/3/2015
Island; Suffolk County
decided to host HIA
5/30/2014
w HIA ProjectTeam
WSCDHS Proposed Established
Sanitary Code Policy 9/30/2015
Changes for Upgrading
Existing ISS released
~ Began screening s/15/2014 | | j ^ HIA assessment
proposalsforHIA
Invitessentto participate in the HIA
7/7/2015
IW. HIA Advisory Committee(s)
. established
HIA health topics prioritized
~ 9/30/2015
on Long Island
11/26/2013
HIA kickoff meeting
* in Yaphank, NY
12/19/2o!l4 I
work plans
meetings, si mestwo;
~ Preliminary
findings anc
recommenc ations
presented
8/16/2016
HIA recommendations
finalized
3/31/2017
^ Monitoring and evaluation
plan established
6/1/2017
ityand TAC1
^ Initial TAC/
external peer review
comment resolution
complete
11/18/2018
^ Follow-up
meetingswith
Suffolk County
and Region 2
12/2018
Draft HIA Report
transmitted forTAC/
external peer review;
presented to Suffolk
County
7/2017
^ Final HIA Report,
^ Summary Report, and
Fact Sheet transmitted
for Region 2 review
3/2020
Draft H
Report
transm
County
review
11/201
A Summary
and Fact Sheet
tted for Suffolk
and Region 2
EPA Senior
Leadership briefings
1/2020
Follow up meetings
with EPA Senior
Leadership; Final HIA
Report, Summary
~ Report, Fact Sheet and
Comment Resolution
document transmitted
for Region 2 review
6/2021
HIA materials
approved for
publication
7/2021
2013
Screening
Scoping
Assessment
Recommendations
Monitoring and Evaluation
Reporting [_
2022
11/1/2013 -12/31/2014
12/19/2014 -9/30/2015
10/1/2015 - 8/31/2016
1/1/2016 - 3/31/2017
10/1/2016 - 6/1/2017
18/15/2014 - 7/2021
1 TAC-Technical Advisory Committee
Figure 3-1. Final HIA timeline.
Note: This HIA required significant time and resources and involved collecting and analyzing data from
multiple sources to provide a comprehensive assessment of potential health impacts. Not all HIAs are
this intensive, nor do they need to be in order to be effective.
3.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Plans
At the start of the HIA, EPA was aware of complaints from Suffolk County stakeholders about the
overburden of engagement from the various federal, state, and locally-led projects and interventions
occurring in the County, Taking this into consideration, the HIA Leadership Team planned to execute
public meetings to engage residents and other stakeholders in Suffolk County at two critical points in the
HIA process - Scoping and Recommendations.
3.4.3 Communications and Reporting Plans
Reporting is the communication of the findings and recommendations of an HIA to decision-makers, the
public, and other stakeholders (National Research Council, 2011). It includes the production and
dissemination of written materials that document the HIA process, methods, findings,
recommendations, and limitations of the analysis; and it includes the public dissemination of results
through other channels, such as meetings with the public, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. The
Rules of Engagement Agreement (Appendix E), which outlined roles and responsibilities for participants,
also included plans for communication and the review process for HIA materials.
An HIA Report, summary report, fact sheets, and presentations to the public, decision-makers, and other
stakeholders were all planned to help communicate the process, progress, and findings of the HIA (see
Section 6).
Page 19 of 305
-------
Scoping
3.5. Setting the Scope of the HIA
3.5.1 Defining the HIA Study Area
The proposed code changes (SCDHS, 2014a) targeted single-family residences served by individual
sewerage systems across the County and in designated high priority areas. Suffolk County-designated
high priority areas were defined as "areas in the 0-50 year groundwater contributing zone to public
drinking water wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater contributing zone to surface waters,
areas located in a SLOSH zone (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes), and areas located
where groundwater is less than 10 feet below grade" (SCDHS, 2014a)6.
Suffolk County is in the eastern region of Long Island and is the second largest county in total area in
New York State (total land plus water area of 1,517,523 acres or 2373.13 square miles; 2010 Census
Summary File 1). Most of Suffolk County is low-lying area; the highest peak is in the Town of Huntington,
called Jayne's Hill, estimated at 387.1 feet (118.0 m) above sea level. Three estuarine systems border
the County, including the Great South Bay to the south, and two estuaries of national significance - the
Peconic Estuary to the east and Long Island Sound to the north. The Fire Island National Seashore,
comprising barrier islands along the south coast, separates most of the Great South Bay from the
Atlantic Ocean. Figure 3-2 illustrates the geography and towns of Suffolk County, and Figure 3-3
highlights the County-designated high priority areas, which consist of approximately 72% (671 square
miles) of the total land area in Suffolk County.
o
10
20 mi
Block
Island
Sound
Long Island Sound
' Napeague ป V
Southold
Atlantic Ocean
Elevation (meters)
118.3
-6.7
Base Mao: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 3-2. Suffolk County elevation and towns.
5 See Appendix K for more information on actions taken since the HIA analysis to develop a Suffolk County
Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan and refine the priority areas.
Page 20 of 305
-------
Scoping
I
10
H
20 mi
*5
Long Island Sound
High Priority Areas (671 mi2)*
Suffolk County (934 mi2)
^Includes 25-year contributing areas to streams and embayments, 50-year
contnbuting areas to community drinking water supply wells, SLOSH zones,
and areas where depth to water table _<10 feet.
Base Mao Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC. and other contributors
High Priority Areas Based on Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, 2015.
Figure 3-3. Designated high priority areas for reduction of wastewater-derived nitrogen.
3.5.2 Establishing the Pathways of Impact
Part of the Scoping process involves determining the rigor or level of HIA that will be conducted,
including the number of potential impacts that will be assessed, the depth of assessment (e.g., extent of
data collection, stakeholder involvement, sources of evidence, etc.), and the length of time that is
available to complete the HIA. There are four levels of HIA as defined by Harris, Harris-Roxas, Harris, and
Kemp (2007), listed from least to most rigorous (and least to most resource-intensive): Desk-based,
Rapid, Intermediate, and Comprehensive.
The HIA Leadership Team took the information gleaned from stakeholder discussions at the kickoff
meeting and initial public meetings and drew from widely-accepted impact pathways (i.e., identified by
the World Health Organization, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Society of Practitioners
of Health Impact Assessment) to help organize the potential health impacts identified into categories.
The scope of the issues and the potential pathways through which impacts could occur reflects input
from the public and a variety of stakeholders; it is not the viewpoint of any one organization. Due to the
large number of potential impacts, the HIA Project Team agreed that the HIA could not evaluate all of
the pathway categories identified within the project timeframe (i.e., a Comprehensive HIA could not be
conducted). Thus, the HIA Leadership Team asked the Advisory Committee members to rank the
pathway categories on a scale from most important (1) to least important (10) and ordered the average
rank for each pathway category to help prioritize which pathways to include in the HIA Assessment.
Note: Although all were asked to participate, only seven stakeholder committee members submitted
their rankings.
Page 21 of 305
-------
Scoping
The results of the prioritization activity were as follows:
High Priority, water quality (average rank of 1.71), resiliency to natural disaster (average rank of
2.57), and household economics (average rank of 4.28)
Moderate Priority, community economics (average rank of 5.14), social norms and/or beliefs
(average rank of 5.5), food safety (average rank of 5.67)
Low Priority, physical activity (average rank of 6.16), household quality (average rank of 6.71),
air quality (average rank of 7.67), and crime and perceived safety/security (average rank of 8.5)
The HIA included a detailed appraisal of the high priority pathways but did not address those pathways
ranked moderate or low priority. As the high priority pathways were detailed and refined, some changes
were made, including combining the Community Economics and Household Economics into a single (high
priority) pathway, and breaking out variables originally in the Water Quality and Resiliency Pathways -
Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure and Vector Control, respectively - into their own
pathways.
At the completion of Scoping, five pathways were prioritized for detailed assessment in this Intermediate
HIA:
Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure;
Water Quality;
Resiliency to Natural Disaster;
Vector Control; and
Community and Household Economics.
Table 3-1 outlines the pathways included in the final scope of the HIA and the means by which they may
influence and/or impact health, as identified during the kickoff meeting and initial public meetings.
Figure 3-4 illustrates how those five pathways are interconnected. The pathway diagram for each
individual pathway is presented in its respective segment of Section 4.
Page 22 of 305
-------
Scoping
W
Figure 3-4. Pathway diagram showing the interconnections of the five pathways assessed in the HIA and their
connection to health.
Table 3-1. HIA Scope and Pathways
Pathway
Individual
Sewerage System
Performance and
Failure (originally
included in Water
Quality pathway)
Means of Influence/Impact
The Suffolk County Sanitary Code ultimately determines the
type and siting of individual sewerage systems in Suffolk
County.
The technology type, age, and characteristics of the site
(location) are key factors in predicting the system's risk of a
structural failure (i.e., collapse, deterioration, and/or a cover
malfunction) and/or hydraulic failure (i.e., backflow into the
home and/or surcharge above ground), and the capacity of
the system to control nutrients and pathogens in effluent
discharged to the surrounding environment (i.e., treatment
performance).
Site characteristics, such as depth to groundwater, potential
for persistent flooding and rising groundwater due to storms
and/or tidal surges, pose a risk for structural and hydraulic
failure for onsite systems.
Structural failure (i.e., the collapse, deterioration, and/or
cover malfunction/removal) of a system is a falling hazard
that may lead to human injury and/or death.
Exposure to wastewater due to hydraulic failure (i.e.,
backflow into the home and/or surcharge above ground)
includes gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness,
rashes, and more.
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Injury and/or
death from
structural failure
Illness from
exposure to
untreated
wastewater due
to hydraulic
failure
Page 23 of 305
-------
Scoping
Pathway
Means of Influence/Impact
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Water Quality
(Quality of water
resources)
The collective loading of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) and
pathogens from individual sewerage systems to the
surrounding environment is a critical determinant in the
quality of groundwater and surface waters (both saline and
fresh waters), downgradient of those systems.
Groundwater is the only source for drinking water in Suffolk
County. Thus, the quality of groundwater has direct human
health consequences.
Long-term nutrient and pathogen loading to surface waters
affects the presence of pathogens, algal blooms, and/or the
loss or contamination of aquatic animal-life (e.g., shellfish,
finfish, reptiles, waterfowl, etc.) in those ecosystems.
Persons who swim, fish, or participate in other forms of
aquatic recreation where waters are sewage-contaminated
and/or experiencing toxic algal blooms may be at risk for
illness.
Waters temporarily affected by flooding and sewage
contamination because of a storm and/or tidal surges also
pose a human health risk for those crossing floodwaters
and/or exposed to contaminated waters after the event.
Illness from
sewerage-
derived
pollutants in
source water
(groundwater)
Illness from
aquatic
recreation
Stress and well-
being
Resiliency to
Natural Disasters
Water quality plays an important role in the protectiveness
of coastal/tidal wetlands by influencing wetland structure,
function and overall acreage (e.g., loss of submerged
vegetation and loss due to erosion).
The protective capacity of coastal/tidal wetlands helps to
determine the resiliency of the shoreline against storms
and/or tidal surges and coastal and inland flooding. Persons
occupying areas prone to flooding are at risk for injury
and/or death.
Shoreline resiliency affects the risk of human injury and
property/infrastructure damage from storms and/or tidal
surges, flooding, and inundation, as well as the need for
households and businesses to evacuate and/or relocate from
risk-prone areas.
The ability of coastal communities to evacuate and the
condition of roads and disaster infrastructure directly
determines the capacity for emergency responders to
respond in the event of a natural disaster.
Property/infrastructure damage and the need for evacuation
and/or relocation have implications for individual health and
well-being.
Injury and/or
death from
storms and/or
tidal surges
Overall health
and well-being
(mental health,
physical activity,
respiratory
health)
Page 24 of 305
-------
Scoping
Pathway
Means of Influence/Impact
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Vector Control
(originally included
in Resiliency
pathway)
Standing and sewage-contaminated waters, either from
individual sewerage systems in structural and/or hydraulic
failure or from flooding and damage to system due to a
storm event, provide excellent habitat for mosquito
breeding and productivity.
Mosquitoes carry pathogens, such as West Nile Virus (WNV)
and Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) that can be
transmitted to humans and lead to disease.
Mosquitoes are also a common nuisance around residences
and areas used for recreation. (Not all mosquitoes carry
disease; for some, their bites just present a nuisance.)
In order to control mosquito populations (and inherently the
spread of disease), insecticides are sprayed over large areas
where the habitat is suited for mosquitoes, in addition to
individual spraying on self and/or around residences.
Mosquito nuisance and perceptions of insecticide toxicity
can lead to stress and impacts to well-being.
Illness from
vector-borne
pathogens
(mosquitoes)
Stress and well-
being
Household and
Community
Economics
The cost to upgrade, certify, and maintain the individual
sewerage system or fees associated with non-compliance of
a system will result in a direct household economic impact,
which may be passed on to renters in the case of rental
properties.
The type of individual sewerage system may change the
perceived or actual market value of the residence and the
ability to sell (transfer) the property between owners.
Changes in actual and perceived quality of surface waters
may affect the market value of nearby residences.
Existing and future risk of property damage from a storm
and/or tidal surge will affect recovery costs and future home
insurance costs. In addition, the perceived risk of damage
and/or actual damage to residences from storms and/or
tidal surges may have consequences to the market value of
the residence
In Suffolk County, property values are a considerable source
of county and local municipal tax revenue.
Changes in areas that need spraying for mosquito control
will affect municipal costs for vector control.
The increase in demand related to sewerage application,
inspection, and certification of compliance will result in
changes, both costs and revenues, for SCDHS.
The increase in demand related to sewerage system
manufacturing, construction, maintenance, and (3rd party)
inspection would lead to additional employment
opportunities in the individual sewerage system industry.
Overall health
and well-being
related to
changes in
household and
community
economics
Nutrition-
related health
outcomes
Page 25 of 305
-------
Scoping
Pathway
Household and
Community
Economics
(Continued)
Means of Influence/Impact
The potential aquatic animal-life lost from long-term
changes in water quality may result in changes in costs
and/or revenues and employment opportunities in the
aquaculture and recreational fishing industries.
The sum of changes to household costs and income available
directly affects household economics, such as expendable
income for health services and health care, food, utilities,
etc.
The collective changes in municipal costs and revenues and
community property values affects the municipality's ability
to provide public services and maintain public assets.
Both household and community economics are strong
drivers of overall health in a community.
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Overall health
and well-being
related to
changes in
household and
community
economics
Nutrition-
related health
outcomes
m
Appendix F shows the pathways excluded from assessment in the HIA due to time and
resource constraints.
3.5.3 Identifying Populations Potentially Affected
The proposed code changes distinguish between two potentially affected groups - 1) single-family
households across the County and 2) single-family households in designated high priority areas.
m
The HIA Project Team acknowledges that visitors to Suffolk County could also be indirectly
affected by the decision; however, assessing the health implications for all visitors to Suffolk
County would be impractical.
Populations Likely to Experience Disproportionate Impacts
HIAs assess the distribution of potential impacts within the population affected. This practice helps to
determine if there may be unequal sharing of burdens and/or benefits resulting from the proposed
decision. Some subgroups within the population may be more sensitive to or more affected by changes
in the physical and natural environment, social environment, and/or economic environment as a result
of the decision. The HIA Project Team determined that individuals in low-income households, young
children, the elderly and/or physically disabled, pregnant and/or nursing women, the
immunocompromised and those with preexisting conditions, minority households, linguistically-isolated
households, and coastal populations and those living and working in SLOSH zones may be more likely to
experience disproportionate health impacts. A description of each population and the rationale for
inclusion follow.
m
Note: Because the geographic locations of the individual sewerage systems targeted by the
proposed sanitary code changes were unknown at the time of the HIA analysis, the
socioeconomic status and demographics of the populations affected by the three decision
alternatives were unable to be determined. Populations of certain socioeconomic status and
Page 26 of 305
-------
Scoping
demographics are included here because of the potential for disproportionate health impacts;
it is assumed that these populations would be among the population affected.
Low-income households
Individuals and households that are economically disadvantaged have less adaptive capacity to
changes in economic conditions than those with means. For example, if housing costs (e.g., rent,
property taxes) increase, those in the lower end of the income spectrum would be less likely to
accommodate those increased costs and therefore have less expendable income for nutritious
food and health services. Health practitioners have concluded that as income increases,
regardless of racial and ethnic group, health outcomes improve (Braveman, Egerter, An, &
Williams, 2011; Heller, Malekafzali, Todman, & Wier, 2013). Low-income was quantified using
the number or percent of a Census block group's population in households where the total
household income is less than or equal to twice the federal "poverty level."
Minority households
Minority populations often experience health inequities that may make them more vulnerable
to the potential health impacts of a project. Minority populations are represented by the
number or percent of individuals in a block group who list their racial status on the decennial
Census as a race other than "White alone" and/or list their ethnicity as "Hispanic or Latino" on
national surveys. In Suffolk County, minorities include the federally-recognized Shinnecock tribal
nation and the state-recognized Unkechaug tribal nation.
Young children (under 5 years of age)
Young children are highly sensitive to changes in physical, social, and economic conditions in the
household and community, because of their low adaptive capacity and high dependency on
others. Infants and young children are more likely to acquire infections due to naive (less-
developed) immune, gastrointestinal, respiratory or other systems and, once infected, are more
likely to develop severe outcomes (Fewtrell, Butler, Ali Memon, Ashley, & Saul, 2008).
Pregnant and/or nursing women
Certain infections are more severe in pregnancy, either increasing the risk of fatality for the
woman or damage to the fetus (Fewtrell, Butler, Ali Memon, Ashley, & Saul, 2008). Likewise,
pregnant and/or nursing women can be affected more by nutrition-related impacts.
Older (over 65 years of age) and physically disabled adults
Older adults (elderly) are more likely to acquire infections due to waning immunity and, once
infected, are more likely to develop severe outcomes (Fewtrell, Butler, Ali Memon, Ashley, &
Saul, 2008). Elderly and/or physically disabled individuals are more dependent on the
accessibility of the built environment, compared to those without physical restrictions. Elderly
living alone and the physically disabled are more at risk for injury or death in the event of storm
and/or tidal surges, due in part to limited mobility and/or access to evacuation.
Page 27 of 305
-------
Scoping
Populations residing in unsewered residences constructed over 25 years ago or in flood-prone
or high groundwater areas
Residences with OSDS and residences in high-priority areas with "conventional" OWTS are
targeted by the various alternatives to the proposed code changes, making the populations
living in these residences disproportionately impacted, both negatively and positively, by the
code change. These individuals would directly experience the potential health impacts identified
for the project.
Residents with individual sewerage systems and private wells
Co-location of private wells and individual sewerage systems increase the likelihood of
contaminated groundwater intrusion and because private wells may lack the levels of
treatment, management, and testing of public water supplies, individuals relying on these wells
for drinking water may be at greater risk for contracting water-related illnesses.
Coastal populations and those living and working in SLOSH zones
Individuals living and working along the coast and in SLOSH zones are more likely to experience
the direct impacts of storms/and or tidal surges, sea level rise, and coastal flooding, including
impacts to daily life, health, property, and infrastructure.
Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations
Sometimes differences in health outcomes are unavoidable;
at other times, differences in health outcomes may arise
between subgroups in a population because of differences
in levels of power and access to opportunity (SOPHIA Equity
Working Group, 2014). These differences often exist along
lines of race, ethnicity, income, education levels, and other
characteristics. Avoidable differences in health outcomes
that result from "unjust and unfair differences in social,
economic, environmental, and political conditions" are
known as health inequities (Heller, Malekafzali, Todman, &
Wier, 2013; Healthy People 2020, n.d.).
Similar to equity, environmental justice (EJ) is concerned with "the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" and
ascertains that "no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and
risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial,
governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies" (EPA, 2011).
The HIA Project Team paid particular attention to the distribution of potential health impacts across the
population and whether any populations would be disproportionally affected by the proposed code
Health Equity
"The aim of... equity and health is not to
eliminate all health differences so that
everyone has the same level of health,
but rather to reduce or eliminate those
which result from factors which are
considered to be both avoidable and
unfair. Equity is therefore concerned
with creating opportunities for health
and with bringing health differentials
down to the lowest levels possible"
(Whitehead, 1990)
Page 28 of 305
-------
Scoping
changes in the Assessment step of the HIA. Recommendations were provided, where possible, to
address impacts to communities facing inequities.
3.5.4 Developing the Assessment Workplan and Data Acquisition
The HIA Research Team developed an Assessment Workplan that identified the following for each
variable in the five pathways:
Baseline research question - to identify the current conditions in Suffolk County related to the
variable
Impact research question - to determine how the proposed decision alternatives would
potentially impact the variable
Indicators and data sources - to be used to answer the research questions
Approach or methods - to be used to answer the research questions
Data gaps and/or data acquisition needs
Task Lead - individual(s) responsible for leading and carrying out the assessment of that
variable.
The Assessment Workplan was presented to the TAC to gather their input and help identify potential
data sources that could be used in Assessment.
Page 29 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
4. Assessment of Existing Conditions and Potential
Health Impacts
The third step of the HIA process - Assessment - involves two major tasks: 1) creating a profile of the
population potentially affected by the decision, including a baseline health status and information on
the conditions important to health; and 2) analyzing and characterizing the potential health impacts of
the proposed decision and any decision alternatives under consideration (National Research Council,
2011). The Assessment step results in reporting that:
Describes data sources and analytic methods used in the assessment (see Section 4).
Describes the baseline conditions that could be impacted by the proposed alternatives,
including health status, affected population, health vulnerabilities or disparities, and health
determinants that affect health (see Sections 4.1-4.6).
Integrates stakeholder input into the analysis of the impacts7.
Describes methods used to engage stakeholders7.
Identifies limitations and uncertainties of the impact characterization (see Section 4.1-4.6).
Characterizes beneficial and adverse health effects of the decision in terms of direction,
magnitude, likelihood, severity, and distribution in the population (see Sections 4.2-4.6).
This HIA assessed the potential health impacts of four alternatives - the baseline and the three code
change alternatives identified previously in Section 2.1. The baseline is simply the existing conditions at
the time of the HIA analysis and is used as a point of comparison; the baseline does not represent the
future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are made.
Note: This HIA analyzed impacts to existing single family residences with individual sewerage
systems and did not project impacts of new construction.
The HIA Research Team utilized a variety of methods for the assessment, including qualitative (narrative
and nominal) data and quantitative (numeric or measured) data to inform the analysis. Specifically,
geographic information system (GIS) methods, epidemiologic methods, statistical and graphical analysis,
systematic literature review, and stakeholder engagement were used.
Note: Beyond community and stakeholder engagement activities, this HIA did not involve field
data collection efforts, such as water sampling, water quality testing, or administration of
human health surveys. When possible, data specific to Suffolk County were utilized; however, in some
7 EPA was aware of complaints from Suffolk County stakeholders about the overburden of engagement from the various
federal, state, and locally-led projects and interventions occurring in the County. Taking this into consideration, the HIA
Leadership Team planned to execute public meetings to engage residents and other stakeholders in Suffolk County at two
critical points in the HIA process-Scoping and Recommendations. TAC members provided input on the analysis of impacts, but
community members and other stakeholders did not participate in the Assessment step of the process.
Page 30 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
cases the best available data were from publicly-available data sets or the scientific literature. Although
scientific literature is useful and informative, it may sometimes be limited in its generalizability and
broad applicability and therefore may not relate specifically to Suffolk County.
The following criteria were used to characterize the health impacts of the decision alternatives:
Direction - indicates whether the effect is harmful, beneficial, or in some cases - unclear (values
= "benefit to health," "detract from health," "no change," or "uncertain/both benefit(s) and
harm(s)")
Likelihood - the chance or probability that the effect will occur (values = "highly likely,"
"possible," or "not likely")
Magnitude - indicates the expected size of the effect; can be described by the number of
people affected or by expected changes in the frequency or prevalence of symptoms, illness, or
injury (values = "high" if thousands of people affected, "moderate" if hundreds of people
affected, "low" if few to none are affected)
Distribution - delineates the spatial and/or socioeconomic boundaries of various groups that
are likely to bear differential effects (values = "all groups affected relatively equally" or
"disproportionate effects," with the groups likely to be affected disproportionately identified)
Severity (intensity) - indicates the severity of the effect (values = "severe" for fatal or disabling,
"moderate" if needs medical treatment or intervention to resolve, or "minor" if does not need
medical treatment or intervention to resolve)
Permanence (timing and duration) - indicates at what point of the proposed activity the effect
will occur, how long it will last, and how rapidly the changes will occur (values = "immediate" if
effect occurs within 1 year or "long-time" if effect takes 1 to several years; "short-term" if
duration of impact is limited or "long-lasting" if impact is expected to persist for an extended
period of time or be permanent)
Strength of evidence -the scientific evidence used to verify (or refute) the connections
hypothesized in the Scoping step and characterize the potential health impacts of the decision in
the Assessment step was graded based on levels of strength modified from the U.S. Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality's grading of evidence (values = "strong," "limited," "lacking,"
and "insufficient"); see Figure 4-1 for further details. Note that the evidence can be from the
general literature and/or Suffolk County-specific evidence.
Page 31 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
Strength of Evidence Determinations
(modified from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)
Strong - There is high confidence that the evidence reflects the hypothesized relationship between
variables. Further research is very unlikely to change the confidence or the estimate of effect.
Limited -The evidence reflects the hypothesized relationship between variables, but is limited in depth
or replication. There are consistent conclusions, but few studies that confirm the relationship. Further
research may change the confidence or the estimate of effect.
Lacking - There is low confidence that the hypothesized relationship between variables exist, such that
the evidence results in inconsistent conclusions or the evidence available concludes that no association
between the variables of interest exists beyond coincidence.
Insufficient - There is not enough evidence available to draw a conclusion one way or another, such that
further research is needed to verify the hypothesized relationship and/or make an estimate of effect.
Figure 4-1. Strength of evidence grade descriptions.
Section 4.1 provides a snapshot of the demographics, socioeconomic status, and overall health of the
population living in Suffolk County at the time the HIA analysis was conducted. Sections 4.2-4.6 of the
report document the Assessment of the five pathways of impact considered in this HIA. Information is
presented regarding elements of the pathway, existing conditions in Suffolk County related to those
elements, and potential impacts of the decision alternatives on the pathway. A table is presented at the
end of each assessed pathway, characterizing the potential impacts of each decision alternative.
4.1. Profile of the Suffolk County Population at the Time of the HIA
Analysis
The HIA Research Team used a combination of national survey data and historic records from the U.S.
Census Bureau, such as QuickFacts and American Fact Finder, to collect demographic and socioeconomic
information (http://www.census.gov/data.html) and referenced the 2016 County Health Rankings
(www.couiityhealthrarikirigs.org) for general health information. As noted previously, the geographic
locations of the individual sewerage systems targeted by the proposed code changes was unknown at
the time of the analysis; therefore, demographics, socioeconomic status, and health status of the
specific populations affected by the three decision alternatives were unable to be determined. Following
is a profile of the population living in Suffolk County, NY at the time of the HIA analysis.
4.1.1 Population Size and Density
According to decennial Census data, from 1940 to 1970 the total population in Suffolk County grew by
471% (from 197,355 to 1,127,030 people) and total housing units increased by 343% (from 75,586 to
335,041 units). In comparison, over the next forty years (1970 to 2010), the total population grew only
32.5% and the number of housing units grew only 70.1% (See Figure 4-2). The drastic increase in
population between 1940 and 1970 is referred to as the "population boom." The most recent national
Page 32 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
survey (2010 Census) reported 1,493,350 residents living in Suffolk County or about 1,637 persons per
square mile.
Population, Suffolk County, NY Population, Nassau County, NY (for comparison)
Housing Units, Suffolk County, NY * Housing Units, Nassau County, NY (for comparison)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, National Decennial Census dataset, 1940-2010
1,600
1,400
= 1,200
| -o 1,000
I ซ
ฃ 3 800
^ t 600
400
200
1940 1950 1960
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Census Year
CkQ "O
?on
Population and Housing Unit Trends
,-> 1973 Revision to the
[Suffolk County Sanitary Code
Figure 4-2. Total population and housing unit trends overtime in Suffolk County, NY.
Nassau County statistics provided for comparison; Nassau County borders Suffolk
County to the west.
The increase in Suffolk County's population did not occur evenly across the County, but instead is largely
concentrated in the western portion of the County. The eastern portion remains relatively less
populated, with more agricultural farms and non-primary housing (i.e., vacation homes). Figure 4-3
maps population density across Suffolk County.
-t 1
10 20 mi
si" Block
Island
TjP v Sown!
Long Island Sound riJ ?-
SET*
Population Density
. 1 ' t (population / km2)
J
*W-
i
<1000
1001 - 1500
( 1501 -2000
2001 - 2500
>2500
Base Map: Esri. DeLorme. GEBCO, NOAA NGDC. and other contributors
Population: American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates. 2008-2012.
Figure 4-3. Population density across Census block groups in Suffolk County, NY
Page 33 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
4.1.2 Population Demographics
According to the 2010 Census, 74.2% of households in Suffolk County were family households and the
average household size was about three people (2.93). Residents in Suffolk County were almost
exclusively of "one race" (97.6%), and Anglo-Americans represented the predominant demographic
group (80.8%), with very little representation of African-American and Asian-American (7.5% and 3.4%,
respectively). One in six residents reported origins of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Over half of the
population (54.3%) was age 20 to 59. Table 4-1 provides the demographic information reported in the
decennial Census for residents of Suffolk County, with a comparison to New York State.
According to the 2013 State and County People Quick Facts (U.S. Census Bureau), Suffolk County has an
estimated 20.6% of residents that speak English as a second language at home. An estimated 89.8% of
residents are high school graduates. Persons under 5 years old represented 5.4% of the population;
whereas persons 65 years and older represented 14.9% of the population.
Table 4-1. Demographics among residents of Suffolk County, NY as compared to New York State
Indicator
Suffolk County
New York
Count*
Percent of Total
State
Total population
1,493,350
100.0%
19,378,102
0 to 9 years
183,803
12.3%
12.0%
10 to 19 years
213,359
14.3%
13.4%
20 to 59 years
811,117
54.3%
55.7%
60 to 69 years
145,930
9.8%
9.5%
70 years and over
139,141
9.3%
9.5%
Male population
734,668
49.2%
48.4%
Female population
758,682
50.8%
51.6%
One Race
1,457,319
97.6%
97.0%
Two or More Races
36,031
2.4%
3.0%
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity (of any race)f
246,239
16.5%
17.6%
Total households
499,922
100.0%
7,317,755
Family households
370,897
74.2%
63.5%
Average family size
3.36
-
3.2
Non-family households
129,025
25.8%
36.5%
Average household size
2.93
-
2.57
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census summary file
t For the 2010 Census, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity represents people whose origins are from the Dominican Republic,
Spain, and Spanish-speaking Central or South American countries.
The HIA Research Team utilized the data and GIS tools in the Environmental Justice Screening and
Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN; http://www.epa.gov/ejscreen) to develop a demographic index for the
County. EJScreen's Demographic Index is based on the average of two demographic indicators - percent
low income and percent minority - for each Census block group. Low income and minority populations
appear in isolated clusters across Suffolk County (Figure 4-4). It should be noted that the reservation of
Page 34 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
the federally-recognized Shinnecock tribal nation is one area with a high proportion of minority and low-
income residents.
Base Mao. Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO. NOAA NGDC. and other contributors
Demographic Index: US EPA EJScreen. 2015.
Figure 4-4. Demographic Index reflecting the average of % minority and % low income
in each Suffolk County block group.
4.1.3 General Health in Suffolk County, NY
According to 2016 County Health Rankings comparisons (www.countyhealthrankings.org], Suffolk
County ranked 9th best out of New York's 62 counties for overall health, based on several health-related
indicators, such as premature death and self-reported quality of life (University of Wisconsin Population
Health Institute, 2016). The County was ranked 10th best in the State for length of life, indicated by
premature deaths (i.e., avoidable deaths measured as the number of years of life lost before age 75 per
100,000 people). The estimated number of premature deaths (for 2011 to 2013) in Suffolk County was
5,300 per 100,000 people, which was not significantly different from the state rate (5,400 per 100,000
people). Furthermore, the rate of premature death in Suffolk County has been on the decline since
1997, a sign of improving overall health (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016).
Because health is a measure of the complete state of physical, emotional, and mental well-being (WHO,
1948), public health practitioners also monitor self-reported quality of life including days healthy versus
unhealthy (Andresen, Catlin, Wyrwich, & Jackson-Thompson, 2003). According to the 2016 County
Health Rankings comparisons (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016), Suffolk County
ranked 20th best in New York for self-reported quality of life among residents. Specifically, an estimated
12% of adults in Suffolk County reported that, in general, they had poor or fair health and adults
reported poor physical health or poor mental health an average of 3.1 days and 3.2 days, respectively, in
the previous 30 days. For comparison, neighboring Nassau County (which is demographically similar to
Suffolk County) ranked 2nd best out of New York's 62 counties in 2016 for overall health, 4th best for
Page 35 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
length of life (premature death rate of 4,400 per 100,000 people), and 8th best for self-reported quality
of life among residents.
4.1.4 Baseline Rates of Illness Associated with Pathogens That Can Be Found in
Human Waste
The risk of exposure to pathogens is applicable to multiple pathways examined in the HIA, therefore,
rates of illness associated with pathogens that can be found in human waste are presented here in the
overall profile of the Suffolk County population for simplicity. The baseline profile of health endpoints
associated with only one pathway are presented in their respective pathway discussions in Section 5.
There have been cases of disease in Suffolk County related to pathogens that can be found in human
waste (SCDHS, 2015a). It is important to note that exposure to these pathogens could have occurred
through a number of pathways (e.g., foodborne or waterborne routes, person-to-person transmission,
contact with contaminated fomites, etc.). Some of the potential water-related routes can include direct
contact with sewage (e.g., individual sewerage system or sewage treatment plant failure; addressed in
Section 4.2.5), drinking contaminated well water (addressed in Section 4.3.4), incidental ingestion (e.g.,
during bathing or recreating in contaminated surface waters; addressed in Section 4.3.6), or
aspiration/inhalation (EPA, 2002a).
Adapted from a Suffolk County Community Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a), Table 4-2 shows the
2012 baseline rates of illness in Suffolk County for some diseases associated with pathogens found in
human waste [per EPA (2002a)]. Based on existing data, most cases of these illnesses were caused by
bacteria, such as Shigella and Salmonella. While many of these diseases are primarily foodborne
pathogens, it is important to consider that pathogens present on food that we consume are eventually
excreted in our waste and end up in the wastewater stream. Suffolk County 2012 incidence rates of
diseases associated with pathogens that can be found in human waste were either not different from
New York State averages (Salmonella, hepatitis A) or significantly lower (E. coll 0157:H7, Shigella)
(NYSDOH, 2013).
Page 36 of 305
-------
Assessment - Profile of Suffolk County Population
Table 4-2. Baseline Rates of Illness Associated with Select Pathogens That Can Be Found in Human Waste in Suffolk County and New York State, 2012
Disease
Cause
Pathogen Type
Health Effects*
Suffolk Countyt
New York State,
Exclusive of New York Cityt
Cases
Rate
(per 100,000)
Cases
Rate
(per 100,000)
Amebiasis
Entamoeba histolytica
Protozoa
Prolonged diarrhea, abscesses of
the liver and small intestine
25
1.68
131
1.2
Cryptosporidiosis
Cryptosporidium hominis
and C. parvum
Protozoa
Diarrhea
14
0.94
229
2.0
Enterohemorrhagic
Shiga toxin-producing
Bacteria
Abdominal cramps, diarrhea,
9
0.60
141
1.2
E. coli (EHEC)
Escherichia coli (STEC)
nausea
E. coli 0157:H7
Escherichia coli 0157:H7
Bacteria
Abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhea
6
0.40
110
1.0
Giardiasis
Giardia duodenalis
Protozoa
Mild to severe diarrhea, indigestion,
nausea
84
5.64
975
8.7
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis A virus (HAV)
Virus
Fatigue, low appetite, stomach pain,
nausea, jaundice
8
0.54
63
0.6
Salmonellosis
Salmonella
Bacteria
Diarrhea, dehydration
217
14.56
1395
12.4
Shigellosis
Shigella spp.
Bacteria
Diarrhea, fever, and stomach
cramps
43
2.89
828
7.4
Typhoid Fever
Salmonella enterica
serovar Typhi
Bacteria
High fever, diarrhea, ulcers in the
small intestine
6
0.40
22
0.2
Non-Ol V. cholerae
Vibrio cholerae, non-Ol
serogroups
Bacteria
Extreme diarrhea, dehydration
17
1.14
N/A
N/A
*Source: EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (EPA, 2002a), WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO, 2017)
+Source: Suffolk County Community Health Assessment, 2014-2017 (SCDHS, 2015a)
tSource: New York State Department of Health 2012 Communicable Disease Reports (NYSDOH, 2013)
Page 37 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2. Individual Sewerage System Performance and
Failure: Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts
4.2.1 Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Pathways of Impact
Figure 4-5 shows the pathways by which the proposed code changes are expected to impact individual
sewerage system treatment performance and failure and ultimately, health.
Decision
Intermediate Impacts
Health Outcomes
A Suffolk Count}*
Sanitary Code, Article 6
Alternative I:
All existing individual
(onsite) sewage disposal
systems (OSDS) serving
single-family residences
must conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards.
Alternative II:
All existing OSDS serving
single-family residences in
high priority areas* must
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards.
Alternative III:
All existing individual
sewerage systems, either
cesspool-only systems or
"conventional" onsite
wastewater treatment
systems (OWTS), serving
single-family residences in
high priority areas* must
be upgraded to
innovative/ alternative
(I/A) OWTS.
A Presence of
Individual
Sewerage System
Technologies
OSDS (cesspool-
only)
"Conventional"
OWTS (septic
tank-leach pool)
I/A OWTS
A Individual
Sewerage Policies
Planning
Construction
Maintenance and
monitoring
See Economics Path ivar
A Failure Risk
A Structural Failure
Septic tank or cesspoolleach
pool collapse, deterioration,
and/or cover malfunction/
removal
See Vector
Control Pathway
\
See Resiliency Pathway
A Human
Injury/Death
from falling into
sewerage
system
A Hydraulic Failure
Malfunction of system leading
to septage backflow into home
and/or above ground
A Treatment Performance
Ability to control nutrients and
pathogens in effluent
A Human
Illness from
exposure to
untreated
wastewater
See Water Quality
Pathway
A = "change in"
*High priority areas include as areas in the 0-50 year groundwater contributing
zone to pubKc drinking water wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater
contributing zone to surface waters, areas located in SLOSH zones (Sea, Lake,
and Overland Surges from Hurricanes), and areas located where groundwater is
shallow (less than 10 feet below the surface)
Figure 4-5. Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Pathway Diagram.
A change in the Sanitary Code will require changes to existing policies on the planning, construction,
maintenance, and monitoring of individual sewerage systems. Individual sewerage system failure and
performance may impact health directly and indirectly through other pathways.
4.2.2 Impact of Code Changes on Individual Sewerage System Policies
In order to identify the potential impact of the proposed code changes, it is important to understand the
basics of the existing policies affecting individual sewerage systems. The New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH) and Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) develop and enforce
Page 38 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
decentralized wastewater rules, regulations, and standards within the State and issue guidelines for
implementation (NYSDOH, 2012; NYSDEC, 2014a). The NYSDOH regulates individual sewerage systems
through Title 10 of the Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations (10NYCRR). Appendix 75-A of Title
10, the Wastewater Treatment Standards for Residential Onsite Systems, specifically establishes the
minimum statewide requirements for all new residential OWTS (effective February 3, 2010).
A local health department may adopt more stringent standards and/or requirements but may not adopt
standards less stringent than the State standard unless the State Commissioner of Health has issued a
General Waiver (10NYCRR, Chapter II, Appendix 75-A). It is important to note that Suffolk County holds
several General Waivers for deviations from state design standards (NYSDOH, 2012).
Existing Individual Sewerage System Policies in Suffolk County at the Time of the HIA Analysis
When the HIA started, the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Suffolk County Code Chapter 760, revised
November 2011) and its implementing standards were in effect. The standards and articles of code
applicable to the decision, and considered in the HIA, included Article 6 (6/28/1995), General Guidance
Memorandum #12 (6/8/2000), and Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage
Disposal Systems for Single Family Residences (1/9/2004). During the course of the HIA analysis, Article
19 was added to the Sanitary Code (7/2016) and interim revisions were adopted to the Standards for
Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single Family Residences
(9/21/2016).
Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Realty Subdivisions, Developments and Other Construction
Projects and ง760-605) regulates individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County. In 1995, SCDHS issued
its Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction of Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-family
Residences. In September 2016, SCDHS prepared interim revisions to these standards to allow l/A OWTS
without the need for a variance from the Board of Review; additional revisions to the standards will be
forthcoming to address l/A OWTS specifications (SCDHS, 2016a).
Owners or developers of any new residential development, construction, or renovation of a property are
required to obtain approval for individual sewerage systems from SCDHS (Suffolk County Sanitary Code
ง760-602). For existing sewerage systems, SCDHS operates under General Guidance Memorandum #12
(Memo #12), Guidelines for Issuing Approval of Sewage Disposal Systems and Water Supplies for Existing
Residences (issued June 8, 2000), which states that residences that have a sewage disposal system
constructed prior to 1973 are exempt from conforming to current code requirements and construction
standards, since they conformed to the standards at the time they were built.
Historically, individual sewerage systems have been constructed on sites, such as those with a high
groundwater table, impervious soils, and shallow bedrock or limestone formations, all of which are
potentially unsuitable for this type of wastewater management system (EPA, 1997; Seabloom, 1982).
Now, to ensure this construction practice does not continue, a site analysis is required and must include
"an analysis of the flood plain, slope, soil type, percolation rate, depth to limiting layer or groundwater,
and adequate area" (Kneen & Lemley, 1994; NYSDOH, 2012). In Suffolk County, a state-certified design
professional is responsible for taking into consideration these elements, as well as locations of existing
Page 39 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
and proposed water supply wells, surface waters and wetlands, planned improvements such as
foundations and driveways, and construction on adjacent properties (SCDHS, 1995; SCDHS, 2016a).
A site chosen for an individual sewerage system must be
located in an area where subsoil and groundwater
conditions are conducive to the proper functioning of the
system (SCDHS, 1995; SCDHS, 2016a). According to
NYSDOH (2012), native/original soil must extend at least
two feet beneath the proposed trench bottom to
sufficiently treat the wastewater, before it reaches either
the seasonal high water table or an impermeable soil
layer.
Moreover, the Suffolk County Standards (SCDHS, 1995;
SCDHS, 2016a) provide alternate design, construction,
and installation requirements for individual sewerage
systems in high groundwater conditions, and now with
the 2016 revisions, also outline criteria if septic tanks or
l/A OWTS treatment components have to be placed
within the groundwater (albeit, the standards indicate
"whenever practical," individual sewerage systems
should not be located within groundwater). Although
tanks and treatment components are permitted to be
placed in groundwater or tidally-influenced areas in
some instances, the bottom of any leaching structures in the individual sewerage system must be at
least two or three feet above the highest expected/recorded groundwater elevation. For further site
conditions/requirements, refer to Suffolk County Interim Standards for Approval of Plans and
Construction - Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-family Residences (SCDHS, 2016a).
There are additional restrictions, other than site conditions, for siting individual sewerage systems. For
example, the installation of an individual sewerage system is prohibited when the site to be developed is
within a sewer district or has an approved sewer system and treatment works available and accessible
(pursuant to Suffolk County Administrative Code ง740-44-A and ง760-502-4(a) and Suffolk County
Sanitary Code ง760-502-4(c)). If at some point a County central sewage service becomes available and
accessible in an area, the residence is required to connect within one year to the County sewage works
(pursuant to Suffolk County Administration Code ง740-14). However, the number of eligible systems
present in sewer districts was unknown at the time of the HIA analysis.
Pursuant to Suffolk County Administrative Code ง740-44-A and ง760-502-4(a) and Suffolk
County Sanitary Code ง760-502-4(c), ensure sites with individual sewerage systems that are
required to be upgraded as part of the changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code are given
the option to tie into sewer, if an approved sewer system is accessible and has capacity.
After soil testing and site evaluation, a determination is made as to which system design can be
installed. Individual sewerage systems are typically designed based on the anticipated wastewater flow.
Page 40 of 305
Soils and Siting
Inadequate or impermeable soil is the
predominant limiting factor for siting
individual sewerage systems because
improper soil will prevent wastewater
from percolating through the system
and impede sufficient treatment
(Kneen & Lemley, 1994). Four feet
(depth) of "acceptable" soil is needed
to install most conventional soil
absorption (drain) fields (Kneen &
Lemley, 1994). In Suffolk County, the
soils are generally permeable, but
there are some areas, particularly in
northern parts of the County, where
the soils tend to be less permeable.
Depth of soil is an issue in Suffolk
County, as there are areas where the
depth to groundwater is less than 10
feet.
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
SCDHS (2016a) also provides prescriptive construction criteria and installation standards for septic tanks,
leaching pools, and l/A OWTS, including the types of materials, piping configurations, and access
openings and cover (see Suffolk County Interim Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction -
Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-family Residences for more information).
With regard to maintenance of systems, New York State allows localities the authority to adopt and/or
require maintenance and/or management programs for individual sewerage systems. For example,
Chapter 374 of the Suffolk County Code addresses the use of additives, which can help break down
sludge and/or scum to decrease the need of evacuating an individual sewerage system. Guidelines for
individual sewerage system maintenance (e.g., inspections and pumping) are communicated to
homeowners, but adoption of those best management practices are at the discretion of the
homeowner. With the issuance of the Interim Standards (SCDHS, 2016a), the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code requires an initial 3-year warranty and an executed operation and maintenance contract between
the maintenance provider and property owner prior to approval of an l/A OWTS. And Article 19 of the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCDHS, 2016b), adopted in July 2016, outlines the role of SCDHS for
overseeing that l/A OWTS are properly managed, maintained and provide the intended levels of
treatment. This may necessitate a culture shift that calls for greater involvement by the County and
puts more requirements on Suffolk County homeowners, limiting the autonomy of the homeowner
with regard to sewerage system maintenance. It should be noted that there could be some challenges
and barriers to making a culture shift like this.
Suffolk County could consider potential barriers to implementing and enforcing policies
' * related to individual sewerage systems and develop strategies to overcome such barriers.
Anticipated Change(s) to Individual Sewerage System Policies
Table 4-3 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on individual sewerage system
policies for each decision alternative.
Table 4-3. Impact of Decision on Policies Regarding Individual Sewerage Systems
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Policies
Baseline
SCDHS operates under existing policies and procedures (i.e., "business as
usual"). Homeowners have autonomy with the management of their individual
sewerage systems.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
All General Waivers under Memorandum #12* will be rendered defunct.
Cesspool/septic system service professionals will be required to report systems
needing upgrades to SCDHS. SCDHS will assign a fixed schedule for each region
in which property owners must upgrade the sewerage system. In the event of
a property sale, the seller will be required to obtain a certificate from SCDHS
verifying the existing OSDS conforms to current codes and standards.
Page 41 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Policies
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
General Waivers under Memorandum #12 will be rendered defunct for
residences in high priority areas. Cesspool/septic system service professionals
will be required to report systems needing upgrades to SCDHS. SCDHS will
assign a fixed schedule in which property owners must upgrade the sewerage
system. In the event of a property sale, the seller will be required to obtain a
certificate from SCDHS verifying the existing OSDS conforms to current codes
and standards.
(Homeowners outside the high priority areas will maintain autonomy with the
management of their individual sewerage systems.)
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Suffolk County Interim Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction of
Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-family Residences (SCDHS, 2016a) must be
amended to permit alternative system designs approved by SCDHS for sites
that meet 2016 Interim Standards (Sept. 21, 2016). General Waivers under
Memorandum #12 will be rendered defunct for residences in high priority
areas. Cesspool/septic system service professionals will be required to report
systems needing upgrades to SCDHS. SCDHS will assign a fixed schedule in
which property owners must upgrade the sewerage system. In the event of a
property sale, the seller will be required to obtain a certificate from SCDHS
verifying the existing OSDS conforms to current codes and standards.
(Homeowners outside the high priority areas will maintain autonomy with the
management of their individual sewerage systems.)
*Memorandum #12, Guidelines for Issuing Approval of Sewage Disposal Systems and Water Supplies for Existing Residences
states that residences that have a sewage disposal system constructed prior to 1973 are exempt from conforming to current
code requirements and construction standards, since they conformed to the standards at the time they were built.
Implementation of an alternative that only addresses parcels in high priority areas (Alternatives II and
III), may come with fairness and conformity concerns8. For example, builders, installers, service
providers, and realtors will not likely want to have to look at a detailed map and wonder what side of
the "priority line" a property is on and whether it requires upgrade. These options would also likely
come with concerns over fairness amongst who has to versus does not have to upgrade and how those
costs are distributed (for more on costs, see Section 4.6).
Develop tools that cesspool/septic service contractors can easily and consistently deploy to
determine whether a system is in need of maintenance, repair, or upgrade and document the
issue(s), such as a checklist or logic framework for use in the field and/or an open-access, web-
based platform for documenting issues and reporting properties that need to upgrade their
individual sewerage systems.
8 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, refine
priority areas in which to focus those efforts, and establish recommended wastewater treatment alternatives through science-
based criteria. For more on this effort, see Appendix K.
Page 42 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2.3 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Policy Changes on Presence of
Individual Sewerage System Technologies
Each alternative associated with the proposed changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code will affect
the type of individual sewerage systems in use in Suffolk County.
Existing Individual Sewerage Systems Designs in Use in Suffolk County at the Time of the HIA Analysis
There are currently two predominant designs of individual sewerage systems in use by single-family
residences in Suffolk County - the septic tank-leaching pool system (C-OWTS) and the cesspool (only)
system (referred to as OSDS in Suffolk County). There are also a very small number of septic tank-soil
absorption field systems.
Septic Tank-Leaching Pool System
The septic tank-leaching pool system that serves single-family residences in Suffolk County is known as
the "conventional" OWTS (C-OWTS) (SCDHS, 1995; SCDHS, 2016a). It utilizes the septic tank as basic or
primary treatment (Figure 4-6). Wastewater enters the underground septic tank, where natural
processes physically separate the liquid component from heavier solids and lighter oils (EPA, 2001a;
EPA, 2005a). Oil and grease float to the top forming "scum" and the larger solids and organic matter
settle at the bottom forming "sludge." Although highly dependent on other variables (usage, volume,
etc.), after approximately 24 to 48 hours, the liquid portion leaves the tank as "effluent" and drains to
the leaching pool, where it is stored until it is distributed and absorbed into the surrounding soil (Figure
4-6). Some anaerobic digestion of organic matter may take place in the septic tank (Beal, Gardner, &
Menzies, 2005a), along with a limited (1-logio)9 reduction in pathogens (Lowe, et al., 2009).
9 "Log reduction" is a mathematical term used to show the relative number of pathogens eliminated by treatment or
disinfection. A 1-logio reduction means lowering the number of pathogens by 10-fold. That is, if the raw wastewater going into
the individual sewerage system had 100,000 pathogens in it, a 1-logio reduction would reduce the number of pathogens in the
liquid effluentwhat comes directly out of the individual sewerage system, taking into account settling/treatment within the
system and pumping from the system (if any)to 10,000. This level of reduction may not be protective of human health.
Page 43 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
leaching pool. Source: (Suffolk County Government, 2015a)
A leaching pool is a pit with precast perforated walls, an open bottom, and a removable metal or
concrete slab covering just below the ground surface for monitoring and maintenance. The leaching
pool, although the same in design, is by name different from a cesspool because a leaching pool accepts
septic tank effluent rather than untreated (raw) wastewater (SCDHS, 1995; SCDHS, 2016a).
Cesspool (referred to as OSDS in Suffolk County)
A cesspool is a pit with perforated walls, an open bottom, and a metal or concrete slab cover. Although
the same design as a leaching pool, a cesspool accepts untreated (raw) wastewater instead of septic
tank effluent. Historically, cesspools were constructed with brick and mortar or concrete blocks that
break down over time making them increasingly susceptible to collapse. Newer cesspools can be
constructed with reinforced, precast concrete, which make them less susceptible to collapse. However,
many cesspools in Suffolk County were installed before 1973 and are assumed not to be reinforced.
Septic Tank-Soil Absorption System
In the septic tank-soil absorption system, septic tank effluent discharges into soil through shallowly-
buried perforated pipes, known as the soil absorption field, where it undergoes secondary treatment.
Within the soil absorption field, effluent drains through the biomat zone (i.e., a heterogenic mixture of
organic matter, soil, and microbials), where natural biological processes further separate out smaller
organic matter from wastewater and microorganisms convert ammonia into nitrate (i.e., a process
called nitrification). When the soil is saturated (wet and depleted of oxygen), bacteria in the soil use the
nitrate as an oxygen source - converting the nitrate-nitrogen (N03-) to gaseous forms of nitrogen (N2) -
in a process called denitrification (Johnson, Albrecht, Ketterings, Beckman, & Stockin, 2005).The septic
tank-soil absorption system relies on the soil for treatment and thus, "is limited to locations with
moderately permeable soils and relatively high soil depths to the water table or impermeable strata"
(Kreissl, 1982). Due to parcel size, soil conditions, and hydrogeology, the number of septic tank-soil
Page 44 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
absorption systems in Suffolk County is limited (NYSDOH, 2012; Suffolk County Government, 2013a).
According to a survey of homeowners, only about 76 of these systems exist throughout the east end of
the County (Berry, 2015).
In Suffolk County, the "conventional" OWTS is the septic tank-leaching pool (vertical) system.
Q However, elsewhere in the professional and scientific literature, the septic tank-soil absorption
(horizontal) system (originally patented by Mouras in 1881) is referred to as a conventional
OWTS (Bennett & Linstedt, 1978). Although they are similar in terminology, the septic tank-soil
absorption system is technologically different from the septic tank-leaching pool system.
Because of the highly permeable soils present on Long Island, conventional septic systems there
have not included a horizontal leaching field commonplace in most other parts of the U.S. The
vertical pools employed on Long Island can be effective in dealing with the hydraulics and
pathogens in domestic wastewater, as long as they are properly maintained and there is an
appropriate separation distance between the bottom of the system and the water table as well
as any private drinking water well. However, neither conventional vertical nor horizontal
systems are especially effective in removing nitrogen, hence the need for denitrifying systems
where excessive nitrogen load is an issue. Although well maintained conventional septic systems
can provide acceptable wastewater treatment at low densities and where soil conditions and
separation from groundwater and surface waters are adequate, these conditions are not
generally met in Suffolk County.
The NYSDOH (2012) Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook
L I acknowledges the reduced treatment capability of leaching pools and states if soil and site
conditions are adequate for absorption trenches or beds, leaching pools shall not be used.
However, NYSDOH has issued general waivers to allow the use of leaching pools in Suffolk
County due to the "nature of construction, soil conditions and known hydrogeology". It is
important to keep this difference in terminology in mind when examining the existing literature
on design, siting, and performance of conventional OWTS, as the data may not be relevant to
Suffolk County's "conventional" systems.
Innovative/Alternative OWTS
The l/A OWTS are innovative types of individual sewerage system designed specifically for nitrogen
control and reduction and were included in the proposed code changes as an alternative to C-OWTS.
Recall that at the time the code changes were proposed, no l/A OWTS was approved for general use in
Suffolk County. However, in December 2014, Suffolk County launched a Septic Demonstration Pilot
Project to evaluate l/A OWTS technologies, and in July 2016, the Suffolk County Legislature gave SCDHS
the authority to develop procedures, protocols, and standards for approving the use of l/A OWTS
throughout the County. Six weeks later, the first l/A OWTS technology was provisionally approved for
residential use. Since that time, additional l/A OWTS technologies have been provisionally approved for
residential use in Suffolk County (see Appendix K).
Page 45 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Existing Presence of Individual Sewerage System Technologies in Suffolk County at the Time of the HIA
Analysis
At the time of this HIA analysis, Suffolk County did not have an inventory of individual sewerage
system locations or types. Some towns and hamlets tracked this information, but not consistently.
Suffolk County developed estimates of the number of OSDS (pre-1973 systems) and C-OWTS (post-1973
systems) countywide, but the methodology used to develop those estimates was unknown. Therefore,
HIA estimates were developed by the HIA Project Team to allow for geographic analysis of the number
and type of individual sewerage systems impacted by each decision alternative and to provide
transparent, defensible documentation of the estimated number of households that could potentially be
impacted by the code changes.
More specifically, the HIA Research Team used parcel (property) shapefiles from the Suffolk County Real
Property Tax Agency Service and overlaid them with the best available data from the U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), Suffolk
County Government, and others using GIS-based methods. Residential parcel boundaries that were not
contained within or did not intersect sewered areas were examined for their geographic proximity to
high priority areas, and other factors. This approach is consistent with the approach used in other
studies performed in Suffolk County, including Kinney and Valiela (2011) and Lloyd (2014). Refer to
Appendix G of this report for a more detailed discussion of the methods used and the rationale for any
discrepancies with Suffolk County estimates.
Note: The HIA estimates developed by the HIA Research Team assume parcels not intersecting
or contained within sewered areas are unsewered and do not further distinguish "unsewered
parcels" into individual or cluster wastewater systems; unsewered parcels are assumed to be
served by individual sewerage systems for purposes of this analysis.
Note: Because the proposed sanitary code changes pertain only to individual sewerage systems
at single-family residences, only these residences were included in the HIA analyses (i.e.,
multifamily and commercial parcels served by individual sewerage systems were excluded).
However, there were inconsistencies in the reported parcel classification codes, which limited
the ability to identify, with certainty, all single-family residential parcels in Suffolk County. The
figures presented herein do not reflect the total number of individual sewerage systems
present in Suffolk County, but rather just for single-family residential parcels.
Note: In determining which unsewered, single-family residential parcels are located in high
priority areas, parcels were identified that either intersected or were within high priority areas
and the numbers were tallied. In an effort to be more consistent with Suffolk County estimates,
the HIA Research Team utilized counts of parcels within the high priority areas in the HIA
analyses. It should be noted that this may underestimate the number of residential parcels
affected by the proposed code changes (see Appendix G).
Using this methodology, the HIA Research Team calculated that there are 488,375 single-family
residential properties (parcels) in Suffolk County. Of these properties, 385,117 are unsewered and
Page 46 of 305
-------
Assessment - individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
assumed to be served by an individual sewerage system (Figure 4-7). Of those 385,117 parcels, 251,502
(65.3%) are located in SCDHS-designated high priority areas (i.e., areas in the 0-50 year groundwater
contributing zone to public drinking water wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater contributing
zone to surface waters, areas located in a SLOSH zone, and areas located where groundwater is less than
10 feet below grade).
Note: As discussed above, data are limited regarding the types of individual sewerage systems
present in Suffolk County and their locations, such that identifying where older OSDS systems are
located within the County was not possible for this HIA. Some local municipalities maintain
information about residences and sewerage systems; however, that information is not consistently
recorded across municipalities, nor is it collected at the County level, according to SCDHS.
Base Map: Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Sewered Areas: Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning, 2012.
Parcels: Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service.
20 mi
Sewered Areas
Residential Parcels Not
Within Sewered Areas
Figure 4-7. Unsewered single-family residences.These residences (n=385,117) are
assumed to be served by individual sewerage systems.
The HIA Research Team used existing data from national and local surveys/studies to estimate what
percent of the existing unsewered, single family residential parcels are likely to be served by OSDS
(cesspool). As indicated previously, prior to 1973, individual sewerage systems for single-family homes in
Suffolk County consisted of an OSDS. In 1973, that requirement changed to a C-OWTS. Considering that
the sanitary code policies at the time of the HIA allowed for structures to be replaced in-kind, housing
structure age was used as a proxy for individual sewerage system age. Therefore, housing structures
built prior to 1970 were assumed to be served by OSDS for this analysis.
~ Note: The parcel data obtained from the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency did
not include age of housing. Best available data on the age of housing units in Suffolk County
came from housing survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates (2008-2012), but these data are only available at the Census block group level.
Figure 4-8 maps the Census block groups ranked by a) the number of housing units built before 1970, b)
the number of housing units that are single-family, and c) those two indicators grouped by quartiles and
Page 47 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
shown relative to the location of high priority areas in Suffolk County. The areas highlighted in pink in
the figure are those most likely to have a high proportion of residences served by OSDS. As shown, the
majority of Census block groups that are more likely to have a high proportion of single-family
residences served by OSDS are also located in high priority areas.
Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning (SCDEDP) estimates that 252,530 of
the unsewered parcels pre-date the requirement for a septic tank (Suffolk County Government, 2015a),
and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-year estimates show that approximately 315,602
housing units (i.e., 55.5% of the 568,570 total [single and multi-family] housing units in Suffolk County at
that time) were built before 1970.
Page 48 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
0 321 437 578 2155
QUARTILE
c) Quartiles and High Priority Areas
b) Housing Units, 1-Unit Attached or Detached fK"
30 mi
Housing Units A + B
Quartiles 1 and 2
Quartiles 3 and 4
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Housing Estimates: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 4-8. Census block groups ranked by a) number of all (single and multi-family)
housing units built before 1970, b) number of housing units that are single-family,
and c) a compilation of those two indicators relative to the location of high priority
areas (HPAs) in Suffolk County.
Page 49 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Based on the data available, the HIA Research Team determined that a reasonable estimate for the
number of existing, individual sewerage systems that precede the 1973 standards, would be at least
50% of unsewered, single-family residential parcels. This estimate is consistent with those used in other
studies performed in Suffolk County, including Stinnette (2014), Lloyd (2014), and Gobler (2016). It is
important to note that this value may actually underestimate the public health impacts associated with
the proposed sanitary code changes.
%JL' Regardless of the decision alternative chosen, Suffolk County could create an inventory of
S$/x existing individual sewerage systems, including their geolocation, design type, and (if possible)
maintenance schedule (last inspection/evacuation) to aid in identifying residences affected by
the decision and enforcing the code change. This inventory can be accomplished through
sewage industry reporting of cesspool, septic tank and l/A OWTS pump outs, retrofits, and
replacements.
Table 4-4 summarizes the estimated presence of individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County. The
number of persons served by those systems is based on the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Decennial Census
summary file, which indicated that the total population in Suffolk County in 2010 was 1,493,350 and the
average household size was 2.93 persons. To calculate the number of persons served by each type of
system, it was assumed that each of the calculated single-family parcels contained one household.
Table 4-4. Number of Single-family Residential Parcels and Persons Served by Individual Sewerage Systems in
Suffolk County
Parcel Description
Total
Count
Total
Persons
Served*
Unsewered, Single-family Residential Parcels, assumed to be
served by individual sewerage systems
385,117
(Baseline)
1,128,3931
Unsewered, Single-family Residential Parcels, assumed to be
served by individual sewerage systems, in High Priority Areas
251,502
(Alternative III)
736,901
Unsewered, Single-family Residential Parcels, assumed to be
served by OSDS {50% of the total 385,117}
192,558
(Alternative 1)
564,195
Unsewered, Single-family Residential Parcels, assumed to be
served by OSDS, in High Priority Areas {50% of the total high
priority 251,502}
125,751
(Alternative II)
368,451
* Assuming 2.93 persons per household per the 2010 Census.
Anticipated Change(s) to the Presence of Individual Sewerage System Technologies
Table 4-5 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on the presence of individual
sewerage system technologies for each decision alternative.
Page 50 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Table 4-5. Impact of Decision on Presence of Individual Sewerage System Technologies
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Technologies
Baseline
There are 385,117 unsewered, single-family residences, which are
assumed to represent residences served by individual sewerage systems.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
If about 50% of unsewered, single-family homes are served by OSDS, an
estimated 192,558 residences will be required to upgrade their individual
sewerage system to a C-OWTS.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Based on GIS mapping of unsewered parcels (see Appendix G), the total
number of unsewered, single-family parcels in the high priority areas is
251,502. If about 50% of these parcels are served by OSDS, an estimated
125,751 residences will be required to upgrade their individual sewerage
system to a C-OWTS.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Based on GIS mapping of unsewered parcels (see Appendix G), an
estimated 251,502 residences will be required to upgrade their individual
sewerage system to an l/A OWTS.
V-v' Perform homeowner outreach early and often and provide information on each system
design, including the average life span, operation and maintenance needs, average treatment
performance, signs of system failure, and the benefits of routine inspections and maintenance
(e.g., increase in system longevity, reduced costs over the life of the system). Outreach may
help resolve disagreements as to the necessary maintenance of an individual sewerage system
and may help manage expectations for system performance and needs.
There are many resources available for educational outreach materials, such as those
developed by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and EPA.
Over the past 30 years, the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) has provided technical
assistance, training, and educational outreach
publications, such as Pipeline, Tap, and Small Flows
Quarterly, for consumers and communities on
OWTS performance, design, inspections, issues, etc.
The NSFC is located at West Virginia University,
managed through the National Center for Coal and
Industry. For more information, visit:
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/index.cfm.
The EPA provides resources to support homeowner
awareness, education, and management of septic
systems (https://www.epa.gov/septic) and Voluntary
National Guidelines for Management ofOnsite and
Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems to help communities establish comprehensive
management programs so their decentralized systems
function properly. These resources focus on outreach,
education, planning, operation and maintenance, and
financial assistance.
Page 51 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2.4 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage System Technology on System
Failure
At the time of the HIA, there was no official definition in New York State law nor the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code that defined "failure" of an individual sewerage system10. General symptoms of septic
system failure include "wastewater backing up into plumbing, wastewater flow/breakthrough to ground
surface, and/or flow or evidence of flow into watercourses or water supply" (National Environmental
Services Center, n.d.). Neither the State of New York nor Suffolk County monitor causes of system
failure. Carroll et al. (2006) stress that it is crucial to understand that "failure" can occur at any stage of
the individual sewerage system, such as in the plumbing/piping and storage area, in the disposal unit, or
in the underlying soil and groundwater system. A system in failure may not always be visible.
Researchers agree that most failures are not due to the system itself, but due to improper siting,
inadequate design, and/or improper operation and maintenance (Carroll, et al., 2006).
In general, there are two types of failure commonly recognized: the first being hydraulic failure and the
second being structural failure.
Note: Beal, Gardner and Menzies (2005a) characterize treatment failure as "an insufficient hydraulic
retention time within the soil matrix, thus precluding adequate treatment of effluent before entering
the groundwater." Section 4.2.7 discusses factors related to treatment performance (and failure), so
this section will only focus on hydraulic failure and structural failure.
Hydraulic failure occurs when "effluent loading rate into the disposal unit is greater than the infiltration
rate through the biomat zone," or more generally, with surfacing and/or pooling of wastewater/effluent
(surcharge) above the system, sewage pipe blockage and backup into pipes and fixtures of the home,
offensive odors above the sewerage system, and excessive grass growth over the system (Beal, Gardner,
& Menzies, 2005b; Carroll, et al., 2006; Conn, Habteselassie, Bloackwood, & Noble, 2012; Loomis, 2014;
Friends of the Bay, 2011; National Small Flows Clearinghouse, n.d.; EPA, 2005a; Suffolk County
Government, 2013b; CDM Cesspool Service, 2015; Mid Suffolk Cesspool and Rooter Service, Inc, 2015).11
Brouwer et al. (1979), Geary (1994), and Dawes and Goonetilleke (2001) found that wastewater
discharged onto the soil surface (i.e., aboveground surcharge) was a common occurrence among older
and/or poorly designed septic systems. Hydraulic failure can be further confirmed using fluorescein dye
tests by placing the dye in a household drain/plumbing system and observing the dye around or on top
of the sewerage system (Habteselassie, et al., 2011; Conn, Habteselassie, Bloackwood, & Noble, 2012).
10 Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code was amended in January 2018 (after completion of the HIA analysis) and now
includes a definition of a failed system. For more information on the definition, see Appendix K.
11 The January 2018 ammendment to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code defines failure of a cesspool or
individual sewerage system as one "that does not adequately treat and/or dispose wastewater so as to create a public or
private nuisance or threat to public health or environmental quality," and includes conditions of both hydraulic and
structural failure, including above ground pooling of wastewater, pumping four or more times per year, seepage of
groundwater into the individual sewerage system, etc.
Page 52 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
There are two subcategories of hydraulic failure - catastrophic and episodic. When infiltrative surfaces
are clogged and flow into the subsoil is inhibited, this type of failure is usually irrevocable and thus,
referred to as a catastrophic hydraulic failure (Beal, Gardner, & Menzies, 2005a). A catastrophic failure
ends in the system being repaired or replaced entirely. When there is an overload of water going into
the system, as a result of peak loadings or prolonged rainfall, yet infiltration into the subsoil is still
possible, this type of failure is usually temporary and referred to as an episodic hydraulic failure (Beal,
Gardner, & Menzies, 2005a). This type of failure may require a short-term solution, such as pumping out
the system, or may resolve on its own as wastewater eventually drains into the subsoil.
Structural failure is broadly used to describe major mechanical malfunctions of a system, but is more
specifically defined in this analysis as the collapse, deterioration, and/or cover malfunction/removal
(absence) of the septic tank or cesspool/leaching pool.
In a report by the Onsite Wastewater Working Group (a collaboration between Warren County Soil and
Water Conservation District and Adirondack Community College in New York), the Working Group
stated, "all septic systems will eventually fail - an issue compounded by the general lack of proper
maintenance from homeowners" (Onsite Wastewater Working Group, n.d.). A lack of routine evacuation
(pumping out) of an individual sewerage system can lead to a build-up of solids that clog the biomat and
subsoil, leading to backflow of wastewater. Planting deep-rooted vegetation and/or paving above the
soil field can also pose a higher risk for failure of the soil field.
VjNf Promote routine pumping of OSDS and OWTS in order to reduce the risk of hydraulic failure
and retention of standing water.
Vjsf Take into consideration good practice in the siting, design, installation, and maintenance of
individual sewerage systems. For example, gardens and deep-root vegetation, such as large
trees, should not be located near or over the individual sewerage system, since large roots
and excess plant watering can be damaging to the system.
Beal, Gardner, and Menzies (2005a) note that correct design and maintenance of an individual sewerage
system can substantially reduce the potential of failure. The septic tank should be watertight, the
drainfield properly leveled and graded, and operating heavy equipment over the soil absorption field
should be avoided (EPA, 2005a). If the septic tank is not watertight, groundwater and stormwater could
mix with untreated wastewater, leading to environmental hazards and aboveground surfacing of
untreated wastewater. Also, during a flood event, the septic tank can become buoyant which can lead to
structural damage and unplanned mixing of wastewater with floodwaters.
Existing Conditions Regarding Individual Sewerage System Failure in Suffolk County at the Time of the
HIA Analysis
Hydraulic Failure
Suffolk County estimates close to a 10% rate of hydraulic failure each year of existing individual
sewerage systems (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). If there are an estimated 385,117 unsewered,
single-family residences, it follows that an estimated 38,512 systems fail each year. SCDHS records and
investigates nuisance complaints reporting system failures (i.e., sewage overflows - when individual
Page 53 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
sewerage systems back up into the home or surcharge aboveground). However, reported individual
sewerage system failures are much lower than the estimated failure rates; see Figure 4-9 for reported
complaints to SCDHS. Beal, Gardner, and Menzies (2005b) cites "the unwillingness of public to report a
failure, the lack of knowledge of when a system is in failure, and/or the low perceived risk of system in
failure" as potential causes for the underreporting. It is postulated that most homeowners would call a
service provider to have a hydraulic failure fixed without ever notifying the health department; this
would suggest that reported cases of hydraulic failure may primarily come from rental properties, which
can explain some underreporting of system failure.
Given the nature of ISS in Suffolk County (i.e. septic tank-leaching pool systems placed lower in
the soil), there may be relatively little ponding of untreated wastewater above surface and thus
back-up into the home could be the more likely sign of hydraulic failure.
Figure 4-9 plots the total number of reported complaints verified by SCDHS as individual sewerage
systems in hydraulic failure by month over the past several years.
00
00
00
CD
CD
O
O
O
i
o
o
o
o
O
1
1
1
i
c
c
>
1
Q.
-Q
~z~
6
>~
CU
3
o
Q.
(D
(D
(D
CU
2
<
on
u_
o
>>^<00U- O
Month, Year
Figure 4-9. Reported complaints to SCDHS of individual sewerage system hydraulic failure from
January 2008 to December 2015. It is postulated that hydraulic failure may be underreported.
There is an overall decreasing trend of reported sewerage complaints over time, with cyclic higher
frequencies in summer months (May through August) and lower frequencies in winter months (October
through February). When looking at average complaints by month, there is an observable peak (higher
sewerage complaints) reported during the spring and summer months (i.e., during the rainy season and
vacation season), as indicated in Figure 4-10. While there is no indication in the SCDHS data whether the
sewerage complaints were related to episodic or catastrophic failure, the trend shown in Figure 4-10
indicates that at least some portion of the failures are likely episodic (e.g., related to higher rainfall or
increased water usage).
Page 54 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Figure 4-10. Average complaints to SCDHS of individual sewerage system hydraulic failure, by month, from
January 2008 to December 2015.
Scavenger waste as a proxy for hydraulic failure
Septage waste pumped out of an individual sewerage system by a technician (i.e., scavenger waste) is
transported to a treatment or holding facility. There are only a few sewage treatment plants and storage
facilities in Suffolk County that accept this scavenger waste, so the waste that is received may originate
from areas throughout the County. Incoming scavenger waste data were available for two sewage
treatment plants in Suffolk County at the time of the HIA analysis. The HIA Research Team acquired the
data directly from one sewage treatment plant and from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works
for the other plant. Both of these sewage treatment plants were located in Western Suffolk County,
where the majority of the complaints originated, but may accept scavenger waste from locations
throughout the County. The incoming scavenger waste data were analyzed, along with reported
complaints of individual sewerage system hydraulic failure, to glean information on maintenance habits
and as a proxy for hydraulic system failure (as the scavenger waste received by the facilities could have
been waste from routine pumping or failure of the individual sewerage systems).
Figure 4-11 plots the total incoming scavenger waste at these two sewage treatment plants over the
past few years. The average total incoming scavenger waste was 32.5 million gallons per year (minimum
= 30 million gallons in 2014, maximum = 36 million gallons in 2009).
Page 55 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
40000000
35000000
m 30000000
J 25000000
5 20000000
S 15000000
O
10000000
5000000
0
2009
2010
2011 2012
Year
2013
2014
Figure 4-11. Total incoming scavenger waste to two sewage treatment plants in
Suffolk County, 2009-2014.
Both treatment plants show an overall decreasing trend of incoming scavenger waste. Similar to the
trend seen in individual sewerage system complaints, there is also a seasonal variation with higher
scavenger waste going to the treatment plants during the spring and summer months (April to August)
and lower scavenger waste going in during the fall and winter (October to March). Figure 4-12 plots the
total incoming scavenger waste reported from each sewage treatment plant.
3000000
2500000
2000000
1000000
500000
mm^-^-LnLntDtDr^r^oooocDCDOO^H^Hr\jr\jroro'^-'^-LnLntDtDr^r^oooocDCDOO^-i^-i(N(Nroro^-^-LOLO
010101^010101C^(^C^(^C^C^C^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHd
STPi_Total_gal Month/Year
STP2_Total_gal
Figure 4-12. Incoming scavenger waste to each of two sewage treatment plants in Suffolk County by month from
January 1993 to July 2015.
The HIA Research Team also evaluated to what extent incoming scavenger waste or complaints
regarding onsite systems are affected by precipitation. Monthly precipitation data was obtained for 14
weather stations throughout Suffolk County from NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network (NOAA,
2015a), and average annual precipitation and annual maximum monthly precipitation was analyzed for
Page 56 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
each station from 1979-2015. The locations of these weather stations coincided with locations of
hydraulic failure complaints, although not all areas filing complaints had corresponding weather station
data available. The data from these 14 stations was used to create an overall precipitation profile for the
County, by which to compare the other data.
As precipitation increased, incoming scavenger waste and complaints about onsite systems also
increased. These findings support the understanding that as average precipitation increases, some
sewerage systems may need to be evacuated more frequently. During prolonged rainfall, there is an
overload of water going into the system, slowing infiltration and in some cases, causing backups into the
home or pooling above ground. Figure 4-13 shows incoming scavenger waste plotted across number of
sewerage complaints and average monthly precipitation. The HIA Research Team found positive
correlations between all three parameters (sewerage complaints, precipitation, and incoming scavenger
waste). However, significance of correlation was only present between incoming scavenger waste and
the number of sewerage complaints, indicating that incoming scavenger waste may be a good indicator
of hydraulic failure. Average precipitation was not significantly correlated with individual sewerage
system failure (i.e., reported sewerage complaints), indicating that other factors, such as changes in
wastewater loading to system, maintenance, or age of the system, more likely influence the
performance of the system.
50
50-
0-
Total
incoming
scavenger
septage
. .&< ฆ
t
' :
*
# 1
Total
sewerage
complaints
V
m
. *
; .
*. .
Average
Monthly
Precipitation
4.0e+06
3.0e+06
2.0e+06
1.0e+06
-10
-5
l-O
t0e+06 2.0e+06 3.0e+06 4.0e+06
10
Figure 4-13. Correlational plots between incoming scavenger waste, individual
sewerage system complaints, and average monthly precipitation.
Page 57 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Structural Failure
The HIA Research Team could not locate empirical studies on
structural failure of individual sewerage systems in Suffolk
County. However, existing local media articles and interviews of
local Suffolk County residents and industry professionals do
provide some insight. For example, in an article from East
Hampton Press, a local owner of a sanitation company in
Southampton, NY stated, "Eventually, the cesspool's walls give
way to gravity. And, oftentimes, over-saturated soil is the tipping
point, as it was in the recent flood of collapses from
Westhampton to Wainscott" (Trauring, 2013). Figure 4-14. Photo of a collapsed cesspool
after a recent rain event. Photo credit:
No systematic reporting mechanism for structural failures of Russell Beal; Source: Trauring (2013).
individual sewerage systems was found. While there could be
more, the HIA Research Team found seven instances of individual sewerage system structural failures
reported for Suffolk County in media sources through Fall of 2016 - with one incident each occurring in
1987, 2001, 2007, 2010, and 2011, and two in 200612. These failures occurred for a variety of reasons
including age, lawnmowers passing over the cesspool, heavy rain, and missing or removed covers. Figure
4-14 provides an indication of the size of the hole created when a cesspool collapsed after a heavy rain
event in Suffolk County. It should be noted that these seven instances of structural failure found in the
media did cause human injury and death (see Section 4.2.5).
~ It is likely that structural failures of individual sewerage systems that occurred without human
injury or death were not reported in the media and therefore, media reports probably
underrepresent the actual number of structural failures in Suffolk County.
GIS Analysis to Determine Housing at Risk for Individual Sewerage System Failure
Using GIS techniques, the HIA Research Team analyzed Census data and tax parcel data to identify
places with a high proportion of housing at risk for individual sewerage system failure (structural or
hydraulic). Housing at risk for individual sewerage system failure was defined as: housing units (single or
multi-family) built in or before 1990 (due to the potential age of the individual sewerage systems) or
unsewered parcels in flood-prone/high groundwater areas (i.e., groundwater < 10 feet from surface).
According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, about one third (30.6%) of Census
block groups in Suffolk County having over 75% of homes built before 1990 are also in flood-prone/high
groundwater areas (Table 4-6). Figure 4-15 shows Census block groups by a) percentage of housing units
built before 1990 and b) density of unsewered residences in flood-prone/high groundwater areas.
12 One additional structural failure (a cesspool hole collapse) was reported in the media in 2017; it is not included in the data
reported above because it occurred after completion of the HIA analysis.
Page 58 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Table 4-6. Census Block Groups by Housing Age and Area in Flood-prone/High Groundwater Areas in Suffolk
County
Percentage of Housing
Units Built before 1990
Number of Block
Groups
Percent Block Groups' Area in
Flood-Prone/High Groundwater Areas
50% or Less
53
8.9
Between 50% and 75%
145
24.5
Over 75%
800
30.6
No Housing Units
1
N/A
a)1 1
'0 10 20 mi
I
Long Island Sound
Housing Units Built <1990
16%-50%
51% - 75%
I 76% -100%
Base Map: Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAANGDC, and other contributors
Housing Data: American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, 2008-2012.
Sewered Areas and Parcels: Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning (2012) and
Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service.
Flood-prone and High Groundwater Areas: Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan SLOSH
Zones (2015) and USGS Hydrologic Conditions Maps for Long Island, NY, >10 feet to groundwater (2010),
Smithtown
20 mi
Long Island Sound
Block
Island
Sound
Unsewered Parcels Within
Flood-prone/High Ground Water Areas
Magnitude/Square Kilometer
Figure 4-15. Census block groups by a) percentage of single and multi-family housing
units built before 1990 and b) density of unsewered residences in flood-prone/high
groundwater areas, using a one-mile by one-mile polygon grid.
Page 59 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Reports of individual sewerage system failures appear countywide (Figure 4-16a), but there are
noticeable areas where failures occur at a higher frequency. The HIA Research Team also performed a
hot spot analysis to look at where most of the individual sewerage system complaints reported to SCDHS
occurred (Figure 4-16b).
Shelter)
' IslancT
Smithtown
Riverhead
Huntington
Brookhaven
Babylon
Smithtown"
Riverhead
Brookhaven
Huntington
Babylon I
a)
0 10 20 mi
{
^East
Hampton
Sewerage Complaints/
sq mile (count)
Southampton
3 - 19
20-29
30 - 49
10 20 mi
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Southampton
East
Hampton
Sewerage Complaints
Not Likely
Likely
Very Likely
| Most Likely
V Hloik
Island
Shelter)^, s'""'
Island^Nj ^
Block
Island
Sewerage Complaints: Suffolk County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Quality, 2008-2015.
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 4-16. a) SCDHS-reported complaints of individual sewerage systems across
Suffolk County and b) the likelihood/frequency of individual sewerage system complaints,
based on hotspot analysis showing where most of the reported complaints originated.
Comparing Figure 4-16b (the results of the hotspot analysis) to Figure 4-15 (the percentage of housing
units built before 1990 and the percent urisewered parcels in flood-prone/high groundwater areas),
sewerage system failures appear to occur in flood-prone/high groundwater areas. Although it should be
noted, as discussed previously, that the number of complaints received by SCDHS falls well short of the
10% rate of existing individual sewerage systems malfunction estimated by Suffolk County Government
(2015a).
Page 60 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
, Avoid the installation or construction of cesspool and septic tank-leaching pool systems on
Q^- sites where pervasive flooding, tidal influence, and/or extreme rain events increase the risk
~ for hydraulic and/or structural failure of an individual sewerage system. Mound systems offer
an alternative option for sites where flooding and/or groundwater influences pose a high
failure risk.
Table 4-7 lists the communities, identified by GIS analysis, with housing that may be more susceptible to
individual sewerage system failure and those with a high frequency of reported complaints of individual
sewerage systems.
Table 4-7. Communities Identified by GIS Analysis with Higher Susceptibility to Failure and Reported Individual
Sewerage System Complaints
Town Within
Communities with Higher
Communities with Higher
Susceptibility to Failure"
Sewerage Complaints
Babylon
Deer Park, Wheatley Heights,
Deer Park, Wheatley Heights,
Wyandanch, and North Babylon
Wyandanch, and North Babylon,
and North Amityville/Lindenhurst
Islip / Smithtown
Brentwood, Central Islip, Islandia
Brentwood, North Bay Shore, Bay
Village, Ronkonkoma, Nesconset,
Shore, Brightwaters Village, and
Oakdale, West Sayville/Sayville, and
Sayville
Bayport
Brookhaven
Blue Point, North and East Patchogue,
Lake Ronkonkoma area, Patchogue
Patchogue Village, Mastic Beach
Village, Mastic Beach Village,
Village, and Moriches
Farmingville, Middle Island, Sound
Beach and Shoreham Village
Southampton
Westhampton Beach Village, Quogue
Village, North Haven Village, Sag
Harbor Village
N/A
Riverhead
Riverhead and Jamesport
Riverhead
Huntington
N/A
Huntington Station
*Have both a high percentage of unsewered parcels in flood-prone/high groundwater areas and are located within Census
block groups which have greater than 75% of residences built before 1990
V-V Focus educational outreach and/or professional and financial assistance in areas where
frequent failures are occurring and allow homeowners to upgrade/replace existing systems
to more sustainable sewerage options that lower the risk of system failure.
Anticipated Change(s) to Individual Sewerage System Failure
Table 4-8 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on individual sewerage system
failure for each decision alternative.
Page 61 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Table 4-8. Impact of Decision on Individual Sewerage System Failure
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Individual Sewerage System Failure
Baseline*
An estimated 38,512 systems experience hydraulic failure each year, but on
average only 0.65% of those are reported. There are isolated areas where
sewerage complaints are most likely to originate. Although at-risk sewerage
systems span the breadth of Suffolk County, there are 800 Census block groups
with over 75% of housing built before 1990, and 30.6% of them are located
within flood-prone/high groundwater areas. Older systems are subject to
higher rates of structural failure and systems in flood-prone/high-groundwater
areas are at higher risks of hydraulic and structural failure.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
This alternative will eliminate use of cesspools and increase the number of
systems using reinforced materials for the leaching pool, thus reducing the
risk of structural failure (as long as the existing system components are no
longer present or, if present, are filled with soil or gravel).t The use of a
septic tank would also help prevent solids from carrying-over to the leaching
pool, which could help prevent catastrophic hydraulic failure of the system.
However, flood-prone areas and areas influenced by groundwater and tidal
waters still pose failure hazards (both hydraulic and structural), even for septic
tank - leaching pool systems. Proper design and maintenance of the systems
would be key to reducing the risk of hydraulic failure.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority
areas must be
upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
Same as Alternative 1, although the potential reduction in failure risk would be
lower as only cesspools in priority areas would be upgraded and systems in
these areas (flood-prone areas and areas influenced by groundwater and tidal
waters) would still pose failure hazards (both hydraulic and structural).
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative /
alternative system
design.
Installing l/A OWTS would eliminate older systems in the high priority areas
and may help to reduce the risk of structural failure (as long as the existing
system components are no longer present or, if present, are filled with soil or
gravel) and hydraulic failure (as long as the system is designed to withstand
flooding and influences from high groundwater and tidal waters and is
properly maintained).
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo would likely lead to increased hydraulic and structural failures, as systems
age.
+ At the time of the HIA analysis it was yet to be determined whether existing system components would be removed and a
complete septic tank-leaching pooling system installed or whether a septic tank might just be added upstream of an existing
cesspool to create a septic tank-leaching pool system.
Page 62 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Due to the design and materials used, older cesspools - especially those that have exceeded
the expected life span of approximately 25 years - pose risks for illness, injury and/or death
were the system to collapse, surcharge above ground, or backflow into the home. Ideally,
homeowners could replace such systems with a modern design (e.g., septic tank-soil
absorption system or l/A OWTS) or connect to a cluster system13 or public sewer.
Completely fill unused or abandoned systems with soil or gravel, both to eliminate a source of
standing water and to avoid potential collapse and injury.
4.2.5 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Hydraulic Failure on Human Illness
When untreated wastewater backs up into the home and/or surfaces (ponds above ground) it poses a
direct health risk to both humans and animals. Health hazards associated with exposure to untreated
wastewater include gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, rash or itchy skin, eye ailments,
earache, or infected cuts (National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1996; National Small Flows
Clearinghouse, 1997; Lowe, et al., 2007; SCDHS, 2007; EPA, 2002a). Exposure can occur through
incidental ingestion, direct contact, or respiration. Young children, the elderly, and those who are
immunocompromised are more likely to be susceptible to these illnesses. (SCDHS, 2007).
Generally, EPA's Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (EPA, 2002a) discloses some of the
different pathogens that have been found in untreated sewage and might cause illness. The infectious
bacteria include some strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli) that lead to gastrointestinal disease, Leptospira
that causes leptospirosis, Salmonella that causes salmonellosis, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi that
causes typhoid fever, and Vibrio cholerae that causes cholera. There are also enteroviruses and
noroviruses that can be found in untreated sewage that cause gastrointestinal disease, and eye
infections. Protozoa, such as Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium, Entamoeba histolytica, and parasitic
worms (helminths), which are infectious and can lead to gastrointestinal illness and other health issues,
may also be found in untreated sewage.
Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate-nitrogen and ammonium), volatile organic compounds, and toxic organics
(e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], pesticides, halogenated aliphatic compounds,
polychlorinated biphenyl [PCBs], chlorobenzenes, volatile organic compounds, phenols, dioxins, furans,
phthalates, and pharmaceutical chemicals), heavy metals (e.g., manganese, copper, cadmium, mercury,
lead, chromium, nickel, zinc), and endocrine disruptors are also contaminants generally present in
wastewater that may affect human health (EPA, 2002a).
~ Whether potential chemical exposure from an individual sewerage system failure would affect
health depends on many factors, including the chemical(s) present, its concentration and
manner, and the duration for which the person is exposed; therefore, these impacts are
difficult to characterize in a meaningful manner and are not included in the impact analysis for
this HIA.
13 Cluster systems are onsite wastewater treatment systems that serve two or more homes.
Page 63 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Existing Cases of Human Illness from Individual Sewerage System Failure at the Time of the HIA
Analysis
There have been cases of illness associated with pathogens that can be found in human waste in Suffolk
County (Section 4.1.4, Table 4-2), although exposure to the pathogens causing these diseases can be
through a number of different pathways. Direct contact with sewage as a result of individual sewerage
system failure (i.e., sewage back up into the home or surcharge aboveground) is only one potential
source of exposure to these pathogens, but the HIA researchers did not locate any reported cases in
Suffolk County where illness occurred as a direct result of an individual sewerage system in hydraulic
failure. It should be noted, however, that illness from exposure to pathogens found in human waste
likely goes unreported given the generality and self-limiting nature of the symptoms (e.g., nausea,
cramps, diarrhea, and dehydration).
Anticipated Change(s) to Health
Table 4-10 identifies the potential direct impacts of the proposed code changes on health through
individual sewerage system hydraulic failure for each decision alternative. This includes impacts to
illness from exposure to untreated wastewater. It should be noted that whether exposure to untreated
wastewater affects health depends on many factors, including the constituent(s) present in the
wastewater, their concentration and manner, the dose and duration for which the person is exposed,
susceptibility of the exposed individual, etc. Therefore, the impact of exposure to untreated wastewater
on health and the effect the proposed code changes would have on incidences of human illness due to
those exposures are difficult to characterize in a definitive, quantifiable manner.
The criteria used to characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained
in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or
detracting from health as described in Table 4-10, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns
together (e.g., it is possible Alternative I could benefit health for a high number of people).
For a summary of the different ways in which health could be impacted through the Individual Sewerage
System Performance and Failure pathway see Section 4.2.8. Changes in the Individual Sewerage System
Performance and Failure pathway as a result of the proposed code changes can also indirectly impact
health through impacts to Water Quality, Resiliency, and Vector Control; these impacts are discussed
further in the sections that follow.
Page 64 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Table 4-9. Impact of Decision on Illness from Individual Sewerage System Hydraulic Failure
Health Determinant
Human Illness from
exposure to untreated
wastewater due to
hydraulic failure
(i.e., effluent loading rate
into the disposal unit is
greater than the
infiltration rate through
the biomat zone)*
Baseline Health Status
Although direct exposure to untreated wastewater is hazardous, the number of illnesses in Suffolk County from close-contact exposure to
wastewater due to a sewerage system failure is unknown. The HIA researchers did not identify reported cases in Suffolk County where
illness occurred as a direct result of an individual sewerage system in hydraulic failure, but detecting water-related disease is challenging
because many pathogens can also be spread in other ways (such as through food, person-to-person, or animal-to-person) and these
illnesses often go unreported given the generality and self-limiting nature of the symptoms. Based on Suffolk County's projected 10%
hydraulic failure rate, an estimated 38,512 systems fail each year, by backing up into the home or surfacing aboveground, but only an
average 0.65% are reported to SCDHS. Most cases of illness in Suffolk County related to pathogens that can be found in human waste
were caused by bacteria, such as Shigella and Salmonella, although incidence rates suggest the absence of widespread disease outbreaks.
On average, approximately one in every 260,000 people are affected by harmful Escherichia coli each year in Suffolk County, compared to
about one in every 167,000 people in New York State.
Alternatives Direction Likelihood Magnitude Distribution Severity Permanence Strength of Evidence
Alternative I
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
This alternative
would benefit
health by
adding a septic
tank to help
prevent solids
from clogging
the biomat or
soil field (if
applicable) - a
cause of
hydraulic
failure.
The reduced likelihood
of close-contact
exposure to untreated
wastewater, and thus
human illness due to
hydraulic failure, is
likely, if the systems are
properly designed and
maintained. However,
flood-prone areas and
areas influenced by
groundwater and tidal
waters still pose failure
hazards.
The extent of people
affected would be high.
Considering an
estimated 192,558
single-family residences
(50% of unsewered,
single-family
residences) would be
required to upgrade
their individual
sewerage system, an
estimated 564,195
people could be
affected.
See Table
Footnotet
The health
implications
of a hydraulic
failure are
minor to
moderate.
The effects are
estimated to be long-
lasting, considering
the long life span of
the systems,
although the effects
may not be seen for a
long time, as many
years may pass
between the point
when the code
change is enacted to
the point when the
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
Limited to Strong.
There is strong
evidence that
exposure to untreated
wastewater is linked
to a number of
illnesses; however,
there are few studies
(limited evidence) that
confirm the
relationship between
hydraulic failure of
individual sewerage
systems and illness.
* Note that the Direction, Likelihood, Distribution, Severity, and Permanence of the potential impacts (as well as the Strength of Evidence) is the same for the three Alternatives; what differs is the
Magnitude of the potential impact in each alternative. Because the number of illnesses in Suffolk County from close-contact exposure to wastewater as a result of an individual sewerage system failure
is unknown, Magnitude could not be expressed as a change in frequency or prevalence of the illness. Magnitude is instead expressed as the number of people potentially at risk of being exposed to
untreated wastewater if their individual sewerage system failed; an average of 2.93 people per household is assumed per the 2010 Census.
Page 65 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of Evidence
Alternative II
This alternative
The reduced likelihood of
The extent of
See Table
The health
The effects are
Limited to Strong.
All existing OSDS in
would benefit
close-contact exposure
people affected
Footnotet
implications of
estimated to be long-
There is strong
the high priority
health by
to untreated wastewater,
would be high.
a hydraulic
lasting, considering
evidence that
areas must be
adding a septic
and thus human illness
Considering
failure are
the long life span of
exposure to untreated
upgraded to
tank to help
due to hydraulic failure,
125,751 single-
minor to
the systems, although
wastewater is linked to
conform to current
prevent solids
is likely, if the systems
family residences
moderate.
the effects may not be
a number of illnesses;
County Sanitary
from clogging
are properly designed
would be required
seen for a long time,
however, there are
Code and standards
the biomat or
and maintained.
to upgrade their
as many years may
few studies (limited
(in place as of
soil field (if
However, flood-prone
individual sewerage
pass between the
evidence) that confirm
September 2016).
applicable) - a
areas and areas
system, an
point when the code
the relationship
cause of
influenced by
estimated 368,450
change is enacted to
between hydraulic
hydraulic
groundwater and tidal
people could be
the point when the
failure of individual
failure.
waters still pose failure
hazards.
affected.
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
sewerage systems and
illness.
Alternative III
This alternative
The reduced likelihood of
The extent of
See Table
The health
The effects are
Limited to Strong.
All existing OSDS
would benefit
close-contact exposure
people affected
Footnotet
implications of
estimated to be long-
There is strong
and C-OWTS in the
health by
to untreated wastewater,
would be high.
a hydraulic
lasting, considering
evidence that
high priority areas
adding an OWTS
and thus human illness
Considering
failure are
the long life span of
exposure to untreated
must be upgraded to
to help prevent
due to hydraulic failure,
251,502 single-
minor to
the systems, although
wastewater is linked to
an innovative/
solids from
is likely, if the systems
family residences
moderate.
the effects may not be
a number of illnesses;
alternative system
clogging the
are properly designed
would be required
seen for a long time,
however, there are
design.
biomat or soil
and maintained.
to upgrade their
as many years may
few studies (limited
field (if
However, flood-prone
individual
pass between the
evidence) that confirm
applicable) - a
areas and areas
sewerage system,
point when the code
the relationship
cause of
influenced by
an estimated
change is enacted to
between hydraulic
hydraulic
groundwater and tidal
736,900 people
the point when the
failure of individual
failure.
waters still pose failure
hazards.
could be affected.
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
sewerage systems and
illness.
tDisproportionate impacts. The communities most affected include those with a high proportion of unsewered residences constructed over 25 years ago (i.e., those with cesspools and/or individual sewerage
systems near the end of their useful life) and in flood-prone/high groundwater areas. Young children, the elderly, and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be susceptible to illnesses
associated to exposure to pathogens found in human waste.
Page 66 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2.6 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Structural Failure on Injury and Death
If an individual sewerage system undergoes structural failure, the system inadvertently becomes a
sinkhole filled with hazardous waste and gases posing a severe risk to human health. Falling into a
collapsed chamber can lead to injury and/or death.
Existing Cases of Injury and/or Death from Individual Sewerage System Failure at the Time of the HI A
Analysis
According to reports from local media articles, there have been at least seven deaths and three injuries
caused by cesspool collapse or missing/removed covers in Suffolk County through Fall 2016; the earliest
case reported in 1987. The deaths and injuries occurred at residential properties with exception of the
2010 death which occurred at a business. The ages of victims who died ranged from 16- to 76-years old.
The deaths and injuries were caused by the physical fall into the cesspools, drowning, or being
overcome by the fumes from the cesspools. Table 4-9 lists the location and date of each reported
incident, along with the outcome (injury or death) from structural failure of an individual sewerage
system.
Table 4-10. Location, Outcome, and Date of Incident from Reported Individual
Sewerage System Structural Failure14
Location
Outcome
Date of Incident
Farmingville
Death(2)
6/2/2011
Smithtown
Death
3/1/2010
Deer Park
Death
6/2007
Huntington
Death
9/2001
Elwood
Death
7/18/2006
Dix Hills (in Huntington)
Death
1987
Huntington
Injuries (3)
4/1/2006
Note: There is a report of two additional injuries related to cesspools, although not specifically
structural failure. Two men were burned - one severely - during an explosion following removal of the
cesspool cover. The methane from inside the cesspool was ignited by a spark as the metal cover was
removed, causing the explosion. The cause of this incident was suspected to be improper ventilation of
the cesspool and the chance of this incident being repeated is highly unlikely.
y-v' Ensure good practice in the siting, design, installation, and maintenance of individual
s$/\ sewerage systems including the use of reinforced materials to help prevent human injury
and/or death from structural failures.
14 One additional death was reported in the media in 2017. This death occurred in Huntington on 5/24/2017, when a
cesspool hole collapsed. It is not included in the data reported above because it occurred after completion of the HI A
analysis.
Page 67 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
y-v' Homeowners or non-licensed professionals should not approach or attempt to investigate a
SSrs collapsed or failing septic tank or cesspool. Cornell University - Suffolk County Extension
Office recommends that if the surface of the ground above the septic tank or cesspool is wet,
the area should be fenced off and a professional called to diagnose and address the problem
(Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, n.d.).
The Cornell University Cooperative Extension is supported by a federal, state, and local
government partnership. The Extension brings local expertise and research-based solutions on
economic vitality, ecological sustainability, and social well-being for NYS families and
communities. For more information, visit http://cce.cornell.edu/.
Anticipated Change(s) to Health
Table 4-11 identifies the potential direct impacts of the proposed code changes on health through
individual sewerage system failure for each decision alternative. This includes impacts to illness from
exposure to untreated wastewater due to hydraulic failure and injury and/or death from structural
failure. It should be noted that whether exposure to untreated wastewater affects health depends on
many factors, including the constituent(s) present in the wastewater, their concentration and manner,
the dose and duration for which the person is exposed, susceptibility of the exposed individual, etc.
Therefore, the impact of exposure to untreated wastewater on health and the effect the proposed code
changes would have on incidences of human illness due to those exposures are difficult to characterize
in a definitive, quantifiable manner.
The criteria used to characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained
in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or
detracting from health as described in Table 4-11, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns
together (e.g., it is possible Alternative I could benefit health for a high number of people).
For a summary of the different ways in which health could be impacted through the Individual Sewerage
System Performance and Failure pathway see Section 4.2.8. Changes in the Individual Sewerage System
Performance and Failure pathway as a result of the proposed code changes can also indirectly impact
health through impacts to Water Quality, Resiliency, and Vector Control; these impacts are discussed
further in the sections that follow.
Page 68 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Table 4-11. Impact of Decision on Injury/Death from Individual Sewerage System Structural Failure
Health Determinant
Human Injury and/or Death
from structural failure
(i.e., the collapse,
deterioration, and/or cover
malfunction/ removal, or
absence of, the septic tank
or cesspool/leaching pool)*
Baseline Health Status
According to reports from local media articles, there have been at least five deaths and three injuries caused by cesspool collapse in
Suffolk County through Fall 2016; the earliest case was reported in 1987. Deaths and injuries were caused by falls into cesspools or
people being overcome by the fumes from the cesspools. The victims who died ranged from age 16 to 76 years. Locations of deaths
from structural failure of individual sewerage systems include Smithtown (2010), Deer Park (2007), Huntington (2001), Elwood (2006),
and Dix Hills (1987). Three persons were reported with injuries from a structural failure in 2006 in the Town of Huntington. It is likely
that other injuries have occurred, but have gone unreported in the media. Although reported incidents of structural failure are rare, the
likelihood of a structural failure is considered because risk factors associated with structural failure are widespread across Suffolk
County and many cesspools/leaching pools are assumed to be nearing or past the end of their life span.
Alternatives
Alternative I
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
Direction
This alternative
would benefit
health by
reducing risk
associated with
structural
failure and by
improving the
materials used
in the
construction of
the system.
Likelihood
This alternative is
highly likely to
reduce the risk of
another injury or
death from a
structural failure
once the system
is upgraded, as
long as the
original cesspool
is no longer part
of the system
and is removed
or filled.
Magnitude
The extent of
people affected
would be high.
Considering an
estimated 192,558
single-family
residences (50% of
unsewered, single-
family residences)
would be required
to upgrade their
individual
sewerage system,
an estimated
564,195 people
could be affected.
Distribution
All individuals would
be affected equally
(equal risk), but the
communities most
affected include
those with a high
proportion of
unsewered
residences
constructed over 25
years ago and in
flood-prone/high
groundwater areas.
Severity
The health
implications of a
structural failure
are moderate to
severe,
considering falling
into a collapsed
septic tank or
cesspool/leaching
pool may lead to
injury and/or
death.
Permanence
The effects are
estimated to be long-
lasting, considering
the long life span of
the systems,
although the effects
may not be seen for a
long time, as many
years may pass
between the point
when the code
change is enacted to
the point when the
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
Strength of
Evidence
Limited. The
evidence reflects
the hypothesized
relationship
between variables
but is limited in
depth or replication.
There are consistent
conclusions, but few
studies that confirm
the relationship.
* Note that the Direction, Likelihood, Distribution, Severity, and Permanence of the potential impacts (as well as the Strength of Evidence) is the same for the three alternatives; what differs is
the Magnitude of the potential impact in each alternative. Because the number of injuries (and possibly deaths) in Suffolk County from individual sewerage system structural failure are
unknown, Magnitude could not be expressed as a change in frequency or prevalence. Magnitude is instead expressed as the number of people potentially at risk of injury or death if their
individual sewerage system failed; an average of 2.93 people per household is assumed per the 2010 Census.
Page 69 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative II
This alternative
This alternative is
The extent of
All individuals would
The health
The effects are
Limited. The
All existing OSDS in
would benefit
highly likely to
people affected
be affected equally
implications of a
estimated to be long-
evidence reflects
the high priority
health by
reduce the risk of
would be high.
(equal risk), but the
structural failure
lasting, considering
the hypothesized
areas must be
reducing risk
another injury or
Considering
communities most
are moderate to
the long life span of
relationship
upgraded to
associated with
death from a
125,751 single-
affected include
severe,
the systems,
between variables
conform to current
structural
structural failure
family residences
those with a high
considering falling
although the effects
but is limited in
County Sanitary
failure and by
once the system
would be required
proportion of
into a collapsed
may not be seen for a
depth or replication.
Code and standards
improving the
is upgraded, as
to upgrade their
unsewered
septic tank or
long time, as many
There are consistent
(in place as of
materials used
long as the
individual
residences
cesspool/leaching
years may pass
conclusions, but few
September 2016).
in the
original cesspool
sewerage system,
constructed over 25
pool may lead to
between the point
studies that confirm
construction of
is no longer part
an estimated
years ago and in
injury and/or
when the code
the relationship.
the system.
of the system
and is removed
or filled.
368,450 people
could be affected.
flood-prone/high
groundwater areas.
death.
change is enacted to
the point when the
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
Alternative III
This alternative
This alternative is
The extent of
All individuals would
The health
The effects are
Limited. The
All existing OSDS
would benefit
highly likely to
people affected
be affected equally
implications of a
estimated to be long-
evidence reflects
and C-OWTS in the
health by
reduce the risk of
would be high.
(equal risk), but the
structural failure
lasting, considering
the hypothesized
high priority areas
reducing risk
another injury or
Considering
communities most
are moderate to
the long life span of
relationship
must be upgraded
associated with
death from a
251,502 single-
affected include
severe,
the systems,
between variables
to an innovative/
structural
structural failure
family residences
those with a high
considering falling
although the effects
but is limited in
alternative system
failure and by
once the system
would be required
proportion of
into a collapsed
may not be seen for a
depth or replication.
design.
improving the
is upgraded, as
to upgrade their
unsewered
septic tank or
long time, as many
There are consistent
materials used
long as the
individual sewerage
residences
cesspool/leaching
years may pass
conclusions, but few
in the
original
system, an
constructed over 25
pool may lead to
between the point
studies that confirm
construction of
individual
estimated 736,900
years ago and in
injury and/or
when the code
the relationship.
the system.
sewerage system
is no longer part
of the system
and is removed
or filled.
people could be
affected.
flood-prone/high
groundwater areas.
death.
change is enacted to
the point when the
sewerage system is
actually upgraded.
Page 70 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2.7 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage System Technology on Treatment
Performance
Different sewage treatment technologies have different treatment performances, so requiring upgraded
technologies will change the average wastewater treatment performance of individual sewerage
systems across Suffolk County and the quality of effluent coming from those systems. Treatment
performance is determined by an individual sewerage system's ability to control wastewater effluent
constituents. Domestic wastewater can include several constituents, including chemicals and their
byproducts, pharmaceutical metabolites, pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms, suspended
solids, fats and oils, as well as salts and nutrients, like nitrogen.
There are many kinds of pathogens that can be transmitted in wastewater, and each type of bacterium,
virus or protozoan requires a different test, making analysis of pathogens, often times, impractical. In
addition to the variety of pathogen types, pathogens are often observed in lower concentrations in
environmental waters, making them difficult to test for individually. Instead, fecal indicator bacteria
(FIB; such as E. coli and fecal coliforms) - naturally occurring microorganisms in the gastrointestinal
systems of humans (and other warm-blooded animals) - are often used as indicators for the presence of
pathogens could also be present (Francy, et al., 2011). The most common parameters analyzed in
wastewater are biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN) or
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorous (TP), and fecal coliform bacteria (Table 4-12).
Table 4-12. Wastewater Quality Parameters
Parameter
Details
Biological
oxygen demand
(BOD)
The amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic microorganisms to break
down organic matter at a given temperature over time (i.e., used as a proxy
measure for organic matter content); measured as 5-day average (BOD5) in
milligrams per liter of sample (mg/L)
Escherichia coli
(ฃ. coli)
An indicator of fecal contamination, measured as most probable number (MPN) or
colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of sample.
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
All particles suspended in water which will not pass through a filter; measured as
TSS in mg/L
Total nitrogen
(TN)
The total of all nitrogen compounds suspended in water: organic-nitrogen +
ammonia-nitrogen + nitrite-nitrogen + nitrate-nitrogen; measured asTN in mg/L
using standardized American Public Health Association (APFIA, 1995) methods
Total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN)
The total of organic-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen compounds suspended in
water; measured as TKN in mg/L
Total
phosphorous
(TP)
The total of all phosphate compounds suspended in water: orthophosphates +
polyphosphates + organic phosphates; measured as TP in mg/L using standardized
APHA (1995) methods
Fecal coliform
bacteria
Microorganisms which are found in the intestinal tract of all warm-blooded
animals (often used as an indicator of fecal contamination, although less specific
than E. coli, a type of fecal coliform); measured as most probable number (MPN)
or colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of sample
Page 71 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
The widely accepted levels of treatment for domestic wastewater are primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment.
Primary treatment is the most common treatment employed. It relies on a holding tank (i.e.,
septic tank) where wastewater is temporarily stored and physically separated, allowing dense
solids to settle at the bottom and oils and grease to float to the top. Septic tank effluent
contains considerable concentrations of microorganisms, nutrients, organic and inorganic
chemical components, and suspended solids (EPA, 2002a; Whittier & El-Kadi, 2009).
Secondary treatment involves the introduction of oxygen to stimulate aerobic microorganisms
into breaking down organic matter. For individual sewerage systems, this process primarily
occurs in the soil, but can occur in specialized septic tanks (e.g., extended aerated-activated
sewerage systems). Many microorganisms and/or pathogens can be attenuated or deactivated
in a soil absorption field, specifically uncompacted, unsaturated soil; sorption is the primary
means of slowing and/or halting virus transport (Whittier & El-Kadi, 2009; SUNY-Stony Brook,
1993). EPA (2002a) reported a three-order magnitude (3-logio or 1000-fold) reduction in viruses
in the first 2 to 3 feet of soil in the soil absorption field.
Note: The "conventional" septic tank-leaching pool system does not achieve the same
level of secondary treatment as does a system that utilizes a soil absorption field.
Tertiary treatment, although often used in public sewer treatment systems, is not common for
residences served by individual sewerage systems. However, tertiary treatment is the most
effective at controlling nutrients and pathogens and may include disinfection and/or a
secondary mechanism of filtration (after primary treatment) via granular media or synthetic
membranes. Disinfection includes some form of ultraviolet treatment and/or chlorination of
effluent (Water Resources Research Center & Engineering Solutions Inc., 2008).
Systems that are substandard or inadequately designed, sited, installed, operated, or maintained can
result in poor wastewater treatment performance in which partially- or wholly-untreated wastewater
enters the environment (Meeroff D. E., Bloetscher, Bocca, & Morin, 2008; Beal, Gardner, & Menzies,
2005b). Soil characteristics, load rate to the system, age of the system, and operation and
maintenance all play roles in treatment performance (Seabloom, 1982; Geary P., 1992; Dawes &
Goonetilleke, 2003; Carroll, et al., 2006).
The soil's infiltration and permeability characteristics are often used to determine acceptability of an
individual sewerage system. Clay soils have a hydraulic conductivity of about 0.6 millimeters (mm) per
day for septic effluent versus sandy soils, in which septic effluent percolates into the soil at a rate of
about 2 mm per day (Bouma, 1975). Individual sewerage systems sited in predominantly coarse
sandy/gravel soils are less efficient at controlling suspended solids, bacteria, and other pollutants than
systems sited in predominantly finely textured soils, such as silt, clay soils, and fine sand (Postma, Gold,
& Loomis, 1992; Loomis, 1996; Stevik, Aa, Ausland, & Flanssen, 2004; Loomis, 2014). Finely textured soils
have small pore spaces, which can strain or block the physical movement of suspended solids and
bacteria and provide more opportunity for the wastewater to come into contact with the soil surface
Page 72 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
and allow secondary treatment processes to occur (Loomis, 1996; Stevik, Aa, Ausland, & Hanssen, 2004).
Not enough pore space leads to ponding, anaerobic conditions, poor treatment, and favorable
conditions for bacteria; and pore spaces that are too large or the presence of channeling in the soils
reduces filtration and allow for wastewater to flow through the soil, with very little treatment (Loomis,
1996; Stevik, Aa, Ausland, & Hanssen, 2004).
Regardless of whether the soil is sand or clay, the limiting factor in the long-term performance of an
individual sewerage system is the permeability of the biomat, which is a bacterial slime layer in the soil
below the leach field or around other wastewater disposal systems (Beal, Gardner, & Menzies, 2005a;
Adler, et al., 2013). The biomat is created when the pores of the native soil are clogged with wastewater
or septic tank effluent and anaerobic biological activity (under the presence of no oxygen) creates 'build
up' at the interface between the discharge system and the native soil. The biomat both regulates the
hydraulic flow of wastewater through the system, and provides an opportunity for treatment processes,
such as oxidation, adsorption, die-off, and ion exchange, via relatively long hydraulic retention times in
unsaturated soil (Beal, Gardner, & Menzies, 2005a). The presence of a "well-developed" biomat
correlates to higher removal efficiency for pathogens, nutrients, organics, and total suspended solids
(Beal, Gardner, & Menzies, 2005b).
The depth of unsaturated soil can also play an important role in the adequate treatment of septic tank
effluent (Beal, Gardner, & Menzies, 2005a). In coastal places, where the water table fluctuates between
two and four feet in elevation, the lack of sufficient unsaturated soil depth can prove problematic
(Meeroff D. E., Bloetscher, Bocca, & Morin, 2008). Cogger and Carlile (1984) found that effluent
treatment from conventional and alternative septic systems were poorest in systems where the soil was
continuously saturated with groundwater.
Loading rates to a system, determined by flow and usage, also influence performance. Maintaining
consistent usage and flow play a major role in the performance of an individual sewerage system.
Postma, Gold & Loomis (1992) sampled groundwater downgradient from septic systems serving summer
vacation homes and concluded that fecal coliform found in high concentrations during the summer was
likely due to acute heavy loading and inadequate formation of the biomat due to non-use in the off-
season.
Adler et al. (2013) found that several state regulations use 75 gallons per capita (person) per day as the
peak flow of water consumed. When designing an individual sewerage system, designers use the peak
flow as a hydraulic safety factor to account for high-flow wash days, water leaks, etc. (Adler, et al.,
2013). Recent studies have shown that the average daily use of water is closer to 53.5 gallons per person
per day, accounting for approximately 16 gallons per person per day from leaks, outdoor irrigation, and
other cases where effluent would not reach the wastewater system (Adler, et al., 2013; Mayer, et al.,
1999).
Due to increased efficiency of appliances and fixtures, the average water usage per person has been on
the decline for many years. As water use decreases, however, there is less solution in the wastewater to
dilute pollutants and the constituent concentrations increase (Adler, et al., 2013). This implies the
Page 73 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
importance of taking into account water use and flow when determining the treatment performance of
an individual sewerage system.
Age of the system affects performance. The biomat takes a few months to develop, so initial
performance may not be reflective of general performance. On average, the width of a biomat ranges
from 5 to 15 cm; it becomes increasingly impermeable to flow as it develops and ages (Beal, Gardner, &
Menzies, 2005b).In addition to the initial time needed for establishment of the biomat, the age of the
individual sewerage system itself also plays a part in the treatment performance. Korhnak & Vince
(2004) found performance of individual sewerage systems declines with age, and according to Smith &
Ince (1989), age of the system is one of the primary causes of treatment failure. Under optimal
conditions, individual sewerage systems are designed to have a useful life of 20-30 years (Cornell
University Cooperative Extension, 2013).
Operation and maintenance of a system affects its treatment performance capability. Over time, solids
in the septic tank and cesspool build up and lower the amount of room for settling. The recommended
maintenance or "good practice" suggests individual sewerage systems should be inspected at least
every one to three years and evacuated (i.e., pumped out) at least every three to five years (Berry, 2015;
SUNY-Stony Brook, 2014; Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, n.d.; EPA, 2002a;
Loomis, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, 2014; CDM Cesspool Service, 2015).
Existing Treatment Capability for Individual Sewerage Systems (in use or under consideration) in
Suffolk County
Individual sewerage systems can be sited, designed, installed, and operated to meet federal and state
effluent standards, and effective advanced treatment units are available to meet nutrient removal and
disinfection requirements (EPA, 1997). EPA (2003a) ascertains, however, that individual sewerage
systems must be implemented as part of a management program to regularly attain water quality and
public health objectives.
However, the treatment performance of an individual sewerage system is highly variable even among
the same technology design. Oakley, Gold, & Ocskowskil (2010) looked at three studies that evaluated
the performance of decentralized sewerage systems to control nitrogen in effluent. Individual sewerage
system performance ranged greatly over the 20 systems monitored and very few systems managed to
meet the project's desired nitrogen effluent concentrations (<10 mg/L TN) consistently (Oakley, Gold, &
Ocskowski, 2010).
It should also be noted that the treatment benefits of proper siting, design, and installation can be
negated if the density of individual sewerage systems for a given area exceed the capacity of native soils
to effectively manage and treat wastewater effluent (EPA, 2002a). Suffolk County's saturation
population (i.e., the population expected if all available land were developed according to existing
zoning) is estimated to be 1.75 million people - a 17% increase over the 2010 population; this population
figure may be reached by the year 2040 (Suffolk County Government, 2011).
Page 74 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
i t Given its current population and the expectation that Suffolk County may reach its saturation
"(/&)" population, further research is needed to ascertain the capacity of Suffolk County soils to
effectively manage wastewater effluent (regardless of whether systems are upgraded or not).
~ Note: The treatment performance analysis focused primarily on nitrogen loading (as this was
identified to be a primary concern for Suffolk County waters), but pathogen loading, to a lesser
extent, is also considered.
Treatment performance of nutrients and pathogens is reported at the edge of the individual sewerage
system. Treatment performance describes changes in concentrations of nitrogen and pathogens in liquid
effluentwhat comes directly out of the individual sewerage system, taking into account
settling/treatment within the system and pumping from the system (if any)and is reported as
compared to nitrogen and pathogen concentrations in raw wastewater (Figure 4-17). Treatment
performance does not take into account processes that impact the concentration of nitrogen and
pathogens in the effluent once discharged from the individual sewerage system (e.g., fate and transport
through soil, particle association, efficacy, etc.)
Treatment
Performance
A
Raw Wastewater
(Solid and Liquid Influent)
m=^= =-{>
from bathing, toilet flushing,|
laundry, dish washing, etc.
Individual
Sewerage System
Liquid
Effluent
~
Figure 4-17. Individual sewerage system treatment performance describes changes in concentrations of nitrogen
and pathogens in liquid effluent from the systemtaking into account settling, treatment within the system,
and pumping from the system (if any)and is reported as compared to nitrogen and pathogen concentrations in
raw wastewater.
With regard to cesspools/leaching pools, these systems are designed to provide temporary storage as
the liquid portion of wastewater is absorbed into the surrounding soil. Because cesspools and leaching
pools in Suffolk County are placed relatively deep in the ground, effluent bypasses the soil layer
primarily responsible for treating wastewater so there is limited reduction in nitrogen and pathogens as
the effluent moves through the soil. Cesspools pre-date the County regulations for separation to
groundwater and placement in sandy soils and are therefore, likely less efficient at nutrient and
pathogen control than leaching pools installed per the regulations.
Page 75 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
The quality of septic tank effluent is highly variable. Based on a review of available science on pollutant
removal performance of various individual onsite wastewater treatment practices, an expert OWTS
panel (Adler, et al., 2013) concluded total nitrogen in septic tank effluent is equivalent to levels in
untreated wastewater and that the average total nitrogen load going to the disposal unit (i.e., coming
from the septic tank) is 5 to 6 kg (11 to 13 lbs) TN per person per year. Due to recent declines in water
use, researchers are now estimating that septic tank effluent will contain total nitrogen levels between
62 and 67 mg/L. Adler et al. (2013) recommend using 60 mg/L as the total nitrogen concentration in
septic tank effluent, assuming an average flow of 60 gallons (227.1 L) per person per day of water
consumed and a total nitrogen loading of 5 kg TN per person per year15. Lowe et al. (2009) found little
overall removal in TN in septic tank effluent and a 1-logio (10-fold) reduction in fecal coliform and E. coli;
however, it should be noted that the septic tanks in this study were all dual-compartment concrete
septic tanks <25 years old, with the majority younger than 10 years in age.
By comparison, in septic tanks with soil absorption fields, effluent discharges from the septic tank into a
soil drainfield through shallowly buried perforated pipes and then undergoes secondary treatment as it
drains through the soil and biomat. Adler et al. (2013) found consensus among the literature that
"conventional gravity-fed soil treatment systems can account for significant total nitrogen removal,
typically in inverse proportion to soil grain size." In a study of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, this OWTS
Expert Panel estimated an average 20% reduction in total nitrogen load within the drainfield, with the
coarser sandy soils in the watershed not expected to provide as much TN removal and the tighter clay
soils expected to provide better than 20% TN removal. Assuming an influent total nitrogen load to the
drainfield of 5 kg per person per year, the total nitrogen load at the edge of the conventional gravity-fed
drainfield would be 4 kg per person per year (Adler, et al., 2013)16. In Suffolk County, septic tank-soil
absorption system use is limited, as previously mentioned, due to parcel size, soil conditions, and
hydrogeology.
Given the additional reduction in nitrogen and pathogen loading from soil absorption
drainfields and the potential for drainfields to break down many other pollutants (per the
NYSDOH Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Design Handbook; NYSDOH, 2012),
consider changes to the Sanitary Code requiring cesspools and conventional OWTS be
upgraded to septic tank-soil absorption systems when site conditions permit. At a minimum,
the language in the code for Alternatives I and II could identify upgrades to a septic tank-soil
absorption system, site conditions permitting, as an alternative to the C-OWTS. For residences
with inadequate space for a soil absorption field, a mound OWTS, where a pile of
appropriately permeable soil of a sufficient depth is placed on site, could also provide
improved treatment performance over the C-OWTS.
15 Note that the Nitrogen Loading Model used in several recent Long Island nitrogen loading studies assumes 4.8 or 4.82 kg TN
per person per year and a 6% reduction in TN in septic tank effluent. The HIA uses the Adler et al. (2013) parameters in its
analysis to be more conservative and protective of public health.
16 After completion of the HIA analysis, efforts were undertaken in the County to examine conventional leaching systems and
pressurized shallow drainfields. For more on these efforts, see Appendix K.
Page 76 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Note: The septic tank-soil absorption system provides improved treatment performance and also
eliminates the risk of injury and/or death from cesspool or leaching pool collapse (as discussed in
Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5)
As stated previously, at the initiation of the HIA in December 2014, Suffolk County was in the process of
evaluating and approving l/A OWTS for general residential use in the County. The target nitrogen
removal for effluent leaving these systems is no more than 19 mg/L of total nitrogen. The manufacturer-
reported treatment performance of the systems under consideration at that time follow; additional
systems have been tested since then and found to meet the performance requirements (see Appendix
K).
1) BUSSE technology, utilizing the membrane bioreactor treatment process, has the ability to
remove some personal care products and pharmaceutical byproducts in addition to nitrogen
reduction. Busse Green Technologies reports a total nitrogen effluent of 16 mg/L for this system
(SCDHS, 2014b).
2) Hydro-Action's AN Series and Norweco's Singulair TNT and Hydro-Kinetic systems utilize
extended aeration and activated sludge. Hydro-Action Industries reported that their system
yields a total nitrogen effluent of 15 mg/L; whereas Norweco reports a total nitrogen effluent of
12 mg/L for their Singulair TNT system and 9 mg/L for their Hydro-Kinetic system (SCDHS,
2014b). The Hydro-Action system was provisionally approved by Suffolk County in September
2016.
3) Orenco System's Advantex AX-RT and Advantex AX utilize a growth packed bed reactor process.
Orenco Systems reported total nitrogen effluent of 15 mg/L for their Advantex AX-RT model and
17 and 19 mg/L for their Advantex AX model (SCDHS, 2014b).
The treatment performance capability identified for each of the various types of individual sewerage
systems is under optimal conditions, which requires good operation and maintenance practices. It is
important to consider that in a 2014 and 2015 survey of Suffolk County homeowners, 55% of West End
survey respondents and only 18.8% of East End survey respondents (i.e., 213 respondents total) knew of
or believed in good management practice (SUNY-Stony Brook, 2014; Berry, 2015). About 10% of
respondents did not know which type of sewerage system was on their property. In the West End
survey, 38% of the respondents who were more familiar with their system had not had their system
inspected within the past five years, and 46% had not had their system pumped out within the past five
years (SUNY-Stony Brook, 2014). The East End survey reported that up to 39.5% of respondents did not
have their system pumped out within the last five years (Berry, 2015). Furthermore, most of the
inspections and/or pump-outs in the past 5 years corresponded with system problems and/or
malfunctions (SUNY-Stony Brook, 2014). The latter finding suggests that most inspections and/or pump-
outs may be performed as part of a fix rather than as routine maintenance. Given the lack of routine
maintenance, it is reasonable to assume that the performance of individual sewerage systems in Suffolk
County may be sub-optimal.
Page 77 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Suffolk County could adopt a standard management plan for each system design to ensure
individual sewerage systems are properly maintained and replaced/upgraded when needed17.
The management plan could include good management practices.
Anticipated Change(s) to Individual Sewerage System Treatment Performance
Table 4-13 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on individual sewerage system
treatment performance for each decision alternative.
Table 4-13. Impact of Decision on Individual Sewerage System Treatment Performance
Alternatives
Baseline1
Potential Change(s) in Treatment Performance*
Cesspools are not specifically designed to control nitrogen or pathogens in
effluent. Septic tank - leaching pool systems are not specifically designed to
control nitrogen, but can offer a limited reduction in pathogens, although
treatment performance can be highly variable.
If the average TN load going to the disposal unit (coming from the cesspool or
septic tank) is 5 kg (11 lbs) TN per person per year, at an average 2.93 person
per residence, then TN loading to the environment from an individual
cesspool or conventional OWTS would be 14.65 kg (32.30 lbs) TN per year
(see Appendix G for calculations).
Lowe et al. (2009) found a limited (1-logio) reduction in fecal coliform and E.
coli loading in newer dual-compartment septic tanks. However, due to the age
of septic systems in Suffolk County and the predominance of cesspools, it is
assumed for the baseline that there is less than a 1-logio reduction in
pathogens in the cesspools and septic tank - leaching pool systems currently in
use in Suffolk County. The amount of pathogens released from each individual
sewerage system is undetermined because "the occurrence and concentration
of pathogenic microorganisms in raw wastewater depend on the sources
contributing to the wastewater, the existence of infected persons in the
population, and environmental factors that influence pathogen survival rates"
(EPA, 2002a).
Alternative I
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
If all existing OSDS are required to conform to current County codes and
standards, there would be no change in TN loading (compared to the
baseline), as nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent are equivalent to levels in
untreated wastewater (Adler, et al., 2013). There may be a limited (1-logio)
reduction in pathogen loading by adding a septic tank, due to attenuation
(Lowe, et al., 2009).
17 Article 19 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, adopted in July 2016, outlined the role of SCDHS as the responsible
management entity (RME) for l/A OWTS; management of other individual sewerage systems is the responsibility of the
homeowner.
Page 78 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Treatment Performance*
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority
areas must be
upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
If all existing OSDS in the high priority areas are required to conform to current
County codes and standards, there would be no change in TN loading
(compared to the baseline), as nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent are
equivalent to levels in untreated wastewater (Adler, et al., 2013). There may
be a limited (1-logio) reduction in pathogen loading by adding a septic tank,
due to attenuation (Lowe, et al., 2009).
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative/
alternative system
design.
If all existing and new OSDS and C-OWTS in the high priority areas are required
to be upgraded to l/A OWTS, there would be considerable improvement in
the control of nitrogen. If the upgraded sewerage systems achieve Suffolk
County's requirement of 19 mg/L TN in effluent, then the resultant TN loading
from an individual l/A OWTS would be 4.63 kg (10.21 lbs) TN per year (see
Appendix G for calculations).
If all existing and new OSDS and C-OWTS in the high priority areas are required
to be upgraded to l/A OWTS, there is possible improvement in control of
pathogens and emerging contaminants of concern (compared to the
baseline), depending on the design of the systems*; it is assumed that l/A
OWTS would at least achieve the minimum reduction in pathogen loading seen
by adding a septic tank (i.e., a 1-logio reduction).
* Individual sewerage system nutrient and pathogen loadings reported are at the edge of the system (i.e., at the point of
discharge from the system). The loading values reported reflect levels of nitrogen and pathogens in liquid effluent discharge
from the individual sewerage system.
+ It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would likely lead to increased loading and more frequent failures, as systems age.
t Some l/A OWTS can treat pathogens and emerging contaminants of concern (e.g., personal care products and
pharmaceuticals) when certain components are part of or used in conjunction with the system (e.g., biofilters, microfiltration
membranes, chlorination/disinfection units, and permeable reactive barriers); because the final designs of the systems are
unknown, the measured pathogen control performance of the systems is unknown.
\JL' Take into consideration good practice in the siting, design, installation, and maintenance of
xฃjK individual sewerage systems. For example, cesspool and leaching pool systems are known to
have poor performance for controlling nutrients and pathogens in system effluent. Suffolk
County could consider replacing cesspools/leaching pools with the conventional shallow, soil
absorption field systems, which are more effective in controlling nutrients and pathogens in
system effluent. For residences with limited space for the conventional soil absorption field
systems, an innovative/alternative system with proven treatment performance that would not
require a large footprint could be permitted (e.g., mound OWTS).
Page 79 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
To maximize the reduction in nitrogen loading and the possible reduction in loading of pathogens and
emerging contaminants of concern expected with the use of l/A OWTS and to address any potential
fairness and conformity concerns:
Consider a fourth alternative, requiring upgrade of individual sewerage systems to an
-VjV- innovative/alternative technology across the entire county, with prioritization given to parcels
' % in the high-priority areas (e.g., proactive upgrades in priority areas and upgrades elsewhere in
the county, upon transfer, failure/replacement, significant and new construction).
Bear in mind that l/A OWTS require routine management and monitoring, in part due to their
specialized biological, mechanical, and electrical components, in order to remain operational and
effective (EPA, 2005a). In order for l/A OWTS to be properly operated and maintained, SCDHS has
suggested that "oversight of l/A OWTS maintenance will require an additional entity responsible for
managing and monitoring those systems" (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). Suffolk County proposed
that a responsible management entity (RME)18 and corresponding wastewater management district be
identified and prepared to function within or in concert with SCDHS (i.e., the regulatory agency) and
Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW; i.e., the project engineers and implementers),
based on other successful case studies (Suffolk County Government, 2015a).19 Article 19 of the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code (SCDHS, 2016b), adopted in July 2016, outlined the role of SCDHS as the RME; the
Department is tasked with ensuring that l/A OWTS are properly managed and maintained and provide
the intended levels of treatment. This will constitute a considerable culture change for homeowners
with respect to operation and maintenance of their individual sewerage systems.
V-V1 Include pathogen and/or fecal indicator bacteria monitoring for the l/A OWTS so that data
could be obtained to better evaluate the treatment performance of such systems for pathogen
control.
The impact of changes in individual sewerage system performance on health are discussed in the Water
Quality section (Section 4.3).
18 RME is a term developed and described by EPA in the March 2003 Voluntary National Guidelines for Management ofOnsite
and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems- a guide to help communities establish comprehensive
management programs so their decentralized systems function properly. The guide focuses on public education and
participation, planning, operation and maintenance, and financial assistance and funding.
19 In February 2021, Suffolk County announced the release of a feasibility study and implementation plan to guide the
establishment of a Countywide Wastewater Management District.
Page 80 of 305
-------
Assessment - Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure
4.2.8 Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure Health
\ฃ_^/ Impact Summary*
The use of a septic tank in combination with a leaching pool (Alternatives I and II) or
installation of an l/A OWTS (Alternative III) is highly-likely to reduce the risk of structural
failure (as long as the original system components are no longer present or, if present, are
filled with soil or gravel) and likely to reduce the risk of hydraulic failure and resultant
close-contact exposure to untreated wastewater for people living in the single-family
residences required to upgrade their systems, if the systems are properly designed and
maintained. However, flood-prone areas and areas influenced by groundwater and tidal
waters still pose failure hazards (both hydraulic and structural).
These reductions in risk benefit health by reducing the risk of injury or death from a
structural failure and protecting people from illness as a result of exposure to untreated
wastewater. There is limited evidence in Suffolk County linking system failure to human
injury, death and illness, but strong evidence, in general, that exposure to untreated
wastewater is linked to a number of illnesses.
Communities with a high proportion of unsewered residences constructed over 25 years ago
and/or in flood-prone/high-groundwater areas and those more susceptible to illness (e.g.,
young children, the elderly and the immunocompromised) could experience a greater health
benefit from individual sewerage system upgrades.
The health benefits of upgrading individual sewerage systems are expected to be long-
lasting, but may not be seen for a long time, given the potential lag in implementing the
upgrades.
*The health impact summary for the Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure pathway
includes only health impacts due to individual sewerage system failure. Per the pathway diagram for this
pathway (Figure 4-5), health impacts of individual sewerage system performance are discussed in the
Water Quality pathway (Section 4.3).
Page 81 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
(D
4.3. Water Quality: Existing Conditions and Potential
Impacts
Water quality relates to the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the water. There are many
factors that affect water quality, including precipitation (e.g., volume, intensity, and duration); presence
of pollutants; and properties of the environment in which water travels, such as surface permeability,
topography and/or grade, presence of plants and animals, and soil characteristics (e.g., composition,
type, size, and layering) (EPA, 2012a). Given the growing concerns in Suffolk County related to excess
nitrogen, algal blooms, beach closures, and contamination and/or loss of shellfish and submerged
aquatic vegetation, stakeholders participating in the Scoping step ranked water quality as their primary
topic of concern with regard to the proposed code changes (refer to Section 3.5.2). Water resources,
such as groundwater and surface waters (e.g., rivers, lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal shorelines),
provide invaluable ecosystem services, such as drinking water, habitat for food sources, recreational
opportunities, protection from storms and/or tidal surges, and social/cultural benefits. Suffolk County's
water resources are an integral part of its economy, social and cultural identity, and security.
Suffolk County asserts, "much of the nitrogen pollution in Suffolk County waters has been linked to
unsewered, dense suburban sprawl" (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). Local and regional experts
identified nitrogen pollution from wastewater sources, such as individual sewerage systems and
sewage treatment plants, as a considerable contributor of nitrogen to the Peconic Estuary, Long Island
Sound, Great South Bay, and South Shore Estuary Reserve (Kinney & Valiela, 2011; Lloyd, 2014;
Stinnette, 2014; SCDHS, 2014c; Woods Hole Group Inc., 2014; Suffolk County Government, 2015a;
Gobler C. J., 2016; Lloyd, Mollod, LoBue, & Lindberg, 2016). Nitrogen impairment is a driver of
eutrophication, salt-marsh loss, lower dissolved oxygen levels, and persistent algal blooms (Cloern,
2001; Heisler, et al., 2008; Latimer & Charpentier, 2010; Deegan L. A., et al., 2012; SCDHS, 2014c;
NYSDEC, 2015; Suffolk County Government, 2015a). Nutrients, such as nitrogen, can originate from
single sources and non-point sources (EPA, 2002b). In addition to wastewater sources, agricultural
activity and residential fertilizer use were also identified as major sources of pollution to Suffolk County
groundwater and surface water (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). It should be noted that
wastewater may be one potential source of pathogens, but stormwater runoff, wildlife populations, and
pets may also serve as important sources of pathogen pollution discharging to Suffolk County surface
water bodies (Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
Suffolk County issued a revised Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan in March 2015 to
include consideration of coastal resiliency, sea level rise, wastewater treatment, and ecosystem health.
According to the revised Plan, Suffolk County is considering a range of solutions to address the issues
related to nitrogen loading, including the expansion of sewered areas, adding sewage treatment cluster
systems, broadening outreach and education about pesticide and herbicide use, providing more options
for landscaping fertilizer and pesticides, restricting development in environmentally sensitive areas, and
proposing changes to the County Sanitary Code for permitting l/A OWTS designed for nitrogen reduction
and requiring upgrades for existing OSDS (Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
Page 82 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Recently, New York State announced a comprehensive study of Long Island's groundwater and aquifer
system to determine possible threats to groundwater integrity, including chemical contamination and
saltwater intrusion; invested $2 million to launch the New York State Center for Clean Water Technology
at Stony Brook University, which will research water quality issues in coastal communities of New York
(New York State, 2016); and invested $7 million in Suffolk County's Septic/Cesspool Upgrade Program
Enterprise (SCUPE), designed to start up a program to mitigate nitrogen and pathogen loading from
individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County (including l/A OWTS testing and implementation,
research to prioritize areas in need of improved wastewater treatment, etc.).
NYSDEC and the Long Island Regional Planning Council (LIRPC) are working with stakeholders to develop
an action plan to reduce nitrogen levels in the waters around Long Island. The scope of the plan will
include an assessment of existing conditions, needed nitrogen-load reduction targets, and alternatives
and strategies to meet those targets (NYSDEC and LIRPC, 2016). NYSDEC identified pilot nitrogen
mitigation actions as a top priority in its recent New York Ocean Action Plan, 2017-2027. These actions
include $3 million in grants awarded in 2016 for measures such as installation of permeable reactive
barriers, cluster wastewater treatment systems, l/A OWTS, hydro modifications and more. Projects
funded in Suffolk County include development of a Suffolk County Soil Health Guide and boat pumpout
stations in Brookhaven (NYSDEC, 2017).
Suffolk County is managing wastewater derived nitrogen by expanding the number of parcels connected
to centralized sewage treatment plants, as well as by looking at alternative technologies for onsite
systems. SCDPW is in the process of conducting several larger sewering studies that aim to repair and/or
expand centralized sewering across Suffolk County. In 2015, $383 million in state and federal funding
was awarded to expand sewer infrastructure to approximately 10,000 parcels in several areas of Suffolk
County currently served by onsite septic systems (New York State, 2014; New York State, 2015a). The
sewer projects, as proposed, included:
Parcels in Forge River that will be connected to a new wastewater treatment plant located near
the Brookhaven Town Airport;
Parcels in the Carlls River area that will be connected to the Southwest Sewer District (SWSD);
Parcels in the Connetquot River and Nicoll Bay area that will be connected to the SWSD; and
Parcels in the Patchogue River area that will be connected to the Patchogue Sewer District.20
While centralized sewering has its benefits, it should also be noted that it can lead to unintended
impacts, such as increased density of development (Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen, & Harrison, 2001), if efforts
to expand sewering are not considered in combination with land use planning (e.g., cluster development
and other smart growth options) to preserve open greenspace. Sewering can also lead to a lowered
20 Since the completion of the HIA analysis, the County undertook engineering and feasibility studies. Based on the results of
those studies, sewering is expected to be implemented in multiple areas including the Carlls River watershed (portions of West
Babylon, North Babylon and Wyandanch), the Forge River watershed (portions of Mastic and Shirley), the Connetquot River
watershed (the Great River area), and Patchogue (which will expand the existing sewer system). The sewer projects are now in
the design phase.
Page 83 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
water table, especially in areas where pumping for drinking water occurs, because centralized sewers
remove wastewater from the area, preventing it from naturally replenishing groundwater (Alley, Reilly,
& Franke, 1999). Suffolk County Government (2016a) acknowledges, "sewering will not be feasible for
most geographic areas of the County due to cost and other logistical factors and that patchwork
sewering will not be sufficient to solve the problem. Therefore, l/A OWTS will be a critical part of the
solution, along with decentralized cluster systems, where viable."21
4.3.1 Water Quality Pathways of Impact
Figure 4-18 shows the pathways by which the proposed code changes are expected to impact water
quality and ultimately health.
Decision
Intermediate Impacts
Health Outcomes
From Individual
Sewerage
Performance and
Failure Pathway
A Cumulative
Pollutant Loading
A Quality of
Water Resources
A Perceived Quality of Water
Resources/Environment
A Stress and Well-being
A See Economics Pathway
See Vector Control
Pathway
A Quality of Source Drinking Water
(Groundwater)
A Quality of Inland Freshwaters
* Presence of pathogens
* Presence of algal blooms
* Loss or contamination of aquatic
animal-life
A Quality of Coastal Marine Waters and
Estuaries
Presence of pathogens
Presence of algal blooms
Loss or contamination of aquatic
animal-life
A Human Illness from
Source Drinking Water
A Human Illness from
Aquatic Recreation
4 See Economics
* Pathway
^ See Resiliency
Pathway
Figure 4-18. Water Quality Pathway Diagram.
The performance and/or failure of individual sewerage systems (as discussed in Section 4.2) influences
the amount of pollutants transported from these systems into the environment (i.e., cumulative
pollutant loading in wastewater effluent). As such, the quality of groundwater, drinking water in areas
served by private and non-community drinking water wells, inland fresh surface water, and coastal
(estuarine and marine) surface water can be impacted. Health may then be affected through drinking
^ฆ In the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan (SWP) developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, the County does
acknowledge, however, that sewering is an important element of the overall wastewater management strategy in Suffolk
County and may have advantages over l/A OWTS in certain areas (e.g., areas with significant nitrogen-impaired waters, high
groundwater, or poor soils; areas within close proximity to existing sewer districts; and in areas that are prone to sea level rise).
The SWP explored wastewater management options and recommendations that included connection of parcels to community
sewers by expanding existing sewer districts or creating new sewer districts where possible.
Page 84 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
water or recreation. In addition to the actual changes in water quality that may occur, it is important to
also consider changes in public perception of water quality and the environment, which can
subsequently impact health through stress and well-being.
4.3.2 Impact of Individual Sewerage System Performance on Cumulative
Pollutant Loading
As stated in the EPA's (1997) Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems, "adequately managed decentralized wastewater treatment systems are a cost-effective and
long-term option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly in less densely
populated areas." NYSDOH (2012) and SCDHS also maintain that if properly designed, constructed, and
maintained on a suitable site, individual sewerage systems provide for a safe, sanitary means of treating
and disposing of wastewater. However, inadequate system design, siting, construction, and
maintenance are problematic and may be due to lack of knowledge of good practice, limited expendable
income to perform routine maintenance, and/or disagreement with or rejection of good management
practices. EPA (1997) revealed that if not maintained properly, decentralized sewerage systems can pose
environmental and public health risks.
Nutrient pollutants in wastewater, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, cycle through the environment in
a couple of ways. Nitrogen in domestic raw wastewater occurs mostly in the form of organic matter and
ammonium-nitrate (Adler, et al., 2013). After microbes have decomposed organic animal/human waste,
the nitrogen in the resulting ammonium is either assimilated and used by plant roots or converted to
nitrate by microorganisms in the soil to obtain energy, a process referred to as nitrification (Johnson,
Albrecht, Ketterings, Beckman, & Stockin, 2005; EPA, 2002b). When the soil is saturated (wet and
depleted of oxygen), bacteria use the nitrate as an oxygen source - converting the nitrate-nitrogen
(N03-) to gaseous forms of nitrogen (N2) - in a process called denitrification (Johnson, Albrecht,
Ketterings, Beckman, & Stockin, 2005). Volatilization occurs, typically under higher soil pH and hot and
windy days, when ammonium is converted to ammonia gas (NH3) and released to the atmosphere
where other plants, such as legumes, fix and use nitrogen out of the atmosphere through a process
called fixation. Remaining nitrogen in the soil that is unused by plants and microbes, leaches deeper into
the soil to groundwater or bedrock.
As with nitrogen, the organic form of phosphorous must mineralize to the inorganic form to become
available to plants (EPA, 2005b). Plant roots absorb phosphorous from the soil, where it travels up
through the food chain, eventually returning to the soil as animal waste and decay. The main form of
phosphorous in a septic tank is orthophosphate (reactive phosphate), which is an inorganic salt of
phosphoric acid (Weiskel, Howes, & Huefelder, 1996). In comparison to the nitrogen cycle, phosphorous
does not have an atmospheric component and is largely restricted to solid and liquid phases.
Note: Suffolk County has not included phosphorous loading in its Sanitary Code standards or in testing of
l/A OWTS. While the HIA does not evaluate phosphorous loading from individual sewerage systems, the
Page 85 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
discussion of phosphorous is included because it is a contributor to harmful algal blooms, which have
been experienced in County waters and have human health and economic implications.22
Existing Conditions Regarding Cumulative Pollutant Loading from Individual Sewerage Systems at the
Time of the HIA Analysis
In Suffolk County, discharge from individual sewerage systems is often below the root zone, so there is
limited uptake of nitrogen or phosphorous by plants. This means the nitrogen in the wastewater travels
through the Suffolk County soil - primarily "unconsolidated cretaceous sands, gravels, silts, and clay
overlain by similar glacial sediments" (SUNY-Stony Brook, 1993) - and under aerobic (i.e., unsaturated)
conditions, can be converted to nitrate by microorganisms in the soil and then make its way to
groundwater. Transport of pollutants from individual sewerage systems through the environment
mostly occurs due to aquifer recharge and groundwater flow (Baccus & Barile, 2005; Stinnette, 2014;
Gobler C. J., 2016). Stinnette (2014) and Gobler (2016) found that groundwater was responsible for 90%
of nitrogen transport in 6 of the 7 subwatersheds feeding the Moriches, Quantuck and Shinnecock Bays
in the eastern extent of Long Island's South Shore Estuary Reserve. The flow of groundwater on Long
Island is mostly from the middle of the island to the north (towards the Long Island Sound) or to the
south (towards the Great South Bay and Atlantic Ocean). Researchers attending a conference at the
State University of New York, Stony Brook (SUNY-Stony Brook), stated that because of this movement,
there is little to no mixing between east and west ends, except for east of William Floyd Parkway (in
Suffolk County) where water flows east towards the Peconic River (SUNY-Stony Brook, 1993)
Groundwater can transport the nutrients and other contaminants in wastewater to nearby drinking
wells and surface waters.
In Suffolk County, water travels relatively fast through the aquifer system. Near the surface,
the groundwater on Long Island moves at a rate of about 300 feet per year, but lower in the
aquifer, groundwater only moves at a rate of about 1 foot per year (SUNY-Stony Brook, 1993).
While groundwater travel times along the coasts of Long Island range from 0-10 years,
groundwater travel times from the middle of Long Island to the shore can take decades to
hundreds of years (SUNY-Stony Brook, 1993; Kinney & Valiela, 2011; Misut & Monti, 2016).
Given the long travel times from parts of the aquifer, it is important to note that some of the
nutrients and contaminants entering the bays today are from past land use practices (i.e.,
legacy nitrogen loading), such as agriculture, industry, and residential development (Peconic
Estuary Program, 2015; LISS, 2017)23.
22 It should be noted that while phosphorous is typically a factor in the formation of freshwater HABs, it has also been shown to
play a role in HABs in Suffolk County coastal waters (Wise, 2017).
23 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, and
refine priority areas in which to focus those efforts. For more on this effort, see Appendix K.
Page 86 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
As groundwater receives recharge from above (e.g., during periods of heavy precipitation or wastewater
discharge) or in areas of tidal influence, the water table (i.e., the boundary where soil becomes
saturated with groundwater) rises. As the water table rises, the depth of unsaturated soil decreases.
When there is no longer an unsaturated zone, groundwater becomes surface water.
Nitrogen and pathogen loading to Suffolk County waters can come from a number of sources, and some
of these sources may originate outside of Suffolk County (e.g., Nassau County or New York City).
Regardless of source, consequences of nutrient and pathogen loading to Suffolk County waters have
included:
Private drinking wells in the Upper Glacial Aquifer testing above the EPA standard for nitrate
(i.e., above the maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L);
Hypoxic waters in Long Island Sound and depletion of soluble oxygen;
Reoccurring en masse die-off of turtles (in Flanders Bay), fish, and shellfish;
Odors emitting from surface waters (e.g., Forge River);
Closure of swimming/bathing beaches around lakes and bays due to harmful algal blooms
and/or fecal indicator bacteria;
Receding area of submerged vegetation (specifically eelgrass) and wetland acreage, and erosion
of soils;
Loss of revenue from tourism, aquaculture, and recreation industries, and employment loss in
shellfish industry;
Increased susceptibility to damage from storm and tidal surge and subsequent cost of damage;
and
Degradation of perceived surrounding environment and subsequent loss of property value
(Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
Each of these effects will be discussed in greater detail throughout the report.
Anticipated Change(s) to Cumulative Pollutant Loading
Table 4-14 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on wastewater-derived
cumulative pollutant loading for each decision alternative. It is important to note that no modeling was
conducted to estimate pollutant loading to Suffolk County waters. Cumulative loading estimates for
each alternative are discussed in terms of the total nitrogen and differences in the magnitude of
pathogen reduction approximated in the liquid effluent at the edge of the system (i.e., at the point of
discharge from the individual sewerage system; see Section 4.2.4 and 4.2.7) for all individual sewerage
systems across the County.
Page 87 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Table 4-14. Impact of Decision on Cumulative Pollutant Loading
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Wastewater-derived Cumulative Pollutant Loading*
Baseline1
If TN loading to the environment from an individual cesspool or conventional
OWTS would be 14.65 kg (32.30 lbs) TN per year and there are an estimated
385,117 unsewered, single-family parcels, cumulative TN loading to the
environment equates to an estimated 5.64 million kg (12.41 million lbs) TN
per year; see Appendix G. An undetermined amount of pathogens may be
released from each individual sewerage system because "the occurrence and
concentration of pathogenic microorganisms in raw wastewater depend on
the sources contributing to the wastewater, the existence of infected persons
in the population, and environmental factors that influence pathogen survival
rates" (EPA, 2002a); therefore, cumulative loading of pathogens cannot easily
be quantified without a primary data collection effort, which did not occur as
part of this HIA.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
If all existing OSDS are required to conform to current County codes and
standards, there would be no appreciable change in TN loading (compared to
the baseline), as nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent are equivalent to levels
in untreated wastewater. There may be a reduction in pathogen loading from
upgrading the estimated 192,558 residences served by OSDS (see Appendix G),
given the potential 1-logio reduction in pathogen loading by using a septic
tank in combination with a leaching pool.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority
areas must be
upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and standards
(in place as of
September 2016).
If all existing OSDS in high priority areas are required to conform to current
County codes and standards, there would be no appreciable change in TN
loading (compared to the baseline), as nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent
are equivalent to levels in untreated wastewater. There may be a reduction in
pathogen loading from upgrading the estimated 125,751 residences served by
OSDS in the high priority areas (see Appendix G), given the potential 1-logio
reduction in pathogen loading by using a septic tank in combination with a
leaching pool. However, pathogen loading from the 66,807 residences served
by OSDS outside of the high priority areas would continue at baseline rates.
Page 88 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Alternatives
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative/
alternative system
design.
Potential Change(s) in Wastewater-derived Cumulative Pollutant Loading*
If all existing OSDS and C-OWTS in the high priority areas are required to be
upgraded to l/A OWTS, there would be considerable improvement in the
control of nutrients (nitrogen) and possibly pathogens and emerging
contaminants of concern (compared to the baseline), depending on the design
of the systems.* Per calculations in Appendix G: For an estimated 251,502
unsewered, single-family residences, at an average 2.93 persons per residence,
and a loading of 1.58 kg (3.48 lbs) TN per person per year (assuming the l/A
OWTS achieve Suffolk County's requirement of 19 mg/LTN loading in effluent),
TN loading from upgraded systems in Suffolk County would equate to an
estimated 1.16 million kg (2.56 million lbs) TN per year (see Appendix G). The
133,615 systems outside the high priority areas would continue at a loading
rate of 5 kg (11 lbs) of TN per person per year, contributing an estimated 1.96
million kg (4.32 million lbs) TN per year. Overall, this would result in an
estimated cumulative reduction in TN loading to the environment from
individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County of 2.52 million kg (5.56 million
lbs) TN per year. There may be a reduction in pathogen loading from
upgrading the estimated 251,502 residences, given the potential 1-logio
reduction in pathogen loading at a minimum; a greater reduction in pathogen
loading may be seen depending on the components of the l/A OWTS.
However, pathogen loading from the 133,615 residences outside of the high
priority areas would continue at baseline rates.
* Individual sewerage system nutrient and pathogen loadings reported are at the edge of the system (i.e., at the point of
discharge from the system). The loading values reported reflect levels of nitrogen and pathogens in liquid effluent discharge
from the individual sewerage system across the County to the environment; all loading estimates utilize the number of
individual sewerage systems estimated in the HIA to be impacted under each alternative. Note that the Nitrogen Loading
Model used in several Long Island nitrogen loading studies assumes 4.8 or 4.82 kg TN per person per year (10.5 lbs TN per
person per year) and a 6% reduction in TN in septic tank effluent. The HIA uses the Adler et al. (2013) parameters - based on a
review of available science on pollutant removal performance - in its analysis to be conservative and protective of public
health.
+ It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would likely lead to increased cumulative pollutant loading, as the systems aged.
t Some l/A OWTS can treat pathogens and emerging contaminants of concern (e.g., personal care products and
pharmaceuticals) when certain components are part of or used in conjunction with the system (e.g., biofilters, microfiltration
membranes, chlorination/disinfection units, and permeable reactive barriers); because the final designs of the systems are
unknown, the measured pathogen control performance of the systems is unknown. It is assumed, however, that l/A OWTS will
achieve the minimum reduction in pathogen loading seen by adding a septic tank (i.e., a 1-logio reduction), regardless of any
additional components in the system.
4.3.3 Impact of Changes in Pollutant Loading on Quality of Source Drinking Water
(Groundwater)
A key concern for Suffolk County is the future integrity of its sole-source for drinking water (i.e.,
groundwater). Suffolk County sources all of its drinking water from groundwater, and Suffolk County
Water Authority (SCWA) - the main drinking water utility - is the "largest groundwater supplier in the
Page 89 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
country" (www.scwa.com/press). According to SCWA (2016), SCWA operated 583 groundwater wells
across 237 wellfields, providing 69.4 billion gallons (262.7 billion L) of treated drinking water to 1.2
million people in Suffolk County in 2016. Smaller, community water supply utilities (about 1,000 wells)
serve approximately 7% of residents; private (individual) wells and non-community systems serve the
remaining 13% of residents. According to the 2015 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
(Suffolk County Government, 2015a), there are about 45,000 private, individual wells. Most of the public
water supply wells in Suffolk County pump source water from the deeper Magothy Aquifer, whereas
private wells pump source water from the shallower, Upper Glacial Aquifer.
Differences between drinking water delivery systems determine whether they are covered by SWAP -
the Source Water Assessment Program (EPA, 2015a). The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act require states to create a Source Water Assessment Program for all their public drinking water
systems to protect public drinking water sources from contamination. Private wells serving single
households are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and are not required to be monitored.
Private drinking water wells do not typically include treatment for nitrates and rarely include treatment
for pathogens. Municipal drinking water in the U.S. (i.e., the public water supply) is treated to reduce
microbial pathogens in source water prior to distribution. However, treatment deficiencies and
resistance of some organisms (particularly protozoa and viruses) to disinfection can result in microbial
contamination of distributed water (Craun, Brunkard, Yoder, Roberts, & Carpenter, 2010).
Existing Quality of Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) at the Time of the HI A Analysis
SCDHS monitors and enforces safe drinking water regulations for the 39 community public water
supplies and 254 non-community public water supplies within the County (SCDHS, 2015b). In 2015, all
public drinking waters in Suffolk County met both federal (EPA) and state (NYSDOH) standards for
drinking water quality (SCWA, 2016).
Source drinking water in Suffolk County is monitored for levels of nitrogen and the presence of fecal
indicator bacteria, among other compounds. In a 2014 presentation to stakeholders on an evaluation of
nitrates in Suffolk County public water supply wells, the SCDHS reported that 190 community public
water supply wells screened in the Magothy Aquifer had lower nitrate concentrations than the 173
screened in the Upper Glacial Aquifer (Hime, [April] 2014). Based on groundwater sampling in 1987,
2005, and 2013, there is a linear trend of increasing average nitrate concentrations in wells from both
aquifers24; however, the average concentrations are still well below the drinking water standard of 10
mg/L. It should also be noted that the water near the center of the Magothy Aquifer is 100 years old and
almost 500 years old near the base of the Magothy; this means that much of the public drinking water
24 Average nitrate-nitrogen levels in public water supply wells drawn from the Upper Glacial Aquifer rose over 41% from 2.54
mg/L in 1987 to 3.58 mg/L in 2013; whereas, average nitrate-nitrogen levels in public water supply wells drawn from the
Magothy Aquifer rose 93.4% from 0.91 mg/L in 1987 to 1.76 mg/L in 2013 (Hime, [April] 2014). The calculated rate of increase
in nitrate-nitrogen levels in public water supply wells drawn from the Upper Glacial and Magothy Aquifers was 0.03 mg/L per
year from 1987 to 2005 (18-year span), and 0.04 mg/L per year from 2005 to 2013 (8-year span), respectively.
Page 90 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
supply is groundwater recharge from before the County was extensively developed (SUNY-Stony Brook,
1993).
In late 2016, the Long Island Commission for Aquifer Protection (LICAP) released an online GIS-based water
quality mapping and database tool called WaterTraq (http://liaquifercommission.com/watertraq.html)- It
provides both treated and untreated Long Island water test results, including nitrate, other naturally-
occurring compounds, and contaminants, such as pesticides, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
Treated water results are presented by SCWA Water Distribution Area or Suffolk Water District and identify
the number of tests, range of readings (low, high, average), and whether there were any violations for each
compound or contaminant. Untreated water results are from LICAP or SCWA aquifer sampling efforts or
SCDHS well monitoring and can be searched by compound or by results above the standard. It should be
noted that treated water results reflect the quality of drinking water for those on public drinking water
supply; for those using private wells, untreated water results from the Upper Glacial Aquifer would more
accurately reflect the quality of their drinking water.
According to the Suffolk County Water Authority 2016 Drinking Water Quality Report (SCWA, 2016),
community supply wells are generally free of microbial contamination (i.e., in 2015, total coliforms and
E. coli were detected in source wells for only 3 of 27 distribution areas and subsequent samples from
these wells were negative). However, results of the New York State SWAP list over 20% of community
supply wells as medium-high to very-high in microbial susceptibility due to the presence of wells in
unsewered areas and short travel times from the water table to shallow well screens (SCWA, 2016).
Because private wells generally pump from the shallower Upper Glacial Aquifer (making them more
susceptible to contamination from near surface activities) and may lack the levels of treatment,
management, and testing required of public water supply systems, they are considered to be a higher-
risk drinking water source (Suffolk County Government, 2015a; Fox, Nachman, Anderson, Lam, &
Resnick, 2016; SCWA, 2019). Since areas without public water connections are often also unsewered
(Figure 4-19), co-location of private wells and individual sewerage systems increases the likelihood of
contaminated groundwater intrusion. Monitoring and testing of private wells can help ensure the
quality of drinking water provided from these wells. SCDHS does provide monitoring of private wells in
Suffolk County on a voluntary basis at a fee of $100 for existing wells or $350 for new wells. Among
3,327 private wells tested between 2005 and 2015, pumping from the Upper Glacial Aquifer, 318 (9.6%)
had positive detections of total coliforms and 20 (0.6%) had positive detections of E. coli (a better
indicator of fecal contamination). While the SCDHS private well testing program "has discovered many
instances of severe well water contamination... analyses show that the majority of wells tested in Suffolk
County meet drinking water standards that have been set for health-related reasons" (Suffolk County
Government, 2020). Less than 2% of private wells are tested by SCDHS each year, according to the
Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan (Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
Suffolk County's non-community public water supply systems, which serve facilities such as parks,
restaurants, and schools, were cited 22 times in 2013 by NYSDOH for total coliform violations during
routine monitoring (NYSDOH, 2014). This suggests that these systems, which are not typically
disinfected, may be more susceptible to microbial contamination than community public water supplies.
Page 91 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
It is important to note that detection of indicator organisms in drinking water from any source in Suffolk
County cannot be directly linked to groundwater contamination from individual sewerage systems.
a)
1
0
A
10
20 mi Private Wells Sampled forTotal Coliform
ฆP*/. m
raj
*
fa f1 ^
Towns & Vi 1 lages [ ,_]
Sewered Areas
Samples
Positive Result
All Samples
b)
0
A
10
20 mi Private Wells Sampled for Escherichia coli gST*
1
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
laundry bleach and household cleaners, at trace levels in 21% of private drinking wells tested between
1997 and 2007, and almost 2% of private drinking wells tested had chloroform levels that exceeded 5
Hg/L (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). Investigators believe that chemicals in cleaners were
interacting with organic sewage wastes and/or discharge from nearby chlorinated swimming pools,
albeit the low levels of byproduct were not actionable at that time.
Anticipated Change(s) to Quality of Source Drinking Water (Groundwater)
Suffolk County identified areas in the 0-50 year groundwater contributing zone to public drinking water
well fields as one of the "high priority areas" in Alternatives II and III. The upgrade of those systems in
high priority areas, near well fields or in areas with shallow depth to groundwater, will have the greatest
impact on drinking water. Shallow depth to groundwater could affect drinking water quality of private
wells, as they draw from the shallower Upper Glacial Aquifer. Private well water is typically not
disinfected, and areas served by private water wells are typically not sewered; as a result,
contaminant loading from individual sewerage systems that travels through the groundwater supply
can potentially impact the quality of water in private drinking water wells. The potential reduction in
pathogen discharges associated with proposed upgrades could improve private drinking water well
safety. Similar improvement could be seen in non-community supplies, which are also not typically
disinfected.
SCDHS encourages residents using private wells to periodically have their well water tested and when
possible, to connect to a public water utility; SCDHS is also considering policies to expand connection
and testing (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). If such efforts are successful in reducing the number of
residents relying on private wells, thereby lowering the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking
water, the concerns associated with sewerage systems, as well as the priority for controlling pollutants
from individual sewerage systems, may be lowered.
V-V It is important for Suffolk County to remain vigilant in controlling pollution from individual
sewerage systems while efforts are underway to expand connections to the public drinking
water supply.
Table 4-15 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed decision on the quality of source water
(groundwater) for the public water supply and private drinking water wells in Suffolk County for each
decision alternative. It should be noted that individual sewerage systems are not the only source of
wastewater inputs to Suffolk County groundwater, and likewise, wastewater inputs are not the only
source of nitrogen and pathogen loading to groundwater in the County. This HIA, however, only
considers the contributions from individual sewerage systems, as these systems are the target of the
proposed code changes.
Page 93 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Table 4-15. Impact of Decision on Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) Quality
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Source Drinking Water Quality
Baseline*
All public drinking waters met federal and state standards in 2015.
Average nitrate-nitrogen levels in public supply wells in 2013 were well
below the 10 mg/L maximum contaminant level, at 3.58 mg/L in Upper
Glacial and 1.76 mg/L in the Magothy Aquifer in 2013, but are increasing.
The New York State SWAP lists over 20% of community supply wells as
medium-high to very-high in microbial susceptibility, due to the presence
of wells in unsewered areas and short travel times from the water table
to shallow well screens. In 2015, total coliforms and E. coli were detected
in source wells for only 3 of 27 distribution areas, and subsequent
samples from these wells were negative. Among 3,327 private wells
tested between 2005 and 2015, pumping from the Upper Glacial Aquifer,
318 (9.6%) had positive detections of total coliforms and 20 (0.6%) had
positive detections of E. coli (a better indicator of fecal contamination).
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
If all existing OSDS are required to conform to current County codes and
standards, it is unlikely to change the quality of public drinking water
given the conditions under which public drinking water is distributed/
For private drinking well water, it is unclear how much improvement
may be gained because of the upgrades, but because private wells are at
a higher risk of drinking water contamination,* there may be an
improvement in the microbial quality of private drinking well water in
unsewered areas, given the limited (1-logio) reduction in pathogen
loading (Lowe, et al., 2009) by adding a septic tank. No change in
nitrogen levels is expected.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
If all existing OSDS in high priority areas are required to conform to
current County codes and standards, it is unlikely to change the quality
of public drinking water given the conditions under which public drinking
water is distributed/ For private drinking well water, it is unclear how
much improvement may be gained because of the upgrades, but
because private wells are at a higher risk of drinking water
contamination/ there may be an improvement in the microbial quality
of private drinking well water in unsewered areas, particularly in the
high priority areas, given the limited (1-logio) reduction in pathogen
loading (Lowe, et al., 2009) by adding a septic tank. No change in
nitrogen levels is expected.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and
C-OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
If all existing OSDS and C-OWTS in high priority areas are required to be
upgraded to l/A OWTS, it is unlikely to change the quality of public
drinking water given the conditions under which public drinking water is
distributed*. For private drinking well water, it is unclear how much
improvement may be gained because of the upgrades, but because
private wells are at a higher risk of drinking water contamination/ there
may be an improvement in the nitrogen levels and microbial quality of
private drinking well water in unsewered areas, given the reduction in
nitrogen and pathogen loading of l/A OWTS.ฎ
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
Page 94 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continuing increases in nitrate-nitrogen levels in the Upper Glacial and Magothy
Aquifers and microbial susceptibility of private wells.
f Given the low prevalence of fecal contamination currently observed in community supply groundwater wells; the routine
monitoring of distributed water quality; the adaptive capacity of the SCWA to address degraded conditions; and the additional
protections offered by well depth and disinfection of waters, the proposed code changes are unlikely to impact public drinking
water quality. However, Alternatives I and II do nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of individual sewerage
systems, which could lead to continuing increases in nitrate-nitrogen levels in the Upper Glacial and Magothy Aquifers and
susceptibility of private wells to fecal contamination, making treatment of public drinking water more expensive.
* Because private wells generally pump from the shallower, Upper Glacial Aquifer and lack the levels of treatment,
management, and testing required of public water supply systems, they are considered to be a higher-risk drinking water
source. Because areas without public water connections are often also unsewered, co-location of private wells and individual
sewerage systems increases the likelihood of contaminated groundwater intrusion.
ฎ Some l/A OWTS can treat pathogens and emerging contaminants of concern (e.g., personal care products and
pharmaceuticals) when certain components are part of or used in conjunction with the system (e.g., biofilters, microfiltration
membranes, chlorination/disinfection units, and permeable reactive barriers); because the final designs of the systems are
unknown, the measured fecal indicator bacteria or pathogen control performance of the systems are unknown. It is assumed,
however, that l/A OWTS will achieve the minimum reduction in pathogen loading seen by adding a septic tank (i.e., a 1-logio
reduction), regardless of any additional components in the system.
4.3.4 Impact of Changes in Quality of Source Drinking Water (Groundwater) on
Human Illness
Universally, water quality is a key health determinant because living and non-living substances in the
water, including pathogens (i.e., bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other organisms that cause disease)
and toxic substances (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides), can cause illness in humans through direct contact
and ingestion. Typical symptoms of illness manifest as gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting,
and abdominal pain), but complications can arise leading to more severe illness and even death (EPA,
2012a). A number of other health problems have been associated with chemically-contaminated water,
including lung and skin irritation, cancer, kidney, liver, and nervous system damage
(www.countvhealthrankinas.org, Drinking Water Violations). According to EPA (2001a), improperly used
or operated septic systems can be a significant source of groundwater contamination that can lead to
disease outbreaks and other adverse health effects. A recent analysis of CDC data found improper siting
or maintenance of individual sewerage systems to be the primary cause of reported disease outbreaks
associated with untreated groundwater nationwide (Wallender, Ailes, Yoder, Roberts, & Brunkard,
2014). DeFelice et al. (2016) found that 99% of emergency department visits per year of acute
gastrointestinal illness attributable to microbial contamination in drinking water are associated with
private well contamination in North Carolina. Private wells are not regulated under the Safe Water
Drinking Act; homeowners who get drinking water from a private well are responsible for ensuring the
quality of their drinking water.
yJLs To reduce local risk, take into consideration good practice in the siting, design, installation and
s$/\ maintenance of individual sewerage systems to ensure protection of groundwater and
drinking water sources, especially in areas served by private drinking water wells.
Page 95 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Nitrate toxicity can cause complications during pregnancy and health risks to infants and young children.
Infants younger than 4 months are more susceptible to nitrite toxicity from elevated nitrate/nitrite
ingestion (WHO, 2011). Infants with excessive methemoglobin in their blood appear "bluish" because of
the lack of oxygen delivered to tissues, a disease commonly referred to as "blue baby syndrome" or
methemoglobinemia. If left untreated, methemoglobinemia can be fatal for affected infants (EPA,
2001a; Smith R. P., 2009).
Note: Intake of some nitrate is normal, considering nitrates are also present in food, such as
vegetables and preserved meats and sausages, as well as some medications and topical creams used
for burn relief (CDC, 2013a).
Use of a drinking well that becomes contaminated with inadequately treated wastewater can lead to
infections and illness from pathogens, including E. coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Hepatitis A virus,
Salmonella typhi bacteria (typhoid fever), helminths (parasitic worms), and others (Onsite Wastewater
Working Group, n.d.; EPA, 2001a). Young children, the elderly, and those who are immunocompromised
are more likely to become infected from these types of pathogens (SCDHS, 2015a).
Although most strains of E. coli are harmless and many normally live in the intestines of humans and
other animals, some are pathogenic. Symptoms can manifest as diarrhea and/or other gastrointestinal
distress, urinary tract infections, and respiratory illness. Most infections are mild, with improvement
seen within a week and symptoms that are easily controlled with over-the-counter products. E. coli
0157:H7 is a specific serotype of E. coli that produces Shiga toxins; this pathogen belongs to the Shiga
toxin-producing E. coli (or STEC) pathotype and may also be referred to as enterohemorrhagic E. coli (or
EHEC. E. coli 0157 or other STEC infections can cause severe illness, including bloody diarrhea and
hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is a type of kidney failure, and even death. STEC infections as
well as salmonellosis and shigellosis are all infectious diseases caused by contact with feces or fecally-
contaminated media, such as food or water. Giardia duodenalis is a common waterborne parasite in the
U.S. and can be found in soil, food, or water that has been contaminated with the feces from infected
humans or animals. Ingestion of water or food contaminated with Giardia can cause giardiasis or
"beaver fever," an illness characterized by diarrhea, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Enteric viruses,
such as norovirus, are also transmitted via the fecal-oral route. Norovirus is a highly contagious virus and
is considered to be the leading cause of acute gastrointestinal illness, both domestically and worldwide
(Hall, et al., 2013; Ahmed, et al., 2014). Individuals sick with norovirus can shed large numbers of the
virus in their feces; these viruses are routinely detected in municipal wastewater (Pouillot, et al., 2015).
There have been numerous case studies linking individual sewerage systems to human illness. Hrudey
and Hrudey (2007) identified sewage-contamination as the major cause of 40 out of 73 published
outbreaks of waterborne disease in developed countries in the past 30 years. Novello (2000)
investigated a 1999 outbreak of waterborne illness and death resulting from a beverage and ice machine
contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 and Campylobacter jejuni at the Washington County Fair in upstate
New York; the suspected source of the pathogens was a cesspool located 38 feet away from the drinking
well that supplied water to the beverage machine. Said and others (2003) identified septage-effluent as
the source of waterborne disease outbreaks from contaminated drinking wells in England and Wales
Page 96 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
(United Kingdom). Cliver (2000) found isolated outbreaks of waterborne illness related to specific
individual sewerage systems in failure.
Researchers in northeastern Wisconsin found a connection between a norovirus outbreak at a
restaurant and contamination from a septic system (Borchardt, et al., 2011). Importantly, this study
demonstrated that there is a risk of illness even from a properly functioning septic system. Likewise,
Jack, Bell and Hewitt (2013) studied a norovirus outbreak at a resort and found common strains amongst
fecal samples, drinking water samples, and surface water downstream of septic systems (but not
upstream). In Wyoming, a norovirus outbreak among snowmobilers, from contaminated groundwater,
was believed to be due to a nearby septic system (Anderson, et al., 2003).
In 2002, researchers studied the relationship between septic system density and infectious diarrhea in
children in central Wisconsin between the ages of 1 and 19. The authors demonstrated that incidence of
diarrhea was significantly associated with sewerage system density in central Wisconsin. (Borchardt,
Chyou, DeVries, & Belongia, 2003).
Existing Risk of Illness from Source Drinking Water al the Time of the HI A Analysis
Community supply wells in Suffolk County are generally low in fecal contamination and are thus unlikely
to present a source of illness-causing pathogens. Occasional detections of total coliforms do not
necessarily indicate fecal contamination or the presence of pathogens. Additionally, water is disinfected
prior to distribution, reducing pathogens that may occur and providing chlorine residual to protect
against contamination in the distribution system. However, although rare, cross-contamination between
drinking water service lines (including those on-premises) and sewerage system discharges and/or
contaminated groundwater can occur, which allows pathogens present in high concentrations or those
resistant to chlorine disinfection (e.g., Cryptosporidium) to potentially contaminate distributed drinking
water. According to the County Health Rankings (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute,
2016), no residents in Suffolk County are served by community water systems with unsafe drinking
water, based on applicable health-based drinking water standards. In comparison, neighboring Nassau
County had 1% of residents at risk, and the New York State annual average was 26%
(www.countyhealthrankings.org).
Private wells have unknown (and likely variable) quality with respect to microorganisms and fecal
contamination. Given that these systems are typically maintained by the homeowner themselves, rather
than a trained operator, and are only required to be tested upon installation and property transfer, they
are considered to present a greater health risk in Suffolk County than community systems (Suffolk
County Government, 2015b). Shallow wells and lack of disinfection further increase these risks. Non-
community supplies, which are also not usually disinfected and have demonstrated total coliform
violations, may also be vulnerable.
Table 4-2 (in Section 4.1.4) provides baseline rates of illness associated with pathogens found in human
waste. Water-related exposures to pathogens causing these diseases can be through a number of
different pathways, including drinking water contaminated with sewerage-derived pollutants. It should
be noted that illness from exposure to pathogens found in human waste likely goes unreported given
Page 97 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
the generality and self-limiting nature of the symptoms (e.g., nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
dehydration).
Note: Use of private drinking wells and individual sewerage systems have not been associated with
reported cases of disease in Suffolk County. However, the combination of risk factors suggests a
possibility that current conditions could contribute to illness in the community.
In regard to nitrates, public water supplies in Suffolk County are well below the 10 mg/L drinking water
standard for nitrate at this time, but some private drinking wells may pose more of a risk. As part of the
ongoing, private well testing program, SCDHS sampled residential drinking water wells from 2007 to
2013 and found 7% of private wells exceeded the state standard of 10 mg/L for nitrate in drinking water;
in some agricultural areas, nitrate levels doubled the nitrate standard (Suffolk County Government,
2015a). This suggests that remedial actions may be needed to reduce nitrogen contributions to Suffolk
County waters from agricultural lands, as well as individual sewerage systems. There are no known cases
of nitrate toxicity (methemoglobinemia or "blue baby syndrome") in Suffolk County (SCWA, 2016).
y-v' Continue expansion of connections to community supply systems to reduce dependency on
private wells, which can reduce the overall magnitude of potential effects of wastewater on
drinking water.
Page 98 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Table 4-16. Impact of Decision on Human Illness from Source Drinking Water
Health Determinant
Human Illness from
sewerage-derived
pollutants in source
drinking water
(groundwater)
Alternatives
Alternative I
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
AND
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority
areas must be
upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
Baseline Health Status
Most cases of illness in Suffolk County related to pathogens found in human waste were caused by bacteria, such as Shigella and
Salmonella, although incidence rates suggest the absence of widespread disease outbreaks. On average, approximately one in every
260,000 people are affected by harmful E. coli each year in Suffolk County, compared to about one in every 167,000 people in New York
State. The use of private drinking wells and individual sewerage systems have not been associated with disease outbreaks in Suffolk
County. However, a combination of risk factors suggests a possibility that current conditions could contribute to sporadic or unreported
illnesses. There are no known cases of nitrate toxicity (methemoglobinemia or "blue baby syndrome") in Suffolk County.
Direction
These alternatives
will detract from
health because
there would be no
appreciable
reduction in
nitrogen loading
and a limited (1-
logio) reduction in
pathogen loading
to groundwater.
Likelihood
Illness from
community water
supply systems is
unlikely, but the
continued risk of
illness from
private and non-
community water
supply wells is
possible.
Magnitude* Distribution
The risk of
exposure to
contaminated
drinking water
could affect a high
number of people,
considering private
(individual) wells
and non-
community
systems serve
about 13% of
residents (approx.
194,000 people).
However, the
number of illnesses
of this type are
low.
See footnote f
Severity
The health
implications of
sewerage-
contaminated
drinking water are
minor to
moderate
(gastrointestinal
symptoms
expected) for most
of the population;
but, severe among
pregnant women
and infants less
than 6 months.
Permanence
The effects of
illness from
contaminated
drinking wells may
be short-term to
long-lasting, but
the changes in risk
may not occur for
a long time,
considering
hydrologic travel
times between
sewerage systems
and well screens
may be 0-50 years.
Strength of
Evidence
Strong. Numerous
studies have linked
exposure to
sewerage-derived
pollutants from
individual
sewerage systems
to human illness
where the
exposure occurred
through drinking
water.
Page 99 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude*
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative III
This alternative
This alternative is
The risk of
See footnote f
The health
The effects of
Strong. Numerous
All existing OSDS
would benefit
unlikely to
exposure to
implications of
illness from
studies have linked
and C-OWTS in the
health by reducing
improve drinking
contaminated
sewerage-
contaminated
exposure to
high priority areas
the risk of illness
water quality from
drinking water
contaminated
drinking wells may
sewerage-derived
must be upgraded
from sewerage-
public water
could affect a high
drinking water are
be short-term to
pollutants from
to an innovative/
derived nitrate-
supply since public
number of people,
minor to
long-lasting, but
individual
alternative system
nitrogen in
water supply is
considering private
moderate
the changes in risk
sewerage systems
design.
groundwater and
already
(individual) wells
(gastrointestinal
may not occur for
to human illness
providing a limited
satisfactory. The
and non-
symptoms
a long time,
where the
to considerable
risk of illness
community
expected) for most
considering
exposure occurred
reduction in
among persons
systems serve
of the population;
hydrologic travel
through drinking
pathogen loading
using private and
about 13% of
but, severe among
times between
water.
to groundwater
non-community
residents (approx.
pregnant women
sewerage systems
depending on the
water supply wells
194,000 people).
and infants less
and well screens
design of the
is unlikely,
However, the
than 6 months.
may be 0-50 years.
system.
provided that
number of illnesses
disinfection
of this type are
technologies are
low.
utilized.
* Scientific literature shows a link between human illness and exposure to sewerage-derived pollutants in drinking water; however, the number of reported illnesses of this type in Suffolk
County are low and it can be difficult to determine the route of infection (foodborne, waterborne, person-to-person). As stated previously, human illness from exposure to sewerage-derived
pollutants can go unreported. Because the true number of illnesses in Suffolk County from sewerage derived pollutants in drinking water is unknown, Magnitude could not be expressed as a
change in frequency or prevalence of illness. The Likelihood and Magnitude columns together describe the potential risk of illness where exposure occurred through drinking water (i.e., the
number of people served by private and non-community drinking water systems, as it assumes these residences are also unsewered). The location of private drinking water wells was
unknown, so it was not possible to determine the number of residences in high priority areas potentially at risk of illness from sewerage derived pollutants in drinking water in Alternatives II
and III
+ Distribution - These health impacts would be disproportionately experienced by those with private/non-community drinking water supply wells and individual sewerage systems, those
more susceptible to water-related pathogens, and those more at risk to nitrate toxicity in drinking water. Pregnant women and infants under 6 months are more at risk to nitrate toxicity in
drinking water. Young children, the elderly, and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be susceptible to pathogens. Residences with a private well and individual sewerage
system have a higher risk for drinking water contamination, especially where groundwater is shallow and/or density of unsewered residences is high
Page 100 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
4.3.5 Impact of Changes in Pollutant Loading on Quality of Surface Waters
Pollutants, such as sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic substances can impair the quality of surface
waters - rivers, lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal shorelines - and affect use of water resources.
Pollutant loading to surface waters can come from a single point source (e.g., wastewater treatment
plant) or non-point source, such as run-off from developed and agricultural lands, atmospheric
deposition, and contributions from groundwater (such as individual sewerage system discharges to
groundwater). With increasing understanding of the impact of anthropogenic activities on surface
waters and human and aquatic life, water quality standards have been developed to protect the quality
of lakes, rivers, streams, and other waterbodies. Under the Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d),
states must assess the extent to which waters are meeting the water quality standards established for
them; when a water quality standard is not met (e.g., 6 NYCRR Part 703), the water is deemed impaired
and actions must be taken to restore the water resource (EPA, 2017a).
Water Quality Parameters
Table 4-17 describes a number of parameters used to characterize surface water quality; some of these
parameters are also those used to characterize wastewater. As noted in the Individual Sewerage System
Performance and Failure Pathway, this HIA analysis focused primarily on nitrogen loading (as this was
identified to be a primary concern for Suffolk County waters), but also touches on pathogen loading (as
this can cause human illness), and phosphorous (a contributor to harmful algal blooms, which have been
experienced in County waters and have human health and economic implications).
Table 4-17. Surface Water Quality Parameters
Parameter
Details
Biological oxygen
demand (BOD)*
The amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic microorganisms to break
down organic matter at a given temperature over time (i.e., used as a proxy
measure for organic matter content); measured as 5-day average (BOD5) in
milligrams per liter of sample (mg/L).
Chlorophyll-a
An estimate of the biomass of planktonic algae in water; measured as
micrograms per L (ng/L). Chlorophyll-a can be strongly influenced by
nitrogen and phosphorus, which are derived by natural and human activities.
Dissolved oxygen
(DO)
The concentration of oxygen gas incorporated in water; measured as mg/L.
Enterococcus
Measured/present in marine and fresh waters as an indicator of fecal
contamination, using standardized EPA Method 1600 (EPA, 2006a);
measured as most probable number (MPN) or colony forming units (CFU) per
100 mL of sample.
Escherichia coli
(E. coli)*
Measured/present in fresh waters as an indicator of fecal contamination;
measured as most probable number (MPN) or colony forming units (CFU) per
100 mL of sample/
Fecal coliforms*
Microorganisms which are found in the intestinal tract of all warm-blooded
animals (often used as an indicator of fecal contamination, although less
specific than E. coli, a type of fecal coliform); measured as most probable
number (MPN) or colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of sample.
Page 101 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Parameter
Details
Secchi depth
A naked-eye measure of water clarity generally correlated with the amount
of planktonic algae and/or the turbidity from suspended soil particles;
measured in feet.
Total coliforms
A class of microorganisms including fecal coliforms and other environmental
bacteria (often used as an indicator of fecal contamination, although less
specific than E. coli or fecal coliforms); measured as most probable number
(MPN) or colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of sample/
Total suspended
solids (TSS)*
All particles suspended in water which will not pass through a filter;
measured as TSS in mg/L.
Total Nitrogen
(TN)*
The total of all nitrogen compounds suspended in water: organic-nitrogen +
ammonia-nitrogen + nitrite-nitrogen + nitrate-nitrogen; measured asTN in
mg/L using standardized APHA (1995) methods.
Total kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN)*
The total of organic-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen compounds suspended
in water; measured as TKN in mg/L.
Total Phosphorous
(TP)
The total of all phosphate compounds suspended in water: orthophosphates
+ polyphosphates + organic phosphates; measured as TP in mg/L using
standardized APHA (1995) methods.
* Surface water quality parameters that are also used to characterize wastewater.
f EPA Standard Method 9223, Enzyme Substrate Coliform Test may be used for compliance monitoring under the Revised Total
Coliform Rule.
Nutrients and Algal Blooms
As previously mentioned, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) play an important role in the
environment. In aquatic environments, nitrogen and phosphorous support the growth of phytoplankton,
algae, and aquatic plants, which provide food and habitat for fish, shellfish, and smaller organisms that
live in water (Algae Biomass Organization, n.d.). However, too much nitrogen and phosphorous can
accelerate the degradation of surface waters by causing algae to grow faster than the ecosystem can
balance (www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem). "Nitrates and phosphorous discharged into surface
waters directly or through subsurface flows can exacerbate algal growth and lead to eutrophication"
(EPA, 2002a). Excess algal growth and eutrophication result in visual changes to the water including
muddles or discolored water (i.e., decreased water clarity) and in some cases, foul odors.
Algae need sunlight, slow-moving water, and nutrients (nitrogen and sometimes, phosphorous) to
flourish. A dense population of algae, known as a "bloom," involves rapid reproduction and
development of extremely high biomass in a limited spatial area. Blooms can be an indication of an
ecosystem imbalance, both in water and on land. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic nutrient
input (i.e., excessive input of nitrogen and phosphorous from human activity) contributes significantly to
the formation of algal blooms (Paerl, Fulton, Moisander, & Dyble, 2001; Paerl & Otten, 2013;
Page 102 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016)25. See Appendix A for a description of the types of algal blooms
that can occur; not all are harmful.
Some freshwater and marine species of algae or phytoplankton produce toxins or conditions that are
harmful to humans, animals, and other plants. When these algae multiply in large numbers, they can
have negative impacts on humans, the environment, and coastal economies (NOAA, 2016a); these
algae produce Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). One of the most hazardous freshwater HABs is
cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae), which are actually photosynthetic bacteria that can
produce toxins that can be consumed, aerosolized, or absorbed through the skin to damage tissues of
the liver, nervous system, and skin of both humans and animals (Graham, 2013). In addition, some
cyanobacterial blooms give off foul odors, commonly described as smelling like "rotten eggs." Some
cyanobacteria form dense algal blooms in nutrient-enriched lakes and ponds, typically during the
summer and early fall months, which produce endotoxins at a level which can harm household pets
(Graham, 2013).
HABs can also occur in marine and estuarine waters. Slow-draining estuaries and marine shoreline areas
(i.e., coastal wetlands that have relatively long water residence times) are particularly susceptible to
harmful effects of algal blooms resulting from sudden influxes of nitrogen that cannot be quickly
"flushed" out of the estuary or diluted (Paerl, Pinckney, Fear, & Peierls, 1998). HABs in marine and
estuarine waters, can be caused by the marine dinoflagellate Karlodinium veneficum, which produces a
class of associated karlotoxins known to cause fish kills; the mahogany tide estuarine algae,
Prorocentrum minimum, which produces neurotoxins toxic to marine organisms and can extend
upwards into freshwater rivers; and a number of species that cause red, brown, and rust tides.
The red tide organism, Alexandrium, produces the neurotoxin saxitoxin that causes paralytic shellfish
poison (PSP) capable of killing humans through ingestion of shellfish, marine animals, and other
competitor plankton (Colin & Dam, 2003; Deeds, Landsberg, Etheridge, Pitcher, & Longan, 2008).
Symptoms of PSP include numbness and tingling of lips, tongue, face, and limbs; loss of motor control;
respiratory distress; and even death (Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016). Red tides can also be caused
by Dinophysis acuminata, a genus that produces okadaic acid, which can cause diarrhetic shellfish
poisoning (DSP) in humans that consume shellfish contaminated with the acid. Symptoms of DSP include
diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea and abdominal pain (Lloyd, Duchin, Borchert, Quintana, & Robertson,
2013; Reguera, et al., 2014). The toxins produced by Alexandrium and Dinophysis can be present in
25 There have been a number of more recent studies and reports (after completion of the HIA analysis) linking nutrient loading
and algal blooms in Suffolk County, including the Suffolk County Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan (Wise, 2017) and the
Summary Report from the 2018 Suffolk County Harmful Bloom Symposium (New York Sea Grant, 2018). It should be noted that
while phosphorous is typically a factor in the formation of freshwater HABs, it has also been shown to play a role in HABs in
Suffolk County coastal waters. Therefore, Wise (2017) recommends that actions taken to counter HABs in Suffolk County target
both nitrogen and phosphorus.
Page 103 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
shellfish at concentrations harmful to humans without causing discoloration of the water (Hattenrath-
Lehmann & Gobler, 2016).26
Brown tides can be caused by Aureococcus anophagefferens, a species that, in high concentrations,
turns the water brown and reduces light penetration. This can have a severe impact on eelgrass (Zostera
marina), even leading to mass die-offs (Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016). This species can thrive
using both dissolved organic and inorganic nitrogen, which gives them a unique advantage over most
green plants that can only use mineralized or inorganic nitrogen. In addition to the impacts on
seagrasses, brown tides can have negative impacts on the feeding, growth, and mortality of shellfish,
such as bay scallops and clams, and cause a reduction in planktonic organisms (Gastrich & Wazniak,
2002). Shellfish, especially scallops, are affected by the loss of habitat caused by brown tide organisms
outcompeting eelgrass beds for light and nutrients, because bay scallops require eelgrass beds as part of
their developmental cycle. Nuzzi and Waters (2004) found that brown tides often occur when the ratio
of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) to dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) is high, such as in areas that
receive high levels of treated sewage. Sources of DON include urea, amino acids, and proteins excreted
by humans and animals (i.e., untreated), whereas the sources of DIN are treated wastewater, fertilizer
runoff, and atmospheric deposition.
Rust tides, caused by the dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides, are hypothesized to occur when
nitrogen-low waters receive a sudden influx of inorganic nitrogen, such as after an extreme rainfall
event (Mulholland, et al., 2009). Rust tides are not harmful to humans, but Cochlodinium produces a
toxin that is lethal to several species offish and shellfish.
Mahogany tides, caused by the marine dinoflagellate Prorocentrum minimum, are toxic to marine
animals, but not to humans. Mahogany tides create hypoxic conditions (i.e., low dissolved oxygen) and
have been associated with fish and shellfish kills; however, there is also evidence that some strains of P.
minimum produce neurotoxins, as well (Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016).
Green tides are caused by excessive growth of macroalgae, or seaweed; these tides often occur in
estuaries impacted by eutrophication and high nutrient loading. Green tides can promote hypoxia and
have been shown to cause mortality in some marine life (Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016).
Pathogens
In addition to increased algal bloom occurrence, pathogens are another source of risk to surface water
quality. However, there is only a limited understanding of pathogen loading from nonpoint source
contamination and the consequences to coastal environments (Stewart, et al., 2008). Pathogen
monitoring in surface waters is impractical, given the relatively lower concentrations of pathogens
compared to other microorganisms, and because each type of bacteria, virus or protozoan requires a
26 Due to prioritization of pathways in Scoping, this HIA does not examine the human health impacts of paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP) or diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) through consumption of shellfish. However, PSP and DSP are discussed in
the HIA because they are a result of algal blooms caused by excess nutrients, and the closing of shellfishing areas due to PSP
and DSP have economic implications. For more on the economic implications of PSP and DSP, see Section 4.6.
Page 104 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
different test (EPA, 2006b). Instead, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) are often used to indicate that fecal
contamination may have occurred. If relatively high numbers of FIB are found, there is an increased
likelihood of pathogens being present (EPA, 2006b; USGS, 2017). Coliform indicators do not always infer
human sewage contamination, however, because FIB can come from wildlife and other animal sources
and can survive and proliferate in subsurface sands and sediment (under certain conditions) for an
extended period (Stewart, et al., 2008)
Meeroff et al. (2014) compared two sets of coastal neighborhoods in Florida, with one entirely served by
public sewer and one by individual sewerage systems. Results indicated consistently higher FIB levels in
unsewered areas, with poorer water quality observed during seasonally high water table events as
consistent with improved septic performance during dry periods. Several studies, in locations other
than Suffolk County, have demonstrated the link between elevated levels of FIB and waters impacted
by individual sewerage systems. Sowah et al. (2014) monitored FIB in 24 Georgian watersheds
exhibiting a gradient from low to high density of septic systems and demonstrated a positive correlation
between sewerage system density and fecal pollution levels when accounting for seasonality and land-
use effects. In order to identify the source of fecal pollution (i.e., from humans or other animals) in a
water catchment served exclusively by individual sewerage systems, Carroll et. al (2009) examined the
antibiotic resistance profile of E. coli isolated from surface water and groundwater in Australia and
compared them to a library of resistance patterns from known-source isolates. While the majority of
sources in rural areas were non-human, the authors used regression modeling to establish that the
contribution of human sources increased significantly in urbanized areas where individual sewerage
systems were prevalent. Cahoon et. al (2006) examined rainfall patterns and septic densities and
determined that poorly performing septic systems were the ultimate source of fecal contamination
contributing to shelIfishing closures in a North Carolina estuary. It should be noted that many of these
studies were likely conducted on septic tank-soil absorption systems. Although these systems are
technologically different from the cesspools and septic tank-leaching pool systems utilized in Suffolk
County, it reasonable to expect the link between elevated levels of FIB and waters impacted by
individual sewerage systems to exist in Suffolk County.
Both harmful algal blooms and pathogens can impact recreational use of waters, tourism, and the
economy, including impacts to the fishing and shellfishing industries. HAB toxins can also bioaccumulate
in fish and shellfish tissue, which when eaten, can cause disease in animals and humans.
Existing Quality of Suffolk County Surface Waters at the Time of the HI A Analysis
Impaired Waters
Impaired waters, according to Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, are rivers, lakes, or
streams that do not meet one or more water quality standards for a particular pollutant and are
considered too polluted for their intended uses (e.g., swimming, recreation, shellfishing, fish production,
etc.). All three major estuary systems in Suffolk County - the Peconic Estuary, South Shore
embayments, and Long Island Sound - have been declared impaired due to pathogens and/or nitrogen
contaminants (NYSDEC, 2014b; NYSDEC, 2016a). Depleted dissolved oxygen, increased nitrogen loading,
harmful algal blooms, and decreased wetland acreage have been observed in all three estuaries.
Page 105 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Figure 4-20 highlights the impaired waters across Suffolk County, with those impaired by potential
wastewater-related causes distinguished in pink. The entire north shore and south bays of western and
central Suffolk County are impaired by pollutants that could be related to point and non-point source
wastewater. However, marine waters at the east end, past the Peconic Bay, are impaired by pollutants
not relatable to wastewater. Waters that specifically list onsite wastewater treatment systems as an
impairment source for nitrogen include the Great South Bay, Moriches Bay, Quantuck Bay, and
Shinnecock Bay in the South Shore Estuary Preserve. Almost all of the near-shore fresh and brackish
waters are impaired.
For more on the impact of nutrient loading and surface water quality on wetlands, see Sections 4.4.2
and 4.4.3.
Figure 4-20. Locations of impaired waters, with those impaired by potential wastewater-
related causes highlighted in pink.
Nitrogen Loading
A number of studies have been conducted on Long Island to model the sources and contribution of
nitrogen loading to various waterbodies. Nitrogen loading, along with a number of physical, chemical,
and biological factors, contribute to the water quality of a body of water. Nitrogen loading from
individual sewerage systems is discussed in terms of potential changes to surface water quality as
nitrogen loading from these systems has been identified as a source of impairment to surface water
quality throughout Suffolk County.
Kinney and Valiela (2011) applied a modeling tool to estimate the contribution of nitrogen from multiple
sources to 33 sub-watersheds of Great South Bay. The results from the model were compared with
results from empirically-measured nitrogen levels in water and estimates from the widely applied
SPARROW model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (Latimer & Charpentier, 2010). Kinney and
Base Map: Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, ฉ OpenStreetMap
Impaired Waters: US EPA Office of Water 303(d) Impaired Waters, 2015
Unimpaired Waters: US EPA and USGS National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPIus)
and US Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), 2015 'Oceans removed
Page 106 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Valiela (2011) estimated that total nitrogen loading to the Great South Bay was 55% (1,898,591 kg
nitrogen per year) from wastewater, 98% (1,861,791 kg nitrogen per year) of which was derived from
unsewered residences; 31% of total loading was from atmospheric deposition to land; and 15% was
from fertilizer runoff.
Considering only land-based sources of nitrogen, Lloyd (2014) found wastewater from residential
individual sewerage systems was the largest contributor of nitrogen in 25 of the 43 Peconic Estuary
subwatersheds. Septic system and cesspool nitrogen loading accounted for 43% of nitrogen loading to
the Peconic Estuary as a whole, followed by fertilizer (26.4%), atmospheric deposition (24%), and other
wastewater contributions (6.6%). The study also found there was significant variation in the results
among subwatersheds.
Stinnette (2014) and Gobler (2016) used modeling to determine the relative contribution of non-point
source land-based nitrogen loading to the three Eastern Bays of the South Shore Estuary Reserve (i.e.,
Moriches, Quantuck and Shinnecock Bays). The study showed that 65% of the nitrogen loading to the
three bays was from wastewater, 20% from fertilizer, and 15% from atmospheric deposition. Modeling
also showed that groundwater was responsible for the transport of more than 90% of the nitrogen load
in all but one subwatershed.
Lloyd, Mollod, LoBue, & Lindberg (2016) undertook a study to model the sources and loading rates of
nitrogen in thirteen subwatersheds along the north shore of Long Island. Wastewater contributed over
33% of the nitrogen load in all of the subwatersheds and over 80% of the nitrogen load in four
subwatersheds (Manhasset Bay, Huntington Harbor, Centerport Harbor, and Northport Harbor).
Cesspools and septic systems were the primary source of wastewater loading in all the subwatersheds,
except Manhasset Bay, where point sources loading from centralized sewage treatment plants was
greater.
A 2008 study in the highly-eutrophic Lake Agawam on Long Island found that 39% of total nitrogen
originated from groundwater sources (Harke, Davis, & Gobler, 2008). Groundwater nitrogen loadings to
freshwater from septic tanks can be significant (Reay, 2004), and improperly maintained or installed
septic systems are a widespread problem that results in further nutrient contamination (May, Place,
O'Malley, & Spears, 2011).
Note: Not all nitrogen that enters a watershed reaches receiving waters (i.e., waterbodies
downgradient from the watershed). Multiple studies have been performed to model nitrogen
contributions and loading to Long Island estuaries using the Nitrogen Loading Model (NLM) available
through the Nitrogen Load (NLOAD) web-based modeling tool (Bowen, Ramstack, Mazzilli, & Valiela,
2007). In a nitrogen modeling study of sub-watersheds feeding to the Great South Bay, Kinney and
Valiela (2011) found that retention rates of total nitrogen entering the environment from all sources
was linked to the presence of natural vegetation; in watersheds that were more urbanized, nitrogen
retention decreased (Kinney & Valiela, 2011). The Nitrogen Loading Model used in many of the Long
Island nitrogen modeling studies (Kinney & Valiela, 2011; Lloyd, 2014; Stinnette, 2014; Woods Hole
Group Inc., 2014; Gobler C. J., 2016; Lloyd, Mollod, LoBue, & Lindberg, 2016) assumes that 35% of the
nitrogen is retained in the watershed, but Lloyd (2014) noted that the NLM likely underestimates the
Page 107 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
total nitrogen loading; other experts suggest only 10-20% of the nitrogen is retained in the watershed.
At the time of the HIA, the NLM modeling of individual sewerage system-derived nitrogen contributions
to Long Island estuaries provided the best available data and it showed that approximately 30-40% of
the nitrogen is retained in the watershed; meaning that 60-70% of the nitrogen from individual
sewerage systems makes its way to Long Island estuaries (Lloyd, Mollod, LoBue, & Lindberg, 2016)27.
Because this was the best available data at the time of the HIA analysis, this was used to estimate
nitrogen loading to surface waters for the alternatives assessed in the HIA. The countywide nitrogen
loading modeling performed by Suffolk County since completion of the HIA analysis shows a fair amount
of variability in nitrogen loading among subwatersheds in the County.28
yJL' Increasing vegetated land cover and green infrastructure29 may prevent further transport of
sewerage-derived pollutants (and other nitrogen loading) in stormwater runoff and/or shallow
groundwater movement (Kinney & Valiela, 2011).
Harmful Algal Blooms
With its long coastlines and many embayments, Long Island's ecosystems are especially vulnerable to
HABs (NYSDEC, 2016b). Most marine harmful algal blooms in Suffolk County have been historically
referred to by their color (e.g., "red tides" or "brown tides"). Long Island has experienced near-annual
outbreaks of red and brown tides since the mid-1980s, caused by Alexandrium spp. and Aureococcus
anophagefferens, respectively. There are several species of toxin-producing harmful algal blooms
present in Suffolk County fresh and marine waters, including the red tide organisms, Alexandrium and
Dinophysis, which produce biotoxins than can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) and diarrhetic
shellfish poisoning (DSP), respectively; the "rust tide" algae, Cochlodinium polykrikoides, which produces
a toxin that is lethal to a variety of marine organisms; the "mahogany tide" estuarine algae,
Prorocentrum minimum, which produces neurotoxins toxic to marine organisms and can extend
upwards into freshwater rivers; and freshwater cyanobacteria.
Harmful algal blooms are a major cause offish, shellfish, and other animal die-off in Suffolk County
marine waters, affecting commercial fishing and shellfishing industries, as well as causing ecological
perturbation. HAB toxins can bioaccumulate in shellfish tissue, which when eaten, can cause disease in
animals and humans. In addition to these impacts, the coloring of Suffolk County waters with these
algae can deter water-based recreation (e.g., boating, swimming, and fishing) and affect other sectors,
such as tourism and real estate.
27 There is essentially no difference between a septic tank-leaching pool system and a cesspool in terms of removal of nitrogen
in Suffolk County.
28 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, and
refine priority areas in which to focus those efforts. For more on this effort, see Appendix K
29 Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and other natural landscape features to manage wet weather impacts and reduce
and treat stormwater at its source (EPA, 2015b).
Page 108 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Red tides
Significant blooms of red tide (Alexandrium fundyense) have occurred in Suffolk County yearly since at
least 2010, when the Great South Bay, Moriches Bay, Quantuck Bay, and Shinnecock Bay were all listed
as impaired water bodies due to the red tide. One of the main causes of these blooms was identified as
nitrogen input from septic systems and cesspools (TNC, 2012).
Suffolk County has monitored mussel and clam tissues for the presence of PSP - caused by the biotoxin
(saxitoxin) produced by Alexandrium - since 2006 through the NYSDEC Marine Biotoxin Monitoring
Program30. The team samples hundreds of shellfish from suspected red tide areas to determine if PSP
levels are high enough to prompt a closing of the area to shellfishing and/or issuing a shellfish
consumption advisory. PSP has been detected at a hazardous level during every year of monitoring. One
area of particular concern, Seymour's Boatyard, near Northport in Suffolk County was found to have a
recurring outbreak of PSP every year monitored. Trends in PSP detections can be found in Figure 4-21.
Since 2006, annual toxic Alexandrium blooms have forced over 7,000 acres of shellfish beds on Long
Island's north shore to be closed, and in 2011, forced the closure of nearly 4,000 acres along the south
shore (NCCOS, 2017). In 2012, Alexandrium blooms were detected in new locations, including Sag
Harbor.
Dinophysis, another organism that causes red tide, has been found in Suffolk County harbors since the
early 1970s; however, it wasn't until 2008 that elevated levels of the algae were found and three years
later, in 2011, that the first case of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) caused by Dinophysis occurred
(Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016). Beginning in 2008, targeted sampling for Dinophysis was
conducted. The north shore of Long Island now experiences large annual blooms of
toxic Dinophysis, raising concerns about DSP in Suffolk County shellfish. DSP caused the closure of one
shellfish harvest area in 2011, but all other locations where DSP toxins exceeded action levels were
already closed to shellfishing due to coliform contamination or other causes (Hattenrath-Lehmann &
Gobler, 2016).
30 Due to prioritization of pathways in Scoping, this HIA does not examine the human health impacts of paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP) or diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) through consumption of shellfish. However, PSP and DSP are discussed in
the HIA because they are a result of algal blooms caused by excess nutrients, and the closing of shellfishing areas due to PSP
and DSP have economic implications. For more on the economic implications of PSP and DSP, see Section 4.6.
Page 109 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Figure 4-21. Percent of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) surveillance
samples testing positive in Suffolk County, NY 2006-2015. Source:
(NYSDEC Marine Biotoxin Monitoring Program)
Brown tides
The well-known Suffolk County, New York "brown tides" of the 1980s to 1990s were an example of an
Aureococcus anophagefferens bloom. While Aureococcus does not produce toxins, its impact on water
quality in Suffolk County has been associated with eelgrass die-offs and impacts to shellfish, such as bay
scallops and clams. Unlike other algae that have been shown to be stimulated by inorganic nitrogen,
Aureococcus blooms in Suffolk County typically occur after these other algae "pre-bloom" and utilize the
inorganic nutrients; the result is high levels of dissolved organic matter (dissolved organic nitrogen,
phosphorous, and carbon), under which brown tides thrive (Gobler & Sanudo-Wilhelmy, 2001; Lomas, et
al., 2001). However, availability of dissolved organic nitrogen is only one factor that contributes to
brown tides; other factors include light, temperature, salinity, and water residence times (Hattenrath-
Lehmann & Gobler, 2016).
Brown tide is monitored by Suffolk County in partnership with Stony Brook University. The Great South,
Moriches, and Shinnecock Bays, along with the Peconic Estuary and Forge River, have been monitored
(with some gaps for certain smaller areas) since 2001. A summary of brown tide surveillance samples
that found Category 2 or higher blooms in Suffolk County (i.e., samples above 35,000 cells/mL) can be
found in Figure 4-22. Of particular note is the large spike in detections in 2008, especially in the Great
South Bay. This corresponds to an extremely devastating brown tide event, which at the time was the
most extensive and longest on record (since surpassed by the 2011 blooms).
Page 110 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Year
Figure 4-22. Brown tide samples above 35,000 cells/mL in Suffolk County, NY 2001-2015.
Source: (SCDHS)
Beginning in 1985 and continuing to the present, brown tides have caused the demise of the bay scallop
fishery along the Long Island coast (Stony Brook University, 2013; Dennison, Marshall, & Wigand, 1989).
Mass die-offs of scallops, hard clams, and eelgrass were reported beginning in 2008, after the record
Great South Bay bloom (Gobler C., 2008).
Rust tides
Beginning in 2002, Long Island has experienced "rust tides" caused by the dinoflagellate Cochlodinium
polykrikoides on a near-annual basis. Rust tides were prevalent in the region long before they were
present in Suffolk County, causing researchers to hypothesize that environmental factors, like nitrogen
loading and increased water temperatures, may be to blame for the blooms (Hattenrath-Lehmann &
Gobler, 2016). Rust tides in Suffolk County have been found to be extremely toxic to finfish and shellfish
and have resulted in strikingly large fish kills (Tang & Gobler, 2009).
Mahogany tides
"Mahogany tides", caused by the dinoflagellate Prorocentrum minimum, have historically been
observed in tributaries along the South Shore, and in 2015, occurred in the Peconic River, leading to a
massive fish kill. In Spring of 2016, a widespread bloom of P. minimum occurred in estuaries along the
South Shore and led to significant amounts of foam in the Great South Bay and minor fish kills
(Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016).
Green tides
"Green tides" and macroalgal blooms, caused by the overgrowth of the seaweed, Ulva (or sea lettuce),
are less common in Suffolk County than other harmful algal blooms, but have occurred. Green tides
were observed in Great South Bay in 1999, 2011, and 2015; in all three cases, the green tide was
followed by a brown tide (Hattenrath-Lehmann & Gobler, 2016). When large amounts of seaweed wash
Page 111 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
up on shore and decompose, they can detract from the aesthetics of the area and the smell can become
a public nuisance
Cyanobacteria
Harmful algal blooms are a recurring problem in fresh surface waters of Suffolk County, typically
appearing in late spring and continuing through the early winter. Currently, the dominant type of toxic
freshwater algal bloom in the County is caused by cyanobacteria (SCDHS, 2016c). A 2004 lake survey
conducted by Stony Brook University, as part of a Suffolk County-funded algal blooms project, found
that every lake sampled contained toxic cyanobacteria and detectable microcystins, which are liver
toxins produced by cyanobacteria that can also be skin, eye, and throat irritants. Five sampled lakes had
microcystins levels at the "moderate-to-high" risk level (based on World Health Organization risk levels)
for aquatic recreation, including Lake Ronkonkoma (SCDHS, 2016c). NYSDEC has collected reports of
blue-green algal blooms since 2012, with affected water bodies archived online by county. Reports of
blue-green algal blooms in Suffolk County were reported consistently beginning in 2013. Suffolk County
has the largest number of freshwater bodies affected by cyanobacteria in the State of New York; a
summary of blue-green algal blooms in Suffolk County is provided in Table 4-18.
Table 4-18. Summary of Cyanobacterial Blooms in Suffolk County, NY 2013-2015
Year
No.
Lakes
Listed
Average
Consecutive
Weeks Listed
Top 3 Lakes
Longest Listed
Earliest
Report
Latest
Report
2013
5
8.8
Lake Agawam, Mill Pond,
Maratooka Lake
5/8/2013
11/4/2013
2014
11
9.6
Same as above
11/3/2014
5/21/2015
2015
17
10.2
Same as above
5/22/2015
10/30/2015
Source: (NYSDEC, 2016b)
Hypoxia
The Peconic River, which feeds into the Peconic Bay on the east end of Long Island, currently
experiences fluctuating periods of hypoxia (very low dissolved oxygen levels), which are attributed to
oxygen depletion by algal blooms (PEP, 2001). Excess nitrogen from septic systems, fertilizer, sewage
treatment plant effluent, and other sources stimulates the explosive growth of blue-green algae, which
consume oxygen at night during the respiration cycle and dramatically increase biochemical oxygen
demand when they decay (Tomarken, Gerstman, & Gobler, 2016). This lack of oxygen can prove fatal to
fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. The Peconic River has had a number of highly publicized fish
kills from 1999 to the present, including several in 2015 when 300,000 adult Atlantic menhaden died
due to hypoxia and algal poisoning (Young, 2016). This die-off led to a rotting smell and biological hazard
that lasted for weeks, impacting tourism and outdoor recreation in the surrounding area.
Hypoxia has been observed in other Suffolk County waters as well, as several of the algae species that
occur in Suffolk County are associated with or create hypoxic conditions.
Page 112 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Pathogens
The majority of Suffolk County 303(d) waters that are impaired for pathogens list the source of
impairment as "Urban/Storm Runoff/' a blanket term that encompasses many forms of point- and
nonpoint-source pollution and may include influence from onsite wastewater treatment systems (EPA,
2003b). It can be difficult to discern the source of fecal contamination in surface waters because it could
be one or more sources, including individual sewerage systems, sewage treatment plants, stormwater
runoff, animal waste, or boating discharges. In addition to individual sewerage systems, sewage
treatment plants (STPs) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are widespread across Suffolk
County (Figure 4-23), and a number of those have been shown to be noncompliant with state and/or
Clean Water Act effluent standards, including fecal coliform, per EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
History Online (ECHO) database (https://echo.epa.gov/). In 2016, 14 STPs/WWTPs were found to have
effluent violations, in which effluent limits had been exceeded one or more times within the past 3 years
(Figure 4-23). It should be noted that most STPs in Suffolk County discharge to the ground, and there are
a smaller number of WWTPs that discharge to surface waters.
I 1 1
10 20 mi ji ,
W7
Sewage and Wastewater
Treatment Plants
[x] Noncompliant Plants
0 Municipal
ฉ Private
# County
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Sewage Treatment Plants: Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning, 2012.
Noncompliance Information: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, 2016.
Figure 4-23. Location of sewage and wastewater treatment plants across Suffolk County, including
those found to be non-compliant with Clean Water Act effluent standards at least once from 2014-
2016, per EPA's ECHO database.
Pathogen contamination of Suffolk County waters has impacted several designated uses, including
recreational waters and shelIfishing. The marine waters around Long Island are designated for
shellfishing, but many of these areas are closed to shellfishing because of water quality issues. Pathogen
contamination is "responsible for 92% of the impairment found in waterbodies designated for
shellfishing. Shellfishing restrictions affect 13% of the total estuary area classified as being otherwise
appropriate for shellfishing" (NYSDEC, 2010). NYSDEC monitors the quality of shellfishing waters, and if
the water quality doesn't meet state or national standards, the area is closed for shellfish harvesting. For
Page 113 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
more information on shellfish closures in Suffolk County, including maps of the impacted areas, see
https://www.dec.nv.gov/outdoor/103483.html.
Figure 4-24 maps the results of routine water quality monitoring for fecal indicator bacteria conducted
by SCDHS (2015c) with respect to bathing beach water quality. Of beaches with >10% of 2005-2015
samples exceeding single-sample limits for recreational water (>104 CFU Enterococcus/100 mL), 11 were
located on the Long Island Sound and its bays/harbors and 10 were located on the Great South Bay
(including the top two, Tanner Park Beach and Copiague Harbor, with 26% and 21% exceedances,
respectively) (SCDHS, 2015c). It should be noted that a number of the samples exceeding recreational
water quality criteria were taken at beaches found in sewered areas, indicating that individual sewerage
systems are not the sole contributor to this problem.
Figure 4-24. Bathing beach water quality monitoring results for fecal indicator bacteria
2005-2015, Suffolk County, NY. Circles indicate beach locations and the percent of
samples exceeding single-sample recreational water quality criteria (i.e., 104
Enterococcus/100 mL for marine waters or 235 E. coli/100 mL for freshwaters). Map is
overlain with density of unsewered parcels (heat map) and locations of noncompliant
sewage and wastewater treatment plants (treatment plants with one or more effluent
violations from 2014-2016; squares).
Anticipated Change(s) in Surface Water Quality
Table 4-19 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on surface water quality for
each decision alternative. It should be noted that individual sewerage systems are not the only source of
wastewater inputs to Suffolk County surface waters, and likewise, wastewater inputs are not the only
source of nitrogen and pathogen loading to surface waters in the County. This HIA, however, only
assessed the contributions from individual sewerage systems, as these systems are the target of the
proposed code changes. Cumulative loading estimates for each decision alternative are presented two
ways: 1) in terms of the TN and pathogen loading in liquid effluent at the edge of the system (i.e., at the
point of discharge from the individual sewerage system) for all individual sewerage systems across the
o
10
20 mi
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Page 114 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
County; and 2) based on results of prior NLM efforts, which suggest that up to 70% of nitrogen from
individual sewerage systems may load to Suffolk County estuarine and coastal waters. All loading
estimates utilize the number of individual sewerage systems estimated in the HIA to be impacted under
each alternative.
Table 4-19. Impact of Decision on Surface Water Quality
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Surface Water Quality*
Baseline
All three major estuary systems in Suffolk County - the Peconic Estuary,
South Shore, and Long Island Sound - have been declared impaired due to
pathogens and/or nitrogen contaminants. Depleted dissolved oxygen,
increased nitrogen loading, harmful algal blooms, reduced water clarity, and
decreased wetland acreage has been observed in all three estuaries and
some inland freshwaters. Assuming an estimated 70% of TN loading reaches
receiving waters in a watershed (i.e., 30% retention within the watershed),
then about 3.95 million kg (8.70 million lbs) TN per year from individual
sewerage systems could eventually reach receiving waters (e.g., estuaries
and coastal waters) across Suffolk County (5.64 million kg TN/yr, as
calculated in Appendix G, x 0.70), considering groundwater travel times of 0-
10 years along the coast and up to decades and even hundreds of years from
the middle of Long Island. Because an undetermined amount of pathogens is
released from each individual sewerage system, cumulative loading of
pathogens cannot easily be quantified without primary data collection
efforts, which did not occur as part of this HIA.+
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
If all existing OSDS are required to conform to current County codes and
standards, there would be no change in TN loading (compared to the
baseline), as it is assumed that nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent are
equivalent to levels in untreated wastewater. There may be a reduction in
pathogen loading to surface waters given the potential 1-logio reduction in
pathogen loading from each of the estimated 192,558 systems upgraded.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
If all existing OSDS in high priority areas are required to conform to current
County codes and standards, there would be no change in TN loading
(compared to the baseline), as it is assumed that nitrogen levels in septic
tank effluent are equivalent to levels in untreated wastewater. There may be
a reduction in pathogen loading to surface waters given the potential 1-
logio reduction in pathogen loading from each of the estimated 125,751
systems upgraded.
Page 115 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Alternatives
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Potential Change(s) in Surface Water Quality*
Assuming an estimated 70% of TN loading reaches receiving waters in a
watershed (i.e., 30% retention within the watershed), then about 2.19
million kg (4.82 million lbs) TN per year from individual sewerage systems
could eventually reach receiving waters (e.g., estuaries and coastal waters)
across Suffolk County (3.12 million kg TN/yr, as calculated in Appendix G, x
0.70). The rate of nitrogen loading to receiving waters downgradient from
areas of individual sewerage systems is unknown considering groundwater
travel times of 0-10 years along the coast and up to decades and even
hundreds of years from the middle of Long Island; hydrologic modeling and
GIS analysis are needed to determine the net effect for each watershed and
the cascading effects to coastal areas31. There may be a reduction in
pathogen loading to surface waters (compared to the baseline), given the
potential 1-logio reduction in pathogen loading at a minimum from each of
the estimated 251,502 systems upgraded; a greater reduction in pathogen
loading may be seen depending on the components of the l/A OWTS.*
*
The loading values reported reflect cumulative levels of nitrogen and pathogens in liquid effluent discharge from
individual sewerage system across the County to the environment and parameters of previous nitrogen loading
modeling in Suffolk County used to estimate nitrogen loading to Suffolk County estuarine and coastal waters; all loading
estimates utilize the number of individual sewerage systems estimated in the HIA to be impacted under each alternative. This
assessment of impacts to surface water quality focuses on impacts to estuarine waters, given the available modeling of nitrogen
loading to Suffolk County estuaries, the documentation of algal blooms in marine waters, and the implication of estuarine and
marine waters on shoreline resiliency. It is assumed that the impact of the decision alternatives would be similar for Suffolk
County freshwater resources, such as rivers and lakes.
f It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to the continuing decline of surface waters in Suffolk County, including increasing
frequency and intensity of harmful algal blooms.
* Some l/A OWTS can treat pathogens and emerging contaminants of concern (e.g., personal care products and
pharmaceuticals) when certain components are part of or used in conjunction with the system (e.g., biofilters, microfiltration
membranes, chlorination/disinfection units, and permeable reactive barriers); because the final designs of the systems are
unknown, the measured pathogen or fecal indicator bacteria control performance of the systems is unknown.
The existing impairments to Suffolk County surface waters (depleted dissolved oxygen, increased
nitrogen loading, harmful algal blooms, fish and shellfish kills, advisories, shellfishing and beach closures;
reduced water clarity, etc.) would continue under Alternatives I and II. The changes in water quality that
would result from implementation of Alternative III could result in increased dissolved oxygen; reduced
algal blooms, fish and shellfish kills, advisories, shellfishing and beach closures; increased water clarity;
and more.
31 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, and
refine priority areas in which to focus those efforts. For more on this effort, see Appendix K.
Page 116 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
4.3.6 Impact of Changes in Quality of Surface Waters on Illness from Aquatic
Recreation
In recreational waters, individuals can potentially be exposed to pathogens, toxins, and other irritants
present in the water. In recreational waters contaminated with fecal and biological contaminants, such
as those from wastewater, the health impacts can include gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses,
and illness of the eyes, ears, and skin (Griffin, Lipp, Mclaughlin, & Rose, 2001; SCDHS, 2007; Mannocci,
et al., 2016). The most commonly reported recreational water illness is diarrhea, which can be caused by
germs such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Shigella, noroviruses, and E. coli 0157:H7, all of which are
pathogens that can be found in human waste (CDC, 2016a). States are responsible for routinely
monitoring fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) around beaches and shellfisheries to protect human health
from infectious diseases (LISS, 1990). It is important to note, however, that the presence of FIB or
pathogens does not always correlate with incidence of disease.
Note: Some pathogenic microorganisms are naturally present in freshwater environments, while other
human pathogenic species are indigenous to marine and brackish waters (Stewart, et al., 2008).
In addition to pathogens, HABs also pose a risk of illness from aquatic recreation exposure. Toxins
produced from freshwater and marine HAB species not only endanger aquatic animal life but can also
directly lead to illness in people. Cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, are often the cause of algal
blooms in fresh water and occasionally in marine water; they are most commonly associated with illness
from contact and/or inhaled HAB toxins (Codd, et al., 1999). Cyanobacteria can cause rashes and
gastrointestinal illness and produce toxins that can be consumed, aerosolized, or absorbed through the
skin to damage tissues of the liver, nervous system, and skin of both humans and animals (Graham,
2013; Hilborn, et al., 2014). Children are most at risk to the effects of cyanobacteria because of their
lower body weight, behavior (i.e., greater time spent in the water and amount of water swallowed), and
the effects of toxins on development (Weirich & Miller, 2014).
Existing Risk of Illness from Aquatic Recreation in Surface Waters at the Time of the HIA Analysis
Fecal contamination in recreational waters is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal illness,
which is the most common form of illness associated with aquatic recreation (EPA, 2012b). According to
2014-2017 Suffolk County Community Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a), many cases of
gastrointestinal illness from cryptosporidiosis have been related to waterborne exposure from lakes,
although it should be noted that both human and animal feces can be the source of Cryptosporidium in
waters. Table 4-2 (in Section 4.1.4) provides baseline rates of illness associated with pathogens found in
human waste. Water-related exposures to the pathogens causing these diseases can be through a
number of different pathways, including recreating in surface waters contaminated with sewerage-
derived pollutants. It should be noted that illness from exposure to pathogens that can be found in
human waste likely goes unreported given the generality and self-limiting nature of the symptoms (e.g.,
nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and dehydration).
The HIA Research Team used GIS mapping to identify locations of beaches used for aquatic recreation
across Suffolk County and related that information to the density of unsewered parcels (Figure 4-25).
Page 117 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Lake Ronkonkoma, the largest lake on Long Island, is among the most polluted freshwater recreational
areas in Suffolk County with respect to microorganisms found in feces. During routine monitoring by the
SCDHS at two of its beaches, 34% of 2005-2015 samples exceeded single-sample fecal indicator bacteria
limits for recreational water (>235 CFU E. coli/100 mL) (SCDHS, 2015c). Although there may be many
sources of E. coli, including wildlife which have been noted as contributors (Brookhaven Town Board,
2008), heavily populated, unsewered areas surrounding the lake and the detection of human-specific
viruses (Vaughn, Landry, Thomas, Vicale, & Penello, 1979) suggest that individual sewerage systems may
contribute to this water quality degradation. Among six other monitored freshwater beaches, only Great
Pond at Peconic Dunes County Park, which is immediately adjacent to the Long Island Sound on the
North Fork of Long Island, had similarly high levels of fecal contamination (28% of 2005-2015 samples
exceeding single-sample limits). Also in a low-lying and unsewered residential area, this pond may be
influenced by local individual sewerage systems. Beaches on other small lakes in less densely populated
regions (e.g., Wildwood Lake and Bellows Pond) have not shown evidence of significant fecal pollution,
with 93-99% of their 2005-2015 samples below the single-sample indicator threshold (SCDHS, 2015c).
10 20 mi
Beaches .
-*
* *
% .
1 *' L ป ' J
Lake Ronkonkoma ,
H I .
^ # W Unsewered Parcels
# * Magnitude/Square Kilometer
0 800
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Beach Data: Adapted from Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), USGS, and US Board of Geographic Names,
Figure 4-25. Density of unsewered parcels near beaches.
In 2015, water quality advisories and closures were issued at 36% of Suffolk County beaches
(https://watersgeo.epa.gov/beacon2/reports.htmi), encompassing 3.6% of total beach-days during the
season (i.e., sum of days with beach actions across all beaches vs. sum of days each beach is seasonally
open). The majority, 96%, were rain advisories issued preemptively due to anticipated stormwater
discharges. Fourteen (14) beach closures were associated with unsafe levels of FIB. As noted previously,
the presence of FIB does not always infer human sewage contamination; FIB can come from human
waste, wildlife, and other animal sources.
It is important to note that the source of FIB or pathogens in Suffolk County waters has not been directly
linked to individual sewerage systems (although it is reasonable to expect that link to exist), nor does
the presence of FIB or pathogens always correlate with incidence of disease. Proactive advisories and
Page 118 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
closures when contamination events (from fecal pollution) are anticipated, reduce illness risks. Suffolk
County uses a tiered approach to prioritize water sampling toward high-risk areas where they anticipate
a contamination event. However, it is important to note that these beach monitoring and notification
programs cannot prevent all recreational water-associated illnesses, which often go unreported.
Children experience the greatest burden of recreational water-associated gastrointestinal illness due to
their elevated exposure (i.e., greater time spent in the water and amount of water swallowed) (Arnold,
etal., 2016).
Harmful algal blooms have been reported in freshwater and near-coastal systems, and absent actions to
reduce nutrient loading, HABs will likely increase in frequency and intensity over time, impacting the
health and quality of life of Suffolk County residents. Information on human illness as a result of
recreational exposure to harmful algal blooms is difficult to collect, however, as exposure often causes
general symptoms such as rashes, respiratory irritation, or eye inflammation that can easily be
misdiagnosed or go unreported. In Suffolk County, the only HAB that has the potential to cause illness
through recreational exposure (physical contact or water ingestion) is cyanobacteria.
A 2007 revision to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases added a
specific code for "exposure to harmful algae and toxins," simplifying surveillance efforts for tracking
health care visits as a result of exposure (Buck, 2007). In the first peer-reviewed assessment of this
diagnostic code, HAB-related hospital visits in New York were catalogued from 2008-2014 (Figgatt,
Muscatiello, Wilson, & Dziewulski, 2016). The authors identified an average of 31 reported hospital visits
per year due to HAB exposure, with the most common primary diagnoses being "effects of external
causes," "contact with potentially hazardous chemicals," and "toxic effect of carbon monoxide."
However, the vague/incorrect diagnoses (e.g., HABs do not produce carbon monoxide) and lack of a
seasonal pattern in hospital admissions (i.e., one would expect greater admissions in warmer months
when HABs are present) were found to indicate that there may be a problem with misdiagnosis of HAB
exposure.
Anticipated Change(s) in Illness from Aquatic Recreation in Surface Waters
Table 4-20 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on illness from aquatic
recreation in fresh and estuarine surface waters for each decision alternative. The criteria used to
characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained in depth in Section 4
(page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or detracting from health as
described in Table 4-20, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns together (e.g., it is highly
likely Alternative I could detract from health for a high number of people). For a summary of the
different ways in which health could be impacted through the Water Quality pathway see Section 4.3.9.
Page 119 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Table 4-20. Impact of Decision on Illness from Aquatic Recreation in Surface Waters
Health Determinant
Baseline Health Status
According to a Suffolk County Community Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a), "waterborne illness cases (from Cryptosporidium - a parasite
shed in the feces of humans and other animals) have frequently been related to waterborne exposure from water parks or lakes." In the
State of New York, exposure to toxic algal blooms caused an average of 31 reported hospital visits per year; however, the accuracy of these
data is unknown, as there may be a problem with misdiagnosis of HAB exposure. Information on human illness from HABs and pathogen
exposure is difficult to collect and diagnose, as exposure often causes general symptoms such as rashes, respiratory irritation, or eye
inflammation that can easily be misdiagnosed or go unreported.
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood*
Magnitude*
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
These
The continued
The positive health
See footnotet
The health
The effects of
Strong. Based on
All existing OSDS
alternatives will
risk of illness
impacts (as a result of
implications of
illness from
numerous
must be upgraded
likely detract
from aquatic
physical activity
exposure to HABs are
aquatic recreation
research studies,
to conform to
from health
recreation due to
associated with
moderate to severe
may be short-
there is high
current County
because there
pathogens and
recreation) and
(e.g., liver damage
term, but the
confidence in the
Sanitary Code and
would be no
HABs is possible,
negative health impacts
and nervous system
changes in risk
link between
standards (in place
appreciable
given the number
(as a result of potential
damage), and the
may not occur for
aquatic recreation
as of September
reduction in
of individual
exposure to pathogens
health implications of
a long time,
and illnesses that
2016).
nitrogen loading
sewerage systems
and HABs), could affect
exposure to
considering
result from
AND
and limited
and the potential
a high number of
sewerage-derived
hydrologic travel
pathogens
reduction in
for nutrient and
people, considering
pathogens and non-
times of 0-10
associated with
Alternative II
pathogen loading
fecal
aquatic recreation is a
harmful algal blooms
years up to
individual
All existing OSDS in
to receiving
contamination
widely practiced form of
is minor to moderate
decades and even
sewerage systems
the high priority
waters.
from those
physical activity for both
(e.g., gastrointestinal
hundreds of years
and
areas must be
systems.
residents (1.5 million
and respiratory
cyanobacteria, a
upgraded to
people) and visitors to
illnesses, and illness
major cause of
conform to current
Suffolk County.
of the eyes, ears, and
freshwater HABs.
County Sanitary
However, the number of
skin).
Code and
illnesses of this type are
standards (in place
low.
as of September
2016).
Human Illness from
aquatic recreation
(e.g., bathing/
swimming, boating,
fishing)
Page 120 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative/
alternative system
design.
This alternative
will benefit
health from the
reduced nutrient
loading (and
potential to
control other
pollutants) that
will slow the
progress of HAB
formation and
the potential
reduction in
pathogen loading
to receiving
waters,
depending on
the design of the
system.
Given the hydrologic
connection between
groundwater and
surface waters of
Suffolk County,
reducing nutrients
and potentially
pathogens
discharged to
receiving waters
may possibly
reduce beach
closures and risk of
illness as a result of
reduced exposure to
fecal pollution and
freshwater
cyanobacteria.
The positive health impacts
(as a result of physical
activity associated with
recreation) and negative
health impacts (as a result
of potential exposure to
pathogens and freshwater
cyanobacteria), could
affect a high number of
people, considering aquatic
recreation is a widely
practiced form of physical
activity for both residents
(1.5 million people) and
visitors to Suffolk County.
However, the number of
illnesses of this type are
low.
See
footnotet
The health
implications of
exposure from toxic
cyanobacteria are
moderate to severe
(e.g., liver damage
and nervous system
damage), and the
health implications
of exposure to
sewerage-derived
pathogens and non-
toxic cyanobacteria
is minor to
moderate (e.g.,
gastrointestinal and
respiratory illnesses,
and illness of the
eyes, ears, and skin).
The effects of
illness from
aquatic
recreation may
be short-term,
but the changes
in risk may not
occur for a long
time,
considering
hydrologic
travel times of
0-10 years up to
decades and
even hundreds
of years.
Strong. Based on
numerous
research studies,
there is high
confidence in the
link between
aquatic recreation
and illnesses that
result from
pathogens
associated with
individual
sewerage systems
and
cyanobacteria, a
major cause of
freshwater HABs.
Scientific literature shows a link between human illness and recreational exposure to pathogens associated with individual sewerage systems and cyanobacteria; however, the number of
reported illnesses of this type in Suffolk County are low. Because the true number of illnesses in Suffolk County from recreational exposure to sewerage-related pathogens and cyanobacteria is
unknown, Magnitude could not be expressed as a change in frequency or prevalence of illness. The Likelihood and Magnitude columns together describe the potential risk of illness due to
recreation in waters impacted by sewerage-derived pathogens and cyanobacteria.
* Distribution - These health impacts would be disproportionately experienced by recreational water users, those more at risk to the effects of toxic algal blooms, and those more susceptible
to water-related pathogens. Children are most at risk to the effects of toxic algal blooms, because of their lower body weight, behavior (i.e., greater time spent in the water and amount of
water swallowed), and toxic effects on development. Young children, the elderly, and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be susceptible to pathogens.
Additional health impacts associated with changes in freshwater and marine water quality are also captured in the Resiliency and Economic Pathway
sections.
Page 121 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
4.3.7 Impact of Changes in Quality of Water Resources on Perceived Quality of
Water Resources
Studies provide insight into how the public's perception of water quality can affect its use of the water
environment and resources (Pendleton, Martin, & Webster, 2001; Nierenberg, 2010). The public's
perception of environmental quality is largely influenced by perceived sensory attributes, like visual and
odorous attributes, and are based on different sensitivities that various groups may have in perceiving
environmental quality (House, 1996; Smith, 1995a; Smith, 1995b). Also influencing the public's
perception of environmental quality are an individual's past experiences, cultural ties, socio-economic
status, and the types of information to which the person is exposed (Pendleton, Martin, & Webster,
2001).
In terms of the quality of a water environment, characteristics like smell, water color, foam, oil, surface
scum, and the presence of litter and other solid wastes have been shown to adversely affect the public's
perception of water quality despite the actual biological, physical, or chemical quality of the water
(House, 1996). Studies have found a high correlation between perceived clarity and color of water and
the suitability of water, finding that turbid and brown water are unlikely to be perceived as appealing.
People ranked the suitability of water sites highly based on the perceived visual quality of the water and
less highly based on the actual clarity of the water (Smith, 1995a; 1995b). Studies have also found that a
person's initial perception of water quality is based on aesthetics and the surrounding environment
(Jensen, 2005).
Existing Perceptions of Quality of Water Resources in Suffolk County at the Time of the HIA Analysis
In 2006, a Public Perception Survey of Long Island Sound (LIS) Watershed Residents was conducted by
Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research to assess residents' perceptions of water quality in
the Sound. Of the four regions surveyed (Long Island, Connecticut, Bronx/Queens, and Westchester),
Long Islanders held the most positive view of LIS water quality. A majority (59%) of Long Island's
respondents felt it was at least somewhat safe to swim in the Sound, while about one-third (32%)
thought it was unsafe. More than half (54%) of Long Island respondents thought it was safe to eat fish
and shellfish from LIS, while one third did not (36%). Most respondents perceived that water quality was
the same (37%) or better (27%) than it was five years ago (Stony Brook University Center for Survey
Research, 2006).
When asked about the most important sources of water pollution in the LIS, Long Island residents were
the most knowledgeable of the four regions surveyed, with 33% of respondents choosing three to five of
the correct answers. A majority (55%) of Long Island respondents did not think that they could make any
changes in their everyday behavior that would improve the LIS water quality; however, 34% and 39%
responded that water quality could improve ("a great deal" or "some," respectively) if most residents
changed their everyday behavior (Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research, 2006).
Anticipated Change(s) in Perceived Quality of Water Resources
Table 4-21identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on perceptions of water quality
for each decision alternative. It should be noted that perceived quality of water resources will not
Page 122 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
necessarily improve with reductions in nitrogen or pathogen loading, as there may be a lag in time
before actual water quality improvements are seen. Likewise, the public's perception of environmental
quality is also influenced by an individual's past experiences, cultural ties, socio-economic status, and
the types of information to which the person is exposed (Pendleton, Martin, & Webster, 2001).
&
This points to the need for the public to be well informed (with accurate information), for
realistic expectations to be set, and for results to be effectively communicated when
improvements in water quality and its associated ecosystem services (recreation, economy,
etc.) are experienced.
Table 4-21. Impact of Decision on Perceived Quality of Water Resources
Alternatives
Baseline
Potential Change(s) in Perceived Quality of Water Resources
Concerns about Suffolk County waters have been steadily increasing
over time and there is growing recognition that water quality issues
should be addressed. A recent poll conducted by The Nature
Conservancy says that two-thirds of Long Islanders agree that we
must reverse declining water quality (Amper, 2016).
Alternative I
All existing OSDS must be
upgraded to conform to
current County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place as of
September 2016).
Public perception may improve initially under the belief that the
upgrades will reduce nitrogen loading and improve water quality;
however, experience (continued algal blooms, fish and shellfish kills,
advisories, etc.) would likely lead to a poor perception of water
quality. The possible reduction in pathogen loading to Suffolk County
waters as a result of the addition of a septic tank may potentially
result in reduced shellfishing and beach closures, which would
positively influence perception, but this outcome is uncertain/ Most
likely, perceptions of water quality would remain unchanged.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to conform to
current County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place as of
September 2016).
Same as Alternative I.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high priority
areas must be upgraded to
an innovative/ alternative
system design.
Public perception may improve as a result of reduced nitrogen
loading and the possible reduction in pathogen loading. Changes in
water quality could result in reduced algal blooms, fish and shellfish
kills, advisories, shellfishing and beach closures, all of which would
positively influence perception, reduce stress regarding water quality
condition, and improve overall health and well-being/
It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continuing concerns and declining perceptions of water quality in Suffolk County.
f The perceived quality of water resources may not necessarily improve with reduced nutrient and/or pathogen loading or
improved water quality metrics; it may take time and communication to actually change the perceptions and environmental
attitudes of residents.
Page 123 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
4.3.8 Impact of Perceived Quality of Water Resources on Stress and Well-being
Contact with nature and green space promotes positive mental health outcomes and well-being,
including reduced stress, depression, and anxiety (Beyer, et al., 2014; Mailer, Townsend, Pryor, Brown,
& St Leger, 2006). Water is one of the most important landscape elements, both physically and visually,
in the relationship between the environment and health. Water spaces can reduce stress, enhance
mood, and enhance mental attention. Health and human well-being benefits from water are dependent
upon perceptions of water, restoration, and recreation. Humans may also feel a spiritual and emotional
connection to water. Water bodies facilitate social connections by serving as spaces for social activities.
The appreciation (i.e., viewing) of water bodies has been correlated with better quality of life and may
be beneficial to health (Volker, 2011).
Existing Health Status for Stress and Well-being at the Time of the HI A Analysis
Baseline community data from 2013-2014 indicates that 18.7% of Suffolk County adults were diagnosed
with a depressive disorder and of those diagnosed, 88.5% sought treatment (Stony Brook Medicine,
2014). According to 2016 County Health Rankings, the age-adjusted average number of mentally
unhealthy days reported in the previous 30 days in Suffolk County was 3.2, lower than the New York
State average of 3.7 days (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016).
Anticipated Change(s) in Stress and Well-being
Table 4-22 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on stress and well-being
related to perceptions of water quality for each decision alternative. The criteria used to characterize
the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained in depth in Section 4 (page 31).
To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or detracting from health as described in
Table 4-22, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns together (e.g., Alternative III may
possibly benefit health for a moderate number of people). For a summary of the different ways in which
health could be impacted through the Water Quality pathway see Section 4.3.9.
Additional health impacts associated with perceived changes in water quality are documented in the
Economics Pathway section.
Page 124 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Table 4-22. Impact of Decision on Stress and Well-being from Perceived Water Quality
Health Determinant
Baseline Health Status
Baseline community data from 2013-2014 indicates that 18.7% of adults in Suffolk County were diagnosed with depression. According
to the 2016 County Health Rankings (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016), the age-adjusted average number of
mentally unhealthy days reported in the previous 30 days in Suffolk County was 3.2, lower than the New York State average of 3.7 days.
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
These alternatives
Perceptions of the
The extent of
These health
The severity of
The effects would
Limited. The
All existing OSDS
would likely result
quality of Suffolk
people affected
impacts would be
health implications
be immediate but
evidence reflects
must be upgraded
in no change in the
County water
would be
disproportionately
from changes in
expected to be
the hypothesized
to conform to
perceived quality
resources (both
moderate,
experienced.
stress/well-being
short-term.
relationship
current County
of water resources.
ground and surface
considering 18.7%
Low-income
would be minor
between health
Sanitary Code and
waters) may
of adults already
populations,
and could easily
and perception of
standards (in place
possibly influence
suffer from
recreational water
change.
one's
as of September
stress and well-
physician-
users, coastal
environment, but
2016).
being among
diagnosed
populations, and
is limited in depth
AND
residents.
depressive
individuals with
or replication.
disorder.
existing mental
There are
Alternative II
health conditions
consistent
All existing OSDS in
could be affected
conclusions, but
the high priority
more by the
few studies that
areas must be
perceived quality
confirm the
upgraded to
of water.
relationship.
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and standards
(in place as of
September 2016).
Stress and Well-being
related to perceived quality
of water resources
Page 125 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative III
This alternative
Perceptions of the
The extent of
These health
The severity of
The effects would
Limited. The
All existing OSDS
may benefit health
quality of Suffolk
people affected
impacts would be
health implications
be immediate,
evidence reflects
and C-OWTS in
from improved
County water
would be
disproportionately
from changes in
but expected to
the hypothesized
the high priority
perceptions of
resources (both
moderate,
experienced.
stress/ well-being
be short-term.
relationship
areas must be
upgraded to an
water quality.
ground and surface
waters) may
considering 18.7%
of adults already
Low-income
populations,
recreational water
users, coastal
populations, and
individuals with
existing mental
health conditions
would be affected
more by the
perceived quality
would be minor
and could easily
between health
and perception of
innovative/
possibly influence
suffer from
change.
one's environment,
alternative system
design.
stress and well-
being among
physician-
diagnosed
but is limited in
depth or
residents.
depressive
disorder.
replication. There
are consistent
conclusions, but
few studies that
confirm the
relationship.
of water.
Page 126 of 305
-------
Assessment - Water Quality
(\ V) 4.3.9 Water Quality Health Impact Summary
Under Alternatives I and II (installation of C-OWTS), the continued risk of illness from aquatic
recreation due to pathogens and algal blooms is possible and illness from private and non-
community drinking water supply wells is possible, as these alternatives provide no
reduction in nitrogen loading and only a limited reduction in pathogens. Under Alternatives I
and II, impacts to stress and overall health and well-being would remain unchanged given
continued perceptions and concerns of Suffolk County water quality. Given the reduction in
nitrogen loading and pathogen loading expected under Alternative III (installation of l/A
OWTS), reductions in beach closures and the risk of illness due to exposure to pathogens and
algal blooms during aquatic recreation are possible. The risk of illness from private and non-
community drinking water supply wells is unlikely under Alternative III, provided that
disinfection technologies are utilized. Under Alternative III, improved water quality could
positively influence perceptions of Suffolk County waters, reduce stress, and improve overall
health and well-being. Under all alternatives, illness from public/community drinking water
supplies remain unlikely.
The risk of exposure to pathogens in recreational waters and private drinking water could
affect a high number of people, considering private (individual) wells and non-community
systems serve about 13% of residents (approx. 194,000 people). However, the number of
illnesses of this type are low. Monitoring of surface waters and private drinking water wells
can help minimize these risks. Impacts to stress and well-being from perceived water quality
are likely to be experienced by a moderate number of people.
The health implications of exposure to sewerage-contaminated recreational and drinking
water are typically minor to moderate (e.g., gastrointestinal illness, respiratory illness, rashes,
and illness of the eye, ear, and skin), but can be more severe and long-lasting for exposures to
toxic algal blooms (e.g., liver damage and nervous system damage) and for those at higher risk
of illness. Health impacts of stress and well-being are minor and could easily change.
These health impacts (or their potential reduction) would be disproportionately experienced
by recreational water users; those with private/non-community drinking water supply wells
and individual sewerage systems; those more susceptible to pathogens (e.g., young children,
the elderly, and the immunocompromised); those more at risk to the effects of toxic algal
blooms (e.g., children); and those more at risk to nitrate toxicity in drinking water (e.g.,
pregnant women and infants under 6 months). Impacts to stress and well-being would be
disproportionately experienced by low-income populations, recreational water users, coastal
populations, and individuals with existing mental health conditions.
Page 127 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4. Resiliency to Natural Disasters: Existing Conditions
and Potential Impacts
Resiliency is "the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to
adverse events" (National Research Council, 2012). The NYS 2100 Commission (2013) defined resilience
as "the ability of a system to withstand shocks and stresses while still maintaining its essential
functions." In coastal resiliency, this means reducing vulnerabilities and potential exposures to natural
hazards (e.g., storms) and their impacts before they occur, in hopes of decreasing the consequences of
the events. These vulnerabilities can affect health in a number of ways, including direct exposure to the
storm, secondary hazards (e.g., falling trees, rising waters, electrocution, and carbon monoxide
poisoning), disruption of services, evacuation and displacement, trauma and stress, and clean-up and
recovery activities, and can range from changes in overall health and well-being to injury and death.
The highest risk natural hazards for Suffolk County include Nor'easters, severe storms, and hurricanes,
and medium-risk natural hazards include coastal erosion and flooding (Suffolk County Government,
2014b). Because of Suffolk County's location and low-lying southern coastline, it is exposed to coastal
storms, their associated storm surges, and coastal and inland flooding. While hurricanes and tropical
storms are the primary cause of coastal flooding in New York (Suffolk County Government, 2014b),
nuisance or "sunny day" flooding (i.e., shallow coastal flooding in the absence of storms, caused by
sea level rise) is also becoming more frequent (NOAA, 2014a; Sweet & Park, 2014; Sweet & Marra,
2015; EPA, 2016c; Gillis, 2016).
The New York State Recommendations to Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire State's
Infrastructure (NYS 2100 Commission, 2013) highlights coastal wetlands as critical protection for Long
Island communities against these hazards. Coastal wetlands are considered under the purview of the
state's objectives to rebuild communities that are more resilient. Anything that poses a risk to coastal
wetlands is considered to negatively impact coastal community resilience. Article 25 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law established protections for tidal wetlands and led to the establishment
of the tidal wetlands permit program aimed at preserving and regulating potential environmental
stressors.
4.4.1 Resiliency to Natural Disasters Pathways of Impact
Figure 4-26 shows the pathways by which the proposed code changes could potentially impact resiliency
to natural disasters and ultimately, health. This pathway was included in the Assessment based on
messaging from the County and stakeholder discussions indicating that the proposed code changes
would increase resiliency against future storms like Hurricane Sandy, through improvements to water
quality and subsequent gains in the health and extent of coastal and tidal wetlands and eelgrass
populations in Suffolk County. As a result, the analysis focused on the potential impacts of the proposed
code changes on wetlands and their ability to provide protection to severe storms, storm and/or tidal
surges, and coastal and inland flooding.
Page 128 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
k
Accounting for sediment shifts and shoreline erosion. **Accounting for changes in climate and sea level rise. A= change from baseline. SLOSH= Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
Figure 4-26. Resiliency to Natural Disasters Pathway Diagram.
A change in water quality can influence coastal/tidal wetland acreage as well as structure and function,
which in turn may affect shoreline resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges. Although the impact analysis
focused primarily on wetlands and eelgrass populations and their contribution to shoreline and
community resiliency, the discussion was expanded to include other existing factors and features in
Suffolk County that also play a role in wetland health and extent, resiliency of the shoreline to storm and
tidal surges, and community resiliency. This was done because there are stressors beyond nitrogen
affecting Suffolk County wetlands and eelgrass populations and other factors beyond wetlands that
determine shoreline and community resiliency. To establish the linkage between shoreline resiliency to
natural disasters and potential impacts to public health, the HIA analysis would have been remiss had it
not examined some intermediate factors that also influence how natural disasters impact health.
Changes in shoreline resiliency can impact the amount of property or infrastructure damage that may
occur, the need for evacuation and displacement due to storm and/or tidal surges, and the capacity of
emergency responders to respond. In turn, changes in any of these aspects can impact overall health
and well-being, and the amount of human injury and death resulting from storm and/or tidal surges.
Page 129 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.2 Impact of Changes in Water Quality on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and
Function
Wetlands provide a number of ecosystem services (e.g.,
ecological, economic, and social benefits) including:
regulating the movement of water within watersheds;
holding and slowly releasing precipitation, flood water, and
snow melt; recharging groundwater; acting as filters to
cleanse water of impurities and sediment; recycling
nutrients, such as nitrogen; reducing nitrogen; and
providing habitat for fish, wildlife, and a variety of plants.
Wetlands are nurseries for many saltwater and freshwater
fishes and shellfish of commercial and recreational
importance and provide recreation and wildlife viewing
opportunities for millions of people (USFWS, 2016a).
Brackish and saltwater coastal wetlands also help provide
protection from wave erosion and provide a natural buffer
from storm and tidal surges and coastal flooding.
Surface water is supplied to wetlands through normal
streamflow, flooding from lakes and rivers, overland flow
and runoff, groundwater discharge, and tides. The quality of
water discharged into a wetland influences the water
chemistry of that receiving wetland and potentially, its
structure (e.g., the plants that are able to grow) and function
(e.g., ability to filter water of sediments and impurities,
recycle nutrients, and perform other functions).
Groundwater recharge and surface water flow from
wetlands, subsequently, influences the chemistry of water in the adjacent aquifer (Carter, 1996).
Research has shown that increased nutrient loading has negative impacts on wetland structure, function
and substrate condition, especially that of salt marshes (Turner, et al., 2009; Turner, 2011; Deegan L., et
al., 2012; Pennings, 2012; Watson, et al., 2014; Wigand, et al., 2014). Elevated nutrient loading causes
marsh grass to allocate more biomass production above ground at the expense of below ground growth
- initially becoming greener and growing taller. The tall marsh grasses, however, produce fewer roots
and rhizomes, which are critical to stabilizing the edges and soils of marshlands. The poorly-rooted
grasses eventually grow too tall and then fall over, destabilizing the creek edge or bay edge of the
wetland, causing it to slump and exposing its soils to erosive forces. The destabilization of creek-edge
and bay-edge marshes makes these areas more susceptible to the tugging and pulling of waves,
accelerating erosion, and the ultimate loss of stabilizing vegetation (Morris & Bradley, 1999; Wigand,
Brennan, Stolt, Holt, & Ryba, 2009; Turner, 2011; Deegan L., et al., 2012; Watson, et al., 2014; Wigand,
et al., 2014; NYSDEC, 2014c). Deegan, et al. (2012) found that nutrient-enhanced marsh grasses were
heavier and taller but contained only about half of the structural tissue of unfertilized grasses. These
Wetlands
Wetlands are commonly viewed as
transition areas between land
(terrestrial ecosystems) and water
(aquatic systems), where the water
table is usually at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water
(Cowardin, Carter, Golet, & LaRoe,
1979; EPA, 2017b). Wetland
characteristics vary widely because of
regional and local differences in soils,
topography, climate, hydrology, water
chemistry, vegetation, and other
factors, including human disturbance.
Coastal wetlands can include riparian
wetlands (i.e., wetlands along rivers
and streams), freshwater and salt
marshes, mangrove swamps,
bottomland hardwood swamps,
seagrass beds, and more (Cowardin,
Carter, Golet, & LaRoe, 1979; Bruland,
2008; Stedman, Linn, &
Kutschenreuter, 2010; Dahl & Stedman,
2013; EPA, 2016b; NOAA, n.d.-a).
Page 130 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
changes make nutrient-enriched grass blades fall over limp instead of standing up to dissipate wave
energy. Deegan, et ai. (2012) also documented that the nutrient-enriched grasses contained higher
concentrations of nitrogen in their tissues. Other studies have shown that this nutrient enrichment can
increase the vulnerability of marsh plants to predation by herbivores (Bertness, Holdredge, & Altierei,
2009).
Excess nutrients and sediments are a significant cause of seagrass loss
and on Long Island, eelgrass in particular (Figure 4-27). Eelgrass beds
can help to slow currents and waves, trap sediments, and stabilize the
seafloor to prevent shoreline shifting and erosion. In addition, they
sequester nutrients such as nitrogen to help them grow, and trap
sediments in the water column, to improve water quality. Latimer
and Rego (2010) found that eelgrass coverage decreases significantly
at nitrogen loading rates above 50 kg/hectares/yr and at loading rates
above 100 kg/hectares/yr, eelgrass fails completely. Available light,
salinity, and temperature are also important factors in determining
eelgrass distribution and performance (Cornell University Figure 4-27. Eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2012a). Additionally, the
availability of nitrogen increases the production of phytoplankton and macroalgae, which reduces water
clarity. Eelgrass growing in turbid conditions with poor water and sediment quality require more light to
survive (Kenworthy, Gallegos, Costello, Field, & di Carlo, 2014), making diminished water clarity and
harmful algal blooms a contributor to the reduction of seagrass worldwide (Boesch, 2002).
Climate change predisposes tidal marshes to sudden dieback resulting from increased infestation of
pathogens and herbivores, changes in water salinity, and metal toxicity from changes in soil chemistry
(Elmer, et al., 2013). Extreme salinity fluctuations and warm temperatures are a serious distress for
eelgrass. Exceptionally warm temperatures have resulted in extensive seagrass die-off, especially
eelgrass, which thrives in cold water (Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2012a;
Salo & Pedersen, 2014). Brown tides, urchin overgrazing, and disease have also led to large-scale losses
of seagrass, acting in concert with suspended sediments, nutrients, and effects of climate change (Orth,
et al., 2006).
Coastal vegetated areas globally serve as a carbon sink equivalent to that of terrestrial forests, off-
setting greenhouse gas emissions even though coastal vegetated areas represent only 3% of that
covered by forests (Duarte, Losada, Hendriks, Mazarrasa, & Nuria, 2013). Coastal wetlands are able to
sequester carbon as part of their growth process. Because much of their soil is submerged under water,
carbon in the soil of these coastal wetlands decomposes very slowly and remains for long periods of
time (NOAA, n.d.-b). These high carbon burial rates raise the seafloor, buffering against the impacts of
rising sea levels associated with climate change (Duarte, Losada, Hendriks, Mazarrasa, & Nuria, 2013).
Knutson et al. (1982) estimated that more than half of normal wave energy is dissipated within the
first three meters of marsh vegetation, while other studies concluded that wave height can be reduced
by 80% over distances of 50 meters, as waves travel through marsh vegetation (Ysebaert, et al., 2011).
Emergent vegetation (i.e., vegetation reaching the water surface and above) is more effective at
Page 131 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
reducing wave height than submerged vegetation such as eelgrass, indicating that water depth is critical
to wave attenuation (Moller, Spencer, French, Leggett, & Dixon, 1999; Augustin, Irish, & Lynett, 2009;
Anderson, Smith, & McKay, 2011; Ysebaert, et al., 2011). This indicates that tidal wetlands need to
maintain their relative elevation in the face of sea level rise in order to provide these services.
Storm surge is considerably different from normal wave action. Bradley and Houser (2009) found as
storm waters became more turbulent and wave heights increased, the ability of seagrass to attenuate
waves decreased because as they oscillated, the seagrass tended to remain bent in the direction of the
wave flow rather than providing resistance to the waves. Jadhav and Chen (2012) collected data during a
tropical storm along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico and measurements showed that marsh
vegetation submerged under a surge over 1 meter was still able to provide some attenuation of waves,
although this decreased with increasing wave height. Fonseca and Cahalan (1992) also observed
reduced wave attenuation as water depths increased, but suggested that even a small reduction in
waves can be significant across larger, broad wetlands.
Although wetlands and eelgrass beds cannot be expected to stop storm surges and flooding associated
with large storm events, like hurricanes, the friction provided by the vegetation can reduce wave
energy somewhat, which is important for reduced wave damage, flooding, and erosion, especially
during lower-intensity storms and coastal/tidal flooding (e.g., nuisance "sunny day" flooding that
occurs in the absence of storms due to rising sea levels), which are experienced more regularly (National
Research Council, 2014).
Existing Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function in Suffolk County at the Time of the MA
Analysis
Wetlands make up 45% of the approximately 67,574 acres of Suffolk County's land area that exists in
coastal or riverine floodplains (NOAA, 2016b). Although Suffolk County wetlands can't be expected to
stop flooding associated with extreme storm events like Hurricane Sandy, they can provide protection
from flooding during lower-intensity storms and nuisance "sunny day" flooding. In addition, freshwater
wetlands often serve as groundwater discharge and recharge sites and help to improve water quality of
groundwater, surface waters, and marine receiving waters by absorbing and cycling nutrients.
Both freshwater and tidal wetlands in Suffolk County provide habitat for fish and shellfish species that
are part of the local food supply and commercial fishing and shellfish industries (NOAA, 2016b) and they
also support recreational and charter fishing, birdwatching, boating, and other recreational
opportunities. Eelgrass beds are also valuable habitat for several species that are important to Long
Island's seafood and fishing industries, such as bay scallops, crab, striped bass, sea bass, and more
(Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2012c).
Page 132 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Figure 4-28, Grid ditched wetland. Source:
Tiner& Herman (2015).
Tiner & Herman (2015) estimated that 9,600 acres
C of the tidal wetlands that exist in Suffolk County
today are grid ditched (Figure 4-28) - a method
practiced in the 1930s to remove standing water on the
surface as a means of controlling mosquito populations
(Cashin Associates, PC, 2006; Potente, 2007). This method
has proven to be an unsuccessful form of mosquito control,
and these wetlands now require routine larvicide
applications to control for mosquito populations (Cashin
Associates, PC, 2006). In addition, the grid ditching has
compromised the integrity and function of these wetlands
by fragmenting the marshes, altering the hydrology,
allowing invasive plant species to colonize in the ditches,
and reducing waterfowl and fish habitat (Potente, 2007; Tonjes, 2013).
A USFWS inventory of wetland restoration sites on Long Island (Tiner & Herman, 2015) found 12,543
acres of impaired Suffolk County wetlands that may be able to be repaired to bring back lost or reduced
function, the vast majority of which (almost 9,664 acres) are partly drained (ditched) estuarine wetlands.
A 2004 study conducted by the USFWS in the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (Suffolk County, NY)
showed that grid ditched marshes that were restored to re-establish tidal flow and eliminate invasive
plant species flourished, not only regaining absorption and habitat functioning, but also resulted in a
70% reduction in mosquito spraying when compared to remaining grid ditched marshes in the refuge
(Leuzzi, 2015). By restoring the natural hydrology and plant communities of these grid-ditched salt
marshes and implementing integrated marsh management techniques for mosquito control (see Vector
Control section), Suffolk County can regain function in a large number of its wetlands. See Appendix H
for more details on these Suffolk County wetland restoration efforts.
Protect, restore, and create freshwater and coastal/tidal wetlands or other green
infrastructure alternatives to improve resiliency and restore wetland functions. The USFWS
inventory (Tiner & Herman, 2015) identified 12,543 acres of impaired Suffolk County wetlands
that may be eligible for restoration.
Anticipated Change(s) in Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function
It is critical for Suffolk County's planning efforts to improve water quality, protect and restore wetlands,
and provide the necessary space and sediment flow to allow wetlands the opportunity to be self-
sustaining in the face of sea level rise so that they can continue to provide long term benefits for both
human and natural communities.
Table 4-23 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed decision alternatives on coastal/tidal
wetland structure and function. As noted earlier, individual sewerage systems are not the only source
of wastewater inputs to Suffolk County waters, wastewater inputs are not the only source of nitrogen
loading to Suffolk County waters, and nitrogen loading is only one of many factors affecting
coastal/tidal wetland structure and function across Suffolk County; therefore, there are uncertainties
Page 133 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
predicting the potential impacts of the proposed decision on coastal/tidal wetland structure and
function.
Table 4-23. Impact of Decision on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Coastal/Tidal Wetland Structure and Function
Baseline*
Nitrogen loading to coastal/tidal wetlands from individual sewerage system
wastewater inputs would continue to contribute to loss of coastal/tidal
wetland structure and function. When combined with the expected
acceleration of sea level rise, other present-day nitrogen loading, and legacy
nitrogen loading (due to the long travel time of some groundwater through
the aquifer), the impact of nitrogen loading on Suffolk County wetland
structure and function could be magnified.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
There would be no change in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage
systems, and hence, no change expected in the contribution of wastewater
inputs from these systems to coastal/tidal wetland structure and function.
When combined with the expected acceleration of sea level rise, the impact
of nitrogen loading on Suffolk County wetland structure and function could
be magnified.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
A decrease in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage systems would
result in decreased wastewater contributions to coastal/tidal wetlands; this
should create conditions conducive to restoration of wetland structure and
function. However, there are other competing factors contributing to loss
of wetland structure and function across the County, including accelerated
sea level rise, other present-day nitrogen loading, and legacy nitrogen
loading (due to the long travel time of some groundwater through the
aquifer). Given these factors, it is uncertain the degree to which
improvements in coastal/tidal wetland structure and function would be
seen across the County under this alternative. Should there be an
attributable improvement in water quality and subsequently in coastal/tidal
wetland structure and function due to the decision, it is unknown how long it
would take for this improvement to be seen, considering groundwater travel
times of 0-10 years along the coast and up to decades and even hundreds of
years from the middle of Long Island.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continuing loss of wetland structure and function in Suffolk County.
Page 134 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.3 Impact of Changes in Water Quality on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage
Loss of wetlands across the U.S. has occurred as a result of both human activity and natural causes (EPA,
2001b; Dahl & Stedman, 2013), but because over half of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas, the
stress on coastal wetlands is much greater than on wetlands in inland areas (NOAA, 2004; Dahl &
Stedman, 2013). Human causes of coastal wetland loss (Osmond, et al., 1995; EPA, 2001b; EPA, 2010;
Dahl & Stedman, 2013) include:
Development - converting wetlands to residential and commercial areas and their associated
infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, parking lots), runoff from impervious surfaces, point source
pollution (e.g., factories, sewage treatment plants), and shoreline hardening (e.g., bulkheads
and seawalls, which cause erosion and prevent migration of wetlands inland in response to
rising sea levels)
Agriculture - converting wetlands to agricultural land, draining wetlands, and runoff from
agricultural fields
Hydroloqic Alterations - direct alterations to hydrology, such as draining, dredging,
channelization, filling, levees, and ditching or impoundments of wetlands (e.g., as part of
mosquito control practices); indirect alterations to hydrology, such as changes in overland flow
and connectivity
Pollutants and Water Quality Degradation - changes in water quality due to runoff from
agricultural, urban, and commercial lands, nutrient enrichment (e.g., excess nitrogen), and
sedimentation.
Natural causes of coastal wetland loss, although sometimes influenced by human activity, include:
Erosion - wave action and storm events can cause wetland soils to erode, causing loss of
vegetation and even conversion to open water
Sea Level Rise - as sea level rises, wetlands must grow vertically and horizontally to avoid
submersion (i.e., being converted from vegetated wetland to unvegetated mud flat or even
open water)
Droughts - the timing and delivery of water and sediment during times of drought can cause
sudden diebacks of wetland plants and even the subsidence of wetlands
Climate Change - it is clear from the literature that climate change will magnify the impacts of
these natural process. Because of climate change, future storm events may produce stronger
wave action, larger storm surges, and extreme precipitation, resulting in greater inundation and
increased coastal erosion.
Existing Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage and Stressors in Suffolk County at the Time of the HIA Analysis
All wetlands in Suffolk County are coastal wetlands, as defined by NOAA (n.d.-a) and EPA (2016b).
Between the early 1900s and 2004, Suffolk County lost more than 21,000 acres of freshwater and tidal
wetlands, including over 51% of its freshwater wetlands and 39% of its tidal wetlands (Tiner, McGuckin,
& Fields, 2012).
The population boom in Suffolk County between 1940 and 1970 led to the destruction of many of its
freshwater and tidal wetlands, which were drained, dredged, and/or filled to support the residential,
Page 135 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
commercial, and industrial development that accompanied the boom. Recent studies have pointed to
excess nitrogen nutrient loading from wastewater (i.e., individual sewerage systems and wastewater
treatment plants), fertilizer, and atmospheric deposition - as a significant factor in coastal/tidal
wetland loss in Suffolk County (Gobler C. J., 2014; Suffolk County Government, 2015a; Kosinski &
Isaacson, 2017).
Water quality, and specifically nutrient-related water quality, is an important factor in maintaining
wetlands' health and their ability to grow vertically to keep up with sea level rise. As sea level rises,
wetlands must grow vertically and horizontally to avoid submersion (i.e., being converted from
vegetated wetland to unvegetated mud flat or even open water). Although nutrient enrichment
stimulates above-ground plant growth, recent studies show that nutrient enrichment compromises a
wetland's ability to grow vertically by reducing below-ground root and rhizome biomass (which help
stabilize wetland shores against erosion and wetland plant stability against storms and wave action),
organic matter accumulation, and peat formation (Turner, Swenson, & Milan, 2000; Turner, et al.,
2009; Kirwan, et al., 2010; Deegan L., et al., 2012; Watson, et al., 2014; Weston, 2014). In addition to
the impact of nutrients on a wetland's ability to grow, Watson et. al. (2014) estimated that 87% of
Northeastern salt marshes (a type of wetland) exist at elevations at which growth is limited by
inundation (i.e., flooding), suggesting linkages between sea level rise and current tidal wetland loss.
Loss of Long Island salt marshes has accelerated in recent decades, especially along the south shore. In
western Long Island, wastewater, dredging, groundwater removal, and global warming are contributors
to that wetland loss. Studies of estuaries in western Long Island and Rhode Island have both shown
direct relationships between rises in human population and coastal watershed development and
nitrogen levels present in soil, plant, and/or animal tissue (Wigand, et al., 2014).
From 1974-2001, there was an 18-36% loss in tidal wetlands in the Great South Bay as a result of factors
including excess nitrogen entering the watershed (NYSDEC, 2014c). Local and regional experts have
identified nitrogen pollution from wastewater as a considerable contributor of nitrogen to the Peconic
Estuary, Long Island Sound, Great South Bay, and South Shore Estuary Reserve (Kinney & Valiela, 2011;
Lloyd, 2014; Stinnette, 2014; SCDHS, 2014c; Woods Hole Group Inc., 2014; Suffolk County Government,
2015a; Gobler C. J., 2016; Lloyd, Mollod, LoBue, & Lindberg, 2016).
In addition to climate change and nutrient loading, another factor influencing the ability of Suffolk
County's coastal/tidal wetlands to keep up with sea level rise is their ability to grow horizontally. Many
of the shorelines in Suffolk County are hardened (i.e., lined with riprap, seawalls, or bulkheads), which
prevents wetlands from being able to migrate landward (i.e., grow horizontally) to compensate for
increasing water levels.
There has also been considerable pressure on a unique wetland feature in Suffolk County - eelgrass
beds (i.e., aquatic beds or submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]). Historic photography and records
indicate that there may have been as many as 200,000 acres of eelgrass in Suffolk County in 1930, but
today, less than 22,000 acres remain (NYSDEC, 2004; New York State Seagrass Task Force, 2009; USFWS,
2015). An epidemic called wasting disease hit eelgrass populations in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1931,
resulting in a large-scale (almost 90%) dieback of the eelgrass population (Rasmussen, 1977; Cornell
Page 136 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2012b). Eelgrass populations recovered, but not to
the same levels as before the epidemic. A number of stressors continue to lead to eelgrass population
decline, including algal blooms (e.g., brown tide), sediment and nutrient runoff, disease, physical
disturbance (e.g., from boating, dredging, shellfishing, and normal use of sea grass beds by animals, such
as crabs and waterfowl), hardened shorelines, climate change, and sea level rise (Cornell University
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2012b).
Figure 4-29 shows the wetlands in Suffolk County based on the 2015 National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI), which is the federal standard for wetland classification (USFWS, 2015). The 2015 NWI, using
aerial imagery from 2004, shows a total of 33,748 acres of wetlands in Suffolk County [over half of which
are estuarine (16,593 acres), marine (3,439 acres), or tidal riverine (37 acres) wetlands] and 159,509
acres of deepwater habitat (excluding the oceans).
Wetlands: National Wetland Inventory - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015. * Oceans removed.
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors.
Figure 4-29. Current-day Suffolk County wetlands coverage per the 2015 National Wetland Inventory
(USFWS, 2015).
Wetland restoration in Suffolk County has included programs aimed at restoring eelgrass along Long
Island, restoring salt marshes as part of Hurricane Sandy recovery and resiliency efforts, and restoring
tidal wetlands (Brank, 2015). These wetland restoration efforts have been funded and undertaken by a
number of organizations, including the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA),
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NYSDOS, and NYSDEC. A recent USFWS inventory of potential wetland
restoration sites by Tiner & Herman (2015) found 760 acres of former wetlands in the southern portion
of Suffolk County as possible sites for wetland re-establishment. Approximately 47% of these former
Page 137 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
wetlands (356 acres) are filled land (i.e., disposal sites for dredged material) capable of restoration;
another 41% (315 acres) were once wetlands, but are now open water (due to tidal restrictions,
impoundment, or excavation); and the remaining 12% (92 acres) are farmed former wetlands (Tiner &
Herman, 2015).
Protect, restore, and create freshwater and coastal/tidal wetlands or other green
infrastructure alternatives to improve shoreline resiliency and improve wetland functioning,
including attenuation of nutrients. The USFWS inventory (Tiner & Herman, 2015) identified
760 acres of potential wetland restoration sites in southern Suffolk County.
Anticipated Change(s) to Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage
Table 4-24 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed decision on coastal/tidal wetland acreage
for each decision alternative. As noted earlier, individual sewerage systems are not the only source of
wastewater inputs to Suffolk County waters; wastewater inputs are not the only source of nitrogen
loading to Suffolk County waters; and nitrogen loading is only one of many factors affecting
coastal/tidal wetland loss across Suffolk County; therefore, there are uncertainties in predicting the
potential impacts of the proposed decision on coastal/tidal wetland acreage.
Regardless of the decision alternative chosen, the loss of coastal/tidal wetlands in Suffolk
c
County is expected to continue given other stressors. In addition to direct impacts from
human activity, there are also a number of natural stressors influenced by human activity,
including more frequent and severe storms, extreme precipitation, and accelerated rates of
sea level rise (National Research Council, 2010; Kunkel, et al., 2013; Melillo, Richmond, &
Yohe, 2014). Regulation 6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-Level Rise (adopted February 3,
2017) projects that Long Island could experience sea level rises (above the 2000-2004
baseline) of 2-10 inches by the 2020s and 15-72 inches of sea level rise by 2100 due to the
effects of global warming. Without room to migrate inland, it is possible that many wetlands
will be inundated with accelerated rates of sea level rise and flooding due to more severe
storms and extreme precipitation.
Table 4-24. Impact of Decision on Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage
Baseline*
Nitrogen loading to coastal/tidal wetlands from individual sewerage
system wastewater inputs would continue to contribute to the loss of
protective coastal/tidal wetlands. When combined with the expected
acceleration of sea level rise, other present-day nitrogen loading, and
legacy nitrogen loading (due to the long travel time of some
groundwater through the aquifer), the impact of nitrogen loading on
Suffolk County wetland loss could be magnified.
Page 138 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Alternatives
Potential Change(s) in Coastal/Tidal Wetland Acreage
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must be
upgraded to conform to
current County Sanitary
Code and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
There would be no change in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage
systems, and hence, no change expected in the contribution of
wastewater inputs from these systems to coastal/tidal wetland loss.
When combined with the expected acceleration of sea level rise, the
impact of nitrogen loading on Suffolk County wetland loss could be
magnified.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas must
be upgraded to conform
to current County Sanitary
Code and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high priority
areas must be upgraded
to an innovative/
alternative system design.
A decrease in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage systems would
result in decreased wastewater contributions to coastal/tidal wetlands;
this should lead to a decrease in coastal/tidal wetland loss and create
conditions conducive to eelgrass restoration. However, there are other
competing factors contributing to wetland and eelgrass loss across the
County, including accelerated sea level rise, other present-day nitrogen
loading, and legacy nitrogen loading (due to the long travel time of some
groundwater through the aquifer). Given these factors, it is uncertain
the degree to which improvements in coastal/tidal wetland acreage
across the County would be seen under this alternative; modeling and
long-term monitoring are needed to make this determination. Should
there be an attributable improvement in water quality and subsequently
in coastal/tidal wetland acreage due to the decision, it is unknown how
long it would take for this improvement to be seen, considering
groundwater travel times of 0-10 years along the coast and up to
decades and even hundreds of years from the middle of Long Island.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continuing wetland loss in Suffolk County.
4.4.4 I mpact of Coastal/Tidal Wetlands on Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or
Tidal Surges
Shoreline resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges is primarily dependent on a number of physical factors
(e.g., geomorphology, coastal slope, relative sea-level change, shoreline erosion, mean tide, mean wave
height) and the presence of natural habitats (e.g., wetlands, dunes, beaches) and engineered solutions
(e.g., seawalls, bulkheads, jetties, and rip-rap-walls).
As noted previously, wetlands do play a role in shoreline resiliency. Although wetlands and eelgrass
beds cannot be expected to stop storm surges and flooding associated with large storm events, like
hurricanes, the friction provided by the vegetation can reduce wave energy somewhat, which is
Page 139 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
important for reduced wave damage, flooding, and erosion, especially during lower-intensity storms
and coastal/tidal flooding (e.g., nuisance "sunny day" flooding that occurs in the absence of storms due
to rising sea levels).
Coastal areas with low-lying land are particularly vulnerable to these storm surges, especially in light of
rising sea levels (Figure 4-30).
Storm Surge and High Tides Magnify the Risks of Local Sea Level Rise
Sea level sets a baseline for storm surgethe
potentially destructive rise in sea height that
occurs during a coastal storm. As local sea level
rises, so does that baseline, allowing coastal
storm surges to peneti
arther inland. Wit
higher global sea levels in 2050 and 2100,
areas much farther inland would be at risk of
being flooded. The extent of local flooding also
depends on factors like tides, natural and artifi-
cial barriers, and the contours of coastal land.
ml w-'*" *
210(f
floodplafn
Local factors such as tides and coastal profile
will influence extent of floodplain.
Image adapted from Union of Concerned Scientists 2013; www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrisescience
Figure 4-30. Storm surges are amplified by sea level rise. Adapted from Union of Concerned Scientists (2013).
Sea level rise not only amplifies storm surges, but also allows normal waves to reach further
inland, increasing the risk of erosion, barrier island loss, inundation, and nuisance flooding in
the absence of storms (New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010; Union of Concerned
Scientists, 2013; EPA, 2016c). Due to rising sea levels, nuisance flooding (Figure 4-31) has
become more frequent (NOAA, 2014a; Sweet & Park, 2014; EPA, 2016c; Gillis, 2016). Nuisance
tidal flooding occurs when the water level at a NOAA water level gauge exceeds the local
threshold for minor impacts, such as road closures, reduced storm-water drainage, etc. (Sweet
& Marra, 2015). It is rarely life-threatening, but can cause property and infrastructure damage.
Page 140 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
In 1950 it would take a
considerable amount of water
caused by a large storm such
as a hurricane to cause
nuisance flooding. Nuisance
flooding was infrequent.
In 2010, with higher
relative sea level, it no
longer takes a strong
storm or hurricane to
cause flooding. Now,
nuisance flooding is
frequent and can be
caused merely by high
tide.
How is local elevation important
to nuisance flooding?
The relationship between local
elevation and the high tide line
determines the rate of nuisance
flooding. If they are close to the
same in elevation, flooding is
frequent. If they are not close,
flooding is infrequent.
IP'
Figure 4-31. The impact of rising sea level on nuisance flooding. Taken from NOAA (2014b).
A traditional approach to protecting shorelines from storms, flooding, and erosion has been to "harden"
or "armor" shorelines by adding engineered features, such as vertical bulkheads and seawalls. In recent
years, however, the importance of natural habitats, such as coastal wetlands and seagrass beds, in
protecting shorelines has become more widely accepted (National Research Council, 2010; Arkema, et
al., 2013; National Research Council, 2014). Actions to protect and restore salt marshes and eelgrass
beds in order to increase shoreline resiliency have become more common, but they may be unsuccessful
unless accompanied by actions to mitigate the multitude of forces causing their decline, including
development, overall nitrogen loading, sediment regime changes, wave action, erosion, severe storms
and extreme precipitation, and possibly most importantly, sea level rise (National Research Council,
2014).
Integrate wetland protection priorities into community planning.
Protect, restore, and create freshwater and coastal/tidal wetlands or other green
infrastructure alternatives to improve resiliency.
Evaluate the use of hybrid approaches that combine natural habitats and built defense
structures to improve resiliency.
Inundation of wetlands from sea level rise, storm events, and flooding can result in direct wetland loss
as wetlands are converted to muddy flats and even open water (Morris, Sundareshwar, Nietch, Kjerfve,
& Cahoon, 2002; Nicholls, 2004). Inundation can also result in an increase in standing water for
mosquito habitat. Historically, the loss of wetlands to sea level rise was offset if the wetland could
maintain its relative elevation and had the ability to migrate landward. Hardened shorelines, and the
development they are meant to protect, now hinder the landward migration of wetlands and have
modified the sediment input needed to help wetlands maintain their elevation.
Page 141 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Existing Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges at the Time of the HI A Analysis
Suffolk County shorelines are predominantly beach and vegetated areas (e.g., wetland, seagrass bed),
although there are also mud or sand flats in some of the bays. There is also extensive armoring along the
southern shore, especially in the western portion of the County (Figure 4-32).
Suffolk County's coastline is vulnerable to a number of natural factors known to cause shoreline change.
The Coastal Vulnerability Index calculated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Thieler & Hammar-
Klose, 1999) shows the susceptibility of the Suffolk County coast to sea level rise (using historical relative
sea level rise rates at tide gauge stations along the coast) and the nature of that risk - flooding,
shoreline retreat, material transport, erosion, etc. (Figure 4-33). Long Island's shores are also affected by
land subsidence - the sinking of an area of land due to subsurface geologic processes (Tanski J., 2012;
Karegar, Dixon, & Engelhart, 2016).
ESRI Shoreline Aggregate: NOAA's ESI_Shoreline_Aggregate MapServer, accessed March 2017
Figure 4-32. Suffolk County shoreline types per NOAA's Environmental Sensitivity Index.
Page 142 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Coastal Vulnerability Index: USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal 2010.
Base Map: Esri. DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors.
Figure 4-33. The USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index shows the relative susceptibility of
the Suffolk County coast to sea level rise when compared to the entire Atlantic coast.
The southern shore of Suffolk County is a very high energy coastline, while the northern shore sees
more moderate wave heights (Figure 4-34e). However, both shorelines are subjected to high tidal
ranges (Figure 4-34c), indicating an intermittent and permanent inundation hazard. The beach,
vegetated, and mud and/or sand flat geomorphologies along both coasts are moderately to very highly
erodible (Figure 4-34b), according to the ranking of USGS's Coastal Vulnerability Index (Thieler &
Hammar-Klose, 1999), yet the erosion rates for the Suffolk County shoreline are shown to primarily be
moderate, with some areas of low and high to very high erosion (Figure 4-34f).
Page 143 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Block
Island
Sound
Block
Island
Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
yPecoti)c
Itcry .
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Coastal Slope**
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
ฆVery Low
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Geomorphology**
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
** Steepness or flatness of coastal area
permits evaluation of risk to the coast
to flooding and shoreline retreat.
Great
** Geomorphology shows the relative
erodibility of the shoreline.
Block
Island
Sound
Block
Island
Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Tidal Range**
^~Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Sea Level Rise**
Very High
High
'** Historical sea level rise shows how Moderate
global sea level rise and local tectonic 'Low
processes affect the shoreline. ^"Very Low
** Tidal range permits evaluation of
permanent and episodic flooding.
Block
Island
Sound
Block
Island
Sound
Long Island Sound y
Long Island Sound
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Wave Height**
^Very High
High
** Wave height is an indicator of Moderate
wave energy which impacts transport ""^Low
of beach/coastal materials ""Very Low
Coastal Vulnerability
Index*
Shoreline Erosion**
Very High
High
Moderate
ฆ ฆ Low
~~ Very Low
** Shoreline erosion rates depict
relative erodibility of the shoreline.
Coastal Vulnerability Index: USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal. 2010 * Coastal Vulnerability Index (calculated by USGS) shows the relative
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDG, and other contributors susceptibility of the coast to sea level rise for the Atlantic Coast.
Figure 4-34. Ranking of physical variables considered in the USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index for Suffolk County - (a) coastal slope risk,
(b) geomorphology, (c) tidal range, (d) historical sea level rise, (e) wave height, and (f) shoreline erosion.
Page 144 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
As part of the USGS's National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Hapke, Himmelstoss, Kratzmann, List, &
Thieler (2011) showed that historically, the average rate of erosion for Long Island in the long term was -
0.6 m/yr and in the short term was -1.0 m/yr; however, the net shoreline change rates were positive in
both the long term and short term (Table 4-25) due to the extent of beach nourishment projects and
other activities undertaken on Long Island. (Hapke, Himmelstoss, Kratzmann, List, & Thieler, 2011).
Table 4-25 . Long Island Long-term and Short-term Shoreline Change Rates (Taken from Hapke, Himmelstoss,
Kratzmann, List & Thieler, 2011)
Shoreline
Change
Average of
rates (m/yr)
Percent
eroding
(%)
Average rate
of erosion
(m/yr)
Percent eroding
more than -1 m/yr
(%)
Percent eroding
more than -3 m/yr
(%)
Long-term
(1830-2007)
0.08 ฑ0.2
60
-0.6
9
3
Short-term
(1983-2000)
0.8 ฑ0.09
36
-1.0
15
1
While numerous storm events occurred during the timeframes examined by Hapke, Himmelstoss,
Kratzmann, List & Thieler (2011), the shoreline change rates are averaged over time and therefore do
not reflect the probability of shoreline change due to a particular storm event. The USGS created coastal
change forecasts for extreme storms (i.e., hurricanes and Nor'easters) by modeling storm-induced water
levels (e.g., surge and waves) compared to the elevations of "first line of defense" dunes and beaches
every 1-km along the U.S. coast. These coastal change forecasts show the probability of erosion of dunes
and sandy beaches along the southern coast of Suffolk County due to collision, overwash, and
inundation during a subset of extreme storm conditions. Collision during these extreme storms is
inevitable and occurs when storm waves hit the shoreline, causing erosion along the front of the dune or
beach. When storm surge and waves increase in height, they topple over the top of the dune or beach
berm (i.e., overwash), causing erosion along the back side of the shoreline and pushing sand landward.
The most severe coastal change occurs during inundation, when the height of the surge and waves
exceeds the elevation of the shoreline and submerges the area. This can lead to severe erosion,
breaching of barrier islands, and flooding. Figure 4-35 illustrates each of these coastal change regimes.
Dune Collision Overwash Inundation
Dune Dune Overwash
While the USGS's coastal change forecasts show the probability of inundation, they do not indicate the
extent of that inundation. NOAA, however, has developed a model to estimate Sea, Lake, and Overland
Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH).
Page 145 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Figure 4-36 shows the SLOSH zones expected from Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 hurricanes (i.e., the extent of
the storm surge from these hurricanes).
0 10 20 mi jsT*
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme. GEBCO. NOAA NGDC. and other contributors
SLOSH Zones Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Zones,
New York State Office of Emergency Management (OEM). 2013
Figure 4-36. Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Zones 1-4
showing the extent of inundation expected from the corresponding category of
hurricane (Category 1 hurricane being the least severe and Category 4 being the
most severe).
Similar surge extent modeling for Nor'easters and other severe storms doesn't exist; however, the
NOAA tidal gauge at the eastern tip of Long Island (Montauk, NY), does give a glimpse into the surge and
wave heights associated with Class 1, 2, and 3 Nor'easters (Table 4-26).
Table 4-26. Observed Non-Tidal Surge and Significant Wave Height Associated with Nor'easters at Montauk, NY.
Taken from (Birchler, Dalyander, Stockdon, & Doran, 2015)
Nor'easter
Mean Non-Tidal
Mean Significant
Surge (m)*
Wave Height (m)f
Class 1
0.75
3.10
Class 2
0.90
4.09
Class 3
1.38
5.91
* NOAA Tidal Gage 8510560, Time Period 1979 - 2009
+ NOAA Wave Buoy 44017, Time Period 2002 - 2009
Inundation of the shoreline isn't just happening during storm events; sea level has risen over time and,
when combined with the land subsidence being experienced on Long Island (Tanski J., 2012; Karegar,
Dixon, & Engelhart, 2016), is now at the point that a high tide or a windy day, can cause inundation
(NOAA, 2014a; Corum, 2016; Gillis, 2016). Figure 4-37 shows the areas of Suffolk County currently
exposed to shallow coastal flooding and the rise in these nuisance flooding events as measured at the
Montauk, NY tide gage in Eastern Suffolk County.
Page 146 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Tide Gauges.
0 Shallow Coastal
Flooding Areas
ฆer J>-
Figure 4-37. Shallow coastal flooding areas currently exposed to nuisance
flooding (Source: NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer) and the nuisance flood
events (cumulative hours and impacted days) recorded at the Montauk,
NY tide gage. Source: (NOAA, 2014a). Note: If the number of hours and days
are numerically equivalent, only days are shown.
In September 2014, the Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA) was enacted to ensure that decision-
makers use the best available science and consider sea level rise, storm surge, and flooding when issuing
certain state funding and permits. One provision of CRRA was the development of official sea level rise
projections. Regulation 6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-Level Rise (adopted February 3, 2017) forecasts
accelerated sea level rise for the Long Island Region (Table 4-27).
Table 4-27. Forecast of Accelerated Sea Level Rise for Long Island, NY(Source: 6 NYCRR Part 490)
Region
Long Island
Inches of rise relative to 2000-2004 baseline
Descriptor
Low
Low-
medium
Medium
High-
medium
High
2020s
2
4
6
8
10
2050s
8
11
16
21
30
2080s
13
18
29
39
58
2100
15
21
34
47
72
With the projected sea level rise for Long Island, not only will the frequency of intermittent flooding
increase, but areas of Suffolk County will be permanently flooded. This permanent flooding will erode
beaches and barrier islands, alter the shoreline, submerge wetlands and low-lying areas, and increase
the area vulnerable to storm surge and nuisance flooding (Tanski J., 2010; RPA, 2016; EPA, 2016c), The
barrier islands and "back bay" communities on Suffolk County's south shore are the most vulnerable to
these rising sea levels (RPA, 2016).
Page 147 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Anticipated Change(s) in Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Table 4-28 identifies the potential impacts of each proposed decision alternative on shoreline
resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges through impacts to wetlands (discussed previously in Sections
4.4.2 and 4.4.3). As RPA (2016) notes, many of the efforts currently being undertaken to improve
shoreline resiliency to severe storms and coastal flooding may only offer short-term, limited
protection due to sea level rise, more severe storms, and extreme precipitation.
Regardless of the decision scenario chosen, efforts should be taken to promote shoreline
adaption to the rapid acceleration of sea level rise projected for the region. Natural coastal
features, such as wetlands, are dynamic ecosystems that provide significant benefits, but
they are also among the most susceptible ecosystems to sea level rise (LISS, 2015).
Undertake planning efforts and secure funding that addresses sea level rise adaptation of
wetlands and other natural shoreline types (e.g., beaches and dunes) in order to enhance
shoreline resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges for the long term.
Table 4-28. Impact of Decision on Shoreline Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Alternatives
Baseline
Potential Changes in Shoreline Resiliency
The presence, structure, and function of coastal/tidal wetlands has an
impact on the resiliency of the shoreline to storm and/or tidal surges and
coastal flooding. Although wetlands and eelgrass beds cannot be expected
to stop storm surges and flooding associated with large storm events, like
hurricanes, the friction provided by the vegetation can reduce wave energy
somewhat, which is important for reduced wave damage, flooding, and
erosion, especially during lower-intensity storms and coastal/tidal flooding.
But there are factors beyond the nitrogen loading examined in this
assessment that impact the ability of wetlands to buffer surges and flooding,
and there are other features beyond wetlands that impact the resiliency of
the shoreline to storms and flooding (such as beaches and dunes). When
combined with the expected acceleration of sea level rise, the protection
coastal/tidal wetlands provide against storm and/or tidal surges and coastal
flooding could be diminished if actions aren't taken to promote wetland
adaption to sea level rise.
Alternative I
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
There would be no change in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage
systems, and hence, no change expected in the contribution of wastewater
inputs from these systems to coastal/tidal wetland structure, function, or
loss. As a result, no impact on shoreline resiliency to storm and/or tidal
surges is expected. When combined with the expected acceleration of sea
level rise, the impact of nitrogen loading on Suffolk County shoreline
resiliency could be magnified.
Page 148 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Shoreline Resiliency
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
While a decrease in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage systems
should create conditions that allow coastal/tidal wetlands and eelgrass to
reduce wave damage, flooding, and erosion, especially during lower-
intensity storms and coastal/tidal flooding, competing factors contributing
to loss of wetlands and wetland structure and function exist across the
County, including accelerated sea level rise and legacy nitrogen loading (due
to the long travel time of some groundwater through the aquifer). Given
these factors, it is uncertain the degree to which improvements in shoreline
resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges across the County would be seen
under this alternative. Should there be an attributable improvement in
water quality and subsequently in shoreline resiliency due to the decision, it
is unknown how long it would take for this improvement to be seen
considering groundwater travel times of 0-10 years along the coast and up to
decades and even hundreds of years from the middle of Long Island.
*
It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continued decreases in shoreline resiliency in Suffolk County.
4.4.5 I mpact of Shoreline Resiliency on Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to
Storm and/or Tidal Surges
The Nature Conservancy (TNC, 2016) estimates that there are almost 12 million people and trillions of
dollars of property and infrastructure in New York's coastal counties along the Atlantic Coast. Erosion,
storms and/or tidal surges, and flooding do not only bring about changes in the shoreline, but also
impact coastal infrastructure and development, including facilities and infrastructure that are critical to
the health and welfare of the population, especially during and following a storm event or other hazard
(Suffolk County Government, 2014b).
Severe weather and inundation can cause extensive and expensive damage to coastal properties,
and in some cases, can debilitate entire communities. Property damage can be the direct result of
storm and/or tidal surges and flooding or it can occur more gradually, through erosion or saltwater
inundation from rising sea levels (New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010). Damage can
include weakened structures, damaged electrical or plumbing systems, mold, contamination,
foundation failure, and even complete structural loss. Infrastructure damage can include flooded and
impaired roadways and transportation systems; overwhelmed and/or failed stormwater, drinking
water and wastewater systems; damaged gas lines, and communication and power systems;
deteriorated infrastructure not designed to withstand exposure to salt water; and more. All of these
Page 149 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
have potential health implications, as exposure to hazards, living conditions, housing expenditures,
and loss of services are factors known to impact health.
Site characteristics, such as depth to groundwater, potential for persistent flooding and rising
groundwater due to storms and/or tidal surges, pose a risk for structural and hydraulic failure for
individual sewerage systems. Heavy rains, flooding, and storm and/or tidal surges can cause the ground
to become saturated, keeping individual sewerage systems from operating properly. Under these
conditions, the soil around the sewerage systems is unable to provide any treatment capability and
contaminants from wastewater can make their way into groundwater and surface waters (National
Small Flows Clearinghouse, 2006; CDC, 2016b; EPA, 2016c). If the ground becomes too saturated and
there is no place for the wastewater in individual sewerage systems to drain, hydraulic failure of the
systems can occur, causing wastewater and solid waste to back up into homes or pool above ground,
mixing with floodwaters and stormwater runoff (National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 2006; CDC, 2016b;
EPA, 2016c). Under flooded conditions, individual sewerage systems can also collapse or even float out
of position (CDC, 2016b). Storm and/or tidal surges and flooding can also impact and cause damage to
public wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure, causing the release of untreated or partially
treated wastewater; overwhelm stormwater systems; and impact private wells, public water treatment
plants, and water distribution systems (Chisolm & Matthews, 2012). If hydraulic or structural failure of
individual sewerage systems or public wastewater treatment infrastructure occurs, it is important to
remember that nearby drinking water wells and surface waters may be impacted by wastewater.
Section 4.2.5 outlined the human health effects of individual sewerage system failure and Section 4.3
discussed the impact of pollutant loading from individual sewerage system on drinking water, surface
water, and human health.
Property and infrastructure damage isn't limited to flooding from
severe storms. Nuisance flooding can inundate streets and homes,
reduce stormwater drainage, and deteriorate infrastructure not
designed to withstand inundation or exposure to salt water. Many
coastal areas have developed hardened shorelines (e.g., building rip
rap walls, bulkheads, and seawalls; Figure 4-38) or instituted policies,
such as setback requirements and natural shoreline protection
measures, to try to protect coastal properties and infrastructure frorr
storm and/or tidal surges and inundation (National Research Council, gure4-38. Exc- pleo a hardened
shoreline.
2014).
Land use planning may be the most promising approach for hazard mitigation (Mileti, 1999; Burby,
Nelson, Parker, & Handmer, 2001; Tanski, 2010; National Research Council, 2014; RPA, 2016; TNC,
2016). Mileti (1999) notes that research conducted over the past two decades suggests that if local
governments make the right choices in crafting land use planning programs to avoid and/or reduce
hazard impacts, communities wili be less likely to suffer severe losses of lives and property in natural
disasters.
Page 150 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Existing Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges at the Time of the HI A
Analysis
The Suffolk County Government (2014b) Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update used the
FEMA Hazards U.S. Multihazard (HAZUS-MH) model to identify the Suffolk County population, general
building stock, and critical facilities at risk of exposure to various hazards, by jurisdiction. General
building stock includes both residential and commercial structures, and critical facilities include facilities
essential to a full recovery following a hazard event, such as police, fire, EMS, schools/colleges, shelters,
senior facilities, and medical facilities (Figure 4-39); transportation systems; utilities such as potable
(drinking) water, wastewater treatment, power, and communication; county government facilities; and
more.
Coastal flooding, erosion, storm and/or tidal surges, and sea level rise can also impact some of the many
beaches, parks, and recreation areas along Suffolk County's shores (Figure 4-40). This limits their use
and economic contributions.
The risk of population, building, and critical facility exposure to flooding, coastal erosion, and storm
surges is summarized at the county level in the sections that follow, along with a narrative on the risk of
exposure to sea level rise. It should be noted that all of the projections of exposure are based on 2010
population and infrastructure statistics and do not take into account the population and development
changes expected in the County.
Page 151 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Critical Facilities
<ง) Police Precincts
ฃ3 EMS Locations
Fire Departments
20 mi
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Suffolk Critical Facilities: Suffolk County, NY 2014-2015
Figure 4-39. A subset of critical facilities in Suffolk County deemed essential, some of which are at risk of exposure to coastal hazards.
Page 152 of 305
-------
i
10 20 mi
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
s0
Block
Island
Sound
Long Island Sound
Oft* ;
,
/"/>?,} f'
far" (*' if, '*'ฎS 4}v - ' Recreation
* ฎ Parks & Greenspace (181)
; **ป r Beaches (69)
ฉLakes (176)
3 Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Recreation Points: Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) Non-Populated Places, USGS and
US Board of Geographic Names, 2015.
Figure 4-40. Suffolk County parks, greenspace, beaches, and lakes, some of
which are at risk of exposure to coastal hazards.
Figure 4-41 shows the F E MA flood zone areas in Suffolk County (see Appendix H for a more detailed
discussion of the flood zone areas). As is expected,, the southern shore of the Suffolk County, part of
which is Fire Island, is primarily a high flood risk (Zone AE) or extremely high flood risk and wave velocity
hazard (Zone VE).
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Special Flood Hazard Areas from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016
Figure 4-41. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas for Suffolk County.
Table 4-29shows the people, buildings, and critical facilities at risk of exposure to coastal (and riverine)
flooding in Suffolk County. These statistics do not take into account storm surge, so should coastal
flooding occur in conjunction with a Nor'easter, hurricane, or other severe storm, these numbers would
greatly underestimate the at-risk population and property. The County is expected to experience
Page 153 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
increased property and infrastructure damage from flooding, especially in the light of sea level rise
(Table 4-29).
Table 4-29. Risk of Exposure to Flooding in Suffolk County. FEMA HAZUS-MH results taken from: (Suffolk County
Government, 2014b)
Exposed to Flooding
Suffolk County
100-Year Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) -
Zones A and V
100-Year SFHA with 3
inches Sea Level Rise
100-Year SFHA with 24
inches Sea Level Rise
Resident Population*
43,968
44,588
60,300
General Building Stock
(# buildings)1
27,837
32,637
42,591
Critical Facilities
130
No data
No data
* Total Suffolk County population - 1,493,350 (2010 Census); total population and population exposed do not include tourist or
seasonal populations.
f Total of 617,436 residential and commercial structures in Suffolk County's general building stock.
Flooding is a reality for many households, as 26,090 of the 27,837 buildings in the 100-year SFHA are
residential. The flooding damage and losses endured by Suffolk County residences are evident in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) statistics presented in Table 4-30.
Table 4-30. FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Statistics for Suffolk County from January 1,1978- January
31, 2014. Taken from: (Suffolk County Government, 2014b)
# NFIP Policies
# NFIP Policies
in the 100-
Year SFHA
# NFIP Claims
(Losses)
Total NFIP Loss
Payments*
# Repetitive
Loss
Properties1
# Severe
Repetitive Loss
Properties1
38,165
14,699
31,595
$1,012,752,084
2,393
455
* Loss payments (building and contents) from FEMA Region 2 claims file.
f Repetitive loss properties have two or more NFIP claim payments over $1,000 each; severe repetitive loss properties have at
least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each (over $20,000 cumulatively) or have at least two NFIP payments, with the
building portion of the claims cumulatively exceeding the market value of the building.
Critical facilities most at risk of flooding include potable (drinking) water facilities, Suffolk County
Government facilities, ferry terminals, and wastewater treatment facilities. As previously discussed,
flooding can also have drastic impacts on sewerage system failure and cause the mixing of wastewater
with flood waters.
Coastal erosion has significant impacts in Suffolk County. Although it is not usually considered a public
safety hazard, it does have a significant impact on property, infrastructure, environmental resources,
and the economy. Risk is designated for several erosion hazard areas (Figure 4-42), as defined by Suffolk
County Government (2014b):
Page 154 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
State-designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas (CEHA; areas that have natural protective
features, such as beaches, dunes, bluffs, and near-shore areas and areas with high erosion
vulnerability). There are 20 communities in Suffolk County that are certified CEHA communities,
including Babylon, Belle Terre, North and South Brookhaven, East Hampton, Huntington, Lloyd
Harbor, Ocean Beach, Old Field, Port Jefferson, Quogue, Riverhead, Sagaponack, Saltaire,
Shoreham, Town of Southampton, Village of Southampton, Southold, West Hampton Dunes,
Westhampton Beach (NYSDEC, 2012),
Extreme Risk Areas (areas at current risk of frequent inundation, likely to be inundated due to
sea level rise, and vulnerable to erosion in the next 40 years),
High Risk Areas (areas outside the Extreme Risk Areas that are currently at risk of infrequent
inundation or at risk of future inundation from sea level rise),
Moderate Risk Areas (areas outside the Extreme and High Risk Areas at moderate risk of
infrequent inundation currently or in the future due to sea level rise).
Figure 4-42. Suffolk County extreme risk, high risk, and moderate risk erosion hazard areas.
Table 4-31 shows the people, buildings, and critical facilities at risk of exposure to coastal erosion in
Suffolk County
Table 4-31. Risk of Exposure to Coastal Erosion in Suffolk County. FEMA HAZUS-MH results taken from: (Suffolk
County Government, 2014b)
Exposed to Coastal Erosion '
Suffolk County
CEHA with
Extreme
High
Moderate
Buffer
Risk Area
Risk Area
Risk Area
Resident Population1
1,747
25,152
20,757
111,790
General Building Stock
4,754
15,483
17,417
55,787
(# buildings)4"
Critical Facilities
7
49
79
208
* Exposure to coastal erosion, as defined by the criteria of the respective coastal erosion hazard/risk area.
' Total Suffolk County population - 1.493,350 (2010 Census); total population and population exposed do not include tourist or
seasonal populations.
* Total of 617,436 residential and commercial structures in Suffolk County's general building stock.
Page 155 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
The critical facilities most at risk of exposure to coastal erosion are drinking water facilities and
wastewater treatment facilities. A number of roads and infrastructure are also at severe risk of coastal
erosion in the CEHA, including 10.1 miles of parkway, county, and state roads; 61.7 miles of secondary
roads; and 2 bridges (Suffolk County Government, 2014b).
Hurricanes, Nor'easters, and other tropical storms can all bring high winds and surge inundation
resulting in similar impacts on the population, buildings and infrastructure, and the economy.
Table 4-32 shows the number of people, buildings, and critical facilities located in Suffolk County SLOSH
zones and, therefore, at risk of exposure to storm surge. For the purposes of this assessment, the
building/facility data presented include only those structures with their centroid in the SLOSH zone, and
the population data include only those block groups whose centroid fall within the SLOSH zone. As a
result of this approach, the buildings and population exposed to storm surges is likely underestimated.
SLOSH Zones 1-4 show the extent of inundation expected from the corresponding category of hurricane
(Category 1 hurricane being the least severe and Category 4 being the most severe). All analyses for
exposure of population, general building stock, and critical facilities to storm surge are cumulative. For
example, if a population or facility is located within the Category 1 SLOSH zone it is also located within
the Category 2 SLOSH zone. The assumption is that if a population or facility is affected by a Category 1
storm it would also be affected by a Category 2, 3, or 4 storm event. Therefore, to calculate the
population and number of buildings/facilities at risk of exposure to storm surge from a Category 2
hurricane, you would add the number located in SLOSH zones 1 and 2.
Table 4-32. Risk of Exposure to Storm Surges in Suffolk County. FEMA HAZUS-MH results taken from: (Suffolk
County Government, 2014b)*
Suffolk County
Located in SLOSH Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Resident Population t
27,659
86,705
161,858
224,404
General Building Stock
15,398
49,126
86,403
116,574
(# buildings)*
Critical Facilities
98
203
341
485
* Analyses of population, building stock, and critical facilities exposed to storm surge are cumulative. To calculate the
population and number of buildings/facilities at risk of exposure to storm surge from a Category 2 hurricane, you would add the
number located in SLOSH zones 1 and 2; to calculate the population and number of buildings/facilities at risk of exposure to
storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, you would add the number located in SLOSH zones 1, 2, and 3; and so on.
+ Total Suffolk County population -1,493,350 (2010 Census); total population and population exposed do not include tourist or
seasonal populations.
* Total of 617,436 residential and commercial structures in Suffolk County's general building stock.
The critical facilities most at risk of storm surge are potable (drinking) water facilities, fire facilities,
schools, wastewater treatment facilities, and Suffolk County Government facilities. Like with flooding
and coastal erosion, a number of roads and infrastructure along Suffolk County's southern shore are also
at severe risk of inundation by storm surges as illustrated in Figure 4-43. Some of the roads impacted by
Page 156 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
these coastal hazards are evacuation routes, which can hamper evacuation efforts, as well as emergency
response.
During Superstorm Sandy, onsite sewerage systems were flooded by the rising groundwater, causing
sanitary wastewater and solid waste to wash out of the systems and sewage contaminants to enter
groundwater and surface waters (New York State, 2015b).
Long Island Sound
ny dot Roads*
A/ Interstate
/V State Highway
A/ Parkway
20 mi
Block
Island
Sound
/v County Roads
Other Roads
SLOSH Zones
%20DOCS/Suffolk%20CER
.pdf
Highlighted routes are roads indicated on the
Coastal Evacuation Routes Map for Suffolk County.
http;//www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/fres/Forms/OEM
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Roads; NY DOT April 2016
SLOSH Zones: Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH)
Figure 4-43. Suffolk County roads, including those located in SLOSH Zones and likely impacted by storm
surge and other coastal hazards.
As sea levels rise, Suffolk County may see increased erosion, greater extent and frequency of
coastal flooding, and storm surges that extend further inland. This could result in inordinate
increases in the number of people, buildings, and critical facilities affected, along with increased
property losses (New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010; Shepard, et al., 2012; NOAA, 2014a;
National Research Council, 2014). Shepard, et al. (2012) indicated that a moderate 19.7-inch rise in
sea level by 2080 is estimated to result in a 33% increase in the amount of land inundated, a 47%
increase in the number of people impacted by storm surge, and a 73% increase in property damage
along the southern shores of Long Island over present day levels in the case of a Category 3 hurricane.
Unlike with storms, flood waters due to sea level rise will not recede; instead, areas will become
permanently inundated (Napolitano, 2013; RPA, 2016). The Regional Planning Association (RPA, 2016)
projects that 7,122 residents on Long Island could be permanently inundated with 12 inches of sea
level rise; 41,023 residents with 36 inches of sea level rise; and 164,592 residents with 72 inches of
sea level rise. These projections loosely correlate with the 6 NYCRR Part 490 low (15 inches), medium
(34 inches), and high (72 inches) sea level rise forecasts for 2100 (http://www.dec.ny.gov/
Page 157 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
regulations/103877.html). Most areas permanently inundated by one foot of sea level rise (which is
projected to occur as early as the 2050s) are located in the Suffolk County towns of Brookhaven, Islip,
and Babylon, and the town of Hempstead in Nassau County (RPA, 2016). At three feet of sea level
rise, the permanent inundation reaches further inland, and with six feet of sea level rise, "no
community along the south shore is left untouched and the long stretches of sandy barrier beaches...
will be reduced to thin slivers of sand;" communities on Fire Island are nearly all lost and areas along
the north shore start experiencing permanent inundation with six feet of sea level rise (RPA, 2016).
Napolitano (2013) also projects that low-lying areas like the hamlet of Mastic, in the Town of
Brookhaven, and others will be under water by the end of the century.
Many believe that changes in land use planning and development policies (e.g., adjusting building code
and zoning requirements, establishing setbacks, limiting and/or restricting development in potentially
hazardous areas, instituting property buyout programs, etc.) are necessary for long-term community
resilience, in conjunction with sea level rise adaptation investments (e.g., wetland and beach
restoration, shoreline hardening for critical infrastructure protection, pumps to keep the water out,
elevated buildings and infrastructure, hazard-resistant infrastructure design and construction,
redundancies in critical system, permanent relocation, etc.) to mitigate against the rapid acceleration of
sea level rise (Mileti, 1999; Burby, Nelson, Parker, & Handmer, 2001; Nicholls, 2006; Colten, Kates, &
Laska, 2008; Miami-Dade Government, 2014; National Research Council, 2014; RPA, 2016).
Anticipated Change(s) to Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Table 4-33 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed decision on property/infrastructure
damage due to storm and/or tidal surges for each decision alternative. The pathway through which
the decision could potentially impact property and infrastructure damage is through impacts to
shoreline resiliency. However, potential reductions in nitrogen loading to coastal/tidal wetlands as a
result of the proposed code changes does not mean improved shoreline and community resiliency to
storm and/or tidal surges, flooding, or other hazards, due to the many factors affecting resiliency.
Regardless of the decision alternative chosen, it should be noted that property and
C infrastructure damage from flooding and storm and/or tidal surges in Suffolk County is
expected to increase unless something is done to offset the severe storms, extreme
precipitation, and rapid acceleration of sea level rise projected for the region (National
Research Council, 2010; Kunkel, et al., 2013; Melillo, Richmond, & Yohe, 2014) and other
factors affecting wetlands and shoreline resiliency.
Although not related to the proposed code changes directly, the following recommendations are offered
to address the County's desire for improved resiliency to natural disasters:
* JL* Ensure that the impacts of accelerated sea level rise and increased storm frequency and
intensity are adequately examined and accounted for in the initial phases of all planning
efforts.
Page 158 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Undertake planning efforts and secure funding that addresses sea level rise adaptation in
order to ensure shoreline resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges for the long term.
Consider activities, such as voluntary buyouts, that encourage local (town/village) land use
and zoning regulations, and County-level disincentives to development, to reduce the
infrastructure and people in vulnerable coastal areas and create more naturally-functioning
coastal floodplains and provide space for coastal/tidal wetlands to retreat and expand.
Table 4-33. Impact of Decision on Property/Infrastructure Damage Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Property/Infrastructure Damage
Baseline*
Due to the dense development of Suffolk County's coasts, there are a lot of
people, property, and infrastructure in harm's way of storm and/or tidal
surges and other coastal hazards. Nitrogen loading has led to changes in
water quality and wetland structure and function, impacting shoreline
resiliency and protection of property/infrastructure. However, there are
many factors that affect shoreline resiliency and its ability to provide
protection from storm and/or tidal surges, beyond nitrogen loading from
individual sewerage systems. Shoreline resiliency and the protections it
provides will be diminished if actions aren't taken to adapt to accelerated
sea level rise and associated flooding. Under the sea level rise, storm, and
precipitation scenarios projected for the region (National Research Council,
2010; Kunkel, et al., 2013; Melillo, Richmond, & Yohe, 2014), there will be
storms of greater frequency and intensity and greater extent and frequency
of coastal flooding; in addition, some areas currently experiencing
intermittent coastal flooding due to high tides and storms may become
permanently inundated with the rising sea levels. This will result in greater
property and infrastructure damage and put more people in harm's way.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
There would be no change in nitrogen loading from individual sewerage
systems, and hence, no change expected to shoreline resiliency or
protection of property/infrastructure from storm and/or tidal surges,
flooding, or sea level rise.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Page 159 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Property/Infrastructure Damage
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
It is uncertain the degree to which a decrease in nitrogen loading from
individual sewerage systems would result in improvements in shoreline
resiliency and the protections it provides to Suffolk County property and
infrastructure because of the many competing factors that determine both
shoreline and community resiliency. Any potential improvements in
shoreline resiliency and its protection of property and infrastructure
attributable to the decision could be lost due to storm surges and flooding of
greater intensity and permanent inundation of low-lying areas due to
accelerated sea level rise.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to continued decreases in shoreline resiliency and protection of property and
infrastructure from storm and/or tidal surges and other coastal hazards.
4.4.6 Impact of Shoreline Resiliency and Property/Infrastructure Damage on
Evacuation and Displacement Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
While the code changes do not impact evacuation and displacement due to storm and/or tidal surges,
the need for evacuation and displacement in the face of storm and/or tidal surges are two variables that
must be considered when evaluating resiliency and its connection to health. There are many factors that
influence the need for an evacuation and the risk of displacement (e.g., strength of storm, tidal surge, or
flood; topography; building and infrastructure vulnerabilities; and road access).
Over time, the need for evacuation and risk of displacement are expected to rise because there will be
more frequent and intense storms, increased coastal erosion, more frequent coastal flooding, and
accelerated sea level rise. The impact of storm and/or tidal surges and coastal flooding on the life and
safety of residents is dependent upon several factors, including the severity of the event, whether or not
adequate warning was provided, and whether evacuation orders were heeded.
Existing Evacuation and Displacement Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges at the Time of the HIA
Analysis
The population living and working in the Suffolk County SLOSH zones are directly affected by storm
and/or tidal surge. There are also are certain subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to storm
surge and the need for evacuation and/or displacement. These include:
those on the barrier islands with limited evacuation routes and locations nearer to storm paths;
low-income populations, who are likely to weigh the risks of the storm against the economic
impact to their family and may not have the funds to evacuate;
the linguistically isolated, who may not understand emergency communications, evacuation
notices, or the related risks of the storm; and
the elderly and mentally and physically disabled, as they may have difficulty evacuating, likely
require extra time or outside assistance to evacuate, and are more likely to need medical
attention which may not be available due to isolation in a storm event.
Page 160 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
To estimate the prevalence of these vulnerable populations in the SLOSH Zones and potential for their
exposure to storm surge, Census block groups were overlaid on the SLOSH zones, and any block group
whose centroid lied within a SLOSH zone was selected and the demographic indicators identified in
Table 4-34 were tallied. It is important to remember that all of the projections of population exposure
shown here are based on 2010 population figures and, therefore, underestimate the populations
impacted. In addition, all analyses for exposure of vulnerable populations are cumulative. For example,
if a population is located within the Category 1 SLOSH zone, it is also located within the Category 2
SLOSH zone. The assumption is that if a population is affected by a Category 1 storm it would also be
affected by a Category 2, 3, or 4 storm event. Therefore, to calculate the vulnerable populations at risk
of exposure to storm surge from a Category 2 hurricane, you would add the number located in SLOSH
zones 1 and 2.
Table 4-34. Vulnerable Populations to Storm Surge by SLOSH Zone*
Demographic Indicator
Estimated Population Residing in SLOSH Zones
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Resident Population*
27,659
86,705
161,858
224,404
Over 65 Years
7,865
7,580
8,941
7,078
Linguistically Isolated*
306
569
1,166
602
Low Income
5,379
8,849
10,872
8,833
Emergency Preparedness
5
41
143
191
Registry Participantฎ
* Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Zones 1-4 show the extent of inundation expected from the
corresponding category of hurricane (Category 1 hurricane being the least severe and Category 4 being the most severe).
Analyses of population exposed to storm surge are cumulative, the assumption being that the population affected by a
Category 1 storm, would also be affected by a Category 2, 3, or 4 storm event. To calculate the population at risk of exposure to
storm surge from a Category 2 hurricane, you would add the number located in SLOSH zones 1 and 2; to calculate the
population at risk of exposure to storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane, you would add the number located in SLOSH zones
1, 2, and 3; and so on.
f Total Suffolk County population - 1,493,350 (2010 Census); total population and population exposed do not include tourist or
seasonal populations.
* Limited English Speaking Households in the SLOSH Zones included Spanish (n=1687), Other Indo-European (n=635), Asian and
Pacific Island (n=278), and Other Languages (n=43).
ฎ Residents who might need special assistance during evacuation can register with the Suffolk County Emergency Preparedness
Registry. This registry identifies for emergency management personnel the locations of individuals who may require assistance
during an emergency event, as well as any special resources that may be necessary to accommodate the individuals during
sheltering.
Although not related to the proposed code changes directly, the following recommendation is offered to
address the County's desire for improved resiliency to natural disasters:
x , Prioritize resiliency efforts (e.g., habitat restoration, shoreline management, and planning
"(^)" activities) based on risk of exposure and social and economic vulnerability to sea level rise,
severe storms, and storm and/or tidal surges.
Page 161 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
in addition to these populations, individuals in schools, hospitals, and senior living facilities located
within the SLOSH zones can also be particularly vulnerable to evacuation and displacement. As a note,
senior citizens (age 65 or older) make up 14% of the Suffolk County population in 2010 and their
population is rising. Many of these seniors live alone and Suffolk County has dedicated a great deal of
housing stock for seniors - 175 multi-family housing complexes and more than 25,000 housing units in
condos, apartments, or co-ops (Suffolk County Government, 2011).
Shepard et al. (2012) calculated a Community Vulnerability Index that shows those areas along Suffolk
County's southern shore that are most vulnerable to coastal hazards, regardless of the strength or
extent of the event (Figure 4-44). The two components of the Community Vulnerability Index - social
vulnerability (demographics such as population, housing density, age, income, education, etc.) and the
vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure - were evaluated separately and then combined to
form the index.
Evacuations and property damage can lead to the need for temporary shelter (Figure 4-45), and in more
severe cases, can lead to displacement of populations. Numerous factors affect evacuation, including
timely and effective communication and individuals having the capacity, resources and willingness to
evacuate (CDC, 2013b).
Although not related to the proposed code changes directly, the following recommendation is offered to
address the County's desire for improved resiliency to natural disasters:
V-V Undertake efforts in emergency management planning and outreach to ensure that
A/\ individuals receive and comprehend evacuation messages and have the necessary capacity
and resources to comply with them.
Long Island Sound
Figure 4-44. Ranking of community vulnerability to coastal hazards, which takes into account
social vulnerability (demographics) and vulnerability of critical facilities and infrastructure.
Taken from Shepard et al. (2012).
Page 162 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Long Island Sound
Block
Island
Sound
* Highlighted routes are roads indicated on the
Coastal Evacuation Routes Map for Suffolk County.
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gOv/Portals/0/fres/Forms/OEM%20DOCS/Suffblk%20CER.pdf
FEMA National
Shelters
Facility Evacuation
Type
^ Both
Evacuation
Post Event
ฆfffi Other Shelters
NY DOT Roads*
Interstate
/\y State Highway
/\/ Parkway
/\/ County Roads
Other Roads
Emergency Operation Centers
(EOCs)
Disaster Recovery Center
H
20 mi
Roads: NY DOT April 2016 FEMA National Shelters System: FEMA, 2016
Other Shelters: Suffolk County, NY 2014-2016 Basemap: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 4-35. Emergency shelters and evacuation routes in Suffolk County.
The risk of displacement and short-term sheltering in Suffolk County due to storm surge is predicted by
the FEMA HAZUS-MH model and is shown in Table 4-35.
Table 4-35. Risk of Displacement and Short-Term Sheltering Due to Storm Surges in Suffolk County. FEMA
Hazus-MH data taken from (Suffolk County Government, 2014b)
Suffolk County*
Storm Surge (by SLOSH Zone)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Displaced Households
15,308
34,660
61,757
81,402
Displaced Population
39,648
89,769
159,951
210,831
Short-Term Shelter Population
35,425
87,927
164,080
219,914
* Estimates are based on the Suffolk County population in 2000 (1,419,369) and are assumed to be lower than the population
displaced and in need of sheltering in 2010 (the population used in all other risk and impact calculations in this resiliency
analysis).
Anticipated Change(s) to Evacuation and Displacement Due to Storm and/or Tidal Surges
The proposed code changes are not expected to impact evacuation and displacement due to storm
and/or tidal surges. This variable was considered in the analysis of Suffolk County resiliency to natural
disaster, as both evacuation and displacement have strong implications for public health and safety in
times of natural disaster.
Page 163 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.7 Impact of Changes in Property/Infrastructure Damage and Evacuation on
Capacity for Emergency Responders to Respond
Although the proposed code changes will not directly have an impact on emergency response, the
health impacts related to resiliency can be mitigated by emergency preparedness and the capacity for
emergency responders to respond. Emergency preparedness measures increase a community's ability to
respond when emergencies or disasters hit. Emergency preparedness activities include educating
citizens of the potential hazards and the steps to take in the event of emergency, training responders
and citizens, conducting disaster drills, and establishing evacuation plans, shelters, and emergency
response support agreements.
Police, fire, emergency medical personnel, emergency management personnel, and sometimes public
works personnel initiate emergency response actions. Emergency response actions can be carried out
immediately before, during, or after an emergency event and are aimed at reducing injury, saving lives,
and minimizing economic losses. Emergency response actions can include issuing forecasts and
warnings; establishing emergency operations centers and emergency shelters; evacuating threatened
populations; mobilizing emergency personnel and resources; and post-event, can include rescue and
relief efforts (Cutter S. L., 2003; Colten, Kates, & Laska, 2008; Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2014; Miami-
Dade Government, 2014).
One hurdle to emergency response actions can be the unwillingness of individuals to heed evacuation
notices. This puts individuals and emergency responders in harm's way and can cause an unnecessary
burden on emergency response organizations, as resources have to be diverted and re-assigned to assist
in evacuations and rescues.
Existing Capacity for Emergency Responders to Respond at the Time of the HIA Analysis
Appendix H provides a snapshot of Suffolk County's emergency response capacity and infrastructure.
Some of Suffolk County's emergency response infrastructure (i.e., fire, police, EMS, and hospitals) are
located in areas along Long Island's southern shore - areas that are vulnerable to storm and/or tidal
surges and flooding (see Figure 4-39). Even if these emergency response facilities themselves are spared,
during large-scale disasters or emergencies, professional emergency responders can't be everywhere,
emergency services can easily become overwhelmed, and response actions be delayed, for example by
property or infrastructure damage.
Anticipated Change (s) to Capacity for Emergency Responders to Respond
As noted previously, no change in emergency response capacity is expected due to the proposed code
changes. This variable was considered in the analysis of Suffolk County resiliency to natural disaster, as it
has strong implications for public health and safety.
Page 164 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.8 Impact of Changes in Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges on Human
Injury and Death
In addition to causing significant property and infrastructure damage, storm and/or tidal surges and
flooding have resulted in human injuries and death. Before 1990, most hurricane-related deaths in the
U.S. were caused by drowning due to storm surge during the storm event. In recent years, drowning
from storm surges has decreased (but not been eliminated) and wind has become another major cause
of deaths during storm events. Deaths also occur post storm due to hazards like electrocution from
drowned power lines, motor vehicle fatalities, chain-saw injuries, blunt trauma from falling trees, and
carbon monoxide poisonings in households using generators for heat (Abramson & Redlener, 2012;
Lane, et al., 2013; Shultz, 2005).
Despite decreasing trends in drownings, deaths (and injuries) from storm surges still occur, as was
witnessed during Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana (2005), Hurricane Ike in Texas (2008), and Hurricane
Sandy (2012) (Abramson & Redlener, 2012; CDC, 2013b). Recent hurricanes have also highlighted the
vulnerability of elderly people to the impacts of storms and tidal surges. Forty-nine percent (49%) of
Katrina's victims were 75 years and older (Brunkard, Namulanda, & Ratard, 2008) and close to 50% of
Sandy's victims were age 65 or older. Additionally, people with pre-existing health conditions, like
respiratory illness; the disabled; non-English speakers; and persons living in chronic care facilities are all
vulnerable to the health effects of storm and/or tidal surges (Abramson & Redlener, 2012; McArdle,
2014).
Injuries and death from flooding (not in combination with a severe storm) are usually limited based on
weather forecasting, warnings, and precautions (e.g., blockades).
Existing Human Injury and Death from Storm and/or Tidal Surges at the Time of the HIA Analysis
Despite advances in hurricane warning and evacuation systems, drowning remains a major cause of
hurricane-related deaths historically (i.e., 49% of human causalities from hurricanes are historically due
to storm surge). Although 14 deaths were reported on Long Island due to Hurricane Sandy, 7 of which
were in Suffolk County, drowning was not a major cause of death in this superstorm. The major causes
of death were falling trees (n=5), carbon monoxide poisoning (n=3), and vehicle accidents (n=3). The
median age of the deceased from Hurricane Sandy was 65 years of age.
Anticipated Changes in Human Injury and Death from Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Given the many factors that contribute to making a community resilient to natural disasters, it is
uncertain the degree to which the proposed decision will have an impact on Suffolk County resiliency
to storm and/or tidal surges or the associated health impacts of these events, especially in light of the
accelerated sea level rise projected for the region (Table 4-36). Modeling and long-term monitoring will
be necessary to make this determination.
The criteria used to characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained
in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or
detracting from health as described in Table 4-36, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns
Page 165 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
together (e.g., it is highly likely that storm and/or tidal surges would continue to detract from health for
a low to moderate number of people under Alternatives I and II). For a summary of the different ways in
which health could be impacted through the Resiliency to Natural Disasters pathway see Section 4.4.10.
Page 166 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Table 4-36. Impact of Decision on Human Injury and Death from Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Alternative I
All existing OSDS must be
upgraded to conform to
current County Sanitary
Code and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
AND
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas must
be upgraded to conform
to current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as of
September 2016).
No change to injury and
Injury and
The extent of
Populations living
The health
Injury and death
death from storm
death are highly
people
and working in the
implications of
from storm
and/or tidal surges is
likely, as
affected
SLOSH zones are
storm and/or
and/or tidal
expected. There is no
evidenced by
would be low
disproportionately
tidal surges
surges are often
evidence that these
past natural
to moderate.
affected by severe
are minor to
immediate (or
alternatives would
disasters, and
Although the
storm events and
severe.
shortly
impact shoreline or
likely to increase
magnitude of
storm and/or tidal
Impacts can
following the
community resiliency to
with increased
people at risk
surges, but there are
range in
event), but can
natural disasters or their
storm frequency
of injury and
certain
severity from
also occur along
associated health
and intensity,
death is high,
subpopulations that
minor injuries
time after,
impacts; therefore,
and greater
advances in
are particularly
to injuries
during clean-up
storm and/or tidal
extent and
warning and
vulnerable,
requiring
and recovery.
surges would continue
frequency of
evacuation
including those on
medical
Impacts can
to detract from health.
coastal flooding
systems
the barrier islands,
treatment or
range from
due to sea level
reduce the
the elderly,
intervention,
short-term
rise.
number of
physically disabled,
and even
injury to long-
people who
low income
disabling
lasting or
actually
populations, and the
injury or
permanent
experience
linguistically
death.
disabling injury
these impacts.
isolated.
and death.
Strong.
Based on
numerous
research
studies,
there is
high
confidence
in the link
between
storm
and/or
tidal surges
and injury
and death.
Page 167 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative III
Uncertain that any
Injury and
The extent of
Populations living
The health
Injury and
Strong.
All existing OSDS and C-
change to injury and
death are highly
people
and working in the
implications of
death from
Based on
OWTS in the high priority
death from storm
likely, as
affected
SLOSH zones are
storm and/or
storm and/or
numerous
areas must be upgraded
and/or tidal surges
evidenced by
would be low
disproportionately
tidal surges
tidal surges are
research
to an
would be seen with this
past natural
to moderate.
affected by severe
are minor to
often
studies,
innovative/alternative
alternative. While this
disasters, and
Although the
storm events and
severe.
immediate (or
there is
system design.
alternative could lead to
likely to increase
magnitude of
storm and/or tidal
Impacts can
shortly
high
confidence
in the link
between
storm
and/or
tidal surges
and injury
and death.
conditions that improve
with increased
people at risk
surges, but there are
range in
following the
shoreline resiliency,
storm frequency
of injury and
certain
severity from
event), but can
especially during lower-
and intensity,
death is high,
subpopulations that
minor injuries
also occur
intensity storms and
and greater
advances in
are particularly
to injuries
along time
coastal/tidal flooding, it
extent and
warning and
vulnerable,
requiring
after, during
is uncertain there would
frequency of
evacuation
including those on
medical
clean-up and
be an impact to
coastal flooding
systems
the barrier islands,
treatment or
recovery.
community resiliency to
due to sea level
reduce the
the elderly,
intervention,
Impacts can
natural disasters or their
rise.
number of
physically disabled,
and even
range from
associated health
people who
low income
disabling
short-term
impacts due to the
actually
populations, and the
injury or
injury to long-
confounding factors
experience
linguistically
death.
lasting or
affecting community
these impacts.
isolated.
permanent
resiliency, including
disabling injury
climate change, sea
and death.
level rise, coastal
development, and
individual behaviors
(such as willingness to
evacuate). Storm and/or
tidal surges could
continue to detract
from health.
Page 168 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.9 Impact of Changes in Resiliency to Storm and/or Tidal Surges on Overall
Health and Well-being
Health effects from storm and/or tidal surges may occur through a number of pathways including: direct
exposure, evacuation, post-impact hazards from power outages and inadequate housing, disruption of
services, secondary hazards (such as standing water, which can harbor mosquitoes), displacement,
mental health effects from traumatic and stressful experiences, and clean-up and recovery activities
(Lane, et al., 2013).
Besides physical injury and death, loss of shelter is one of the most significant risks facing populations
living in coastal communities. (New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010). Storms and/or tidal
surges can significantly impact a number of factors known to directly and indirectly impact health, such
as housing quality, living conditions, household expenditures, employment, temporary or permanent
loss of services and amenities (including healthcare), and a sense of stability and belonging. All of these
can lead to stress and poor mental health, while some can have other far-reaching effects and impact
household and community economics, opportunity for physical activity, and disease.
Storm surges and other flooding events can result in a number of environmental health hazards as well,
including increased risk of exposure to pathogens from drinking water and wastewater system failures
(which has implications for health) and bacterial and fungal contamination of soil and housing. Water
damage to homes and businesses from floodwaters create moist conditions where mold spores can
grow and multiply. This mold contamination can lead to health effects such as respiratory illness (e.g.,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, bronchitis, and other respiratory infections); wheezing and
difficulties breathing; cough; congestion; throat, eye, and skin irritation; and headaches (Barbeau,
Grimsley, White, El-Dahr, & Lichtveld, 2010; Schmeltz, et al., 2013; NYSDOH, n.d.). Populations
vulnerable to health effects from mold contamination are persons with allergies, asthma, and other
breathing conditions (CDC, 2015; NYSDOH, n.d.).
Disaster-related displacement, relocation, loss of property and personal finances, injury, and loss of life
have all been shown to be associated with mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, posttraumatic stress
disorder [PTSD], and depression) in victims, emergency responders, and those in the healthcare field
(Rodriguez & Kohn, 2008; Neria & Shultz, 2012; Schreiber, Yin, Omaish, & Broderick, 2014; EPA, 2016c).
Storm and/or tidal surges and other natural disasters may worsen existing mental health conditions,
contribute to new ones, and impact interpersonal relationships. A year after Hurricane Katrina, mental
health conditions were present throughout the population and anxiety and mood disorders were
elevated. Following Hurricane Sandy, one study found substantial population-level risk for mental health
disorders amongst affected populations in New York, including high risk levels in areas that did not
necessarily experience the greatest physical damage (Schreiber, Yin, Omaish, & Broderick, 2014). A
study by Harville et al. (2011) found that exposure to multiple natural disasters among women was
associated with worse mental health conditions. Factors like low social support and higher minor daily
hassles, may contribute to worse health outcomes, while self-reported resilience traits, such as the
ability to bounce back from stress, may mitigate the effects of stressful experiences on mental health
outcomes (Harville, et al. 2011). Acute psychosocial responses to disasters are common and expected,
Page 169 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
but lasting posttraumatic impacts are not common among the majority of people (Davidson &
McFarlane, 2006). It is important to note that following natural disasters, when it is needed most,
delivery of mental health services may be interrupted (Rodriguez & Kohn, 2008).
Immediately following storms and/or tidal surges, displacement, infrastructure damage, closed
recreational areas and schools, safety concerns, and other factors can alter normal routines, including
physical activity. It has been shown that parks may play a role as a coping resource post-disaster by
providing opportunities for physical activity (Rung, Broyles, Mowen, Gustat, & Sothern, 2011). Physical
activity can also be important to those working in the healthcare field dealing with the immediate and
long-term effects to their work after a natural disaster. In one study, general practitioners reported
physical exercise was an important coping mechanism following a natural disaster (Johal, Mounsey,
Tuohy, & Johnston, 2014). The evidence supporting the health benefits that are gained from regular,
moderate physical activity is strong and well-established. Physical activity is directly related to
preventing chronic diseases, like obesity and cardiovascular diseases, and premature death; positive
mental health outcomes; and a better quality of life (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1996). For individuals with existing chronic disease, like diabetes, getting daily physical activity is an
important part of controlling their disease. A disruption to the normal routine of care caused by natural
disasters can make managing chronic conditions difficult (Cefalu, Smith, Blonde, & Fonseca, 2006). In
children, sedentary activity is associated with decreased academic achievement and lower self-esteem
(Lai, La Greca, & Llabre, 2014).
Existing Overall Health and Well-being at the Time of the MA Analysis
The impacts of storm and/or tidal surges and natural disasters on overall health and well-being are
well documented in the literature. Studies following natural disasters have offered a glimpse into the
real-time impacts. For instance, an analysis from the CDC found that, of the people relocated to New
Jersey shelters after Hurricane Sandy, more than 5,100 reported a health care visit. Reasons for the visit
included acute illness (52%); follow-up care (32%); worsening chronic illness (13%); and injury (3%)
(Rettner, 2013). Likewise, a Gallup-Healthways poll found that in the most affected areas of New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut, there was a 25% increase in diagnoses of depression in adults in the six
weeks following Hurricane Sandy.
What follows is a description of existing health status of the Suffolk County population in terms of
overall health and well-being, respiratory illness, mental health, and physical activity-all aspects of
health known to be impacted by natural disasters.
The County Health Rankings (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016) ranked Suffolk
County 9th out of 62 New York counties for overall health outcomes (length and quality of life) and 5th
overall for health factors, such as personal behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and
physical environment. The percentage of adults reporting fair or poor health (age-adjusted) in Suffolk
County was only 12% in 2014; only 10% of counties in the U.S. are doing better.
Overall, data from the New York State Department of Health from 2011-2013 indicates that Suffolk
County fares better in respiratory disease mortality and hospitalization rates (per 100,000 individuals)
Page 170 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
than the New York State rates, with the exception of crude rates of mortality from chronic lower
respiratory disease. County rates of mortality from chronic lower respiratory disease during this time
period were 32.7 (age-adjusted) compared to the state rate of 30.7. According to the Suffolk County
Community Health Assessment 2014-2017, in 2011, chronic lower respiratory diseases was one of the
leading causes of death (i.e., responsible for 585 deaths). The rate of hospitalization from asthma for
children under the age of four, 37.9, in Suffolk County was significantly lower than the state rate of 50.5.
Age-adjusted rates of asthma deaths in Suffolk County were also significantly lower than the state rate
of 1.3, with a rate of 0.7 (SCDHS, 2015a).
Baseline community data from 2013 to 2014 indicates that 18.7% of Suffolk County total population
adults were diagnosed with depression and of those diagnosed with depression, 88.5% sought
treatment (Stony Brook Medicine, 2014). From 2013 to 2014, 14% of Suffolk County residents reported
having 14 or more mental health days in last month (SCDHS, 2015a).
According to County Health Rankings, self-reported physical inactivity levels by adults aged 20 and over
in Suffolk County was 22% in 2012 (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016).
Compared to New York state and the U.S., Suffolk County falls in the middle of the two, with more
people reporting no leisure time physical activity in the past month than the U.S., but less than New
York state (Stony Brook Medicine, 2014; BRFSS). Additionally, slightly more people (78.7%) reported
leisure time physical activity in the past month than New York State (75.3%) (SCDHS, 2015a; BRFSS).
Anticipated Changes to Overall Health and Well-being
Given the many factors that contribute to making a community resilient, it is uncertain the degree to
which the proposed decision will impact Suffolk County resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges or the
associated health impacts of these events (Table 4-37).
The criteria used to characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained
in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or
detracting from health as described in Table 4-37, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns
together (e.g., it is highly likely that storm and/or tidal surges would continue to detract from health for
a high number of people under Alternatives I and II). For a summary of the different ways in which
health could be impacted through the Resiliency to Natural Disasters pathway see Section 4.4.10.
For more on the potential health impacts of property and infrastructure damage and evacuation and
displacement due to changes in household and community economics, see the Economics Pathway
(Section 4.6).
Page 171 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Table 4-37. Impact of Decision on Overall Health and Well-being from Storm and/or Tidal Surges
Health Determinant
Overall Health
and Well-being
from storm and/or
tidal surges
(including mental
health, physical
activity, and
respiratory health)
Baseline Health Status
The percentage of adults reporting fair or poor health (age-adjusted) in Suffolk County was 12% in 2014 and baseline community data from
2013 to 2014 indicates that 18.7% of adults in Suffolk County were diagnosed with depression. The health benefits from regular, moderate
physical activity are strong and well-established, including chronic disease prevention, improved mental health, and a better quality of life.
However, immediately following natural disasters and storm events, physical activity can be difficult due to evacuation and displacement,
infrastructure and property damage, closed recreational areas and facilities, and safety concerns. A Gallup-Healthways poll found that in the
most affected areas of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, there was a 25% increase in diagnoses of depression in adults in the six
weeks following Hurricane Sandy. Impacts to respiratory health are also a concern due to mold contamination resulting from water damage.
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
No change to overall
Regardless of the
The extent of
Populations living
The health
Impacts to
Strong.
All existing OSDS must be
health and well-being
decision
people affected
and working in the
implications
overall
Based on
upgraded to conform to
as a result of storm
alternatives,
would be high.
SLOSH zones are
of storm
health and
numerous
current County Sanitary
and/or tidal surges is
natural disasters
Thousands of
disproportionately
and/or tidal
well-being
research
Code and standards (in place
expected. There is no
are highly likely
people live and
affected by
surges are
are likely
studies,
as of September 2016).
evidence that these
to impact overall
work in each of
hurricanes and
minor to
immediate,
there is high
AND
alternatives would
health and well-
the four SLOSH
storm events, but
moderate.
but can
confidence
impact shoreline or
being, as
Zones (areas
there are certain
Impacts to
potentially
in the link
Alternative II
community resiliency
evidenced by past
affected by Sea,
subpopulations that
overall health
be long-
between
All existing OSDS in the high
to natural disasters or
natural disasters,
Lake, and Overland
are particularly
and well-
lasting (e.g.,
storm and/
priority areas must be
their associated health
and impacts are
Surges from
vulnerable,
being can
range in
severity and
may or may
not require
medical
treatment or
mental
or tidal
upgraded to conform to
impacts.
likely to increase
Hurricanes) and
including those on
health
surges and
current County Sanitary
with increased
could experience
barrier islands, the
impacts).
overall
Code and standards (in place
storm frequency
impacts to overall
elderly, physically
health and
as of September 2016).
and intensity, and
greater extent
and frequency of
health and well-
being from
hurricanes, severe
disabled, those with
pre-existing
conditions, low
well-being.
coastal flooding
storms, and their
income populations,
intervention.
due to sea level
associated storm
and the linguistically
rise.
surges.
isolated.
Page 172 of 305
-------
Assessment - Resiliency to Natural Disasters
Alternatives
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high priority
areas must be upgraded to
an innovative /alternative
system design.
Direction
Uncertain that any
change to overall
health and well-being
as a result of storm
and/or tidal surges
would be seen with
this alternative.
While this alternative
could lead to
conditions that
improve shoreline
resiliency, especially
during lower-
intensity storms and
coastal/tidal flooding,
the degree of impact
to community
resiliency to natural
disasters or their
associated health
impacts is unknown
due to the
confounding factors
affecting community
resiliency, including
climate change, sea
level rise, coastal
development, and
individual behaviors
(such as willingness to
evacuate).
Likelihood
Regardless of the
decision
alternative,
natural disasters
are highly likely
to impact overall
health and well-
being, as
evidenced by past
natural disasters,
and impacts are
likely to increase
with increased
storm frequency
and intensity, and
greater extent
and frequency of
coastal flooding
due to sea level
rise.
Magnitude
The extent of
people affected
would be high.
Thousands of
people live and
work in each of
the four SLOSH
Zones (areas
affected by Sea,
Lake, and Overland
Surges from
Hurricanes) and
could experience
impacts to overall
health and well-
being from
hurricanes, severe
storms, and their
associated storm
surges.
Distribution
Populations living
and working in the
SLOSH zones are
disproportionately
affected by
hurricanes and
storm events, but
there are certain
subpopulations that
are particularly
vulnerable,
including those on
barrier islands, the
elderly, physically
disabled, those with
pre-existing
conditions, low
income populations,
and the linguistically
isolated.
Severity
The health
implications
of storm
and/or tidal
surges are
minor to
moderate.
Impacts to
overall
health and
well-being
can range in
severity and
may or may
not require
medical
treatment or
intervention.
Permanence Strength of
Evidence
Impacts to
overall
health and
well-being
are likely
immediate,
but can
potentially
be long-
lasting (e.g.,
mental
health
impacts).
Strong.
Based on
numerous
research
studies,
there is high
confidence
in the link
between
storm and/
or tidal
surges and
overall
health and
well-being.
Page 173 of 305
-------
Assessment
(3)
- Resiliency to Natural Disasters
4.4.10 Resiliency to Natural Disasters Health Impact Summary
The negative health impacts of storm and/or tidal surges and coastal flooding are highly
likely to continue regardless of the decision scenario chosen, due to the confounding factors
affecting community resiliency and its associated health impacts, including climate change,
sea level rise, coastal development, and individual behaviors (such as willingness to evacuate).
Thousands of people live and work in the Suffolk County SLOSH Zones (areas affected by Sea,
Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) and would be disproportionately affected by
hurricanes and storm events. However, advances in warning and evacuation systems reduce
the number of people who experience these impacts. There are certain subpopulations,
however, that are particularly vulnerable to storm and/or tidal surges and coastal flooding
regardless of these advances, including those on barrier islands, the elderly, physically
disabled, those with pre-existing conditions, low income populations, and the linguistically
isolated.
The health implications of storm and/or tidal surges and coastal flooding can range in severity
from minor injuries and illness to mental health problems, disease, and injuries that require
medical treatment or intervention, and even disabling injury and death. While these impacts
are likely to be experienced immediately, many can potentially be long lasting (e.g.,
permanent disabling injury and death, mental health impacts, etc.).
Page 174 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
' ฆ tor Control: Exis . . lal
acts
Mosquitoes affect human health and well-being in Suffolk County, not only through their irritating
biting activity, but also through the spread of mosquito-borne disease (Suffolk County Government,
2016b). Mosquito-borne disease has become a prominent public health issue in the U.S., with the
appearance of emerging diseases such as those from West Nile virus (WNV), Eastern Equine Encephalitis
virus (EEEV), and Zika virus. Although occasionally viewed as a public health crisis in Suffolk County,
much effort has been devoted to educating the public about avoiding being bitten by mosquitoes,
keeping yards free from mosquito habitats, and eliminating standing water. Some sources of mosquito
habitat such as marshlands and wetlands cannot be drained, requiring the application of pesticides to
inhibit or eliminate mosquito populations. These methods are not perfect, and so the threat of serious
mosquito-borne disease remains a problem. It is therefore important to avoid actions which encourage
the spread of mosquito habitat and breeding grounds.
The Suffolk County Division of Vector Control is responsible for controlling mosquito infestations of
"public health importance" and has instituted an integrated pest management (IPM) program for
controlling mosquito populations in the County (Cashin Associates, P.C., 2006; Suffolk County
Government, 2016b). This program involves education, water management, surveillance activities by the
Department of Health Services and Department of Public Works (i.e., epidemiological and
environmental surveillance), and larvicide and adulticide application.
4.5.1 Vector Control Pathways of Impact
Figure 4-46 shows the pathways by which the proposed code changes are expected to impact vector
control and ultimately, health.
The performance of individual sewerage systems, water quality, and changes in resiliency affect
mosquito habitat and infestation. A change in mosquito populations influences the need for insecticide
application, which can in turn influence the extent of human illness resulting from vector-borne
pathogens. In addition, the perceived quality of the environment because of mosquito presence affects
people's stress and well-being.
Page 175 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Intermediate Impacts
Health Outcomes
See Economics Pathway
From
Individual
Sewerage
Performance
and Failure
Pathway
From
Water
Quality
Pathway
From
Resiliency
Pathway
^Individual sewerage systems= on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS)-disposal unit (alone), "conventional" on-site sewage treatment system (OWTS), and/or innovative/alternative OWTS.
SLOSH= Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. WNV= West Nile Virus. EEEV= Eastern Equine Encephalopathy Virus
Figure 4-46. Vector Control Pathway Diagram.
4.5.2 Impact of Changes in Individual Sewerage Performance and Failure, Water
Quality, and Resiliency on Mosquito Habitat and Infestation
In general, improperly maintained septic tanks and cesspools can serve as fertile breeding habitat for
mosquitoes, producing hundreds to thousands of mosquitoes daily (CDC, 2013c; CDC, 2016c; Barrera,
et al., 2008; Burke, Barrera, Lewis, Kluchinsky, & Claborn, 2010). Their larvae can thrive in water that
would not sustain normal aquatic life, such as the wastewater is found in cesspools and septic tanks. The
primary mosquito that transmits WNV in New York, Culex pipiens, feeds on organic detritus and biofilms
in its larval form (Beketov & Liess, 2007) and often selectively breeds in polluted water, including
septage. Barrera et al. (2008) found in a study examining the productivity of septic tank habitats in
Puerto Rico that sampled septic tanks could produce up to 170,000 adult Culex spp. mosquitoes per day.
A subsequent study in the same area found that productivity of mosquitoes was associated with cracked
septic tank walls and improperly fitted septic tank covers, a problem that plagues older septic systems
(Burke, Barrera, Lewis, Kluchinsky, & Claborn, 2010). And the unsealed septic tanks or septic tanks with
unscreened short vent pipes were shown to produce large numbers of Aedes and Culex mosquitoes
throughout the year, regardless of rainfall (Mackay, Amador, Diaz, Smith, & Barrera, 2009). A study
conducted in Australia placed the amount of mosquitoes breeding in subterranean wastewater
containment in urbanized areas as high as 78% (Kay, et al., 2000)32. In addition to accessing open or
cracked septic tanks, the CDC (2016c) and NYSDOH (2016) also cite unsealed septic tanks (e.g., unsealed
tank cover, uncovered ventilation pipe) as a possible route for mosquito access to these types of
There is not a lot of research into this topic on Long Island, but mosquitoes behave similarly no matter their location, so this
study was included for reference.
Page 176 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
systems. The CDC (2013c; 2016c) recommends some steps homeowners can take to prevent mosquito
production in septic tanks:
VgV Owners of individual sewerage systems should inspect their systems for cracks, leaks, and
loose manhole covers. Any cracks or gaps between the blocks should be patched with cement.
Vent pipes should be covered by screen mesh, broken pipes should be repaired, and joints
should be sealed to deny mosquitoes access to the water within. Abandoned or unused septic
tanks should be filled with dirt or gravel.
In general, wastewater pollution from individual sewerage systems and other sources can seep into
surface waters, either through overland transport during heavy precipitation and overflow events, or via
subsurface flow, as previously discussed. Normally, subsurface flow contributes to denitrification and
treatment of wastewaters (Neralla, Weaver, Lesikar, & Persyn, 2000). However, if the water does not
travel far before rejoining surface water, contaminants can remain in the water and surface. Culex
species breed prolifically in organically enriched fresh water (Pratt & Moore, 1993), and their mosquito
larvae are highly tolerant to organic pollution, being able to survive in water that is too contaminated to
support fish or other predators (Resh & Rosenberg, 2008). This tolerance is a survival mechanism, as
mosquito larvae though plentiful, are fairly defenseless and often form a significant part of aquatic food
webs. Experimental investigation has found that Culex larval survival in water containing natural
predators was 2.6%, but went up to 46% in ditches that were too polluted to sustain predator species
(Marten, Nguyen, Mason, & Giai., 2000). Sanford, Chan, & Walton (2005) found adult Culex mosquito
production was nine times greater in nitrogen-enriched wetlands than in controls.
In addition to the Culex mosquitoes, storm surges and ocean encroachment provide pools of brackish
water that serve as temporary habitats for several species of saltwater mosquito. These include various
species in the genera Aedes and Anopheles. These floodwater mosquitoes lay their eggs in moist soil,
where they can lay dormant for, in some cases, up to a year before hatching en masse during flood
conditions. The frequent biter and potential EEEV and WNV vector, Aedes vexans, falls into this
category.
Existing Conditions Mosquito Habitat and Infestation at the Time of the HI A Analysis
According to SCDHS, Suffolk County is currently home to approximately 50 species of mosquitoes.
Mosquitoes can be characterized by their preferred breeding environment, as follows:
Container breeders - these mosquitoes, including the WNV carriers Culex pipiens, C. restuans,
and Aedes albopictus (Nasci, et al., 2001)., lay their eggs in shallow, stagnant water near human
dwellings. Flower pots, discarded tires, wheelbarrows, unsealed septic tanks and cesspools, and
rain gutters are among their larval habitats. These mosquitoes often lay their eggs in polluted,
organically-rich water, as their larvae are more tolerant to suboptimal conditions than predator
species.
Freshwater breeders -these mosquitoes lay their eggs in natural freshwater environments, such
as wetlands, puddles, drainage basins, or ponds. There is significant overlap between these and
Page 177 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
container breeding mosquitoes. Some freshwater mosquitoes, such as Anopheles, can also
breed in brackish water.
Saltwater/salt marsh breeders - these mosquitoes lay their eggs in damp marshland, which then
hatch en mosse following tidal or rainfall events that inundate marshes. These include the
nuisance biter and potential EEEV and WNV vector Aedes vexans, Aedes sollicitans, as well as
several species in the genera Anopheles. As their bites can transmit serious disease, vector
control measures do target these mosquitoes in Suffolk County.
Culex spp. are the prime WNV vector in Suffolk County; however, the transient nature of container
breeders' habitats makes them difficult to quantify, so it is helpful to examine the focus of mosquito-
related pesticide applications across the County (Figure 4-47). Records of mosquito treatment in Suffolk
County are categorized by type, with general vector control treatments marked separately from those
related to the specific prevention of WNV, EEEV, or other mosquito-borne disease. The frequency of
West Nile-related spraying in areas with higher population density illustrates the correlation between
human population and the presence of the container-breeding mosquitoes that transmit WNV.
Saltwater and marsh mosquitoes are more of a concern in areas that are close to the coast, as they
require inundation with brackish water to hatch. On the barrier islands, especially, these mosquitoes are
the focus of handheld insecticide spraying. Aerial application of larvicide is conducted yearly by
helicopter over coastal saltmarshes to control nuisance mosquitoes that are not known to spread
disease (SCDHS, 2015d). These treatments are not illustrated in Figure 4-47.
i
10
I
20 mi
Long Island Sound
m a
/ ^
'^3
'Mr
Block
Island
Sound
%
A
Vector Spraying Trends
(count)
Eastern Equine West Nile
Encephalitis
A 1
Vector
1
ฉ 2
3-8
9-28
m 29 -134
1
2-3
4-6
7-8
Population Density
(population/km 2)
<= 1000
1001 -1500
j^j 1501-2000
2001-2500
m >2500
Population: American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, 2008-2012
Spraying Data: Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control, October 2015
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 4-47. Spatial Trends in Vector Control Treatment in Suffolk County, 2001-2012.3
The vector control treatment data provided by the County at the time of the HIA analysis was for the years 2001-2012. This
was the most current data available at the time and was used throughout the Vector Control analysis.
Page 178 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Individual sewerage systems can contribute to nutrient loading and creation of mosquito habitat
when wastewater ponds above ground (during hydraulic failure) and when nutrient- wastewater
effluent seeps into surface waters, either through overland transport during heavy precipitation and
overflow events, or via subsurface flow. Mosquito larvae can thrive in water that would not sustain
normal aquatic life, such as wastewater. As noted previously, improperly maintained septic tanks and
cesspools can also serve as fertile breeding habitat for mosquitoes. Although individual sewerage
systems in Suffolk County are typically placed lower in the soil than conventional OWTS in other locales,
cesspools and septic tank-leaching pools in Suffolk County are equipped with vent pipes/chimneys and
covers to allow access to the systems for inspection, maintenance, and sewage removal. It is through
these components, when they are not airtight, that mosquitoes may be able to access individual
sewerage systems and the systems can become prime mosquito habitat. Although there are no data on
the prevalence of cracked, uncovered, or unsealed individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County,
several Suffolk County septic vendors do note individual sewerage system repairs include pipe repairs
and resealing, tank lid replacement and sealing, and inspection for cracks (Cesspool Service Long Island,
2015; Quality Cesspools, 2015; Zuidema Septic Service, 2015; EZ Cesspool, 2017; Certified Cesspool and
Drain, Inc., 2018; Evergreen Drainage and Cesspool, 2018). No studies have been conducted on Long
Island specifically linking septic tanks as breeding habitats for mosquitoes, although a study conducted
in Suffolk County following completion of the HIA analysis showed an association between high septic
system density and increased WNV infection in mosquitoes (Meyer, Campbell, & Johnston, 2017).
Conduct public outreach to emphasize the role individual homeowners can take to help
prevent mosquito infestation, including mosquito production in individual sewerage systems.
Innovative/alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems under consideration by the
County could be evaluated to ensure that they do not provide breeding habitat for
mosquitoes. Ideally, the innovative/alternative systems chosen will innately discourage
mosquito breeding by incorporating access-restricting features, such as screened vents and
inspection ports, crack-resistant construction, and tightly-fitting manholes.
Anticipated Change(s) in Mosquito Habitat and Infestation
If upgrades to County standards are made to existing onsite sewage disposal systems, it is anticipated
that mosquito habitat will be reduced by eliminating cracked, uncovered, and/or failing systems.
Adoption of l/A OWTS to reduce nitrogen pollution will lead to a further reduction in mosquito
habitat and infestation by improving the quality of surface water and supporting predator species that
consume mosquito larvae. Table 4-38 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on
mosquito habitat and infestation for each decision alternative.
Table 4-38. Impact of Decision on Mosquito Habitat and Infestation
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Mosquito Habitat and Infestation
Baseline*
Old and improperly maintained septic tanks and cesspools can serve as
breeding habitat, producing hundreds to thousands of mosquitoes daily.
Nutrient and organic wastewater pollution from individual sewerage systems
and other sources provide habitat for mosquitoes, as do pools of water from
storm and tidal surges, ocean encroachment, and other sources.
Page 179 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Mosquito Habitat and Infestation
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Upgrading cesspools to newer OWTS would reduce the number of old, failing
cesspools in the County, thereby reducing potential breeding habitat and
potentially reducing the population of mosquitoes near residential areas, if
the new systems are properly maintained. There would be no change in
nitrogen loading and hence, no change expected in mosquito populations
associated with nitrogen impaired waters and/or pools of water from storm
and tidal surges, ocean encroachment, and other sources.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
In addition to the potential reduction in mosquito populations near
residential areas as a result of the upgrades to newer OWTS, upgrading to
innovative/alternative systems would lead to a further reduction in
mosquito populations by reducing nitrogen loading. There is evidence that
reduced nitrogen pollution from OSDS leads to healthier surface waters,
which in turn reduces mosquito populations naturally by supporting the
presence of predators. Reduced nitrogen loading can potentially impact
shoreline resiliency to coastal and nuisance flooding, which provides
temporary habitat for saltwater mosquitoes.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) could lead to increases in available mosquito breeding habitat in Suffolk County.
4.5.3 Impact of Changes in Mosquito Habitat and Infestation on Insecticide
Application to Control for Mosquitoes
Suffolk County implements an integrated vector control program that utilizes public complaints and
formal surveillance of mosquito populations, habitats, and occurrence of vector-borne disease to inform
and focus the control measures. The control measures include preventative activities such as public
education, water management, larvicide (i.e., insecticide that is specifically targeted against the larval
life stage) application, and when other measures have proven infeasible or unsuccessful, adulticide (i.e.,
insecticide that is specifically targeted against the adult life stage) application.
Existing Conditions Regarding Insecticide Application to Control for Mosquitoes at the Time of the HIA
Analysis
The Suffolk County Division of Vector Control's Annual Plan of Work (Suffolk County Government,
2016b) outlines the vector control measures that will be used to control mosquito populations in the
County:
Page 180 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Public Education and Outreach - These efforts focus on eliminating standing water in yards and
property through the distribution of pamphlets and other literature, site visits, and
presentations to citizen groups. Because the primary vectors of West Nile virus, Culex pipiens,
and the invasive species Aedes albopictus and japonicus, are container-breeding mosquitoes,
the cooperation of residents in removing vessels that collect rainwater is essential to limiting
larval habitat. According to the Division of Vector Control, this aspect of vector control is
anticipated to take on greater importance in coming years. Recently as part of the New York's
2016 Zika Action Plan, the NYSDOH and SCDHS conducted the first countywide Mosquito Control
Day to demonstrate mosquito control techniques and distribute free larvicide.
Water Management - Suffolk County maintains structures that are in place to drain surface
water and/or allow predatory fish access to larval mosquito habitat (e.g., tidal channels, ditches,
culverts) in order to minimize mosquito production and the need for insecticide applications.
These maintenance activities are done in consultation with NYSDECto ensure conservation of
the state's wetland resources.
Suffolk County could continue measures to rehabilitate and restore wetland structure
and function, while also reducing mosquito production, under the integrated marsh
management (IMM) framework, with oversight from the Wetlands Stewardship
Committee (WSC), Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), and NYSDEC.
Control of Mosquito Larvae and Adults - Larval control is the second most important vector
control method utilized by the County and involves surveillance and control of major larval
habitats, such as wetlands, ditches, recharge areas, and other sites in the County. Approximately
1,500 of 2,077 major larval habitats are surveyed by the Division of Vector Control field crews on
a regular basis; the remaining major larval habitats and any artificial larval sites throughout the
County are addressed if public complaints are received and resources permit. Surveillance and
control of these sites is important because of their proximity to residential areas. Larvicides are
applied when inspection of a site shows or has the potential for significant larval production.
Suffolk County used three larvicidal compounds, in a variety of preparations, in the treatment of
mosquito-harboring water bodies in 2016: the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis Israelensls (B.t.i.),
Bacillus sphaericus, and the juvenile hormone mimic methoprene (SCDHS, 2013; SCDHS, 2015d;
Suffolk County Government, 2016b). B.t.i. and B. sphaericus produce toxins that are extremely
potent to insect larvae, yet are regarded as practically non-toxic to humans and other mammals.
Methoprene is a compound that mimics a metamorphosis-regulating hormone in juvenile
insects, preventing them from reaching adulthood. It is nontoxic in humans and other mammals
(EPA, 1991), and when used at label rates, does not impact non-target organisms.
The final line of defense used in Suffolk County vector control is adulticide application, which is
only carried out when mosquito infestations are severe and widespread (i.e., a public health
nuisance) and/or to respond to the presence of vector-borne disease (Suffolk County
Government, 2016b). Criteria have been established to help inform the decision to apply adult
control to ensure that adulticides are only used when the need and benefits are clear. In order
Page 181 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
to guide the application of adulticides, Suffolk County maintains a mosquito surveillance
program administered by the Arthropod-Borne Disease Laboratory which surveys approximately
2,500 traps per year. Mosquito surveillance for adult population counts and arboviral presence
guides the application of mosquito control efforts in the County and allows estimation of the
efficacy of current actions. Mosquito adulticide compounds used in Suffolk County in 2016
included Anvilฎ and Duetฎ, which contain the synthetic pyrethroids D-phenothrin (sold as
sumithrin) and prallethrin (Suffolk County Government, 2016b). These compounds have very
low mammalian and bird toxicity, and low persistence in soil and water (Klaasen & Watkins,
2010). The low human toxicity and short environmental persistence of synthetic pyrethroids has
led to their widespread adoption for public health protection. All vector control insecticides
considered for use in Suffolk County undergo a rigorous toxicity review as mandated by the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Summaries of these reviews can be found in
the Suffolk County Vector Control and Wetlands Management Revised Long-Term Plan (Cashin
Associates, P.C., 2006). Public notification of adulticide spraying is provided through the County
website, fax notifications to over 150 interested parties, news outlets, and the CodeRED
(automated calling and messaging) system, advising residents to stay inside during spray hours,
close windows and screen doors, and wash garden vegetables to remove spraying residue
before consumption (Suffolk County Government, 2016b). For those residents who wish to
exempt themselves from routine spraying, the County maintains a Do Not Spray Registry that
lists addresses to avoid. A public health emergency that requires the use of adulticide spraying,
however, overrides the Do Not Spray registry.
The insecticides used by Suffolk County for control of larval and adult mosquitoes are commercially
available and are applied through a number of methods- hand ultra-low-volume (ULV) spraying, truck
ULV application, or by aerial ULV spraying. Over 90% of the larvicide used in Suffolk County is applied
aerially to major salt marshes and other wetlands, both fresh and saltwater (Suffolk County
Government, 2016b). Adulticide applications are normally made by truck, but aerial application is
possible in cases of widespread problems. Figure 4-48 illustrates spatial trends in the methods of
reported adulticide vector control spraying. Truck and aerial ULV applications are more common on the
main island, while handheld ULV application is used on the barrier islands. Adulticide mosquito control
spraying by application type and year is presented in Table 4-39.
Page 182 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
I
10
ฆh
20 ml
Long Islam/ Sound
m B
J?
c \ o
Block
Island
Sound
rv
i-t .ซSV
X. .ซฆ ฆ
. A"*'if
~ Vector Spray Methods
(count)
Aerial Hand Held
Application
1-16
17-33
34-49
50 -107
108-124
Ultralow
Volume
1-3
ฆ 4-8
B 9-18
| 19-28
ฆ 29-70
Population Density
(population/km2)
<= 1000
1001 -1500
I ฆ 1501-2000
2001-2500
>2500
Population: American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates, 2008-2012
Spraying Data: Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control, October 2015
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA, NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 4-48. Methods of Adulticide Vector Control Treatment in Suffolk County, 2001-2012.
Table 4-39. Number of Adulticide Vector Control Treatments by Application Method in Suffolk County, 2001-
2012*
Adulticide Application Type
Year
ULV
Handheld
Aerial
Total
2001
62
71
2
135
2002
18
60
3
81
2003
94
83
4
181
2005
36
64
2
102
2006
37
72
3
112
2007
23
71
0
94
2008
32
69
4
105
2009
53
73
1
127
2010
46
83
15
144
2011
43
58
0
101
2012
12
76
5
93
Total
456
697
39
1275
* Data provided by Suffolk County Dept of Public Works, Division of Vector Control, October 2015
f Treatment data was unavailable for 2004.
Anticipated Change (s) to Insecticide Application to Control for Mosquitoes
It is anticipated that changes in onsite sewage disposal systems will reduce the need for chemical
treatment of mosquitoes, by reducing the overall number of suitable mosquito breeding areas. A
reduction in nitrogen pollution from the adoption of l/A OWTS wiii lead to improved surface water quality
throughout the County, providing better habitat for predators that feed on mosquito larvae and further
Page 183 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
reducing the need for insecticide treatments to combat the spread of both nuisance and disease-
spreading mosquitoes. Table 4-40 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on
insecticide application to control for mosquitoes for each decision alternative.
Table 4-40. Impact of Decision on Insecticide Application to Control for Mosquitoes
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Insecticide Application
Baseline*
Larvicide and adulticide application will continue as prescribed in the
2016 Vector Control Work Plan.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
It is anticipated that upgrading cesspools will reduce and/or eliminate
the potential for mosquito breeding in failing and open systems, leading
to a potential reduction in mosquito populations and hence a reduced
need for pesticide application, potentially.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and
C-OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Reductions in nitrogen loading from the adoption of innovative/
alternative systems will lead to improvements in surface water quality,
with a commensurate increase in the natural control of mosquito
populations through predation. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the
reduction in mosquito populations as a result of reductions in available
habitat (i.e., old individual sewerage systems, surface waters degraded
by nitrogen contamination, and potentially temporary habitat resulting
from coastal and nuisance flooding) will lead to a reduced need for
pesticide application, since the County bases their application schedule
partly on mosquito population estimates from surveillance trapping.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) could lead to increases in available mosquito breeding habitat and the need for increased vector
control measures in Suffolk County.
4.5.4 Impact of Mosquito Habitat and Infestation and Insecticide Application on
Perceived Quality of the Environment
Perceptions of environmental quality problems can affect the health of a community by influencing
decisions to exercise and partake in outdoor activities or causing mental and social distress.
Environments that are seen as unpleasant or unsuitable for recreation are less likely to be used as such.
Mosquito bites are regarded as a nuisance, and the presence of mosquitoes can have an effect on
Page 184 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
quality of life (Suffolk County Government, 2016b) and a significant deterrent effect on willingness to
spend time outdoors (Read, Rooker, & Gathman, 1994). In a study of areas with a high mosquito density,
up to 54% of respondents to a phone survey indicated that they reduced or eliminated outdoor activities
due to the nuisance factor of mosquito bites (Carrieri, et al., 2008).
However, the desire to avoid exposure to mosquito control pesticides is also a reason that people may
reduce outdoor activities. Vector control measures can impact perceptions of environmental quality if
communication with residents is insufficient; the perception of insecticides and other control measures
as unsafe may influence activity decisions.
Existing Conditions Regarding Vector Control and Perceived Quality of the Environment at the Time of
the MA Analysis
Suffolk County uses mosquito control methods that are widely agreed upon by toxicologists, medical
doctors, and environmental regulators to be safe for humans. Mosquito adulticide treatments used by
Suffolk County are practically non-toxic to humans and other mammals, even in doses that far exceed
levels used to treat for mosquitoes. Prallethrin and D-phenothrin are pyrethroid-class pesticides which
affect invertebrates by interrupting sodium channels in nerves, inducing acute neurotoxicity, and
causing death by overexcitation of the nervous system. Mammalian livers and kidneys are highly
efficient at detoxifying and removing pyrethroids (Sodurlund, et al., 2002), and the mechanism of
toxicity is such that warm-blooded animals' nervous systems are far less affected, by a factor of one
thousand times or more (Narahashi, Zhao, Ikeda, Nagata, & Yeh, 2007).
In Suffolk County, adulticide is primarily applied using ULV spraying from trucks, which drive down roads
applying aerosol treatments. Opt-out of routine preventative adulticide ULV spraying is available
through the County's No Spray Law Registry, as some households are concerned about the possible
health effects of pesticide application. Individual households may request exemption under the No
Spray Law, which guarantees that "reasonable caution" will be used in avoiding their property under
routine spraying. Since its inception in 2002, there have been 500 locations or less in Suffolk County on
the list each year, including apiaries and organic farms. The no spray exemption does not, however,
cover larvicide spraying or emergency application of adulticide to combat a public health emergency
such as a West Nile outbreak (Personal Communication, Dr. Scott Campbell, Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, Arthropod-Borne Disease Laboratory, October 21, 2015).
Research on how pesticide usage affects the perception of environmental quality is sparse, and no
scientific study or survey has been conducted on Long Island to determine local attitudes. However, an
Internet search for "Long Island pesticide health effects" reveals that some citizens are opposed to
adulticide spraying, arguing that the health risks of chronic exposure outweigh the benefits of mosquito
control, and that larvicide application is a more efficient control strategy (Long Island Neighborhood
Network, 2011). Larvicide application is not without controversy either, as a 2015 East Hampton Star
article reported: a Town Trustees meeting was held in which a "vocal opponent of the County's vector
control methods" raised several concerns with the efficacy and non-target toxicity of the juvenile
hormone mimic methoprene (Walsh, 2015). Several Suffolk County legislators and town supervisors
Page 185 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
have recently voiced opposition to the spraying of methoprene as well, as reported in a February 2016
feature story by the Shelter Island Reporter (Grossman, 2016).
Anticipated Change(s) in Perceived Quality of the Environment
Table 4-41 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on perceived quality of the
environment for each decision alternative. We anticipate that upgrading cesspools to more modern
OSDS will reduce mosquito populations near residential areas by eliminating potential habitat and by
leading to reductions in nitrogen impairment of surface waters. Reduced mosquito populations lead to
improved perception of the environment as safer from infectious disease and free of nuisance
mosquitoes. Additionally, reduced mosquito populations lead to fewer applications of pesticides, as the
County uses a surveillance-based approach for pesticide use. Residents with concerns related to
insecticide application will experience an improved perception of their environment if fewer
insecticides are applied.
Table 4-41. Impact of Decision on Perceived Quality of the Environment
Alternatives
Potential Changes in Perceived Quality of the Environment
Baseline*
Mosquito presence and insecticide application continue as normal;
therefore, no change in perception of environmental quality.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Upgrading cesspools is expected to reduce nuisance mosquitoes, and
potentially reduce the need for pesticide application near homes,
alleviating a possible source of distress in perception of
environmental quality.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
In addition to reduced nuisance mosquitoes near the homes as a result
of reductions in available habitat, the reduction in nitrogen loading
from innovative/alternative systems will further reduce mosquito
populations and the need for pesticide application, leading to
additional reductions in negative environmental perceptions.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) could lead to increases in available mosquito breeding habitat and the need for increased vector
control in Suffolk County, resulting in increased negative environmental perceptions.
Page 186 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
4.5.5 Impact of Changes in Vector Control on Human Illness from Vector-borne
Pathogens
Mosquito-borne disease is a recurring problem on Long Island, owing both to its large amount of surface
water and proximity to New York City, which is a hub for international travel and shipping. Mosquito-
borne diseases can be transferred from distant locations, such as in the initial 1999 West Nile Virus
outbreak when the virus was found to be most similar in serotype to a strain from Israel (Lanciotti, et al.,
1999). Of the vector-borne diseases found in Suffolk County, the most serious are those caused by
WNV and EEEV. These diseases can cause encephalitis, or swelling of the brain, and are difficult to treat.
Many who survive are left with brain damage that lasts for years or is permanent (Kilpatrick, Kramer,
Jones, Marra, & & Daszak, 2006). While EEEV was detected in mosquitoes on Long Island in 2008, there
have been no other reports of EEEV as of 2015; WNV, however, continues to be detected in both
mosquitoes and humans in Suffolk County annually (Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Diseases
Task Force, 2015).
Existing Cases of Human Illness from Vector-borne Pathogens at the Time of the HIA Analysis
WNV and EEEV are spread from avian hosts to mosquitoes and subsequently to humans. Different
species of birds are more susceptible to these viruses, including the American robin; some birds become
ill and show symptoms of disease, while others carry the disease without showing any symptoms. WNV
infection in humans most often manifests as West Nile Fever, which causes fever and flu-like symptoms
and often goes undiagnosed. However, in the old, very young, or immunocompromised, the disease can
become more severe and lead to West Nile Encephalitis, which can cause swelling of the brain and
death. The majority of those infected with WNV develop no symptoms and about 1 in 5 develop minor
symptoms; however, WNV can lead to permanent brain injury and death in a very small percentage
(<1%). The first outbreak of WNV in the United States occurred in New York City in 1999 (Lanciotti, et al.,
1999) and spread throughout the United States in the following years. NYC and its surroundings
continue to be a hotspot of WNV activity, prompting the development of a WNV surveillance program in
Suffolk County, administered by the Department of Health Services' Arthropod-Borne Disease
Laboratory. Surveillance data for 2008-2015 are summarized in Table 4-42, and maps illustrating cases
of WNV from 2005-2015 can be found in Figure 4-49 and Figure 4-50.
Page 187 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Table 4-42. Mosquito-Borne Disease Surveillance in Suffolk County, 2008-2015*34
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Birds Tested for WNV 137
53
110
122
89
39
99
51
WNV-Positive Birds
91
24
74
33
38
10
11
11
Total Mosquitoes
Collected
49,584
78,358
126,305
145,308
105,327
236,032
191, 557
122,802
Mosquito Pools Sent
for Testing
1,526
1,465
2,323
1,801
1,438
1,515
1,476
1,526
Mosquitoes Sent for
Testing
47,491
48,538
65,571
69,562
55,347
59,259
62,591
56,316
WNV/EEEV Positive
Mosquito Pools'
41/3
17
295
81
210
178
186
200
WNV-Positive Horses*
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
WNV Positive
Humans (Deaths)
9
1
25(3)
4
14
5
1
5
*Adapted from Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Disease Task Force, 2015; data from SCDHS Arthropod-Borne Disease Laboratory
EEEV was found in mosquitoes in Suffolk County in 2008, but not detected again through 2015.
4 Equine vaccines for WNV and EEEV reduce horse cases
Suffolk County West Nile Virus Cases 2005-2009
31-40 Cases
>40 Cases
Figure 4-49. Cases of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, 2005-2009 by zip code. Figure reproduced
from (Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Diseases Task Force, 2015); data from NYSDOH
Communicable Disease Electronic Surveillance System (CDESS).
The data presented here was the most current at the time of the HIA analysis. It should be noted that in 2016 there were 125
WNV positive mosquito pools and 5 WNV human cases (no deaths); in 2017, there were 119 WNV positive mosquito pools, 4
EEEV positive mosquito pools, and 7 WNV human cases, including 2 deaths (SCDHS, 2017; SCDHS, 2018).
Page 188 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Suffolk County West Nile Virus Cases 2010-2015
31-40 Cases
>40 Cases
Figure 4-50. Cases of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, 2010-2015 by zip code. Figure reproduced
from (Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Diseases Task Force, 2015); data from NYSDOH
Communicable Disease Electronic Surveillance System (CDESS).
EEEV was detected in mosquitoes in Suffolk County in 2008, and despite no other reports of EEEV as of
2015, monitoring continues due to the significant chance of mortality associated with the disease. EEEV
causes swelling of the brain, much like West Nile Encephalitis, and commonly results in death within 2 to
10 days of the onset of symptoms. Survivors are often left with permanent intellectual impairment,
personality disorders, and seizures. There have been five human cases of EEEV in New York since 1971,
and all were fatal (Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Diseases Task Force, 2015). No human cases of
EEEV have been reported in Suffolk County. The disease cannot be transmitted from human to human,
and there is an effective vaccine for horses, which are highly susceptible to the virus and can, like birds,
serve as a reservoir species that infects mosquitoes that bite them.
Other mosquito-borne diseases found in Suffolk County include: malaria, chikungunya, and dengue
fever. While these diseases are extremely common in equatorial regions of Asia, Africa, and Central
America, their emergence in northern regions is a more recent phenomenon (with the exception of
malaria, which was previously endemic to the United States). Malaria, spread by the Anopheles
mosquito, was eliminated as a "significant public health problem" in the United States by the CDC in
1949, following a massive nationwide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) spraying campaign (CDC,
2010). However, some sporadic cases do continue to occur as a result of travel to endemic areas. These
are typically easily treatable with a variety of widely-available medications, and consequently malaria is
not considered a major threat in Suffolk County. Chikungunya and dengue fever, vectored by Aedes
aegypti, are historically tropical diseases that are beginning to expand in range with the advent of
widespread world travel and, to a smaller extent, climate change. They have similar symptoms, including
very high fevers, joint pain, vomiting, and muscle fatigue. Neither disease has a specific treatment or
vaccine and can result in death if left untreated. These diseases are not currently a major concern in
Page 189 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Suffolk County, but some cases do occur. A summary of Suffolk County cases of mosquito-borne
diseases can be found in Table 4-43.
Table 4-43. Mosquito-Borne Disease Cases in Suffolk County, 2008-2014*
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
WNV Fever
4
0
11
2
7
2
0
WNV Encephalitis
5
1
14
2
7
3
1
WNV Total
9
1
25
4
14
5
1
EEEV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Malaria1
11
5
7
11
4
10
1
Chikungunya* *
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
Dengue Feverf
2
1
4
3
2
13
4
* Adapted from Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Disease Task Force, 2015; data from
NYSDOH Communicable Disease Electronic Surveillance System (CDESS)
f There have been no local cases of these diseases with exception of one locally-acquired case of dengue fever in
2013; all other cases have been travel-related
* Data does not exist for cases of Chikungunya before 2014
Anticipated Change(s) in Human Illness from Vector-Borne Pathogens
It is anticipated that upgrading cesspools to newer OWTS will reduce mosquito populations near
residential areas by eliminating potential habitat and that reductions in nitrogen impairment of surface
waters as a result of l/A OWTS will further reduce mosquito populations. Reducing the population of
mosquitoes near residential areas reduces the risk of being bitten by a mosquito, while improvements in
surface water quality encourage a healthy and diverse avian community, reducing the likelihood of
disease transmission from host birds to mosquitoes (Ezenwa, et al., 2007). However, it should be noted
that no direct link has been shown between mosquito population size and disease incidence for WNV.
Table 4-44 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on human illness through the
vector control pathway for each decision alternative. The criteria used to characterize the potential
health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand
the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or detracting from health as described in Table 4-44, you
must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns together (e.g., it is possible Alternative I would benefit
health for a moderate number of people). For a summary of the different ways in which health could be
impacted through the Vector Control pathway see Section 4.5.7.
Page 190 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Table 4-44. Impact of Decision on Human Illness from Vector-Borne Pathogens
Alternative I
All existing OSDS
must be upgraded
to conform to
current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place
as of September
2016).
AND
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority
areas must be
upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and standards
(in place as of
September 2016).
The reduction in
and/or
elimination of
potential
container-
breeding
mosquito habitat
(i.e., old and/or
failing individual
sewerage
systems) may
benefit health by
reducing
mosquito
populations.
It is possible that
there would be a
decrease in illness
from vector-borne
pathogens;
however, there is
no direct link
between mosquito
population size
and disease
incidence for WNV.
Changes in illness
from vector-borne
pathogens would
affect a moderate
number of people.
There are relatively
few cases of
mosquito-borne
disease in Suffolk
County; however,
significant
resources are
expended
controlling for
mosquitoes that
could be spent
elsewhere,
affecting many
residents.
The young, the
elderly, the
immunocompro-
mised, and those
who live in
proximity to
mosquito breeding
areas would be
disproportionately
affected.
Will have a lesser
effect on those
who live in
sewered areas.
The health
implications of
mosquito-borne
disease are minor
to severe. The
majority of those
infected with WNV
develop no
symptoms and
about 1 in 5
develop minor
symptoms. WNV
can lead to
permanent brain
injury and death in
a very small
percentage (<1%).
The changes in
mosquito
populations will
occur in years
subsequent to the
change in
sewerage disposal
systems, as their
population follows
a yearly seasonal
trend. Therefore,
any health effects
may not occur for
a long time, but
are expected to be
long-lasting,
considering the
long life span of
OWTS.
Limited. The
evidence reflects
the hypothesized
relationship
between variables,
but is limited in
depth or
replication. There
are consistent
conclusions, but
few studies that
confirm the
relationship.
Further research
may change the
confidence or the
estimate of effect.
Page 191 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Alternatives
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative /
alternative system
design.
Direction
Reduced nutrient
pollution in Suffolk
County waters and
the reduction in
and/or elimination
of potential
container-breeding
mosquito habitat
(i.e., old and/or
failing individual
sewerage systems)
will benefit health
by leading to
better predation of
mosquito larvae
and reducing
mosquito
populations.
Likelihood
It is possible that
there would be a
decrease in illness
from vector-borne
pathogens given
that the mosquito
implicated in the
spread of WNV in
Suffolk County
breeds in impaired
and polluted
water. Several
studies document
increased
mosquito
populations in
nitrogen polluted
water as well;
however, the
direct link between
increased
mosquito
population size
and increased
disease incidence
for WNV has not
been shown.
Magnitude
Changes in illness
from vector-borne
pathogens would
affect a moderate
number of people.
There are relatively
few cases of
mosquito-borne
disease in Suffolk
County; however,
significant
resources are
expended
controlling for
mosquitoes that
could be spent
elsewhere,
affecting many
residents.
Distribution
The young, the
elderly, the
immunocompromi
sed, and those
who live in
proximity to
mosquito breeding
areas would be
disproportionately
affected.
Will have a lesser
effect on those
who live in
sewered areas.
Severity
The health
implications of
mosquito-borne
disease are minor
to severe. The
majority of those
infected with WNV
develop no
symptoms and
about 1 in 5
develop minor
symptoms. WNV
can lead to
permanent brain
injury and death in
a very small
percentage (<1%).
Permanence
The changes in
mosquito
populations will
occur in years
subsequent to the
change in
sewerage disposal
systems, as their
population follows
a yearly seasonal
trend. Therefore,
any health effects
may not occur for
a long time, but
are expected to be
long-lasting,
considering the
long life span of
OWTS.
Strength of
Evidence
Limited. The
evidence reflects
the hypothesized
relationship
between variables,
but is limited in
depth or
replication. There
are consistent
conclusions, but
few studies that
confirm the
relationship.
Page 192 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
4.5.6 I mpact of Changes in Vector Control on Stress and Well-being
Public perception of the environment influences choices of where, when, and how often to engage in
outdoor activities. A healthy and enjoyable natural environment has long been considered crucial to
relaxation and well-being. Studies show that exposure to nature and partaking in outdoor activities is an
important part of maintaining good mental health (Beyer, Kaltenbach, Szabo, Bogar, & al, 2014; Mailer,
Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St Leger, 2006). Spending more time in the outdoors or even simply
viewing a natural environment has been linked to a wide variety of mental, psychological, and
emotional health benefits (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005), as well as lowered blood pressure,
more positive outlooks on life, and better overall health (Ulrich, 2002).
Studies have also shown that participating in outdoor recreation leads to decreases in stress, lowers the
chance of obesity and high blood pressure (Rosenberger, Bergerson, & Kline, 2009), and increases
feelings of overall "wellness" (Godbey, 2009). Running and walking in a green, outdoor setting has been
linked to both a reduction in and faster recovery from mental fatigue (Bodin & Hartig, 2003). Being near
nature improves psychological health in children and can alleviate the symptoms of attention deficit
disorder (ADD) while improving concentration (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001). Stress and mental fatigue
have been implicated as a causative factor in the development of heart disease and hypertension
(Pickering, 2001) and are associated with decreased overall mental and physical health (Taylor, Lerner,
Sage, Lehman, & Seeman, 2004).
The decision to spend time outdoors is influenced by perceptions of the environment, and an area that
is perceived negatively is less likely to be used. Areas that are perceived as having a high-quality
environment can command higher home and property prices and encourage residents to interact more
often outside the home (Phaneuf, Smith, Palmquist, & Pope, 2008).
Mosquitoes and other insects are considered a nuisance because of their itchy and irritating bites. Even
those species that do not spread disease in Long Island can impact health by causing allergic reactions to
their bites and discouraging people from going outside. In particular, the container-breeding mosquito
Aedes albopictus is known for its daytime feeding behavior and repeated, frequent biting. A study
conducted in New Jersey found that a majority of interviewed residents considered mosquitoes to be an
important factor in determining their ability to relax outdoors and had been prevented from enjoying
outdoor activities by mosquitoes at least once in a typical week. Surprisingly, respondents in the study
rated the importance of enjoying the outdoors without mosquitoes to be higher than the importance of
a clean neighborhood and at the same level as the importance of neighborhood safety (Halasa, et al.,
2014).
Existing Conditions Regarding Mosquitoes and Stress and Well-being at the Time of the HIA Analysis
Nuisance mosquitoes and the threat of vector-borne disease can cause distress and discourage
participation in outdoor activities. While scientific surveys or research on the effects of mosquitoes on
mental well-being in Suffolk County is lacking, it is well-known that in warmer months, mosquitoes can
be a significant nuisance and quality-of-life issue. Suffolk County is home to about 50 species of
mosquitoes, including the day-biting vector species Aedes albopictus (SCDHS, 2016d). The Division of
Page 193 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Vector Control recommends limiting outdoor activities between dusk and dawn in mosquito-prone areas
and wearing long sleeved shirts, pants, closed-toed shoes and socks when mosquitoes are active (Suffolk
County Dept. of Public Works, 2016). These precautions, while necessary, can have a limiting effect on
common summer recreational activities such as swimming or fishing. Unfortunately, the health risks of
mosquito-borne disease have the potential to overshadow the health benefits of recreation and
appreciation of nature.
Pesticide spraying as a result of mosquito infestation can cause stress and limit outdoor activity
participation, as well. During and immediately after mosquito spraying, residents (especially children
and pregnant women) are advised by the County to remain inside and close doors and windows. While
the insecticides used by the Department of Vector Control undergo stringent assessments of their
potential toxicity to humans and have been found to cause no ill effects in the doses used, many
residents feel that all pesticides are toxic, as evidenced by several articles published on the Internet and
in local papers (Long Island Neighborhood Network, 2011; Walsh, 2015; Grossman, 2016). Some
residents may experience stress due to perceived loss of environmental quality and safety and engage in
fewer outdoor activities when pesticides are applied.
Anticipated Change(s) in Mosquito Related Stress and Well-being
It is anticipated that reductions in mosquito habitat as a result of upgrading cesspools to newer OWTS
and reductions in nitrogen pollution as a result of upgrading to l/A OWTS will lead to lowered mosquito
populations (both nuisance mosquitoes and carriers of disease), and subsequently, to fewer applications
of insecticide. Due to lowered mosquito populations and fewer insecticide applications, residents may
be more likely to engage in outdoor activities and enjoy the many health benefits they provide.
Additionally, by reducing insecticide application, a significant source of stress to some residents who
find mosquito spraying controversial, will likewise be reduced.
Table 4-45 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on stress and well-being
through the vector control pathway for each decision alternative. The criteria used to characterize the
potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To
understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or detracting from health as described in
Table 4-45, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns together (e.g., it is possible
Alternative I would benefit health for a low number of people). For a summary of the different ways in
which health could be impacted through the Vector Control pathway see Section 4.5.7.
For more on the economic impacts of changes in insecticide application for control of mosquito habitat
and infestation, see the Economics Pathway (Section 4.6).
Page 194 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Table 4-45. Impact of Decision on Stress and Well-being
Health Determinant
Stress and well-being as a Baseline Health Status
result of mosquito presence, Some citizen groups and lawmakers express concern that insecticides used in mosquito control efforts are unsafe for children,
pesticide application, and Mosquito populations, especially near wetland areas or after floods, reach nuisance status in warm months. Both can have an effect
mosquito-borne disease on stress and well-being by increasing concern about the state of the community's outdoor resources and by discouraging outdoor
activity. Worries about contracting mosquito-borne diseases including West Nile virus may cause stress and discourage outdoor
activity, as well. Public perception of the environment influences choices of where, when, and how often to engage in outdoor
activities. Studies have shown that participating in outdoor recreation leads to decreases in stress, lowers the chance of obesity and
high blood pressure, and increases feelings of overall "wellness."
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
The reduction in
It is possible that
Changes in stress
Those who live
The health
The changes in
Limited to Strong.
All existing OSDS
and/or elimination of
there will be a health
and well-being will
in proximity to
implications of
mosquito
The evidence
must be upgraded
potential container-
benefit. Reduced
affect a low
mosquito
reduced stress
populations will
reflects the
to conform to
breeding mosquito
nuisance mosquitoes
number of people.
breeding areas
due to
occur in years
hypothesized
current County
habitat (i.e., old
have been shown to
Less than one
and/or
mosquitoes and
subsequent to
relationship
Sanitary Code and
and/or failing
increase willingness
percent of Suffolk
insecticide
vector borne
the change in
between variables,
standards (in place
individual sewerage
to engage in outdoor
County properties
application
disease are
sewerage
but is limited in
as of September
systems) may reduce
activities, although
are listed on the Do
areas would be
minor. Engaging
disposal systems,
depth or replication.
2016).
mosquito
mosquitoes alone
Not Spray Law
disproportion-
in outdoor
as their
There are consistent
AND
populations (both
likely account for a
listing, indicating
ately affected.
activity and
population
conclusions, but few
nuisance and disease
relatively minor part
that concern over
exercise is
follows a yearly
studies that confirm
Alternative II
carrying mosquitoes)
of discouraging these
pesticide
valuable for the
seasonal trend.
the relationship.
All existing OSDS in
and subsequently,
activities. Studies
application is
prevention of
Therefore, any
The link between
the high priority
the need for
linking decreased
relatively low.
obesity and
health effects
areas must be
pesticides. Fewer
pesticide application
Participation in
other sedentary
may not occur for
enjoyment of the
upgraded to
mosquitoes could
and improved
outdoor activities
diseases,
a long time, but
outdoors and stress
conform to current
likely lead to
perceptions of the
may increase due
decreases stress,
are expected to
reduction is
County Sanitary
increased enjoyment
environment are
to changes in
and increases
be long-lasting,
supported by
Code and standards
of the outdoors,
lacking.
vector control, but
feelings of
considering the
decades of research;
(in place as of
resulting in a benefit
the extent of that
overall
long life span of
however.
September 2016).
to health.
impact is unknown.
"wellness."
OWTS.
Page 195 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
Alternative
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative III
Improved natural
It is possible that
Changes in stress
Those who live
The health
The changes in
Limited to Strong.
All existing OSDS
control of mosquito
there will be a health
and well-being will
in proximity to
implications of
mosquito
The evidence
and C-OWTS in the
populations through
benefit. Reduced
affect a low
mosquito
reduced stress
populations will
reflects the
high priority areas
improvements in
nuisance mosquitoes
number of people.
breeding areas
due to
occur in years
hypothesized
must be upgraded
water quality reduces
have been shown to
Less than one
and/or
mosquitoes and
subsequent to
relationship
to an innovative/
the need for
increase willingness
percent of Suffolk
insecticide
vector borne
the change in
between variables,
alternative system
pesticide application
to engage in outdoor
County properties
application
disease are
sewerage
but is limited in
design.
and reduces
activities, although
are listed on the Do
areas would be
minor. Engaging
disposal systems,
depth or replication.
nuisance. Fewer
mosquitoes alone
Not Spray Law
disproportiona
in outdoor
as their
There are consistent
mosquitoes would
likely account for a
listing, indicating
tely affected.
activity and
population
conclusions, but few
likely lead to
relatively minor part
that concern over
exercise is
follows a yearly
studies that confirm
increased enjoyment
of discouraging these
pesticide
valuable for the
seasonal trend.
the relationship.
of the outdoors,
activities. Studies
application is
prevention of
Therefore, any
The link between
which reduces stress
linking decreased
relatively low.
obesity and
health effects
and increases general
pesticide application
Participation in
other sedentary
may not occur
enjoyment of the
well-being, resulting
and improved
outdoor activities
diseases,
for a long time,
outdoors and stress
in a benefit to
perceptions of the
may increase due
decreases stress,
but are expected
reduction is
health.
environment are
to changes in
and increases
to be long-
supported by
lacking.
vector control, but
feelings of
lasting,
decades of research.
the extent of that
overall
considering the
impact is unknown.
"wellness."
long life span of
OWTS.
Page 196 of 305
-------
Assessment - Vector Control
4.5.7 Vector Control Health Impact Summary
It is possible that decreases in mosquito populations, as a result of the reduction in and/or
elimination of old and/or failing individual sewerage systems and in Alternative III, the added
reduction in nutrient pollution in Suffolk County waters, could lead to a decrease in illness
from vector-borne pathogens, although there is no direct link between mosquito population
size and disease incidence for WNV. Decreased mosquito populations and subsequently
reduced pesticide applications may also benefit health by increasing the willingness of
residents to engage in outdoor activities and reducing stress related to mosquitoes, vector-
borne disease, and pesticides. However, mosquitoes alone likely account for a relatively minor
part of discouraging outdoor activities, and studies linking decreased pesticide application and
improved perceptions of the environment are lacking.
These potential benefits may have a lesser effect on those who live in sewered areas, but
would disproportionately benefit the young, the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those
who live in proximity to mosquito breeding areas and insecticide application areas.
The benefits to decreased mosquito populations and pesticide applications include a reduced
risk of stress, mosquito bites, and mosquito-borne diseases such as WNV and EEEV.
Page 197 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
CD
4.6 Community and Household Economics: Existing
Conditions and Potential Impacts
Conditions in the environments where people live, work, learn, and play can impact their health
(Braveman, Egerter, & Williams, 2011; Braveman, Egerter, & Barclay, 2011; Helman, 2015; Marmot,
2005; WHO, 2003; Anderson, Scrimshaw, Fullilove, & Fielding, 2003). As such, community and
household economics both contribute to the overall health and well-being of an individual and a
community. Many health determinants are directly related to the economic vitality of the community
and the availability of community services, such as neighborhood safety, mobility and access to goods
and services, physical activity and social engagement, and many others. On an individual level,
household income, combined with housing costs (generally the largest expense for a household), often
determine an individual's ability to afford essential health-related goods and services, such as food,
clothing, utilities, healthcare, and childcare. Community and household economics are interrelated as a
result of the exchange of taxes, social services, and spending by both the individual household and the
government in the economy.
Regulations can boost the economy or deter economic growth, and when considering new regulations,
such as the proposed changes to the Suffolk County sanitary code, the impacts to both community and
household economics should be considered.
4.6.1 Community and Household Economics Pathways of Impact
Figure 4-51 shows the pathways by which the proposed code changes are expected to potentially impact
community and household economics in Suffolk County.
Household economics are affected by costs of an individual sewerage system, employment
opportunities within the individual sewerage system industry, residential property values, employment
opportunities in the commercial fishing and recreational industries, and costs due to storm and flooding
damage and influences household food security and ultimately, nutrition-based health problems and
overall health and well-being. Overall health and well-being are also affected by community economics,
which are impacted by community costs/revenues from inspection and certification, residential property
values, costs/revenues from commercial fishing and recreational industries, costs of storm and flooding
damage, and the cost of vector control.
Page 198 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
k
*OSDS = onsite sewage disposal system (cesspool only system)
**0\VTS = onsite wastewater treatment system (conventional OWTS in Suffolk Count}7 is the septic tank-leach pool system)
*** LA OWTS = innovative/alternative OUTS
Figure 4-51. Community and Household Economics Pathway Diagram.
4.6.2 Impact of Changes in OWTS and l/A OWTS Community Costs/Revenues and
Household Costs on Community and Household Economics
Government policies on infrastructure, energy, sanitation, and water resources all impact the health
outcomes of the families and communities they address. Changes in regulation, such as the proposed
changes to the sanitary code, often require funding for implementation and oversight. Depending on the
sources of this funding, these additional costs can potentially impact the health services the community
is able to provide.
Changes in regulation can impact household economics directly, if there are costs or fees associated
with the changes, or indirectly, through potential impacts to property values. Household income can
impact health through a variety of pathways which include: differential access to healthcare;
environmental exposures; health behaviors; and differential exposure to stress associated with
instability in employment, housing, and food access (Braveman, Egerter, & Barclay, 2011). Braveman,
Egerter, and Barclay (2011) propose that "increases in income are linked to greater health
improvements at the lower end of the income scale." The sanitary code changes are meant to
ameliorate current household expenditures in the event of a failed system causing seepage, back up and
or damage to the home; however, a high water table may necessitate more frequent pumping if that
water enters the individual sewerage system.
Page 199 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
A review of available literature suggests that housing is an important social determinant of
r
overall health and well-being (Nabihah, 2014). The proportion of a household's income
remaining after housing costs can determine the ability to afford essential health-related goods
and services such as food, clothing, healthcare, and childcare. Households facing high housing
costs are often forced to cut back on these essentials (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University, 2015a). These kinds of cutbacks are strongly linked to poor health outcomes.
Generally, a household is considered cost-burdened when total housing costs (mortgage, rent,
insurance, utilities, taxes, etc.) exceed 30% of the household income (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, &
Rabbitt, 2016). A home spending 30-49.9% of household income on housing is considered moderately
burdened, and 50% or more of household income spent on housing is considered severely burdened
(Schwartz & Wilson, 2008; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016). In a county with a high cost of living, like Suffolk
County, it is not uncommon for households, particularly renters, to fall within these categories.
Analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2011 consumer expenditure survey suggests, in general,
that some cost-burdened households spend one-fifth the amount that non-burdened households spend
on healthcare (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2015a). For example, adults in
cost-burdened households are more likely not to fill a prescription or not follow through with medical
treatment due to cost (Nabihah, 2014). These trends would increase if more money were spent on
household improvements.
Existing Community and Household Economics at the Time of the HIA Analysis
In order to assess the potential impacts of the proposed code changes, the existing state of community
and household economics and the housing market in Suffolk County were closely evaluated.
Community Economics
In Suffolk County's 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, real property taxes were reported to
have provided over $100 million in revenue for the County in 2015 (Table 4-46) - 5.9% of total County
revenues (Office of the Comptroller, 2016). That Report (Office of the Comptroller, 2016) also indicated
an overall shortfall between revenues and expenditures of $2 billion. As a note, the primary
expenditures for the County include Public Safety (21%), Economic Assistance and Opportunity (21%),
and Employee Benefits (21%).
Table 4-46. Suffolk County Revenues for Year Ending December 31, 2015 (Office of the Comptroller, 2016)
Budgeted Amounts (U.S. dollars, $)
Revenues
Original
Final
Actual
Variance with
Final Budget
Real Property Taxes
93,171,277
93,171,277
111,549,335
18,378,058
Sales and Use Tax
1,256,823,016
1,256,823,016
1,189,242,493
-67,580,523
New York State Aid
238,285,668
244,620,458
233,950,994
-10,669,464
Federal Aid
223,274,644
227,869,009
217,912,214
-9,956,795
Licenses, permits, fines,
fees, etc.
138,066,036
138,066,036
134,533,331
-3,532,705
Page 200 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Budgeted Amounts (U.S. dollars, $)
Revenues
Original
Final
Actual
Variance with
Final Budget
Interest on investments
376,099
376,099
2,124,582
1,748,483
Miscellaneous
12,245,997
12,783,497
12,506,353
-277,144
Total Revenues
1,962,242,737
1,973,709,392
1,901,819,302
-71,890,090
A number of County-financed, in-progress and proposed economic development projects are described
in the 2015 Report (Office of the Comptroller, 2016) that are closely related to tourism and the
waterfront. The Long Island Convention and Visitors Bureau and Sports Commission's 2015 Mid-year
Report stated that tourism generated $202 million in local tax revenue for Suffolk County in 2015 (Long
Island Regional Development Council, 2015). Traveler spending across all of Long Island was $5.5 billion
in 2015, up $200 million from 2014. However, increasing beach closures, algal blooms, and perceived
degradation of waters which are used for aquatic recreation, place revenue streams from tourism and
recreation at risk for decline.
In addition, Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone reported thousands of job losses in the shellfishing
industry due to declining shellfish populations (Suffolk County Government, 2014c). The 2013 NOAA
Coastal County Snapshot for Suffolk County reported that the number of commercial fishing jobs in the
County was 1,054 and revenue from commercial fishing totaled $57.7 million (NOAA, 2016c). In taking
action, the County can prevent the further decline of water quality and the fishing, recreation, and
tourism industries in the area.
SCDHS spent $195 million in 2015, with the Office of Wastewater Management representing a fraction
of this total. As with other departments in the County, SCDHS spent more than it earned, having a 2015
end of year deficit of $116 million.
The environmental regulatory efforts that go into enforcing the current drinking water and groundwater
management regulations and programs in Suffolk County include water sample testing, processing
applications for new residential construction, industrial waste inspections, hazardous waste tank testing,
hazardous waste tank removal, and sewage treatment plant inspections. In 2015, just 1,094 individual
sewerage system construction applications were processed by the County.
Household Economics
A number of American Community Survey (ACS) measures regarding households and income were used
to characterize the household economics of Suffolk County (Table 4-47). According to the ACS, of the
total estimated occupied households in Suffolk County in 2012 (496,349), 80.1% were owner-occupied
structures, and 19.9% were renter-occupied. Families (average size of 3.40 people) make up 75.6% of
the total number of occupied households, occupying 80.2% of owner-occupied structures and 56.8% of
renter-occupied structures. The remaining 24.4% of occupied households are non-families (i.e., a
householder living alone or with non-relatives only), with an average size of 1.27 people; non-families
occupy 19.8% of owner-occupied structures and 43.2% of renter-occupied structures (Table 4-47).
Page 201 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-47. Households and Income in Suffolk County
Variable
Entire County
(average household
size of 2.93)
Family Household
(average size 3.40
people)
Non-family Household
(average size of 1.27
people)
Occupied Households*
496,349 (+/-1,683)
374,995 (+/-2,008)
(75.6%)
121,354 (+/- 1,764)
(24.4%)
Homeownership*
80.1% (+/-0.4%)
owner-occupied
structures
Occupy 80.2%
(+/- 0.4%) of owner-
occupied structures
Occupy 19.8%
(+/-0.4 %) of owner-
occupied structures
Rate of home rental*
19.9% (+/- 0.4%)
renter-occupied
structures
Occupy 56.8%
(+/-1.2%) of renter-
occupied structures
Occupy 43.2% (+/ฆ 1-2%)
of renter- occupied
structures
Median Income*
$87,778 (+/- $859)
$100,179 (+/- $865)
$46,476 (+/- $1,083)
Mean Income*
$108,149 (+/- $825)
$120,397 (+/- $1,043)
$63,323 (+/- $1,353)
Number and percentage of
households under
$50,000t
132,315 (+/- 2426)
or
26.7% (+/- 0.5%)
Median income as a
percentage of MIT Living
Wage Calculator
158%*
181%
102%
Number and percentage of
households earning Food
stamps/SNAP benefit*
24,513 (+/-1,111) or
4.9% (+/- 0.2%)
Percentage of the
population, for whom
poverty status is
determined, whose
income in the past 12
months is below the
poverty line*
6.1% (+/- 0.3%)
With related children
under 18:
7.0% (+/- 0.5%)
Unrelated individuals 15
years and over:
17.9% (+/- 0.7%)
Percentage of households
who are housing cost
burdened*
44.5% owner-occupied housing costs exceed 30% of income
54.1% renting households exceed 30% of income
* 2012 American Community Survey 5-year (2008-2012) estimates, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
f The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Living Wage Calculator estimates Suffolk County Living Wage as follows:
$55,432 for household of 3 (1 working adult, 1 nonworking adult, and 1 child) and $45,552 for nonfamily household (two
working adults) (Glasmeier, 2016).
* Calculated with income for household of 3, $55,432.
County-level data are used in the economics analysis because the geographic location of
specific types of individual sewerage systems was unknown at the time of the HIA analysis;
therefore, geographic-specific income statistics could not be determined for each alternative.
Household income for families is much higher than non-family households. In Suffolk County, families
have a median household income of $100,179 and a mean income of $120,397, while non-families have
Page 202 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
a median household income of $46,476 and a mean income of $63,323 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In
Suffolk County, the living wage for a household of 3 (1 working adult, 1 non-working adult, and 1 child) is
$55,432 (Glasmeier, 2016). The standard measure for housing cost burden is 30% of household income
(Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016). In Suffolk County, roughly 44.5% of owner-occupied households have
housing costs that exceed 30% of their income, while roughly 54.1% of renting single-family households
have housing costs that exceed 30% of their income (Table 4-47).
This alone does not give the most accurate representation of the at-risk population. With the
C high property values and relatively high median income in Suffolk County, it is likely that many
higher income households with additional financial assets and capital may elect to live in a
house that costs more than 30% of their household income without having to make the types
of tradeoffs that result in poor health outcomes.
The median household income for the County is $87,778, and the median income of households with
families is $100,179 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Looking at the regionally-specific income limits for
public assistance programs yields a more accurate image of the population placed at risk of the cost-
burdened population. Based on these metrics, 23-26.7% of households in Suffolk County are likely
cost-burdened; it should be noted that a portion of the cost-burdened population does reside in
sewered areas and therefore would not be impacted by the proposed sanitary code changes. For Section
8 housing,35 a household of three in Suffolk County is considered low income if their household income
is $76,480 or less, and very low income if it is $47,800 or less (HUD, 2016a). The number of households
earning under $50,000 a year is estimated to be around 26.7%, according to the 2012 American
Community Survey. Based on this metric, at least 26.7% of households in the County would be low
income or very low income (and likely cost-burdened).
To qualify for the state's Home Energy Assistance Program, a household of three must have an annual
income of less than $43,500 (New York State, n.d.). These figures suggest that households in Suffolk
County with incomes near or below $45,000, while earning more than twice the federal poverty level,
are still in a precarious financial situation and are at the greatest risk of a negative impact, should their
housing costs increase. County wide, this group is roughly 23% of the total number of households. The
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute's (2016) County Health Rankings also estimate that
23% of Suffolk County households are at risk of adverse health effects due to high housing costs, (HUD,
2016b).
Anticipated Change(s) in Community and Household Economics
Community Economics
At the community level, Suffolk County can expect to generate more revenue through the permits,
licenses, and fees associated with new septic system installations and maintenance. However, there will
35 Section 8 is the common name for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, which allows private landlords to rent apartments and homes at fair market rates to qualified low income
tenants, with a rental subsidy.
Page 203 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
also be extra costs to the County for implementing and maintaining the program, including an increased
workload and the need for more staff. In addition, water resources are an integral part of life among
Suffolk County residents and a critical resource for the local economy. The County may also see some
benefits to the local economy depending on the code's ability to address nitrogen and pathogen
loading to Suffolk County waters. Impairment in the quality of water resources places revenue streams
for Suffolk County services at risk for decline. If Alternatives I or II is selected, the County may have to
consider other actions to reduce nitrogen load to the groundwater, freshwater, and marine waters
surrounding Long Island (since these alternatives do not address nitrogen loading); and these efforts
may increase costs to the County. However, benefits to the local economy would be expected with the
reduction in nutrient and pathogen loading associated with implementation of Alternative III. These
benefits could include increases in real property values and revenues from recreation, tourism, and
commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing due to improved water quality and other
environmental conditions.
In the 2014 IBM Smarter Cities report, the authors recommend the need for a recurring revenue source
through a unified wastewater management district (IBM Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Affairs,
2014). This represents one method for securing the funding needed to implement the sanitary code
changes and maintain the program.
If Suffolk County mandates that between 125,751 (Alternative II) and 251,502 (Alternative III)
households have to update their septic systems, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
will have an enormous growth in its responsibility and workload and the County's costs will increase.
As discussed in the Employment Opportunities sections that follow, this will also create employment
opportunities.
The SCDHS 2015 end of year deficit will make it difficult for the County to enforce these new
C regulations without increasing revenues, either through charges for fees and services or
through operating grants and contributions36.
With enactment of changes to the sanitary code, the expenses in both the SCDHS and SCDEQ would
likely increase. If Alternative I is adopted, 192,558 households, which are considered cesspool only,
would be required to install new septic tank-leaching pool systems. This would equate to nearly 200,000
construction applications. Depending on the strategy for implementing the proposed code changes (i.e.,
failure of existing OSDS, property transfer, or fixed schedule), the number of applications each year
would vary, with the total number spread across multiple years. For example, if replacement of a
home's sewerage system is triggered by property transfer, based on an average countywide sale rate of
5%, there would be an increase of 9,628 applications per year under Alternative I; this would be
equivalent to increasing the amount of applications and the effort to process each one by nearly 9 fold
over 2015 efforts (i.e., 1,094 applications in 2015) (HUD, 2017).
36 See Appendix K for grants and other funding sources secured since completion of the HIA analysis for implementation of l/A
OWTS upgrades.
Page 204 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Alternative II requires fewer households to take action (125,751). Given the same assumptions, this
would increase the amount of construction applications by 6,288, or an almost 6-fold increase over the
2015 totals. Alternative III would require the most construction applications, with 251,502 households
subject to the regulation. If all households subject to Alternative III had to replace their systems at time
of property transfer, based on a 5% annual sale rate, the annual number of construction applications
increases by 12,575, well over a 10-fold increase.
Issuing OWTS construction permits is just a fraction of the role the County would play in implementing
these new regulations. Other actions include enforcement, record keeping, inspection, and financial
management of any loan programs. Oversight of the C-OWTS and l/A OWTS companies may also be
needed to ensure they are not taking advantage of the demand created by the code changes by
charging much higher rates for inspections, repairs, and installations.
In addition to the costs associated with the proposed code changes, Suffolk County can also expect to
generate more revenue through the issuance of permits, licenses, and fees associated with C-OWTS or
l/A OWTS installation and maintenance. The County can increase the rates for each to cover the
increased cost of permit issuance and management. However, it is unrealistic to expect these charges to
cover the entire anticipated increase in workload. The County may also see some increases in real
property values due to improved water quality and other environmental conditions as a result of
upgraded OWTS. Further, if water quality is improved and the commercial and recreational fishing
industries grow, there may be more sales tax revenues as a result.
In the near term, it is not expected that the anticipated code changes will result in a net financial gain
for the County, since many households will require assistance to comply with the regulations.
Enforcement will also be a challenge, with up to 251,502 households needing to update their individual
sewerage systems.
To avoid unintended health impacts, regardless of the alternative chosen, Suffolk County
could ensure that the increased cost to implement and oversee the proposed changes to the
sanitary code does not impact or pull funding away from other social and health
services/programs. The County could seek operating grants and contributions, both from State
and Federal entities, to defray costs. More information on existing federal funding
opportunities is outlined in Appendix I37.
Household Economics
The proposed changes to the sanitary code will result in costs to individual households for County
fees, installation, and operation and maintenance of individual sewerage systems31. These costs
37 Since the completion of the HIA analysis, funding (grants and loans) has been secured by the County for homeowners
upgrading to l/A OWTS - the individual sewerage system called for in Alternative III. For more information on these funding
opportunities, see Appendix K. Since completion of the HIA analysis, Suffolk County has also established that there is no plan to
move forward with wastewater upgrades unless a stable, recurring revenue source is established to help reduce financial
impacts to individual households and ensure that County services are not jeopardized by the costs of wastewater upgrade
implementation.
Page 205 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
depend on a number of factors including the type of upgrade required, the amount of labor required to
install the upgrade, and the operating costs of the new system. Under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
at the time of this HIA, when an existing system (cesspool or C-OWTS) failed, the property owner could
replace the system in-kind; however, there was no requirement to replace an operational OSDS. The
primary maintenance for an existing OSDS or C-OWTS is the pumping out of the unit. The operational
costs are minimal, as these systems typically do not require any monthly expenditures, such as
electricity, to run the system. Based on cost of pumping a 1,000-gallon unit at the recommended
frequency of every 3 years for a household size of 4 people, the annualized cost to pump/maintain an
OSDS or C-OWTS is around $100; this cost will vary based on tank and household size and volume of
solids in the wastewater.
According to HomeAdvisor (2016a), in a survey of homeowners who used the site to find a company to
complete their septic tank installation, the national average cost to install a septic tank in 2016 was
$4,610 (Table 4-48). Based on 49 cost profiles from New York State, the average cost was $3,893, and
for Babylon, New York, the average cost was $3,754, according to 42 cost profiles; composite Suffolk
County data was not available (HomeAdvisor, 2016a). The average cost to repair an existing septic tank
was $1,435 nationally, $2,074 in New York State, and $2,042 in Babylon, NY (HomeAdvisor, 2016b).
Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies cited a higher national average cost for repair, at $3,328 in
2013, with over 176,000 septic tank repairs reported (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University, 2015b).
Table 4-48. Estimate Household Costs for Septic Tank Installation and Repair
Location
Septic Tank Installation*
Septic Tank Repair1
Average
Reported Cost
No. of Cost
Profiles
Average
Reported Cost
No. of Cost
Profiles
National
$4,610
316
$1,435
584
New York State
$3,893
49
$2,074
54
Babylon, NY*
$3,754
42
$2,042
48
* Source: (HomeAdvisor, 2016a)
f Source: (HomeAdvisor, 2016b)
* Refers to zip code 11702
Alternatives I and II require replacement of an existing OSDS with a C- OWTS; however, the homeowner
may opt to install an approved l/A OWTS. For homes with existing OSDS, the timing of the costs to install
a C-OWTS or l/A OWTS would not be upon failure of the existing system; it would vary depending upon
the implementation scheme chosen by the County. The associated costs for the upgrade would be
greater if a household with an OSDS chose to install an l/A OWTS, as l/A OWTS have increased
installation, operation, and maintenance costs (Table 4-49).
Alternative III would require the replacement of existing systems with an approved l/A OWTS. For l/A
OWTS, beyond the installation costs, there is a requirement for routine maintenance through a
maintenance contract and there are increased operational costs, mainly due to the electricity needed
to run the system. Installation costs for l/A OWTS, presented in Table 4-49, are based on the existence
of an operational septic tank and assumes no challenges for site access or drainage fields. If a home has
Page 206 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
an existing OSDS, then the cost for installation of an l/A OWTS would increase due to the need to install
a septic tank, resulting in costs as high as $22,000; costs may be even greater for challenging sites. The
life expectancy for l/A OWTS varies and is based on components of the system including aerators,
pumps and control panels. Life expectancy of l/A OWTS components is less than the life expectancy of
an OSDS or C-OWTS; however, replacement costs for components would be less than installation of a
full system. For example, replacement of an aerator could range from $500 to $600 and the cost of a
control panel would be around $300 (numbers based on estimates gathered from l/A OWTS vendors).
Table 4-49. Estimated Household Costs for Individual Sewerage Systems by Proposed Alternative*
Cost Category
Baseline
Alternative 1
Alternative II
Alternative lilt
County Fee*
$125
$125
$125
$125
Installation
$4000-$5000
$4000-$5000
$4000-$5000
$11,000-$17,000ง
Annual Operation
$0
$0
$0
$120-$300
Annual
$100"
$100"
$100"
$250-$400, plus costs
Maintenance
of pumping every 3-6
years
Life Expectancy of
25-30 years
25-30 years
25-30 years
7-20 years for
the System
individual components
* Sources for cost estimates and life expectancy include information from l/A OWTS vendors, presentations and published
reports. As with any costs, these may vary over time.
+ These values represent the range of costs associated with a number of l/A OWTS alternatives. Note that updated cost
information for l/A OWTS was made available through the County, following completion of the HIA analysis. This cost
information can be found in Appendix K.
* County fee is for update or renewal and is based on Suffolk County 2016 Office of Wastewater Management Fee Schedule:
http://www.suffolkcountvnv.goV/Portals/0/Documents%20and%20Forms/Health%20Services/Wastewater%20Management/F
orms/Fee%20Schedule.pdf.
ฎSome installation cost estimates assume an existing functioning septic tank. The absence of the tank would add to the
installation cost.
"Based on pumping cost of a 1,000-gallon tank at the recommended frequency of every 3 years for a household size of 4
people. This cost will vary based on tank and household size and volume of solids in the wastewater.
The cost of an upgrade, plus additional annual operational and maintenance costs, could have significant
impacts on the health of households if households are forced to further cut spending on food,
healthcare, and energy (University of Minnesota, 2017). Sanitary code changes that would require the
installation of a C-OWTS or l/A OWTS may fit into a wealthier homeowner's budget, but it is highly
unlikely lower income homeowners would be able to budget for the installation without financial
assistance.
For a family with a median annual income of $100,179, an investment of $5,225 (Alternative l/ll) would
be equivalent to 5% of their annual income; to comply with Alternative III, it could cost $17,825, or 18%
of their annual income. Installation would be much more of a burden for non-families, which represent
24% of households in the County and have a lower income. For non-families having a median household
income of $46,476, the $5,225 investment would be equivalent to 11% of their annual income, and the
Page 207 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
cost to upgrade to an l/A OWTS would be roughly over a third of their annual income at 38%. As
previously stated, total housing costs greater than 30% of the household income is considered a cost
burden, and all efforts should be taken to assist cost-burdened households in the replacement of their
OSDS. Note households may already be spending money on system repairs, so the replacement of a
failing system would eliminate the cost of managing a failed system, although maintenance would still
be required. The cost to repair a broken septic tank is cited at around $2,100 and annual maintenance is
cited at around $100, while maintenance for an l/A OWTS system $240- $400 a year plus the cost of
pumping every 3-6 years (HomeAdvisor, 2016a) (maintenance based on estimates gathered from l/A
OWTS vendors).
Although households in renter-occupied structures would not have to install these OWTS systems
themselves, the cost associated with their installation and maintenance may cause an increase in their
rent. Septic tank repairs and replacements are generally considered improvements to the property and,
therefore must be capitalized and depreciated overtime, rather than being used as a one-time
deduction (Hall L., 2014).
There are regional examples that Suffolk County can follow to mitigate the cost burden of
individual sewerage system upgrades to residents.
For example, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority offers three programs to
help residents make improvements to their homes in order to reduce energy consumption and reduce
utility costs. For a three-person household in Suffolk County, an income of less than $78,480 qualifies for
up to a 50% discount on the improvement costs, and an income of $42,528 or less qualifies that
household to have all of the improvement costs paid for by the state. Households with incomes higher
than $78,480 qualify for a 10% discount on the improvement costs (New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, 2016).
Review of the Rhode Island and Maryland programs may provide Suffolk County with guidance
on implementation of a program in Suffolk County, including the triggers for replacement of
systems and loan and grant programs for households to assist with costs associated with
installation and operation of new systems. More details on these State programs are provided
in Appendix J.38
Suffolk County could seek outside funding to reduce the costs of individual sewerage system
upgrades for individual households. Obtaining funding could occur at the county level, as well
as at the local municipality level39. Assistance for cost-burdened and low-income households
38 Since completion of the HIA analysis, funding (grants and loans) has been secured by the County for homeowners upgrading
to l/A OWTS and these efforts were modeled after programs in both Maryland and Rhode Island. Rental properties are not
eligible for the Septic Improvement Program (SIP) funding. For more information on these funding opportunities, see
Appendix K.
39 In addition to the funding secured since completion of the HIA analysis by the County for homeowners upgrading to l/A
OWTS , several eastern Suffolk County towns also have their own grant programs. For more information on these funding
opportunities and their criteria, see Appendix K.
Page 208 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
and property owners renting to low income households34 could be prioritized. Assistance
could be made available for all household types, including non-family households, which have
a much lower median income than family households. Following other states' examples,
Suffolk County may consider low-interest, long-term loans for landlords so they are not faced
with an immediate upfront cost.
\JL' Suffolk County should work with communities and OWTS vendors to plan concurrent upgrades
to neighboring properties to reduce construction costs and take advantage of block grant
opportunities.
Table 4-50 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on County costs and revenues
and household costs for each decision alternative.
Table 4-50. Impact of Decision on County Costs/Revenues and Household Costs
Alternatives
Potential Changes
Baseline*
Community Economics. No anticipated changes in costs or revenues to the
County due to implementation of the sanitary code. However, if other
measures are not enacted to protect Suffolk County waters, County
revenue streams may be at risk.
Household Economics. No anticipated changes in costs to households due
to installation, operation or maintenance of individual sewerage systems.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Community Economics. Per Suffolk County Sanitary Code, installation of a
new individual sewerage system would require a permit. If all existing OSDS
are required to be upgraded (i.e., 192,558 households1), there would be an
average increase in permits issued of 9,268 a year over the next 20 years;*
this represents just a fraction of the increased governing load of the County
in the event of Alternative 1 implementation.
The County should not expect a net gain in revenue from this proposed
change.
Household Economics. This would cost households with an existing OSDS
an estimated $5,125 upfront and an approximate total cost of $8,125 over
30 years, or $271 a year. This would affect 50% of all unsewered
households in Suffolk County, or 192,558 households.
Page 209 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Alternatives
Potential Changes
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as
of September 2016).
Community Economics. Per Suffolk County Sanitary Code, installation of a
new individual sewerage system would require a permit. If all existing OSDS
in high priority areas are required to be upgraded (i.e., 125,751
households1), there would be an average increase in permits issued of
6,288 a year over the next 20 years;* this represents just a fraction of the
increased governing load of the County in the event of Alternative II
implementation.
The County should not expect a net gain in revenue from this proposed
change.
Household Economics. This would cost households located in high priority
areas with an OSDS an estimated $5,125 upfront and an approximate total
cost of $8,125 over 30 years, or $271 a year. This would affect 32.7% of all
unsewered households in Suffolk County, or 125,751 households.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Community Economics. Per Suffolk County Sanitary Code, installation of a
new individual sewerage system would require a permit. If all existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in high priority areas are required to be upgraded (i.e.,
251,502 households1), there would be an average increase in permits
issued of 12,575 a year over the next 20 years;* this represents just a
fraction of the increased governing load of the County in the event of
Alternative III implementation.
The County should not expect a net gain in revenue from this proposed
change.
Household Economics. Without financial assistance, this would cost
households located in high priority areas with an OSDS or C-OWTS an
estimated $17,825 upfront and an approximate total cost of $38,825 over
30 years, or $1,294 a year.ฎ This would affect 65.3% of all unsewered
homes, because 75% of the total housing stock is estimated to be in the
high priority areas or 251,502 households.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to the continuing decline of surface waters and associated revenue streams in Suffolk
County.
f See Appendix G for the methodology used to determine the number of households affected by each decision alternative.
* These calculations are based on the following assumptions: A property transfer trigger for individual sewerage system
upgrade and a 5% annual average sale rate in the County.
ง For more information on financial assistance put in place after completion of the HIA analysis and updated l/A OWTS costs,
see Appendix K.
Page 210 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
4.6.3 I mpact of Change in Employment Opportunities in OSDS/OWTS Industry on
Community and Household Economics
Employment and wages are key factors of household income. The increase in demand for individual
sewerage system upgrades may lead to more job opportunities in the sewerage system service and
manufacturing industries; although, the locations of these opportunities may not be limited to Suffolk
County. There may also be additional opportunities for employment by Suffolk County's Department of
Health Services to meet the increased demands for implementation and management of the code
changes. Improved employment in the County in any capacity supports the overall economy in the area.
Existing Employment Opportunities in OSDS/OWTS Industry at the Time of the HIA Analysis
At the county level, the responsible department for implementing and managing the code changes is the
SCDHS, which includes the DEQ and the Office of Wastewater Management. The number of County
employees in DEQ averaged between 50 in 2005 to 53 in 2011, the last year data was available (Office of
the Comptroller, 2015). SCDHS employs over 1,000 people. In Suffolk County, the unemployment rate
was 4.8% in 2015, having declined three percentage points since it peaked in 2012 (Office of the
Comptroller, 2016). Before the economic recession, the unemployment rate ranged from 4.2% in 2005
to 4.9% in 2008 (Office of the Comptroller, 2015). With a 2015 population estimate of 1,501,587, the
estimated number of unemployed individuals in Suffolk County is 72,076 (Office of the Comptroller,
2016).
A survey of online resources produced a list of 71 companies that provide cesspool and septic services
on Long Island. The U.S. Census Bureau 2014 County Business Patterns identified 65 businesses related
to "Septic Tank and Related Services" in Suffolk County. The OSDS/OWTS industry represents a $17.7
million industry in Suffolk County alone. According to the County Business Patterns, 348 people were
employed in the industry in Suffolk County in 2014 (United States Census Bureau, 2016).
Employment opportunities in this industry have already been on an upward trend since 2012. According
to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), between 2012 and 2014 the number of
people employed in the "Septic Tank and Related Services" industry in Suffolk County increased from
328 to 348 people. This is a 6% increase, and if this trend continued to 2016, there would be an
estimated 369 people working in the field. The annual payroll for these employees also increased, from
$15,520,000 in 2012 to $17,712,000 in 2014 (United States Census Bureau, 2016).
In June 2016, the County passed a law requiring licensed liquid waste professionals to acquire training
and certification for septic tank plumbing, cleaning and maintenance; waste line cleaning and
inspection; bulk liquid waste transportation; vactor (pump/vacuum) services; conventional septic system
maintenance inspection; conventional septic system installation; l/A OWTS installation; and l/A OWTS
service provider, among other endorsements (LILWA, 2016). LILWA and SCDHS provide the required
training, in cooperation with the University of Rhode Island New England Onsite Wastewater Training
Program, and LILWA issues most of the endorsements through their certification program (LILWA,
2016). For l/A OWTS installation, an LILWA endorsement is required and installation training
Page 211 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
certification from the manufacturer of the specific technology being installed40; l/A OWTS service
providers must be certified by the manufacturers of each technology to be serviced (LILWA, 2016).
Continuing education is also required upon license renewal.
Anticipated Change(s) in Employment Opportunities in OSDS/OWTS Industry
Since there are an estimated 192,558 households that would have to be updated to meet the new
standards in Alternative I, 125,751 households in Alternative II, and 251,502 households in Alternative
III, an update in sanitary code represents an opportunity for growth in the OSDS/OWTS industry in all
sectors - inspection, service, construction, and manufacturing. While there are currently approximately
70 septic system businesses on Long Island, it is likely that given the high rate of demand created by the
proposed code changes, companies from other parts of New York and the surrounding areas may
extend service to Suffolk County to meet the demand. In addition, Suffolk County residents may open
more septic system installation and repair companies, grow their current operations or be hired by non-
local companies. These local companies may also hire those from out of the County, limiting local job
growth but still contributing to the overall growth of this sector of the economy. Growth in inspection,
installation, maintenance, and repair would just be a fraction of the job growth in this sector, as
manufacturing and shipping of individual sewerage systems would also grow. Even with these industries
based outside of the County itself, the increased economic activity brought into Suffolk County will
positively impact the local service economy.
Employment opportunities at SCDHS and the Office of Wastewater Management may also increase
with the greater demand for inspectors, permit evaluation, and loan management associated with the
proposed code changes. These offices and departments should expect to hire more people as
implementation of the County's code change is rolled out.
Suffolk County could take steps to encourage OWTS businesses to locate and hire within the
county. Possible strategies include tax incentives and decreases in certification fees for OWTS
companies that locate in the County and support of a community jobs program to train local
residents in OWTS and l/A OWTS technology installation, maintenance, repair, and inspection.
Consider working with local community colleges to include training courses in this field.
Suffolk County could send out maintenance reminders to residents to help provide a stable
market for the companies.
Suffolk County could select a timeline for implementation that will encourage tempered
growth of the OSDS/OWTS industry, minimizing the risk of a spike in the cost of installation
and unsustainable industry growth.
Table 4-51 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed decision on the OSDS/OWTS industry for
each decision alternative.
40 As of July 2018, 400 workers have graduated from the training (Moran, 2018).
Page 212 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-51. Impact of Decision on Employment in the OSDS/OWTS Industry
Alternatives
Potential Changes
Baseline
No change in job opportunities in the OSDS/OWTS industry.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
An estimated 50% of unsewered single family residences (192,558) will be
required to install a new individual sewerage system, so this may result in a
big boon to the OSDS/OWTS industry. Job growth would be greater than
the baseline and Alternative II, but less than Alternative III.
Employment in SCDHS may also increase with the greater demand for
inspectors, permit evaluation, and loan management to support
implementation and management of the code changes.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as
of September 2016).
Approximately 125,751 single family residences in the high priority areas
will be required to install a new individual sewerage system. Job growth in
the OSDS/OWTS industry is expected in response to this alternative,
higher than the baseline, but less than Alternative 1 or III.
Employment in the local SCDHS may also increase with the greater
demand for inspectors, permit evaluation, and loan management to
support implementation and management of the code change.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Approximately 251,502 single family residences are unsewered in the high
priority areas, so this alternative represents the greatest opportunity for
j'ob growth in the OSDS/OWTS industry (as the greatest number of
households would require installation)
Employment in the SCDHS may also increase with the greater demand for
inspectors, permit evaluation, and loan management to support
implementation and management of the code change.*
* The SCUPE grant currently provides funding to support the l/A OWTS program implementation.
4.6.4 Impact of Change in Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/
Revenues from Commercial Fishing and Recreational Industries on Community and
Household Economics
To have a healthy fishing economy, there must be healthy, intact fish habitat for mating, egg laying,
and rearing and good water quality to support the industry (Dlugolecki, 2012). A study conducted in
Chesapeake Bay found that the effect of deteriorating water quality (e.g., eutrophication) on striped
bass would have significant adverse economic impacts on the fishing industry (Lipton & Hicks, 1999).
The same has been reported in the media for Long Island, and this remains a primary environmental
concern for the public, according to responses gained during the community engagement and outreach
portion of this HIA.
The recreational fishing industry's direct economic impact is driven by sales, jobs, income, and value
added. Sales come from the purchasing of fishing equipment, ice, and bait and expenditures related to
taking the trip, like gas, food, and lodging. These sales expenditures require jobs that generate income
Page 213 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
(Pendleton & Rooke, 2006; Southwick Associates, 2015). Fishing license fees also support local and state
tax revenues (Dlugolecki, 2012).
Commercial fishing is a billion-dollar industry in the U.S. that provides thousands of jobs and is a
significant contributor to coastal and state economies in states like New York (Henry, et al., 2013).
Commercial fishing's economic impact derives from each step of the value chain from harvesting
seafood to the final consumer, as each step involves jobs, sales, income, and value added that
contribute to the overall economic impact. Commercial fishermen harvest the fish which then pass
through primary processors and dealers, secondary wholesalers and distributors, and finally retail
outlets like grocers and restaurants. As with recreational fishing, water quality can also affect
commercial fisheries, with conditions like increased nitrogen loading affecting the timing of commercial
fishing seasons as well as the size of catches (Keeler, et al., 2012).
Existing Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/Revenues in Commercial Fishing and
Recreational Industries at the Time of the HIA Analysis
NOAA includes fishing-related industry and recreation in their "Ocean and Great Lakes Jobs" category,
which includes industries that use the oceans and Great Lakes as inputs directly (like fishing) and
indirectly (like beach tourism). NOAA recently published the Ocean and Great Lakes Jobs Snapshot in
March of 2015; these estimates do not include self-employed individuals, but do include part-time
workers, highlighting the seasonal and/or part-time nature of several of these industries (NOAA, 2015b).
In 2013, NOAA estimated 31,569 employees in the ocean jobs industries in Suffolk County overall,
earning approximately $887 million in wages and creating $1 billion in goods and services (NOAA,
2016c). Suffolk County Ocean Jobs are comprised of tourism and recreation (88.5%), marine
transportation (10.4%), living resources (including shelIfishing and marine fishing; 1%), and offshore
mineral extraction (less than 0.1%; Figure 4-52). Tourism and recreation jobs experienced the greatest
growth from 2005 to 2013, increasing by 33.7% (NOAA, 2016c). The Long Island Regional Development
Council (2015) stated that traveler spending across all of Long Island was $5.5 billion in 2015, and
tourism generated $202 million in local tax revenue for Suffolk County in 2015.
Figure 4-52. Ocean jobs in Suffolk County 2013. Source: (NOAA, 2016c)
Page 214 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
NOAA developed a set of social indicators of fishing community vulnerability and resilience
(NOAA, n.d.-c). Included in the set of measures are fishing engagement and reliance indices
that portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or recreational fishing to
coastal communities.
Commercial fishing engagement measures commercial fishing activity through permits and vessel
landings and commercial fishing reliance looks at the activity relative to the population of the
community. Recreational fishing engagement looks at recreational fishing through fishing activity
estimates and the reliance measure is relative to the community population. For each indicator, a high
rank indicates more engagement or reliance. These indices were calculated for the ten towns in Suffolk
County (Table 4-52). Babylon and Huntington both have high indicators for recreational fishing
engagement and 4 out of the 10 towns have medium to medium-high indicators for commercial fishing
reliance. For these towns, recreational and commercial fishing make up a larger share of the jobs and
economy relative to other towns in Suffolk County.
Table 4-52. Fishing Engagement and Reliance Indicators for Select Suffolk County Towns. Source: (NOAA, n.d.-c)
Town
Commercial
Fishing
Engagement
Commercial
Fishing Reliance
Recreational
Fishing
Engagement
Recreational
Fishing Reliance
Babylon
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Brookhaven
Low
Low
Low
Low
East Hampton
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Huntington
Low
Medium
High
Low
Islip
Medium
Medium High
Low
Low
Riverhead
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Shelter Island
Low
Low
Low
Low
Smithtown
Low
Low
Low
Low
Southampton
Low
Low
Low
Low
Southold
Low
Low
Medium High
Medium
The decreased economic activity caused by the decline in water quality has raised the concern of many
citizens, scientists, and politicians in Suffolk County. "Our economic and ecological well-being is tied to
the health of our oceans, the productivity of our bays, and the recreational opportunities at our
beaches. Harmful algal blooms pose a real threat to those assets and we must continue to fund the
research projects and strategy plans that will lead to wise, water quality stewardship," County Executive
Steve Bellone said when announcing the plan to develop a Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan and Strategy
in 2014 (Suffolk County Government, 2014c). The Suffolk County Executive Office cited ocean-related
jobs as 4.4% of the total jobs in the County in 2011.
Page 215 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Anticipated Change(s) in Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/Revenues in Commercial
Fishing and Recreational Industries
The impact of the proposed code changes on employment in the commercial fishing and
recreational industries is dependent on the code's ability to address nitrogen and pathogen
loading to Suffolk County waters.
As outlined in the Water Quality pathway (Section 4.3), Alternatives I and II do not address the nitrogen
contributions from individual sewerage systems and provide a limited (1-logio) reduction in pathogens;
therefore, these alternatives would not substantially reduce the negative impact of harmful algal blooms
and pathogen loading on the commercial fishing and recreational industries. If Alternative I or II are
selected, the County will need to invest in other actions to reduce nutrient and pathogen loading.
Unless nitrogen and pathogen pollution is addressed, towns with a higher reliance on commercial and
recreational fishing and tourism industries may continue to be impacted. The tourism industry relies
on tourists coming to Long Island to enjoy its beaches and recreational fishing opportunities and fresh
seafood. Without a healthy environment, the decreased fishing potential and closed beaches will reduce
the number of tourists, thereby reducing the employment opportunities in the tourist and services
industries. As the population in the east end of Suffolk County nearly doubles in the summer months
(New York State Comptroller, 2006; SCDEP, 2008), any reduction in tourism may lead to a significant
decrease in summer employment opportunities and revenues for the County.
From the community economics perspective, Suffolk County could weigh the costs and benefits of
implementing Alternative III as a means to address nitrogen and pathogen loading to Suffolk County
waterbodies. Although the upgrade to l/A OWTS adds additional costs to individual households, it
would positively impact the commercial fishing and recreational industries by improving water
quality. There are creative ways to cover the necessary investment to implement Alternative III, such as
Maryland's Bay Restoration (Septic) Fund Program (see Appendix J). In taking action, the County can
prevent the further decline of water quality and the potential elimination of commercial fishing in the
area. Recreational fishing is based on reputation, and if the County wants to reverse the trend of
declining recreational fishing in the future, it has to take action now to reduce future nitrogen loading. If
the water quality continues to worsen, neither tourists nor commercial fishing companies will want to
remain or move to the County.
&
If Alternative I or II is selected, the County may need to invest in other measures to reduce
nutrient enrichment and protect water resources. Commercial fishing and recreational
industries are influenced by the quality of the surrounding environment. Declining water
quality may decrease employment opportunities associated with both sectors, which will in
turn impact county revenue and household income from commercial fishing and recreational
industries.
If Alternative III is selected, the County could consider towns with a greater reliance on
commercial and recreational fishing in the prioritization of areas for implementation of the
code.
Page 216 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-53 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on employment opportunities
and community costs/revenues in the commercial fishing and recreational industries for each decision
alternative.
Table 4-53. Impact of Decision on Employment Opportunities and Community Costs/Revenues in Commercial
Fishing and Recreational Industries
Alternatives
Anticipated Changes
Baseline*
Nitrogen and pathogen loading to Suffolk County waters from individual
sewerage systems would continue, putting employment opportunities and
revenues from the commercial fishing and recreational industries at risk for
decline.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in
place as of September
2016).
Per the Water Quality pathway assessment, there would be no change in
total nitrogen loading and a limited (1-logio) reduction in pathogen loading
to Suffolk County waters (Table 4-19); therefore, the employment
opportunities and revenues from the commercial fishing and recreational
industries would be at continued risk for decline.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
the high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as
of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and
C-OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Per the Water Quality pathway assessment, there would be a reduction in
nitrogen loading and the potential for a greater reduction in pathogen
loading from individual sewerage systems; however, the rate of loading to
receiving waters downgradient from these systems is unknown. Although an
improvement in water quality is expected, it is unknown how long it would
take for this improvement to be seen, considering groundwater travel times
of 0-10 years along the coast and up to decades and even hundreds of years
from the middle of Long Island (Table 4-19); hydrologic modeling and GIS
analysis are needed to determine the net effect for each watershed
(including travel times and attenuation) and the cascading effects to coastal
areas41. Improvements in water quality may contribute to maintaining or
increasing opportunities for employment and revenues in the commercial
fishing and recreational industries in Suffolk County.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
41 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, and
refine priority areas in which to focus those efforts. For more on this effort, see Appendix K.
Page 217 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
individual sewerage systems) would lead to the continuing decline of surface waters and opportunities for employment and
revenue in the commercial fishing and recreational industries in Suffolk County.
4.6.5 Impact of Change in Residential Property Values on Community and
Household Economics
A functioning individual sewerage system is usually expected when purchasing a home, so installing a
new system to replace an aging but functioning system is not expected to increase the property value.
One exception would be if the home is located in an area that is required by law to upgrade their
individual sewerage system; in this case, a house that has already upgraded their system would likely be
more valuable than had they left that expense for the new homeowner. The proposed code changes
may increase the salability of the average home in Suffolk County and may stimulate housing economy
by increasing sales. As water quality improves as a result of the sequestration of nitrogen in Alternative
III, housing sales may also increase as demand for waterfront and beach access neighborhoods
increases.
Waterbodies near properties provide a number of benefits to property owners, such as aesthetics,
recreational opportunities, economic impacts through property prices, and other ecosystem services
(Michael, Boyle, & Bouchard, 1996; Walsh, Milon, & Scrogin, 2011). Additionally, higher property values
generate higher property taxes, which translate into greater revenue for communities (Dlugolecki,
2012). The most studied characteristic of water bodies and its impact on property values is water
quality.
Researchers Dr. Anthony Dvarskas (Stony Brook University) and Dr. Elizabeth C. Smith (The Nature
Conservancy) have conducted research on the economic benefits of improving water quality in Suffolk
County. Although their data was limited to four towns - Riverhead, Smithtown, Southampton, and
Southold - they found that water quality, measured as water clarity, affects housing values at a rate of
2% for every 1-foot increase in water transparency. Further, they found that having waterfront access
has a dominant effect on price, suggesting that increases in water clarity can significantly impact the
value of residential property in Suffolk County (Dvarskas & Smith, 2016).
The results of the Dvarskas and Smith (2016) research are supported by similar studies in other
geographic areas. A study by Gibbs et al. (2002) in New Hampshire found that the overall decline in
water quality from eutrophication had a negative impact on waterfront property values and that the
economic ramifications of this decline could negatively impact local property tax revenues and state
taxes. Additionally, in Florida, researchers found that improved surface water quality, measured as
water clarity, had a notable impact on waterfront properties and did affect property values on
properties located just beyond waterfront and quickly diminished the further the distance from the
waterfront (Walsh, Milon, & Scrogin, 2011). Overall, improved water quality has a positive influence on
residential property values, which in turn, adds to both the household and community economies.
Beach quality is also an important determinant of coastal property values, although fewer studies have
looked at this relationship (Pompe & Rinehart, 1995).
Page 218 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Homeownership is the most common mechanism in the United States to increase a household's wealth.
The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University published a report in 2013 titled, "Is
Homeownership Still an Effective Means of Building Wealth for Low-Income and Minority Households?
(Was it Ever?)." The authors concluded that homeownership continues to represent an opportunity for
families and individuals of limited means to accumulate wealth (Herbert, McCue, & Sanchez-Moyano,
2013).
Existing Residential Property Values at the Time of the HIA Analysis
Residential property values in Suffolk County increased from $35.76 million in 2005 to $56.61 million in
2015 (Figure 4-53), which in turn increases the County's tax base. Assessed value is used here rather
than true value because it is reliably tracked and is part of the discussion of tax base. A growing tax base
is a high priority for a local government because taxes provide critical revenue for county services.
Stable or increasing property values also provide a greater level of stability for personal wealth, thus
supporting household economics for homeowners.
$62,000,000
$52,000,000
$42,000,000
$32,000,000
$22,000,000
$12,000,000
$2,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
*The assessed value of property is determined by totaling the assessed valuation of the component
towns. Data for the Town of Brookhaven was not available for 2006.
Figure 4-53. Assessed value of residential property in Suffolk County, 2005-2015. Source:
(Office of the Comptroller, 2016).
Though housing prices have risen in the last 10 years, the assessed value of residential property has not
risen more than $1.5 million per year, except for the $14 million jump between 2006 and 2007. Figure
4-54 shows the trend in assessed value of residential property in Suffolk County from 2008-2015. The
decrease in assessed value of residential property (i.e., depreciation) in 2012 and 2013 bears the mark of
Hurricane Sandy, which hit the East Coast on October 26th, 2012 (Henry, et al., 2013). Since 2013,
though, the percent increase in assessed value of residential property has continued on a positive trend,
reaching 1.49% in 2015 (Office of the Comptroller, 2016).
Real property taxes provided over $100 million in revenue for the County in 2015. According to the
Office of the Comptroller's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the year ending December 2015,
revenue was higher than expected for real property taxes, but below budget for every other source of
revenue (Office of the Comptroller, 2016).
Page 219 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Figure 4-54. Percentage change in assessed value of residential property in Suffolk County,
2008-2015. Source: (Office of the Comptroller, 2016).
Anticipated Change(s) in Residential Property Values
Research shows that increased (good) water quality does have a positive impact on real estate value,
and Dvarskas and Smith (2016) demonstrated the potential for that impact in Suffolk County. Suffolk
County has nearly 1,000 miles of coastline, so beach and water quality can have dramatic impacts on the
overall economy through their effect on residential property values. The question remains whether the
proposed code changes will help address the cause of the deterioration in Suffolk County water quality.
There would be no reduction in the amount of total nitrogen leaving the individual sewerage system in
Alternatives I and II, so these alternatives could have a limited impact on water quality. Unless
Alternative III is implemented and/or other actions are taken to decrease nitrogen loading, property
values are expected to be impacted by declining water quality. If Suffolk County takes action to improve
water quality, property values could increase as a result of proximity to the waterfront; demand for
vacation homes could increase due to recreation and tourism; and the County's reputation could grow
as a desirable, healthy, safe place to live; however, there are other variables that would also factor into
determining the value of properties in the County and whether a net increase in property values occurs.
If Alternative I or II is selected, the County will need to invest in other measures to reduce
nutrient enrichment and protect water resources. Property values are influenced by the
quality of the surrounding environment and declines in property values may impact county
revenue from property taxes, as well as personal wealth and household income of county
residents.
Table 4-54 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on residential property values
for each decision alternative.
Page 220 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-54. Impact of Decision on Residential Property Values
Alternatives
Potential Changes
Baseline*
No change in nitrogen and pathogen contributions from individual
sewerage systems; poor water quality could lead to declines in property
values.
Alternative 1
All existing OSDS must
be upgraded to
conform to current
County Sanitary Code
and standards (in place
as of September 2016).
Per the Water Quality pathway assessment, there would be no change in
total nitrogen loading and a possible reduction in pathogen loading to
Suffolk County waters (Table 4-19); therefore, no abatement of the
potential impact of poor water quality on property values.
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded to
conform to current
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as
of September 2016).
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative III
All existing OSDS and C-
OWTS in the high
priority areas must be
upgraded to an
innovative/alternative
system design.
Per the Water Quality pathway assessment, there would be a reduction in
nitrogen loading and possible reduction in pathogen loading from individual
sewerage systems; however, the rate of loading to receiving waters
downgradient from these systems is unknown. Although an improvement in
water quality is expected, it is unknown how long it would take for this
improvement to be seen, considering groundwater travel times of 0-10
years along the coast and up to decades and even hundreds of years from
the middle of Long Island (Table 4-19); hydrologic modeling and GIS analysis
are needed to determine the net effect for each watershed and the
cascading effects to coastal areas42. Improvements in water quality may
potentially contribute to an appreciation in property values.
* It should be noted that the Baseline does not represent the future state if no upgrades to individual sewerage systems are
made. It is assumed that maintaining the status quo (i.e., doing nothing to address the nitrogen and pathogen loading of
individual sewerage systems) would lead to the continuing decline of surface waters in Suffolk County, which could lead to
further declines in property value.
42 Note that the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, involved
countywide nitrogen loading modeling that was used to establish travel times and nitrogen loading estimates for each
subwatershed, establish nitrogen load reduction goals based upon specific human health and environmental endpoints, and
refine priority areas in which to focus those efforts. For more on this effort, see Appendix K.
Page 221 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
4.6.6 Impact of Costs Due to Damage from Storms and Flooding and Costs Due to
Vector Control on Household and Community Economics
The economic impacts the decision alternatives could have as a result of changes in damage due to
storms and flooding and vector control have been combined in this section, because the impacts and
discussion are limited.
The full economic impact of storm and/or tidal surges and inundation goes beyond direct damage and
losses. Property and infrastructure damage at the household level can strain personal finances for a
variety of reasons including the costs associated with an evacuation, the costs of repair, rebuilding, and
replacing belongings and interruptions in and/or loss of employment and income. Some of these
expenses may be covered by insurance and for extreme events, state or federal aid, but household
economics are strained as individuals try to sort out the damages and get back on their feet. The effect
on personal finances can even lead to the loss of permanent residences, as houses go into default or
foreclosure.
Direct physical damages can have severe consequences for a community's revenue stream. Harder to
measure are the economic costs associated with indirect losses such as loss of power, disruption of
transportation services, and washed-out roadways. In addition, local resources can become taxed, as
money is diverted to aid in recovery and reconstruction. However, natural disasters can also stimulate
the economy if local workforces and businesses are employed in the cleanup, recovery, and
reconstruction (Economics and Statistics Administration, 2013).
Both resiliency and the decision alternatives themselves have implications for vector control measures,
including the costs of surveillance, water management, and pesticide applications.
Existing Costs Due to Damage from Storms and Flooding and Costs Due to Vector Control at the Time
of the HIA Analysis
Storms and Flooding
As of January 2014, the National Flood Insurance Program has made $1,012,752,084 in loss payments to
residents of Suffolk County. For some households, property damage from storms and/or tidal surges and
flooding are a recurrent problem. Suffolk County has noted that there are 2,848 repetitive loss or severe
repetitive loss residential properties in the County as of January 2014, over 92% (i.e., 2,628 properties)
are single family residences (Suffolk County Government, 2014b). Flood insurance can provide some
relief to offset these losses.
While the proposed code changes are not expected to impact resiliency to storms like Hurricane Sandy,
the economic impact of this type of storm is more fully understood than that associated with
Nor'easters and coastal flooding, and so it is presented here for reference. The economic impact of
Nor'easters may not be as severe as that experienced with Hurricane Sandy (although the conditions
that made Hurricane Sandy particularly destructive might make a Nor'easter just as damaging), and
economic impacts of coastal flooding would be assumed to be several magnitudes lower. It should be
Page 222 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
noted, however, that damages from both of these types of storms may not reach thresholds that qualify
for FEMA assistance.
According to FEMA's Modeling Task Force (FEMA MOTF, 2014), Hurricane Sandy damaged or destroyed
a total of 24,489 structures in Suffolk County, 13,835 of which were residences. FEMA Individual
Assistance (IA) verified losses in Suffolk County totaled $184,460,599.
Immediately following Hurricane Sandy, unemployment in New York and New Jersey rose 2.8%, but
returned to pre-storm levels within four weeks (Abel, Bram, Deitz, & Orr, 2013). A year after Hurricane
Sandy, default notices and foreclosures in Suffolk County were both up 28% and bank-owned properties
rose 50% (Renwood RealtyTrac LLC, 2013). The counties most affected by Sandy (including Suffolk
County) saw the lowest rise in home prices the year following the event, despite a steady rise in home
prices in the years preceding the storm (Renwood RealtyTrac LLC, 2013).
A study by the Economics and Statistics Administration (2013), examining unemployment claims, payroll
data, and industrial production data in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, found that
the economic hit caused by direct damage and interruptions to businesses and industries at the
community level were for the most part, short-lived and fully recovered from several months after the
storm. An assessment conducted by NOAA showed that commercial and recreational fishing sectors
took a big hit in New York, with damages totaling $19 million and $58 million, respectively, but fishing
industry economics were able to rebound after the storm (NOAA, 2013). No long-term losses to the
travel and tourism industry were noted for Long Island as a result of Hurricane Sandy.
Vector Control
Additionally, the County may have additional costs for vector control because storm and/or tidal surges
and inundation can lead to standing water, which serves as temporary habitat for mosquitoes.
Currently, mosquito control is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works in Suffolk County.
The total acreage sprayed for larval and adult mosquitoes varies year to year. Over the past 10 years the
highest number of acres sprayed was 77,239 in 2010. In 2015, the total was 25,350 acres (Office of the
Comptroller, 2016).
Page 223 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Anticipated Change(s) in Costs Due to Damage from Storms and Flooding and Costs Due to Vector
Control
Storms and Flooding
Based solely on the proposed changes to the sanitary code, there is no expectation that costs due to
damage from storms and flooding or costs due to vector control will change. However, it is still
important for the County to consider the costs incurred due to storm events by individual households
and the costs for flood insurance in high-risk zones as they move to implement changes to the code.
Households located in high-risk zones for storms and flooding have higher flood insurance premiums
and the added costs to update their individual sewerage systems may place these households at a
greater risk to become cost-burdened than homes in PRP zones.
Tourism Economics (2012) indicates that travel and tourism is a $5.1 billion industry in Long Island and
accounts for 6.2% of all employment in Long Island. Although Hurricane Sandy did not have a major
impact on this industry, the more recurrent and long-term impacts from coastal flooding, erosion, and
sea level rise could lead to impacts. Likewise, more frequent and stronger intensity storms are expected
to produce greater property and infrastructure damage and therefore, greater impacts to household
and community economics.
Vector Control
Both resiliency and the proposed code changes themselves have implications for vector control
measures, including the costs of surveillance, water management, and pesticide applications. Upgrading
of individual sewerage systems can lead to a reduction in potential breeding habitat for mosquitoes in
residential areas if the new systems are properly maintained (Barrera, et al., 2008; Mackay, Amador,
Diaz, Smith, & Barrera, 2009; Burke, Barrera, Lewis, Kluchinsky, & Claborn, 2010), and in the case of
Alternative III may result in improved water quality and a commensurate improvement in mosquito
populations associated with nitrogen impaired waters (Marten, Nguyen, Mason, & Giai., 2000; Resh &
Rosenberg, 2008); however, these may be offset partially or in total by the increase in mosquito habitat
caused by storm and/or tidal surges, inundation, and most concernedly, accelerated sea level rise.
4.6.7 Impact of Changes in Household Economics on Nutrition-related Outcomes
(Food Insecurity and Health)
Research indicates that as overall housing costs (including heating and cooling) increase, food insecurity
increases (Fletcher, Andreyeva, & Busch, 2009; Cook, et al., 2010; Moses, 2008; Pannell & Yeakey, 2011).
Food insecurity is a state in which a household reports reduced quality of diet and/or disrupted eating
patterns and reduced food intake (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, & Rabbitt, 2016).
Food insecurity has been shown to increase the risk of a multitude of physical and mental health issues
for both children and adults. Food insecurity is a serious issue for expecting parents as it is associated
with preterm births and low birth weights (Olson, 1999; Bhattacharya, DeLeire, Haider, & Currie, 2003;
Bhattacharya, Currie, & Haider, 2004; Whitaker, Phillips, & Orzol, 2006). During childhood, food
insecurity can further hinder important developmental points in the child's life and can lead to delays in
Page 224 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
the development of mental and cognitive health (RTI International, 2014). Elderly populations are also
vulnerable to the effects of energy insecurity due to rising energy costs. For some households, the
additional cost burden for upgrading, operating, and maintaining OWTS or l/A OWTS may put them at
increased risk for food insecurity.
Existing Nutrition-related Health (Food Insecurity,j at the Time of the HIA Analysis
In Suffolk County's Community Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a), food insecurity and hunger were
identified as a health concern for financially-challenged residents. The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), soup kitchens and food pantries provide food resources to families in the
county. Since 1975, SCDHS has sponsored the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) to provide nutrition assistance for families in Suffolk County.
Data on health outcomes associated with food insecurity, such as low birth weight and developmental
problems, were included in the Suffolk County Community Health Assessment 2014-2017 and the 2014
Community Needs Assessment by Stony Brook Medicine (Stony Brook Medicine, 2014; SCDHS, 2015a).
In Suffolk County, the percent of low birth-weight infants was 7.7%, which is lower than the full
statewide rate of 8.2%. The percent of pre-term births (< 37 weeks' gestation) in Suffolk County in 2011
was 11.5% - above the statewide rate of 10.7- but dropped to 7.6% for births associated with SCDHS
Health Center services. The County Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a) identifies pre-term birth as the
"primary reason infants die before their first birthday in Suffolk County." The Division of Services for
Children with Special Needs Early Intervention Program provided intervention services to nearly 6,000
infants and toddlers in 2012, with speech and language as the dominant services; these services are cost
shared by the State and County. Children aged 3 to 5 are screened for preschool services and 80% of the
4,328 evaluated in 2012 were eligible.
Anticipated Change(s) in Nutrition-related Health (Food Insecurity)
As discussed in the section on Household Economics, the proposed changes to the sanitary code will
result in costs to individual households for county fees, installation, operation and maintenance of
individual sewerage systems. Without financial assistance, the cost burden to families for upgrading an
individual sewerage system under the proposed code changes ranges from 5% of their annual income
for Alternatives I and II to 18% for Alternative III. For non-families, who occupy 19.8% of owner-
occupied households, the cost burden is higher, ranging from 11% for Alternatives I and II to as high as
38% for Alternative III, based on median annual household income in the County43,44. For households
43 Median average household income in the County is used because the geographic location of OSDS was unknown at the time
of the HIA analysis; therefore, geographic-specific income could not be determined.
44 Since completion of the HIA analysis, funding (grants and loans) has been secured by the County for homeowners upgrading
to l/A OWTS. For more information on these funding opportunities and their criteria, see Appendix K. Suffolk County has
established that there is no plan to move forward with wastewater upgrades unless a stable, recurring revenue source is
established to help reduce financial impacts to individual households and ensure that County services are not jeopardized by
the costs of wastewater upgrade implementation.
Page 225 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
that are already experiencing difficulty, the increase in household expenditures for compliance with
the code changes may increase their risk for food insecurity and the associated health outcomes. This
is a high cost burden to place on these residents and all efforts should be taken to assist cost-burdened
households in the replacement of their individual sewerage systems.
Table 4-55 identifies the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on nutrition-related health
outcomes (food insecurity) for each decision alternative. The criteria used to characterize the potential
health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand
the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or detracting from health as described in Table 4-55, you
must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns together (e.g., it is highly likely Alternative I would
detract from health for a moderate number of people). For a summary of the different ways in which
health could be impacted through the Community and Household Economics pathway see Section 4.6.9.
Page 226 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-55. Impact of Decision on Nutrition-related Outcomes (Food Insecurity and Health)
Health Determinant
Baseline Health Status
In Suffolk County's Community Health Assessment (SCDHS, 2015a), food insecurity and hunger were identified as a financially-caused
health challenge among residents. Preterm births, low birthweights, and developmental delays are associated with poor nutrition
and/or food insecurity. In Suffolk County, the percent of low birth weight infants was 7.7% (percent of live births 2006-2012), which is
lower than the statewide rate of 8.2%. The percent of pre-term births in Suffolk County in 2011 was 11.5% - above the statewide rate of
10.7% - but dropped to 7.6% for births associated with SCDHS Health Center services (SCDHS, 2015a). The County Health Assessment
identifies pre-term birth as the "primary reason infants die before their first birthday in Suffolk County."
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
Without
The risk for food
The extent of
Individuals with
Healthy adults
Increased risk for
Strong. Based on
All existing OSDS
financial
insecurity is highly
people affected
fixed/low income
forced to cut back
food insecurity could
numerous
must be upgraded to
assistance, the
likely since the
would be
and/or high
on their food
occur as soon as
research studies,
conform to current
increased cost of
evidence shows
moderate and is
housing costs,
budget may
households begin
there is high
County Sanitary Code
the proposed
that cost-burdened
dependent on the
elders, children,
experience minor
installing the
confidence that
and standards (in
upgrades could
households
number of cost-
and pregnant
to severe health
required systems.
as overall
place as of
detract from
experience a
burdened
women would be
impacts. Outcomes
The risk for food
housing costs
September 2016).
health by
greater degree of
households that
disproportionately
for infants with
insecurity may be
increase, food
increasing
food insecurity and
will need to
impacted more
low birthweights
short-term;
insecurity
AND
household costs
nutrition-related
upgrade their
than others,
and preterm births
however, some
increases, and
and potentially
health impacts.
individual
without financial
could be severe.
health impacts
food insecurity is
Alternative II
food security by
sewerage systems.
assistance.
related to poor
linked to a
All existing OSDS in
reducing the
nutrition may be
number of health
the high priority
amount of
long-lasting, such as
outcomes.
areas must be
expendable
developmental
upgraded to conform
income available
delays in infants and
to current County
for nutrition.
children.
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as
of September 2016).
Nutrition-related
Outcomes related to food
insecurity
Page 227 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Alternatives
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative III
Without financial
Without financial
The extent of
Individuals with
Healthy adults
Increased risk for
Strong. Based on
All existing OSDS
assistance, the
assistance, the risk
people affected
fixed/low income
forced to cut back
food insecurity could
numerous
and C-OWTS in the
increased cost of
for food insecurity
would be
and/or high
on their food
occur as soon as
research studies,
high priority areas
the proposed
is highly likely
moderate to high
housing costs,
budget may
households begin
there is high
must be upgraded
upgrades could
since the evidence
and is dependent
elders, children,
experience minor
installing the
confidence that
to an innovative/
detract from
shows that cost-
on the number of
and pregnant
to severe health
required systems.
as overall
alternative system
health by
burdened
cost-burdened
women would be
impacts. Outcomes
The risk for food
housing costs
design.
increasing
households
households that
disproportionately
for infants with
insecurity may be
increase, food
household costs
experience a
will need to
impacted more
low birthweights
short-term to long-
insecurity
and potentially
greater degree of
upgrade their
than others,
and preterm births
lasting due to on-
increases, and
food insecurity by
food insecurity and
systems. The
without financial
could be severe.
going annual costs
food insecurity is
reducing the
nutrition-related
higher costs
assistance.
for inspection and
linked to a
amount of
health impacts.
associated with l/A
maintenance. Some
number of health
expendable
OWTS will increase
health impacts
outcomes.
income available
the number of
related to poor
for nutrition.
cost-burdened
nutrition may be
households
long-lasting, such as
relative to
developmental
Alternatives 1 and
delays in infants and
II.
children.
Page 228 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
4.6.8 Impact of Changes in Community and Household Economics on Overall
Health and Well-being
As detailed previously in this section, community and household economics both contribute to the
overall health and well-being of individuals and a community. Local municipalities (county, town, village,
etc.) provide many of the essential services that support the health of its residents, including
employment, parks and recreation, environmental protection, police and law enforcement,
transportation, and public health education and protection. The capacity to provide these services is
directly tied to the economic vitality of the community.
Household economics is closely related to the overall health and well-being of its family members.
Housing is generally the largest expense for a household. The proportion of a household's income
remaining after housing costs are covered can determine a family's ability to afford essential goods
and services, such as food, clothing, utilities, healthcare, and childcare. The inability to afford these
essentials can increase the risk of poor health outcomes, such as chronic disease, infectious disease,
exposure to environmental toxins, and mental distress. Children can have additional risks such as
preterm births, low birthweights, developmental delays, and mental/behavioral problems. Households
with affordable housing costs can spend more on these essentials, and generally have better health
outcomes than other households with the same income level.
Existing Overall Health Conditions at the Time of the HIA Analysis '
According to the 2016 County Health Rankings, Suffolk County ranked 10th best of all 62 counties in the
state of New York for length of life as indicated by the rate of premature death (University of Wisconsin
Population Health Institute, 2016), and the rate has been declining since 1997. The County was ranked
20th best of all 62 New York counties for self-reported quality of life, and an estimated 11% of residents
reported poor to fair health (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2016). Those
experiencing poor to fair health as adults were more likely to be low-income and over age 40. In 2011,
the leading causes of death and premature death in the Suffolk County population overall were
cardiovascular disease and cancers (Stony Brook Medicine, 2014).
Data reported on the prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among Medicare beneficiaries indicated
that in 2011, the prevalence of Suffolk County residents reporting 0 to 1 conditions was 27.8%, lower
than the 30% reported for the State of New York. For residents reporting 6 or more conditions, the
prevalence for Suffolk County was 16.9%, which is similar to the percentage reported for New York State
(16.6%) (SCDHS, 2015a).
45 County-level health data are used throughout this analysis because the geographic location of specific types of individual
sewerage systems was unknown at the time of the HIA analysis; therefore, geographic-specific health statistics could not be
determined for each Alternative. Regardless of the Alternative chosen, it would be beneficial to establish a more geographic-
specific profile of conditions (e.g., health, demographics and socio-economic status, water quality, resiliency, vector control,
economics, etc.) for the area(s) targeted by the code change to inform implementation and allow a baseline to be established
against which changes can be compared. This would allow the effectiveness of the code changes in meeting their established
goals to be assessed.
Page 229 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Mental health is an essential component of overall health and well-being. In Suffolk County, baseline
community data from 2013 to 2014 shows 18.7% of the total population in Suffolk County were
diagnosed with depression and of those diagnosed, 88.5% sought treatment (Stony Brook Medicine,
2014). During the same time frame, 14.8% of residents reported having 14 or more mental health days
in the last month (SCDHS, 2015a). Based on the County Health Rankings, the age-adjusted average
number of mentally unhealthy days reported in past 30 days was 3.2 in Suffolk County, lower than the
New York State average of 3.7 days; data are for 2014 (University of Wisconsin Population Health
Institute, 2016).
The 2014 Suffolk County Community Needs Assessment, conducted by Stony Brook University, listed the
top-ranked health related issues for Medicaid members and uninsured residents as 1) mental health; 2)
access to housing; 3) substance abuse; 4) nutrition, physical activity, and weight; 5) tobacco use; and 6)
access to health care services (Stony Brook Medicine, 2014).
Anticipated Change(s) in Overall Health
If enacted, the proposed changes to the sanitary code in Suffolk County will affect the public health of
county residents through changes in community and household economics in both beneficial and
potentially harmful ways. The Community and Household Economics pathways indicate that regardless
of the alternative chosen, households with fixed or low income and/or high housing costs will be at
greatest risk for adverse health outcomes without financial assistance. In addition, if County costs to
implement the program are not offset by other sources of revenue, there is a possible risk that health-
related services provided by the County will be reduced or unavailable.46 Households that rely on
County health-related services, irrespective of whether the home is targeted for an upgraded system,
may experience adverse health outcomes due to lack of access to County services. However, the
potential increase in opportunities for employment in the OSDS industry will provide a positive health
benefit for those who gain employment.
The Community and Household Economics pathways show the connections between water quality,
revenue streams for the County (e.g., commercial fishing and recreational industries, residential
property values, and taxes), and overall health. Implementation of Alternatives I and II, which are not
expected to improve water quality, may place water quality revenue streams at risk, which could limit
funding available for the County to provide other services to its residents, including health-related
services. Alternative III would lead to water quality improvement and provide a level of protection for
these revenue streams. Those households that rely on health-related services from the County will be
impacted, either positively or negatively, based on which alternative is implemented, if funding for
health services does not increase to meet the potential increased demand from households facing a
greater cost-burden from their housing. There are Federally Qualified Health Centers in the County, but
it should not be assumed that they will be able to absorb the potential increased demand of services,
46 Since completion of the HIA analysis, Suffolk County has established that there is no plan to move forward with wastewater
upgrades unless a stable and recurring revenue source is established. A stable recurring revenue source will reduce financial
impacts to individual households and ensure that County services are not jeopardized by the costs of wastewater upgrade
implementation.
Page 230 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
given the number of households impacted by the sanitary code changes. The pathway also supports the
connections between water quality, employment opportunities in the commercial fishing and
recreational industries, household economics, and health. Alternative III would lead to improvement in
water quality and provide support for continued opportunities for employment in the commercial
fishing and recreational sectors, providing a positive health benefit for those who gain employment.
Table 4-56 lists the potential impacts of the proposed code changes on overall health through the
community and economics pathway for each decision alternative. However, the change in a specific
endpoint, such as cardiovascular disease or mental illness, is uncertain due to a number of factors,
including the health status of individuals, other avenues to gain access to health-related goods and
services, and decisions on the type and amount of publicly-available health-related services that are
supported.
The criteria used to characterize the potential health impacts of the decision alternatives are explained
in depth in Section 4 (page 31). To understand the risk of the decision alternatives benefiting or
detracting from health as described in Table 4-56, you must read the Likelihood and Magnitude columns
together (e.g., it is possible Alternative I would detract from health for a low to high number of people).
For a summary of the different ways in which health could be impacted through the Community and
Household Economics pathway see Section 4.6.9.
Page 231 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Table 4-56. Impact of Decision on Overall Health and Well-being Due to Changes in Community and Household Economics*
Health Determinant
Overall Health and Well-
Baseline Health Status
being
According to The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute's (2016) County Health Rankings, Suffolk County is ranked 9th best
of New York's 62 counties for overall health outcomes (i.e., length and quality of life), and 5th best for overall health factors related to
social, economic, environmental, and behavioral determinants of health. In 2014, the age-adjusted average number of mentally
unhealthy days reported in past 30 days was 3.2 in Suffolk County, lower than the New York State average of 3.7 days.
Alternatives1
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
These
The risk to
The extent of
Individuals who are
Severity of impacts
Households may
Strong.
All existing OSDS
alternatives
property values,
people affected
employed by the
to overall health and
experience a short-
Numerous
must be upgraded
would detract
employment in
would be low to
OSDS/OWTS industry or
well-being is
term increased risk
research
to conform to
from health
the fishing and
high. A decrease in
by the fishing and
uniform across the
for reduced
studies have
current County
based on the
recreational
County revenue
recreational industries
three alternatives
resources for
linked
Sanitary Code and
potential for
industries, and
streams could
may be
and is discussed
health-related
household
standards (in place
water quality to
revenue streams
impact the overall
disproportionately
below.
goods and services
income to
as of September
continue to
for the County is
population of
impacted (both positive
as soon as
overall health
2016).
decline and the
possible;
Suffolk County due
and negative) more than
households begin
and well-being.
associated risks
however, other
to changes in
others.
installing the
Multiple
AND
Alternative II
All existing OSDS in
to property
values,
employment in
the fishing and
actions may be
taken to offset
these impacts.
County services,
where the
opportunity for
employment would
Individuals who rely on
publicly-provided health-
related services may be
disproportionately
impacted more than
others without financial
assistance.
required systems.
The County may
experience a short-
term to long-
studies also
support the
connection
between
the high priority
areas must be
recreational
industries, and
impact only a few
individual
lasting increased
risk to revenue
essential
services
upgraded to
revenue streams
households.
streams due to
provided by
conform to current
County Sanitary
Code and
for County
services.
The number of
households affected
by increased
household costs
would be moderate
impaired water
quality and the
resources needed
local
municipalities
and the overall
standards (in place
to implement the
health and
as of September
2016).
code change.
well-being of
their residents.
Page 232 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Alternatives1
Alternative III
All existing OSDS
and C-OWTS in the
high priority areas
must be upgraded
to an innovative/
alternative system
design.
Direction
This alternative
would benefit
health based on
the potential for
water quality to
improve and
contribute to
property values,
employment in
the fishing and
recreational
industries and
revenue streams
for County
services.
Likelihood
It is possible that
the water quality
improvement
would contribute
to maintaining or
increasing
property values,
employment in
the fishing and
recreational
industries and
revenue streams
for the County. It
is possible those
increased
resources could
be allocated to
increasing health
services.
Magnitude
The extent of
people affected
would be low to
high. Maintaining or
increasing revenue
streams to support
County services
could impact a high
percentage of the
population of
Suffolk County,
where the
opportunity for
employment would
impact only a few
individual
households.
The number of
households affected
by increased
household costs
would be moderate
to high. The higher
costs associated
with l/A OWTS will
increase the
number of cost-
burdened
households relative
to Alternatives I and
Distribution
Individuals who are
employed by the
OSDS/OWTS industry or
by the fishing and
recreational industries
may benefit more than
others.
Individuals who rely on
publicly-provided health-
related services may
benefit more than others,
if County revenue sources
are maintained, and/or
may be
disproportionately
impacted more than
others if resources
decrease due to costs to
implement the code
changes.
Severity
Severity of impacts
to overall health and
well-being is
uniform across the
three alternatives
and is discussed
below.
Permanence
Households may
experience a short-
term increased risk
for reduced
resources for
health-related
goods and services
as soon as
households begin
installing the
required systems.
Ongoing annual
costs for inspection
and maintenance
may extend this
risk to long-lasting.
The County may
experience a short-
term to long-
lasting increased
risk to resources
based on resources
needed to
implement the
code change.
However, this risk
may be offset by
improvements in
water quality and
the associated
benefits to revenue
streams.
Strength of
Evidence
Strong.
Numerous
research
studies have
linked
household
income to
overall health
and well-being.
Multiple
studies also
support the
connection
between
essential
services
provided by
local
municipalities
and the overall
health and
well-being of
their residents.
Page 233 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
Alternatives1
Direction
Likelihood
Magnitude
Distribution
Severity
Permanence
Strength of
Evidence
Alternative 1
The costs for
A decrease in
The number
Individuals with
The health
The health impacts
Strong.
All existing OSDS must be
upgrades
household level
of households
fixed/low income and/or
implications of
associated with
Numerous
upgraded to conform to
could detract
health-related
affected by
high housing costs,
reduced resources
reduced resources
research
current County Sanitary
from health
goods and services
increased
would be
for health-related
for health-related
studies have
Code and standards (in
by reducing
is highly likely given
household
disproportionately
goods and services,
goods and services,
linked
place as of September
the amount
the potential
costs is
impacted more than
either at the
either at the
household
2016).
of household
increase in the
dependent on
others.
household level or
household level or
income to
expendable
number of cost-
the number
the County level, are
the county level,
overall health
AND
income and
burdened
of households
minor to severe
may be short-term
and well-being;
County-level
households.
that would
Factors that
to long-lasting.
Multiple
Alternative II
resources for
A decrease in
County-level funds
for health-related
goods and services
is possible based on
resources needed to
implement the code
changes.
become cost-
contribute to the
Benefits from
studies also
All existing OSDS in the
high priority areas must
be upgraded to conform
to current County
Sanitary Code and
standards (in place as of
September 2016).
health-
related goods
and services.
Potential
increases in
job
opportunities
burdened due
to required
upgrades.
severity of the
impact are the
extent and duration
of reduced
expendable income,
the overall health
and well-being of an
individual, and the
employment are
expected to be
long-lasting,
considering the
demand in the
OSDS/OWTS
industry will last
for several years.
support the
connection
between
essential
services
provided by
local
municipalities
AND
in the OSDS/
OWTS
Increased
employment
type of health-
related services that
and the overall
health and
Alternative III
industry
opportunities are
are unavailable.
well-being of
All existing OSDS and C-
would benefit
possible and would
their residents.
OWTS in the high priority
health.
increase access to
areas must be upgraded
health-related
to an innovative/
goods and services.
alternative system
design.
* Since completion of the HIA analysis, Suffolk County has established that there is no plan to move forward with wastewater upgrades unless a stable and recurring
revenue source is established. A stable recurring revenue source will reduce financial impacts to individual households and ensure that County services are not
jeopardized by the costs of wastewater upgrade implementation.
+ Potential impacts that are shared by all three alternatives are combined as an extra entry in the table (Alternative I and II and III) for improved readability
Page 234 of 305
-------
Assessment - Community and Household Economics
4.6.9 Community and Household Economics Summary of Health
Impacts
The costs associated with upgrading, operating, and maintaining new individual sewerage
systems in all three alternatives could negatively impact health by reducing the amount of
household expendable income, which could lead to cost burdens and food insecurity. The
higher costs associated with l/A OWTS (Alternative III) will increase the number of cost-
burdened households relative to Alternatives I and II. However, the potential increases in job
opportunities in the OSDS/OWTS industry (and other industries, should there be
improvements in water quality) would benefit health by increasing access to health-related
goods and services.
Alternatives I and II will not reduce nitrogen loading and, as a result, have the potential to
detract from health through further declines in water quality and the associated risks to the
local economy (property values; employment in the recreation, tourism, fishing and
shellfishing industries; and revenue streams for County services). Alternative III would benefit
health based on the potential for water quality improvements and the associated economic
benefits (increases to property values, employment in the recreation, tourism, fishing and
shellfishing industries and revenue streams for County services).
Individuals with fixed/low income and/or high housing costs would be disproportionately
impacted by the costs of system upgrades and could be forced to cut back on health-related
goods and services, if financial assistance is not provided. This impact would be magnified if
publicly provided health-related-services decrease due to the County resources needed to
implement the code changes.47 Employment and its associated health benefits would be
disproportionately experienced (positively or negatively) by individuals employed in the
various sectors (e.g., OSDS/OWTS, recreation, tourism, fishing and shellfishing).
The availability of household income and health-related goods and services are strongly
linked to overall health and well-being.
47 Since completion of the HIA analysis, Suffolk County has established that there is no plan to move forward with wastewater
upgrades unless a stable and recurring revenue source is established. A stable recurring revenue source will reduce financial
impacts to individual households and ensure that County services are not jeopardized by the costs of wastewater upgrade
implementation.
Page 235 of 305
-------
Recommendations
5. Recommendations: Considerations for Managing
Impacts of the Decision
In general, during the Recommendations step of HIA, specific actions are identified that could be taken
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harmful effects identified during the course of the HIA or to take maximal
advantage of opportunities for a proposal to improve health. Depending on the nature of the proposal
being assessed and the specific impacts, recommendations can take various forms:
A major alternative to a proposal;
Mitigation measures that are intended to minimize a potential harm identified in the HIA or
promotion measures to maximize a potential health benefit identified;
Health-supportive measures that generally support health, but are not tied directly to a specific
impact of the proposal; or
Adopting a position for or against a proposal (National Research Council, 2011)48.
The recommendations provided in the final HIA report should document available supporting evidence,
stakeholder input, and a health-management plan, which should do the following:
Discuss what entity has the authority or ability to implement each measure and document any
commitments to do so (see Section 5.2).
Propose appropriate indicators for monitoring (see Section 7.3).49
Propose a system to verify that measures are being implemented as planned (see Section 7.2).
veloping the Recommendations
The HIA Project Team used a step-wise approach to develop the recommendations. First, members of
the HIA Project Team identified measures to help manage predicted changes to each health determinant
assessed, so that potential benefits were maximized, and potential harms were avoided and/or
minimized. Next, the HIA Project Team, as a group, verified whether the proposed mitigation actions
were appropriate, based on the assessment findings, and identified additional opportunities to mitigate
or avoid potential harmful consequences of the proposed project, and maximize co-benefits and ensure
equitable impact.
48 In this HIA, proposal alternatives, mitigation measures, promotion measures, and health-supportive measures were all
developed.
49 Some of the indicators identified for outcome evaluation (i.e., the impact of decision implementation on health) are
proximate health determinants that relate to the Recommendations presented in this section; otherwise, indicators were not
identified for monitoring implementation of Recommendations. Impact evaluation (i.e., the impact of the HIA on the decision,
including implementation of HIA Recommendations) was planned to be carried out as a survey or interview of Suffolk County
officials rather than as a monitoring activity, due to resource constraints.
Page 236 of 305
-------
Recommendations
The HIA Project Team prepared posters to present the preliminary findings and initial recommendations
of the HIA to community residents and stakeholders and elicit their feedback (see Appendix D). Despite
the Team's best efforts, no stakeholders or members of the public attended the community meetings.
More on this in Section 7.1.3. Feedback on the preliminary HIA findings and recommendations was
solicited and received from Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members during and following the final
TAC meeting. The HIA findings and recommendations were further refined based on the TAC input
received.
:ommendatio icision-Makers
Table 5-1 presents the final evidence-based recommendations that the HIA Project Team proposes for
adoption and implementation as part of decision-making and/or execution of the proposed code
changes. It should be noted that the HIA recommendations are not regulatory in nature; they are
offered as suggestions for future action to improve the impact of the decision on health. Adoption of
the recommendations is at the discretion of the County, as they must balance health considerations
with the other technical, social, political, and economic considerations related to the decision.
General recommendations are offered as well as recommendations related to:
Planning and Implementation of the Proposed Code Changes;
Outreach and Communication;
l/A OWTS Evaluation;
System Siting, Design, and Installation;
System Maintenance;
Cost Control and Funding Measures;
Employment and Hiring; and
Protection of Water Resources
In addition to the recommendations related to the proposed sanitary code changes themselves
(including handling of existing individual sewerage systems, implementation of sewerage system
upgrades, and protection of water resources from sewerage-derived pollutants), additional
recommendations beyond the code changes are offered in Table 5-2 to address some of the issues
identified by the County (e.g., nutrient loading and resiliency). These health-supportive measures relate
to Wetland Protection/Restoration and Wetland/Green Infrastructure Creation and Resiliency Planning.
The wording of the final recommendations in the tables was modified from the original appearance in
the report sections, when appropriate, for clarity and simplicity. Recommendations are listed, along with
their intended purpose, target (i.e., what the recommendation will impact), pathway, and a reference
that points the reader to the section(s) of the document where the recommendation originated (for
context).
Since completion of the HIA analysis and reporting of preliminary findings and recommendations to the
decision-makers and stakeholders in the fall of 2016, Suffolk County entered into a period of robust
Page 237 of 305
-------
Recommendations
activity working to change the local nutrient pollution paradigm (see Appendix K). Some of those
activities were also recommendations identified in this HIA for potential adoption and implementation
as part of decision-making and/or execution of the proposed code changes; those Recommendations
are highlighted in Table 5-1 and are discussed more in Section 7.2. The HIA Team did not examine
activities undertaken by Suffolk County after completion of the HIA analysis aimed at wetland
protection/restoration, wetland/green infrastructure creation, and resiliency planning (HIA
recommendations beyond the code changes; Table 5-2).
Page 238 of 305
-------
Recommendations
Table 5-1. Final Recommendations Related to the Proposed Code Changes50
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
General Recommendations
la
A fourth alternative could be considered, requiring upgrade of individual
Proposal
Sanitary code
Individual
Page 42
sewerage systems to an innovative/alternative technology across the
alternative
and policy
Sewerage
entire county, with prioritization given to parcels in the high-priority
implementation
Performance
areas (e.g., proactive upgrades in priority areas and upgrades elsewhere
in the county, upon transfer, failure/replacement, significant and new
Equity
and Failure
(ISPF)
construction).
Planning and Implementation of Proposed Code Changes51
2a
Ensure that sites with individual sewerage systems that are required to
be upgraded as part of the changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
tie into sewer if they fall within a sewer district and the approved sewer
system is accessible and has capacity.
Proposal
alternative
Sanitary code
and policy
implementation
ISPF
Page 40
3a
Consider potential barriers to implementing and enforcing policies
related to individual sewerage systems and develop strategies to
overcome such barriers.
Mitigation
measure
Sanitary code
and policy
implementation
ISPF
Page 41
4a
Develop tools that cesspool/septic service contractors can easily and
consistently deploy to determine whether a system is in need of
maintenance, repair, or upgrade and document the issue(s), such as a
checklist or logic framework for use in the field and/or an open-access,
web-based platform for documenting issues and reporting properties
that need to upgrade their individual sewerage systems.
Promotion
measure
Sanitary code
and policy
implementation
ISPF
Page 42
50 Suffolk County Government and departments within are thought to have the authority and/or ability to implement any of the recommendations, unless otherwise stated. Adoption
and/or implementation of recommendations is at the sole discretion of Suffolk County; they are non-binding.
51 The Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan developed by Suffolk County, after completion of this HIA, will guide future policy and implementation procedures. For more information on
these efforts, see Appendix K.
Page 239 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
5a
Create an inventory of existing individual sewerage systems, including
their geolocation, design type, and (if possible) maintenance schedule to
aid in identifying residences affected by the decision and enforcing the
code change. This inventory can be accomplished through sewage
industry reporting of cesspool, septic tank and l/A OWTS pump outs,
retrofits, and replacements.52
Mitigation
measure
Sanitary code
and policy
implementation
ISPF
Page 46
6a
Given its current population and the expectation that Suffolk County
may reach its saturation population, further research is needed to
ascertain the capacity of Suffolk County soils to effectively manage
wastewater effluent (regardless of whether systems are upgraded or
not).
Mitigation
measure
Wastewater
treatment
performance
ISPF
Page 52
7a
Select a timeline for implementation that will encourage tempered
growth of the OSDS/OWTS industry, minimizing the risk of a spike in the
cost of installation and unsustainable industry growth.
Mitigation
measure
Employment
opportunities
Community/
Household
Economics
Page 212
8a
If Alternative III is chosen, towns with a greater reliance on commercial
and recreational fishing could be considered in the prioritization of areas
for implementation of the code.
Promotion
measure
Employment
opportunities
Community/
Household
Economics
Page 216
Outreach/Communication
9a
Perform homeowner outreach early and often and provide information
on each system design, including the average life span, operation and
maintenance needs, average treatment performance, signs of system
failure, and the benefits of routine inspections and maintenance (e.g.,
increase in system longevity, reduced costs over the life of the system).
Promotion
measure
Education/
expectation of
individual
sewerage
system
technologies
ISPF
Page 51
52 The Wastewater Information System Tool (TWIST) is a downloadable, user-friendly management tool for inventorying and managing individual sewerage systems
(https://www.epa.gov/septic/wastewater-information-svstem-tool-twist).
Page 240 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
10a
To achieve improvements in perception of water quality, engage and
inform the public with accurate information, set realistic expectations of
outcomes, and effectively communicate results when improvements in
water quality and its associated ecosystem services (recreation,
economy, etc.) are experienced.
Promotion
measure
Education/
expectation of
water quality
improvements
Water Quality
Page 123
11a
Focus educational outreach and/or professional and financial assistance
in areas where frequent failures are occurring and allow homeowners to
upgrade/replace existing systems to more sustainable sewerage options
that lower the risk of system failure.
Mitigation
measure
Individual
sewerage
system failures
ISPF
Page 63
l/A OWTS Evaluation
12a
Pathogen or fecal indicator bacteria monitoring could be conducted for
l/A OWTS, so that data can be obtained to better evaluate pathogen
control of these systems. Pathogens have implications for human health
and the economy.53
Promotion
measure
Wastewater
treatment
performance
Human illness
Community
Economics
ISPF
Page 52
13a
l/A OWTS under consideration by the County could be evaluated to
ensure that they do not provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes.
Promotion
measure
Mosquito
habitat and
infestation
Human illness
from vector-
borne
pathogens
Vector Control
Page 179
53 Although Suffolk County has not performed pathogen monitoring of l/A OWTS systems to date, the Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan, developed after completion of
this HIA, does recommend that pathogen data be collected as part of the SCDHS l/A OWTS testing program to determine the ability of local soil to remove pathogens.
Page 241 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
System Siting, Design, and Installation
14a
Given the additional reduction in nitrogen and pathogen loading from
soil absorption drainfields and the potential for drainfields to break
down many other pollutants (per the NYSDOH Residential Onsite
Wastewater Treatment System Design Handbook; NYSDOH, 2012),
consider changes to the Sanitary Code requiring cesspools and
conventional OWTS be upgraded to septic tank-soil absorption systems
when site conditions permit. At a minimum, the language in the code for
Alternatives 1 and II could identify upgrades to a septic tank-soil
absorption system, conditions permitting, as an alternative to the C-
OWTS. For residences with inadequate space for a soil absorption field, a
mound OWTS could provide improved treatment performance over the
C-OWTS.
Proposal
alternative
Wastewater
treatment
performance
Human illness
ISPF
Page 52
Page 242 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No. Final Recommendations
15a
Take into consideration good practice in the siting, design, installation,
and maintenance of individual sewerage systems.54 For example:
Cesspool and leaching pool systems are known to have poor
performance for controlling nutrients and pathogens in system
effluent. Consider replacing cesspools/leaching pools with the
conventional shallow, soil absorption field systems, which are more
effective in controlling nutrients and pathogens in system effluent. For
residences with limited space for the conventional soil absorption field
systems, an innovative/alternative system with proven treatment
performance that would not require a large footprint could be
permitted (e.g., mound OWTS).
Gardens and deep-root vegetation, such as large trees, should not be
located near or over the individual sewerage system, since large roots
and excess plant watering can be damaging to the system.
Avoid installation and/or construction of conventional OWTS on sites
where pervasive flooding, tidal influence, and/or extreme rain events
increase the risk for hydraulic and/or structural failure of an individual
sewerage system. Mound systems offer an alternative option for sites
where flooding and/or groundwater influences pose a high failure risk.
Use of reinforced materials and proper system design may prevent
human injury and/or death from structural failures.
Proper siting, design, construction, and operation of individual
sewerage systems can ensure protection of groundwater and drinking
water sources, especially in areas served by private drinking water
wells.
Intended
Purpose
Mitigation
measure
Target
Wastewater
treatment
performance
Individual
sewerage
system failure
Water quality
Human injury
and death
Human health
and well-being
Pathway Discussion
Context
ISPF
Water Quality
54 Guidance and technical resources for those involved in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and regulation of individual sewerage systems are available at
https://www.epa.gov/septic.
Page 243 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
System Maintenance
16a
Adopt a standard management plan for each system design to ensure
individual sewerage systems are properly maintained and
replaced/upgraded when needed. The management plan could include
good management practices.
Promotion
measure
Wastewater
treatment
performance
ISPF
Page 52
17a
Perform routine pumping of OSDS and OWTS in order to reduce the risk
of hydraulic failure, retention of standing water, and associated health
impacts.
Mitigation
measure
System failure
Human illness
ISPF
Page 53
18a
Due to the design and materials used, older cesspools - especially
those that have exceeded the expected life span of approximately
25 years - pose risks for illness, injury and/or death were the
system to collapse, surcharge above ground, or backflow into the
home. Ideally, homeowners could replace such systems with a
modern design (e.g., septic tank-soil absorption system or l/A
OWTS) or connect to a cluster system or public sewer.
Mitigation
measure
System Failure
Human illness
Injury and death
ISPF
Page 63
19a
Completely fill unused or abandoned systems with soil or gravel, both to
eliminate a source of standing water and to avoid potential collapse and
injury.
Mitigation
measure
System failure
Mosquito
habitat and
infestation
Injury and death
ISPF
Vector Control
Page 63
20a
Homeowners or non-licensed professionals should not approach or
attempt to investigate a collapsed or failing septic tank or cesspool.
Cornell University - Suffolk County Extension Office recommends that if
the surface of the ground above the septic tank or cesspool is wet, the
area should be fenced off and a professional called to diagnose and
address the problem.
Mitigation
measure
Injury and death
Human health
and well-being
ISPF
Page 64
Page 244 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
21a
Ensure that owners of onsite wastewater treatment systems inspect
their systems for cracks, leaks, and loose manhole covers. Use cement to
patch any cracks or gaps between the blocks; cover vent pipes with
screen mesh; repair broken pipes; and seal joints to deny mosquitoes
access to the water within.
Mitigation
measure
Mosquito
habitat and
infestation
Human illness
from vector-
borne
pathogens
Stress and well-
being
Vector Control
Page 177
22a
Conduct public outreach to emphasize the role individual homeowners
can take to help prevent mosquito infestation, including mosquito
production in individual sewerage systems.
Mitigation
measure
Mosquito
habitat and
infestation
Human illness
from vector-
borne
pathogens
Stress and well-
being
Vector Control
Page 180
23a
Send maintenance reminders to residents to help provide a stable
market for the companies.
Promotion
measure
Employment
opportunities
Community/
Household
Economics
Page 212
Cost Control and Funding Opportunities
24a
To avoid unintended health impacts, action could be taken to ensure
that the increased cost to implement and oversee the proposed changes
to the sanitary code does not impact other programs or pull funding
away from other social and health services. Operating grants and
contributions could be sought from both State and Federal entities to
defray costs.
Mitigation
measure
Community
economics
Overall health
and well-being
Community
Economics
Page 205
Page 245 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
25a
Outside funding could be sought to reduce the costs of individual
sewerage system upgrades for individual households. Assistance for
cost-burdened and low-income households and property owners renting
to low income households could be prioritized. Assistance could be
made available for all household types including non-family households,
which have a much lower median income than households of families.
Mitigation
measure
Household
economics
Overall health
and well-being
Food insecurity
and health
Household
Economics
Page 208
26a
Work with communities and OWTS vendors to plan concurrent upgrades
to neighboring properties to reduce construction costs and take
advantage of block grant opportunities.
Promotion
measure
Household
economics
Household
Economics
Page 209
27a
Review of the Rhode Island and Maryland programs may provide Suffolk
County with guidance on implementation of individual sewerage system
upgrades, including the triggers for replacement of systems and loan and
grant programs for households to assist with costs associated with
installation and operation of new systems. More details on these State
programs are provided in Appendix J.
Promotion
measure
Household
economics
Household
Economics
Page 208
Employment/Hiring
28a
Steps could be taken to encourage OWTS businesses to locate and hire
within the County. Possible strategies include tax incentives and
decrease of certification fees for OWTS companies that locate in the
County and support of a community jobs program to train local residents
in OWTS and l/A OWTS technology installation, maintenance, repair and
inspection. Consider working with local community colleges to include
training courses in this field.
Promotion
measure
Employment
opportunities
Community/
Household
Economics
Page 212
Protection of Water Resources
29a
Increasing vegetated land cover and green infrastructure between
individual sewerage systems may prevent further transport of sewerage-
derived pollutants (and other nitrogen loading) in stormwater runoff
and/or shallow groundwater movement (Kinney & Valiela, 2011).
Mitigation
measure
Cumulative
pollutant
loading
Water Quality
Page 108
Page 246 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
30a
Vigilance in controlling pollution from individual sewerage systems is
important, especially when individuals are obtaining drinking water from
private wells. Continue efforts to expand public drinking water supply.55
Mitigation
measure
Drinking water
Human illness
Water Quality
Page 93
31a
Expansion of connections to community supply systems could continue
to reduce dependency on private wells, which can reduce the overall
magnitude of potential effects of wastewater on drinking water.59
Mitigation
measure
Drinking water
Human illness
Water Quality
Page 97
32a
If Alternative 1 or II is selected, other measures could be taken to reduce
nutrient enrichment and protect water resources to mitigate the impact
of declining water quality on employment opportunities associated with
the commercial fishing and recreational industries and property values,
both of which have the potential to impact both county revenues and
household income.
Mitigation
measure
Employment
opportunities
Residential
property values
Overall health
and well-being
Community/
Household
Economics
Pages 216,
220
55 The Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan includes similar recommendations to this for protection of private drinking water wells, noting three options for nitrogen
management: connection to community supply systems, wellhead treatment, or wastewater management and fertilizer management (including conversion of existing septic systems
on private well sites to l/A OWTS).
Page 247 of 305
-------
Recommendations
Table 5-2. Final Recommendations Beyond the Proposed Code Changes56
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
Wetland Protection/Restoration and Wetland/Green Infrastructure Creation
lb
Protect, restore, and create freshwater and coastal/tidal wetlands or
other green infrastructure alternatives to improve shoreline resiliency
and improve wetland functioning, including attenuation of nutrients.
The USFWS inventory (Tiner and Herman, 2015) identified 760 acres
of potential wetland restoration sites in southern Suffolk County and
12,543 acres of impaired Suffolk County wetlands that may be eligible
for restoration.
Health-
supportive
measure
Wetland acreage
Wetland
structure/function
Shoreline
resiliency
Resiliency
Pages 138,
133, 141
2b
Measures to rehabilitate and restore wetland structure and function
and to reduce mosquito production under the Integrated Marsh
Management (IMM) framework could continue.
Health-
supportive
measure
Insecticide
application
Vector Control
Page 181
Resiliency Planning57
3b
Integrate wetland protection priorities into community planning.
Health-
supportive
measure
Shoreline
resiliency to
natural disasters
Resiliency
Page 141
4b
Evaluate the use of hybrid approaches that combine natural habitats
and built defense structures to improve resiliency.
Health-
supportive
measure
Shoreline
resiliency to
natural disasters
Resiliency
Page 141
5b
Undertake planning efforts and secure funding that address sea level
rise adaptation in order to ensure shoreline resiliency to storm and/or
tidal surges for the long term.
Health-
supportive
measure
Shoreline
resiliency to
natural disasters
Resiliency
Pages 148,
158
56 Suffolk County Government and departments within are thought to have the authority and/or ability to implement any of these recommendations, unless otherwise stated.
Adoption and/or implementation of the recommendations is at the sole discretion of Suffolk County; they are non-binding. These health supportive measures may provide
opportunities for the creation of new partnerships within the County.
57 The Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan (SWP), developed after completion of this HIA, addresses the need for the wastewater management strategy to be adaptive
and to consider sea level rise. The SWP also recommends development of an overall sea level rise protection strategy for wastewater management that could include a number of
tactics in sea level protection areas, including clustering/sewering of parcels, purchasing parcels through Open Space, and providing incentives to property owners to transfer
development rights (to minimize development in these protection areas). Efforts are also underway to install sewers in communities in unsewered, low-lying, areas along the south
shore of Suffolk County to improve water quality and protect against future storm surges by strengthening wetlands.
Page 248 of 305
-------
Recommendations
No.
Final Recommendations
Intended
Purpose
Target
Pathway
Discussion
Context
6b
Ensure that the impacts of accelerated sea level rise and increased
storm frequency and intensity are adequately examined and
accounted for in the initial phases of all planning efforts.
Health-
supportive
measure
Property/
infrastructure
damage
Overall health and
well-being
Injury and death
Resiliency
Page 158
7b
Undertake planning efforts and secure funding that addresses sea
level rise adaptation of wetlands and other natural shoreline
types (e.g., beaches and dunes) in order to enhance shoreline
resiliency to storm and/or tidal surges for the long term.
Health-
supportive
measure
Property/
infrastructure
damage
Overall health and
well-being
Injury and death
Resiliency
Page 159
8b
Consider activities, such as voluntary buyouts, that encourage local
(town/village) land use and zoning regulations, and County-level
disincentives to development, to reduce the infrastructure and people
in vulnerable coastal areas and create more naturally-functioning
coastal floodplains and provide space for coastal/tidal wetlands to
retreat and expand.
Health-
supportive
measure
Property/
infrastructure
damage
Overall health and
well-being
Injury and death
Resiliency
Page 163
9b
Prioritize resiliency efforts (e.g., habitat restoration, shoreline
management, and planning activities) based on risk of exposure and
social and economic vulnerability to sea level rise, severe storms, and
storm and/or tidal surges.
Health-
supportive
measure
Evacuation and
displacement
Overall health and
well-being
Injury and death
Resiliency
Page 163
10b
Undertake efforts in emergency management planning and outreach
to ensure that individuals receive and comprehend evacuation
messages and have the necessary capacity and resources to comply
with them.
Health-
supportive
measure
Evacuation and
displacement
Overall health and
well-being
Injury and death
Resiliency
Page 162
Page 249 of 305
-------
Reporting
6. Reporting
The overall goal of the Reporting step is to develop the HIA report, inform stakeholders on the progress
of the HIA, and communicate HIA findings and recommendations to decision-makers, the population
affected by the decision, and other stakeholders.
tivities
Several Reporting activities were performed to communicate and disseminate this HIA. The HIA Project
Team was able to implement the reporting activities, as planned in Scoping. The HIA Project Team raised
awareness about this HIA within the Agency and outside the EPA through many avenues. Management
in the EPA Region 2 Office were briefed on the progress of the HIA and any materials that would be
shared outside the Agency. In addition, the ORD HIA Project Lead also met with ORD management to
report on the HIA's progress and share information about the HIA with fellow colleagues at the EPA.
Several presentations were given on the HIA to inform different communities of practice.
Examples of the communications materials and documentation from the public stakeholder engagement
meetings can be found in Appendix D. These were in addition to regular (monthly/bi-monthly) meetings
with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during the Assessment step of the HIA to report on HIA
progress and gather stakeholder input to inform the analysis and impact characterization. The HIA
Project Team used a standardized format or "brand" for almost all of the HIA communication materials.
The use of branding helped increase recognition and consistency of HIA materials. Before materials were
shared outside the team, several steps were followed. First, the materials were developed and reviewed
by the HIA Project Team. Once comments and edits were addressed, HIA materials were sent to the HIA
Project Leads for final approval. Once cleared, the materials were shared with members of the TAC and
general public. In addition to the flyers, factsheets, handouts, and PowerPoint presentations, members
of the HIA Project Team developed this HIA Report as the final Reporting output of the HIA. The
document was reviewed by the Technical Editor, EPA ORD Management, the HIA Project Team, TAC, and
two external peer-reviewers. An electronic copy of this report will be shared with Suffolk County
Government, EPA Region 2, the HIA Project Team, and TAC. The HIA Report will be made available to the
public and other stakeholders upon request and uploaded to EPA's HIA website (https://www.epa.gov/
healthresearch/health-impact-assessments).
Table 6-1 lists the key public reporting activities performed to support this HIA, the date each was
performed, its intended purpose, and the primary target audience.
Note: The HIA Project Team recognizes that this HIA Report is an extensive document and due to the level of
detail provided in the report may not be easy to manage or use for advocacy and/or raising awareness within
the community. Therefore, a summary of the full HIA Report and a fact sheet on the findings of the HIA have
been produced, as well.
Page 250 of 305
-------
Reporting
Table 6-1. Summary of Key HIA Public Reporting Activities
Reporting Outlet
Date
Purpose
Primary
Audience
HIA Kickoff Meeting*,
December 19, 2014
EPA and Suffolk County Government co-
Select
Suffolk County
hosted a kickoff meeting to launch the HIA on
stakeholders
Office, Yaphank, New
December 19, 2014 at the Suffolk County
York
Office in Yaphank, NY. The launch event
started with a half-day HIA 101 training (short
course) that introduced participants to the
concept of HIA, the importance of HIA in
decision-making, and the principles and
methods used in HIA practice. The training
also introduced a few examples of completed
HIAs and opportunities for HIA in the New
York/New Jersey area. Following the training,
a workshop was held that included an
introduction to the HIA in Suffolk County and a
series of exercises to kick off the Scoping step
of the HIA (see Appendix D for meeting notes).
1st Community
Released
This one-page flyer was developed to inform
All
Meeting Flyer
February 2015
the public and resident stakeholders about the
upcoming HIA and invite them to participate in
the process by attending the first community
stakeholder engagement meeting.
stakeholders
1st Community
March 4-5, 2015
The purpose of this public meeting was to
All
Meeting*, (Cold
inform community residents and stakeholders
stakeholders
Spring Harbor,
about the HIA, its intended purpose, and
Riverhead, and
encourage participation in the HIA. Meeting
Brentwood, New
activities were focused on gathering input on
York)
residents' opinions about health, interest
- Due to inclement
weather, the meeting in
Brentwood was
cancelled
and/or concerns related to their community
and the proposed changes to the County code,
and thoughts on how the proposed changes
might affect daily life in the community. The
input from this meeting was used to guide the
HIA scope.
Summary of the 1st
Released
This eleven-page handout was developed to
All
Community Meeting
April 2015
provide a summary of the discussions and
activities that occurred during the first
community meeting (see Appendix D).
stakeholders
Invitation Letter to
Released July 7,
The HIA Project Leads prepared an invitation
Key
Participate in the
2015
to key stakeholders that provided background
stakeholders
Technical Advisory
information about the HIA and invited
Committee or
interested parties to participate in a major
Community
role.
Stakeholder Steering
Committee
Page 251 of 305
-------
Reporting
Reporting Outlet
Date
Purpose
Primary
Audience
2nd Community
August 16-18, 2016
The purpose of these meetings was to update
All stakeholders
Meeting/
the community residents and stakeholders on
(although no
HIA TAC Meeting*
the HIA's progress; report the preliminary
residents or
(Community:
findings and initial recommendations from the
stakeholders
Riverhead,
HIA; and elicit feedback on those findings and
attended the
Brentwood, Port
recommendations (see Appendix D for
community
Jefferson; TAC:
meeting materials from the TAC meeting).
meetings)
Suffolk County Office,
Yaphank, New York)
HIA Fact Sheet for
September 15,
The Suffolk County Director of Planning
General public
Septic Week
2016
expressed an interest in having the Suffolk
County HIA (or a summary of the HIA)
available for EPA Septic Week, which was held
September 19-23. The HIA Leadership Team
developed and made available a fact sheet
that presents the purpose of the HIA, the
methodologies employed, general findings,
and a sampling of HIA recommendations.
HIA Presentation to
July 2017
Members of the HIA Project Team presented
Decision-
Suffolk County
the HIA findings and recommendations and
draft HIA Report to the Director of Planning
for Suffolk County (Sarah Lansdale).
makers
Draft HIA Report
July 2017
The draft HIA Report documenting the details
Decision-
Review
of the HIA process, including the methods
used, persons involved, and outputs of the
HIA, was transmitted to the Technical Advisory
Committee for review.
makers and
key
stakeholders
Discuss Resolution of
December 2018
The HIA Leadership Team met with Suffolk
Decision-
Draft HIA Report
County to review resolution to their
makers
Comments and HIA
comments and
Product Path
Forward
Draft HIA Summary
November 2019
The draft HIA Summary Report and Fact Sheet
Decision-
of Key Findings and
were transmitted to Suffolk County for review.
makers
Recommendations
and Draft HIA Fact
Sheet Review
Final HIA Report
August 2021
The final HIA Report documents the details of
the HIA process, including the methods used,
persons involved, and outputs of the HIA.
All
stakeholders
Final HIA Summary of
August 2021
The Summary of the HIA Report highlights the
All
Key Findings and
main findings and recommendations of the
stakeholders
Recommendations
HIA. As a supplement to the full HIA Report,
this Summary Report aids in sharing and
distributing the results of the HIA.
Page 252 of 305
-------
Reporting
Final HIA Fact Sheet
August 2021 As a supplement to the full HIA Report, this
fact sheet aids in sharing and distributing the
results of the HIA.
All
stakeholders
*Documentation of these meetings is provided in Appendix D.
6.2. Reporting of HIA Findings and Recommendations
6.2.1. Input Solicited on Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
The HIA Project Team scheduled three meetings to present the preliminary HIA findings and initial
recommendations to the public and gather their input, but no one showed to any of the three public
meetings, despite flyers being posted in libraries in the three meeting locations and issued to the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to distribute to their community counterparts. This was an
unexpected outcome; more on this in Section 7.1.3. The HIA Project Team also scheduled a final TAC
meeting to present and gather input on the preliminary HIA findings and recommendations. Meeting
attendees included members of the HIA Project Team and Technical Advisory Committee. A short
PowerPoint presentation was given at the beginning of the meeting, which provided an overview of the
HIA process, what had been done for this HIA, and a short profile of the existing population in the
community. Next, TAC members were asked to visit each of the posters staged around the room, which
contained specific information about each of the health determinants assessed. A member of the HIA
Project Team stood at each of the posters to answer questions and facilitate discussions about the
predicted impacts of the proposed project on that health determinant. The poster presentation strategy
allowed for a more individualized discussion about the assessment performed and provided direct
access for TAC members to those who performed the assessment. The meeting agenda and poster
presentations are provided in Appendix D. After the poster presentation was completed, the HIA Project
Team solicited feedback and comments from the TAC about the assessment and findings presented58.
The HIA Project Team discussed the TAC input received at and following the meeting and modified the
verbiage of findings and/or recommendations, as needed.
The HIA Report was prepared over the duration of the HIA and a draft completed following the meeting
with the TAC. The Draft HIA Report was transmitted to the HIA Research Team for review, and following
resolution of their review comments was transmitted to the TAC and two external peer-reviewers (an
HIA practitioner and a nutrient transport and coastal waters expert) for their review and comment.
58 The TAC was very technically-minded and was interested in the details of the Assessment, which were only summarized on
the posters. TAC members were able to review and comment on the specific details of the Assessment during the review of the
Draft HIA Report (see Section 6.2.2).
6.2.2 Draft HIA Report
Page 253 of 305
-------
Reporting
6.2.3 Final HIA Reporting
Comments and were received from the TAC and external peer reviews, and the HIA Report was revised
to address comments, as appropriate. Following completion of comment resolution, the report was
transmitted through the Agency review process and cleared for publication. Once the HIA Report was
made 508-compliant, it was posted to EPA's HIA webpage: https://www.epa.gov/healthresearch/health-
impact-assessments.
Page 254 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
After the HIA completion, several follow-up activities should occur. The design and implementation of
the HIA should be evaluated (i.e., perform a process evaluation). There should be a follow-up on the
result of the decision to determine whether the HIA influenced the decision-making process and/or final
decision (i.e., perform an impact evaluation). To some extent, the effect(s) of the final decision on health
and/or determinants of health should also be included in the follow-up activities (i.e., perform
monitoring to inform an outcome evaluation).
Monitoring is an important follow-up activity to the HIA process and is performed after the HIA findings
and recommendations have been reported. If monitoring is not included in the original HIA work plan,
the HIA project team should provide a plan for monitoring the decision and health impact after the HIA
is completed. There are two main aspects of monitoring - one is to follow up on the decision and/or
decision-making process, and the other involves following up on the health impacts predicted in the HIA.
These follow-up activities inform whether the HIA influenced the decision-making process and/or final
decision (i.e., informs the impact evaluation) and help assess the effects of the final decision on health
(i.e., informs the outcome evaluation).
Plan for Process Evaluation
Process evaluation considers whether the HIA was carried out according to the plan of action and
applicable standards (National Research Council, 2011).
After the HIA analysis was complete, the HIA Project Team and an external third-party HIA practitioner
(peer reviewer) evaluated the ability of the HIA to meet its stated goals and the Minimum Elements, and
Practice Standards of HIA (Bhatia, et al., 2014). Evaluating the design and execution of the HIA results in
valuable information that can be used to help refine methods and approaches used in HIA and advance
the HIA community of practice. Early in the HIA process, the HIA Project Team developed a plan for
evaluating the HIA, which included an Agency administrative review and an external peer-review by an
HIA practitioner and a nutrient transport and coastal waters expert. In addition, the HIA Project Team
identified successes, challenges, and lessons learned.
7.1.1 HIA Goals Achieved
At the completion of this HIA, the HIA Project Team reviewed the original goals established in the
Scoping step and evaluated whether those goals were achieved or not achieved. The results of this
evaluation are documented in Table 7-1.
Page 255 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 7-1. Evaluation of HIA Goal Achievement
HIA Goal
Develop a comprehensive
HIA that addresses
stakeholder concerns for
sustainability, resiliency,
environmental justice,
and health equity.
Achieved? Documentation
Yes The HIA assessment was able to evaluate the sustainability
of the proposed code changes and the effectiveness of
those changes to improve water quality and resiliency to
natural disasters. The HIA Project Team assessed the
proposed code changes for their potential to affect other
environmental, social, and economic health determinants
and took into account the equity of those health impacts
on the population.
Bring evidence-based
information to help
inform Suffolk County's
decision on proposed
code changes regarding
OSDS.
Yes The final HIA recommendations are based on evidence
found in the literature and/or are a result of the analyses
performed during the HIA and identify which of the
proposed alternatives will achieve reductions in nitrogen
loading from individual sewerage systems and what
impact, if any, the alternatives would have on resiliency to
natural disasters. The recommendations suggest actions
Suffolk County could take to maximize potential benefits
and minimize and/or avoid potential adverse effects from
implementing the proposed code changes, including
impacts to water quality, resiliency, vector control, and
community and household economics. Additional
recommendations are also suggested for health-
supporting actions that could be taken to achieve reduced
nitrogen loading and improved resiliency beyond the
proposed code changes.
Provide a neutral and
inclusive platform for
stakeholders to discuss
the needs and issues in
Suffolk County related to
the proposal, founded on
a common objective to
advocate for health and
wellness, and enhance
stakeholder consensus
and ownership of the
decisions made.
Yes/No EPA was able to solicit participation during the HIA from a
broad perspective of stakeholder groups, including
representatives from the community, decision-makers,
universities, national and state government agencies, and
non-government organizations. In addition, the input
provided by the stakeholders was used to inform the
scope of the HIA and was incorporated into the HIA
findings and recommendations. Participation of
community members and residents waned throughout the
HIA, however. This did not allow the HIA to reach its full
potential as an inclusive platform and consensus building
tool.
Page 256 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
Raise awareness of HIA as
a decision-support tool
that considers direct and
indirect consequences,
both benefits and harms,
before the decision is
made.
Yes Through the HIA process, EPA was able to raise awareness
among the community and different stakeholder groups of
the proposed code changes and the use of HIA as a
decision-support tool to consider the impacts of those
changes prior to implementation. Stakeholders and
community members were engaged in the HIA process,
and documentation of the HIA was made available
through various outlets, including a fact sheet at EPA
Septic Week. In addition, the HIA Project Team hosted an
HIA 101 training and Scoping workshop for select
stakeholders as part of the kick-off meeting held on
December 19, 2014.
7.1.2 Successes Identified by the HIA Project Team
The HIA Project Team identified successes experienced in carrying out this HIA. Those successes are
provided below.
Branding materials helped to increase recognition of materials coming from the HIA and created a
unified format that expedited material production.
Reviewing previous HIA Reports and practice guidelines helped in the development of this HIA and
in ensuring that the HIA achieved the Minimum Elements and Practice Standards (Bhatia, et al.,
2014).59
A full-day HIA training/workshop was held at the beginning of the HIA process for stakeholders. This
training helped to acquaint stakeholders with HIA and the HIA process, since the process is unique
and different from other commonly used impact assessments.
Messaging that the HIA is neutral and is meant to make the relationships between ecosystem
services and health more explicit, helped ensure the HIA advocated only for health and well-being.
As a federal Agency, EPA might appear to be removed from the community in which the assessment
occurred. Having the HIA co-led by the EPA regional office, with 1-2 respected stakeholders on the
HIA Leadership Team, helped to alleviate this challenge and bring to light the culture in the County
around septic.
Hosting public meetings at libraries in the community helped to ensure accessibility for community
residents and other stakeholders to become engaged in the HIA process.
This HIA used a single person as the gatekeeper for sharing information between groups. This
strategy helped streamline the sharing of information and the recognition of materials coming from
59 In addition to reviewing the HIA Minimum Elements and Practice Standards and other practice guidelines, members of the
HIA Leadership Team examined the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from past EPA HIAs and examined other HIA
reports where best practices had been identified.
Page 257 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
the HIA. Furthermore, this strategy provided a clear point of contact for community-based groups
and other stakeholders.
7.1.3 Challenges Identified by the HIA Project Team
The HIA Project Team identified challenges faced during this HIA. The HIA Project Team utilized several
strategies to counteract unanticipated challenges. Those challenges are provided below.
Overall, the nature of being a federally-led HIA posed some unique challenges regarding
expectations about the assessment and its intended purpose. One expectation was that EPA would
perform a scientific evaluation of the proposed code changes; although the HIA process uses
science-based methods, it is not a scientific process. In addition to this, having multiple EPA-led
projects being conducted in Suffolk County simultaneously led to confusion as to the purpose of the
HIA and how the various projects were related, if at all. The HIA Project Team used multiple
strategies to manage expectations, such as providing an HIA training workshop, holding one-on-one
meetings with individuals functioning under a misconception, and explicitly defining the purpose,
scope, and limitations of the HIA for each stakeholder engagement activity.
Delays in data acquisition and unavailability of data essential to the analysis of impact magnitude
(i.e., the types of individual sewerage systems installed at unsewered Suffolk County single-family
residences and parcel data) contributed to overall project delays.
The unavailability of data needed to assess the magnitude and geographic scope of the decision's
impacts (i.e., the geographic locations of the individual sewerage systems targeted by the code
changes) affected the ability of the HIA Project Team to determine the socioeconomic status and
demographics of the populations affected by the decision and therefore, perform a true
characterization of the distribution of impacts, including impacts to vulnerable populations.
As a federally led HIA, the HIA Project Team proactively tried to avoid the misconception that the
recommendations from the HIA would have a regulatory component. Although EPA led the HIA, the
HIA Project Team included members outside the Agency. The HIA Project Team made it very explicit
that the recommendations coming from the HIA were given as suggestions. Recommendations were
developed under the assumption that they could be adopted or not adopted at the discretion of the
County. The recommendations and monitoring plan from the HIA are not regulatory in nature and
were posed only as a suggestion for future action.
The individual on the HIA Leadership Team who served full-time as the gatekeeper for information
sharing and led development of the HIA Report left the project for other employment following the
August 2016 Community and TAC Meetings. The lack of continuity in this position through the
completion of the project and competing Agency priorities resulted in significant delays in
finalization of the HIA Report.
There was limited public participation following the initial HIA meetings (i.e., the CSSC had to be
combined with the TAC) and no public participation in the final round of community meetings the
HIA Project Team held. This could be due to a number of reasons: the perception that a decision had
already been made; the lack of a "local" person to act as the liaison with the community; and for in-
person meetings, the geographic scale of the affected population. The HIA Project Team held public
Page 258 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
meetings at multiple locations throughout the County to address the geographic scale, but even so
was not successful in drawing attendees to the final community meetings.
Some of the HIA participants found it difficult to maintain a neutral position and provide evidence-
based information rather than opinion regarding potential impacts and recommendations. The HIA
Leadership Team maintained the need for neutrality.
Certain HIA participants repeatedly challenged the Rules of Engagement established for the HIA,
including their roles and responsibilities and the process established for decision-making and
communication.
7.1.4 Lessons Learned Identified by the HIA Project Team
Based on the success and challenges experienced during this HIA, the HIA Project Team offers the
following list of lessons learned for future HIA practice.
Consider commitment requirements (e.g., time, personnel, funding) for both stakeholders and those
performing the HIA. Although one of the EPA contractors that worked on this project from the
Scoping step to the completion of the Assessment step was dedicated full-time to this HIA, it should
be noted that this HIA was only one of many projects in which other members of the HIA Project
Team and TAC were involved. As such, scheduling conflicts and competing work priorities were a
common cause of delay in the HIA timeline. Thus, future HIA project managers need to account for
the amount of time participants can commit to the HIA when establishing the HIA project team.
Furthermore, there need to be different levels of participation intensity in the HIA for stakeholders
who have limited and/or varying levels of resources but want to participate.
Incorporate reporting and evaluation aspects of HIA early on in the process (i.e., as early as
Screening) to ensure documentation of the process is thorough and to avoid too much time lapse
between the completion of the HIA and reporting to stakeholders.
Develop the HIA timeline to allow extra time for potential unexpected delays, scheduling conflicts,
or other unexpected complications that may arise during implementation of the HIA.
Continue vigilant communications with stakeholders and decision-makers throughout the process to
avoid unmet expectations and scheduling conflicts.
Develop a core team of individuals responsible for performing the HIA that have multiple skills and
expertise so that the various tasks in the HIA process can be accomplished.
Ensure there is an adequate understanding of the political climate in which the decision is being
made.
When working with EPA Regions, ensure that they understand that the HIA is not a policy document
and will not contain policy recommendations (i.e., any recommendations provided by the HIA are
not considered EPA policy, but are merely offered to decision-makers as suggestions to improve the
impact of the decision on public health).
Rules of Engagement, when produced, need to be enforced; this includes removal of individuals
from the HIA Project Team that are repeatedly in opposition to the rules outlined.
Stakeholder engagement should solicit participation from community-based organizations,
community residents, and other stakeholders. Representatives from both the community and the
decision-makers should be at the table.
Page 259 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
The identification of context considerations (i.e., information unique to the locale or decision under
consideration, extenuating circumstances, etc.) helps to frame the analysis and its findings.
7.1.5 External Peer Review of HIA
Scientific peer review of the HIA Report was performed by two invited, non-EPA subject matter experts
(i.e., external peer reviewers), Dr. Michael Piehler and James Dills, to provide an experienced
perspective outside of those directly involved in the process and/or the decision. The external peer
reviewers were charged with evaluating the HIA against the HIA Minimum Elements and Practice
Standards (Bhatia, et al., 2014) and providing input on the soundness of the evidence regarding nutrient
transport and coastal waters. Dr. Piehler is the Program Head of Estuarine Ecology and Human Health at
the UNC Coastal Studies Institute and a professor of Marine Sciences and Environmental Sciences and
Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He studies transport and transformation
of nutrients in coastal systems, ecology and biogeochemistry of the tidal freshwater zone, and microbial
processes in shallow coastal waters. James Dills is a Research Associate II at the Georgia Health Policy
Center who works to advance a health in all policies perspective in decision-making. He is an expert in
HIA and serves on the Steering Committee of the Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment.
The external peer reviewers provided comments and proposed revisions, which the HIA Project Team
considered and incorporated into the HIA Report, as appropriate.
7.2 Plan for Impact Evaluation
Impact evaluation seeks to understand the impact of the HIA itself on the decision-making process or on
other factors outside the specific decision being considered (National Research Council, 2011).
The HIA Project Team identified several questions that could be used to determine whether the HIA
influenced the decision, decision-making process, and/or decision-making climate (i.e., inform an impact
evaluation):
Were the proposed code changes implemented as originally outlined or were there changes
made? If changes were made, what were the changes and why were they made?
Did Suffolk County adopt and implement the recommendations of the HIA? If not, was there
rationale provided for why the recommendation(s) were not adopted?
Does Suffolk County credit the HIA with informing their decision-making process (e.g., discussion
of HIA findings in decision-making) or influencing the decision-making climate regarding health
considerations?
Each of these questions can be answered in a short survey or by interview of a representative from
Suffolk County after the decision has been implemented. The questions and responses should be
documented and preserved. If Suffolk County does not implement the proposed code changes, then
Page 260 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
they should provide an explanation to the public explaining why this was the final decision and whether
information from the HIA was used to make this decision.
Because finalization of the HIA Report lagged significantly behind completion of the HIA analysis and the
communication of the HIA findings and recommendations to the stakeholders, and decision-makers,
members of the HIA Leadership Team were able to conduct a partial impact evaluation. Through input
from the County and a subsequent internet/literature search, the HIA Leadership Team was able to
document the period of robust activity Suffolk County entered into after the HIA analysis was complete
in fall 2016 to change the local nutrient pollution paradigm, including changes made to the Sanitary
Code (see Appendix K). Some of those actions taken were also identified as recommendations in this HIA
also recommendations identified in this HIA for potential adoption and implementation as part of
decision-making and/or execution of the proposed code changes. Table 7-2 shows the HIA
recommendations that correspond to activity by the County. The HIA Leadership Team did not examine
activities undertaken by Suffolk County after completion of the HIA analysis aimed at wetland
protection/restoration, wetland/green infrastructure creation, and resiliency planning (HIA
recommendations beyond the code changes).
Table 7-2. Crosswalk of HIA Recommendations and Suffolk County Activity
No. Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
A fourth alternative could be considered,
requiring upgrade of individual sewerage
systems to an innovative/alternative
technology across the entire county, with
prioritization given to parcels in the high-
priority areas (e.g., proactive upgrades in
priority areas and upgrades elsewhere in the
county, upon transfer, failure/replacement,
significant and new construction).
In the Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan
(SWP), issued in July 2020, Suffolk County
identified a countywide wastewater
management strategy to replace cesspools
and C-OWTS in Suffolk County with l/A
OWTS, sewering, or clustering. This would be
implemented in a phased approach, with
prioritization given to parcels in high priority
areas. In addition, Suffolk County amended
the sanitary code on October 15, 2020, to
require l/A OWTS in all new home and
commercial construction, and for single
family home renovations that increase the
number of bedrooms to more than five and
increase the building's footprint or floor area.
Page 261 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No. Final HIA Recommendation Suffolk County Activity
2a
Ensure that sites with individual sewerage
systems that are required to be upgraded as
part of the changes to the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code tie into sewer if they fall
within a sewer district and the approved
sewer system is accessible and has capacity.
Suffolk County is considering a range of
solutions to address the issues related to
nitrogen loading, including the expansion of
sewered areas, adding sewage treatment
cluster systems, etc. In addition to the use of
l/A OWTS, wastewater management options
and recommendations explored in the SC
SWP included connection of parcels to
community sewers by expanding existing
sewer districts or creating new sewer districts
where possible. The SWP acknowledged that
sewering may have advantages over l/A
OWTS in certain areas (e.g., areas with
significant nitrogen-impaired waters, high
groundwater, or poor soils; areas within close
proximity to existing sewer districts; and in
areas that are prone to sea level rise).
4a
Develop tools that cesspool/septic service
contractors can easily and consistently
deploy to determine whether a system is in
need of maintenance, repair, or upgrade and
document the issue(s), such as a checklist or
logic framework for use in the field and/or
an open-access, web-based platform for
documenting issues and reporting properties
that need to upgrade their individual
sewerage systems.
Per Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code, beginning July 1, 2018, contractors or
developers holding an active Liquid Waste
License must notify SCDHS of all pump-outs,
replacements, and retrofits of cesspools,
septic tanks, l/A OWTS, grease traps, and
leaching structures; reporting is done
through the Septic Haulers Information Portal
(SHIP; https://ship.suffolkcountvnv.
gov/)-
Page 262 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No.
Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
5a
Create an inventory of existing individual
sewerage systems, including their
geolocation, design type, and (if possible)
maintenance schedule to aid in identifying
residences affected by the decision and
enforcing the code change. This inventory
can be accomplished through sewage
industry reporting of cesspool, septic tank
and l/A OWTS pump outs, retrofits, and
replacements.
Per Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code, beginning July 1, 2018, contractors or
developers holding an active Liquid Waste
License must notify SCDHS of all pumping,
replacements, or retrofits of cesspools, septic
tanks, l/A OWTS, grease traps, and leaching
structures; and beginning July 1, 2019, a
SCDHS permit will be required for
replacements or retrofits of existing systems.
In Fall of 2019, Suffolk County launched their
Environmental Health Information
Management System (EHIMS), which
provides a centralized, GIS linked database to
support permitting and oversight of l/A
OWTS installations and maintenance. Per the
SC SWP, the EHIMS portal will eventually be
used for "tracking and organization of system
performance, number of systems, O&M, and
property owner registrations."
6a
Given its current population and the
expectation that Suffolk County may reach
its saturation population, further research is
needed to ascertain the capacity of Suffolk
County soils to effectively manage
wastewater effluent (regardless of whether
systems are upgraded or not).
As part of the SWP effort, Suffolk County
modeled future nitrogen loading should all
potential buildout in the County occur and
found that nitrogen loading would increase
anywhere from 0 to >20% in watersheds over
the baseline. The modeling showed that in
some watersheds, use of l/A OWTS alone
may not be sufficient to address nitrogen
loading and recommended that policymakers
consider coupling wastewater management
with other measures such as purchasing open
space, revising local zoning, increasing
minimum Article 6 lot size, and/or transfer
development rights programs that limit
development in select areas.
7a
Select a timeline for implementation that will
encourage tempered growth of the
OSDS/OWTS industry, minimizing the risk of
a spike in the cost of installation and
unsustainable industry growth.
The Suffolk County SWP identified a phased
approach to countywide wastewater
upgrades that would be implemented over
50+ years, with an initial 5-year ramp-up
period.
Page 263 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No.
Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
8a
If Alternative III is chosen, towns with a
greater reliance on commercial and
recreational fishing could be considered in
the prioritization of areas for
implementation of the code.
The results of the Suffolk County SWP
modeling efforts and baseline water quality
were used to establish tiered priority areas
for implementing the recommended
wastewater alternatives in a phased
approach.
9a
Perform homeowner outreach early and
often and provide information on each
system design, including the average life
span, operation and maintenance needs,
average treatment performance, signs of
system failure, and the benefits of routine
inspections and maintenance (e.g., increase
in system longevity, reduced costs over the
life of the system).
The Reclaim Our Water website
(https://www.reclaimourwater.info/) was
created by Suffolk County to distribute
information to residents. The website
contains information on the Septic
Improvement Program; l/A OWTS designs,
operation and maintenance requirements,
and performance data; news and upcoming
events; annual technology reports; and links
to the Sanitary Code, Department Standards,
and publications related to l/A OWTS and the
Reclaim Our Water Initiative.
14a
Given the additional reduction in nitrogen
and pathogen loading from soil absorption
drainfields and the potential for drainfields
to break down many other pollutants (per
the NYSDOH Residential Onsite Wastewater
Treatment System Design Handbook;
NYSDOH, 2012), consider changes to the
Sanitary Code requiring cesspools and
conventional OWTS be upgraded to septic
tank-soil absorption systems, when site
conditions permit. At a minimum, the
language in the code for Alternatives 1 and II
could identify upgrades to a septic tank-soil
absorption system, conditions permitting, as
an alternative to the C-OWTS. For residences
with inadequate space for a soil absorption
field, a mound OWTS could provide
improved treatment performance over the
C-OWTS.
Suffolk County is demonstrating a pressurized
shallow drainfield and other alternative
leaching technologies and has updated the
standards to include use of a pressurized
shallow drainfield in conjunction with an l/A
OWTS. The initial recommendations for
pathogens in the SC SWP identify the use of
pressurized shallow drainfields to be an
effective method for the removal of
pathogenic organisms from wastewater
effluent.
Page 264 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No.
Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
15a
Take into consideration good practice in the
siting, design, installation, and maintenance
of individual sewerage systems. For example:
Cesspool and leaching pool systems are
known to have poor performance for
controlling nutrients and pathogens in
system effluent. Consider replacing
cesspools/leaching pools with the
conventional shallow, soil absorption field
systems, which are more effective in
controlling nutrients and pathogens in
system effluent. For residences with
limited space for the conventional soil
absorption field systems, an
innovative/alternative system with proven
treatment performance that would not
require a large footprint could be
permitted (e.g., mound OWTS).
Gardens and deep-root vegetation, such as
large trees, should not be located near or
over the individual sewerage system, since
large roots and excess plant watering can
be damaging to the system.
Avoid installation and/or construction of
conventional OWTS on sites where
pervasive flooding, tidal influence, and/or
extreme rain events increase the risk for
hydraulic and/or structural failure of an
individual sewerage system. Mound
systems offer an alternative option for sites
where flooding and/or groundwater
influences pose a high failure risk.
Use of reinforced materials and proper
system design may prevent human injury
and/or death from structural failures.
Proper siting, design, construction, and
operation of individual sewerage systems
can ensure protection of groundwater and
drinking water sources, especially in areas
served by private drinking water wells.
Plans, permits, and approvals are addressed
in the Standards, including siting, subsoil, and
groundwater criteria and conditions that
prohibit the use of individual sewerage
systems. The SC SWP, developed by Suffolk
County after completion of this HIA, does
acknowledge that sewering may have
advantages over l/A OWTS in certain areas
(e.g., areas with significant nitrogen-impaired
waters, high groundwater, or poor soils;
areas within close proximity to existing sewer
districts; and in areas that are prone to sea
level rise). The SWP explored wastewater
management options and recommendations
that included connection of parcels to
community sewers by expanding existing
sewer districts or creating new sewer districts
where possible.
16a
Adopt a standard management plan for each
system design to ensure individual sewerage
systems are properly maintained and
replaced/upgraded when needed. The
management plan could include good
management practices.
Article 19 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
established SCDHS as the Responsible
Management Entity (RME) for l/A OWTS in
the County.
Page 265 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No.
Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
18a
Due to the design and materials used, older
cesspools - especially those that have
exceeded the expected life span of
approximately 25 years - pose risks for
illness, injury and/or death were the system
to collapse, surcharge above ground, or
backflow into the home. Ideally,
homeowners could replace such systems
with a modern design (e.g., septic tank-soil
absorption system or l/A OWTS) or connect
to a cluster system or public sewer.
Article 6 was amended to prohibit the
installation of new cesspools in Suffolk
County as of July 2019 (i.e., existing systems
will no longer be replaced in-kind), as all
OSDS will have to be upgraded to meet the
SCDHS standards (a septic tank-leaching pool
or l/A OWTS).
24a
To avoid unintended health impacts, action
could be taken to ensure that the increased
cost to implement and oversee the proposed
changes to the sanitary code does not
impact other programs or pull funding away
from other social and health services.
Operating grants and contributions could be
sought from both State and Federal entities
to defray costs.
Suffolk County made it clear in the SWP that
implementation of code changes that require
individual property owners to upgrade to l/A
OWTS is contingent on establishing a stable
and recurring revenue source.
25a
Outside funding could be sought to reduce
the costs of individual sewerage system
upgrades for individual households.
Assistance for cost-burdened and low-
income households and property owners
renting to low income households could be
prioritized. Assistance could be made
available for all household types including
non-family households, which have a much
lower median income than households of
families.
In July 2017, the County announced a new
incentive program - the Septic Improvement
Plan (SIP) - that provides grants and low-
interest financing to make the installation of
l/A OWTS more affordable for homeowners
of single-family residences. In conjunction
with the grant, a low-interest loan program,
administered by the Community
Development Corporation of Long Island, is
also available under SIP to help homeowners
finance the remaining costs of installing the
l/A OWTS. Outside funding was also obtained
from the New York State Septic System
Replacement Fund.
Multiple outside funding sources have been
obtained. For the SIP grant, households with
an adjusted gross income < $300,000/year
are eligible for 100% of grant.
Suffolk County made it clear in the SWP that
implementation of code changes that require
individual property owners to upgrade to l/A
OWTS is contingent on a stable recurring
revenue source to reduce financial impacts to
property owners.
Page 266 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
No.
Final HIA Recommendation
Suffolk County Activity
27a
Review of the Rhode Island and Maryland
programs may provide Suffolk County with
guidance on implementation of individual
sewerage system upgrades, including the
triggers for replacement of systems and loan
and grant programs for households to assist
with costs associated with installation and
operation of new systems. More details on
these State programs are provided in
Appendix J.
Funding (grants and loans) has been secured
by the County for homeowners upgrading to
l/A OWTS and these efforts were modeled
after programs in both Maryland and Rhode
Island.
28a
Steps could be taken to encourage OWTS
businesses to locate and hire within the
County. Possible strategies include tax
incentives and decrease of certification fees
for OWTS companies that locate in the
county and support of a community jobs
program to train local residents in OWTS and
l/A OWTS technology installation,
maintenance, repair and inspection.
Consider working with local community
colleges to include training courses in this
field.
Suffolk County has worked with the Long
Island Liquid Waste Association (LILWA) to
ensure there are qualified individuals capable
of installing and providing maintenance for
l/A OWTS in the county. In 2016, the County
passed a law requiring liquid waste
professionals to acquire training and
certification. LILWA and SCDHS provide the
required training, in cooperation with the
University of Rhode Island New England
Onsite Wastewater Training Program.
32a
If Alternative 1 or II is selected, other
measures could be taken to reduce nutrient
enrichment and protect water resources to
mitigate the impact of declining water
quality on employment opportunities
associated with the commercial fishing and
recreational industries and property values,
both of which have the potential to impact
both county revenues and household
income.
Suffolk County has not chosen to implement
Alternative 1 or II, but rather a countywide
program to replace cesspool and C-OWTS
with l/A OWTS, sewering, or clustering.
7.3 Plan for Outcome Evaluation
Outcome evaluation focuses on the changes in health status or health indicators resulting from
implementation of the proposal (National Research Council, 2011).
Monitoring health impacts is not typically done as a part of the HIA, because the HIA is completed to
inform the decision, and it may take years before changes to health are actually observed and reported.
Monitoring changes in health outcomes and/or health determinants is a time-intensive process.
Furthermore, it is difficult to attribute a change in health to any specific decision, simply because a
person's health is affected by various factors that may or may not have been assessed as part of this
Page 267 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
HIA. Since the timeframe of this HIA was limited, the HIA Project Team provides a plan for monitoring
changes to health and/or determinants of health that result from the decision (i.e., inform an outcome
evaluation).
Note: If one or more of the health determinants and/or health outcomes are found to be too impractical
to monitor, a proximate health determinant should be considered as a substitute. For example, water-
related illness can be difficult to diagnose and monitor, given that most illness is not reported and is
treated with over-the-counter medications. A more practical and highly recommended option is
monitoring water quality.
Monitoring activities are often determined by the amount of resources available, but should be
performed in interval periods (e.g., every 6 months, every year, every other year) after the proposed
project it completed in its entirety. Utilizing members from the community (i.e., citizen-participatory
research) in follow-up activities allows for limited resources to be used more efficiently, improves
specificity by targeting specific areas of concern, accelerates early detection of issues and remediation
actions, and increases community buy-in.
There are many chronic diseases or cause-specific health outcomes monitored at the county and state
levels. There is an opportunity for partnerships between the County and local/regional 501(c)(3)
hospitals60 to conduct periodic community health needs assessments (CHNA) in the community. CHNAs
incorporate individual characteristics with community characteristics, including strengths and needs, to
investigate the health status of a community and identify intervention opportunities aimed at improving
public health. CHNAs are generally performed at the regional or metropolitan statistical area; however,
a neighborhood or community level assessment could be incorporated into a larger CHNA dataset.
Regardless of methods or tools used in follow-up activities, the HIA Project Team stresses the
importance of collaboration between stakeholders to perform monitoring. For this reason, the HIA
Project Team prepared a list of outcomes that should be monitored after the final decision is made and
identified potential partners for carrying out those activities (Table 7-2).
Note: The purpose of this exercise is to provide a more focused approach for stakeholder collaboration
in future monitoring efforts. The HIA Project Team did not account for feasibility (i.e., cost, personnel
available, timing) in the proposed monitoring plan, because the entities performing the monitoring were
not yet identified. The HIA Project Team did identify potential partners for monitoring outcomes so that
stakeholders could initiate conversations regarding follow-up activities.
60 Requirements under the Affordable Care Act (passed in 2010) state that in order for 5011(3) hospital organizations to keep
their tax-exempt status, they must perform a CHNA, publicly report the findings, and adopt an implementation strategy to
address identified needs at least once every three years.
Page 268 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
Table 7-2. Proposed Plan for Monitoring Health Impacts Post-decision61
Health Determinant
Potential Indicators,
including Health Outcomes
Potential Data Sources
Potential Partners
Individual Sewerage
Number and location of reported individual
Reports of individual sewerage
Sewage industry
System Failure
sewerage system hydraulic or structural
system pumpouts, retrofits, and
professionals
failure
replacements
SCDHS
Reported cases of illness, injury, or death
Complaints of system failures
Local hospitals
from individual sewerage system failure
filed with SCDHS (or incoming
scavenger waste volumes to
sewage treatment facilities as a
proxy)
Media reports of individual
sewerage system structural
failure
Community Health Needs
Assessment or health services
data regarding illness, injury or
death
Academia (e.g., Cornell
University Cooperative
Extension of Suffolk County,
SU NY-Stony Brook)
61 Potential partners are identified for monitoring so that stakeholders can initiate conversations regarding follow-up activities.
Page 269 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
Health Determinant
Potential Indicators,
Potential Data Sources
Potential Partners
including Health Outcomes
Water Quality
Number, location and type of individual
SCDHS individual sewerage
SCDHS
sewerage system upgrades
system applications
SCDEQ
Modeled pollutant loading from individual
Sewage industry reports of
Sewage industry
sewerage systems
upgrades
SCWA
Nitrate, fecal coliform, and/or E. coli levels
GIS modeling and manufacturer-
NYSDEC
in public water supply and private wells
provided treatment
Community residents
Nitrate, total nitrogen, fecal coliform
performance or effluent
Academia (e.g., Cornell
and/or E. coli levels in Suffolk County
monitoring results
University Cooperative
surface and marine waters
SCWA public water supply data
Extension of Suffolk County,
Reported cases of algal blooms
SCDHS private well monitoring
SU NY-Stony Brook)
Number and location of water quality
data
Local hospitals
advisories and beach closures
Media reports
Reported cases of water-related illness
SCDEQ water quality advisories
and beach closure data
Hospital and/or SCDHS water-
related illness data
Resiliency
Location and acreage of wetlands restored
New York and National
SCDEQ
and/or created
Wetlands Inventory
NYSDEC
Acres of eelgrass restored
Cornell University Cooperative
The Nature Conservancy
Number of nuisance/sunny-day floods
Extension of Suffolk County
FSWS
Reports of property/infrastructure damage
eelgrass restoration data
Academia (e.g., Cornell
from storm and/or tidal surges and flooding
NOAA sea level gauges
University Cooperative
National Flood Insurance
Extension of Suffolk County,
Program claims
SU NY-Stony Brook)
NOAA
FEMA
SC Office of Emergency
Operations
Page 270 of 305
-------
Monitoring and Evaluation
Health Determinant
Potential Indicators,
Potential Data Sources
Potential Partners
including Health Outcomes
Vector Control
Volume/acreage of insecticide application
Suffolk County Division of Vector
Suffolk County Division of
Mosquito population size
Control surveillance and
Vector Control
Location and number of mosquito
insecticide application data
SCDHS
complaints
Mosquito complaints filed with
Location and number of cases of illness
the SCDHS
from vector-borne pathogens
Suffolk County Tick and Vector-
Born Disease Task Force disease
data
Household Economics
Reported costs of individual sewerage
SCDHS upgrade
SCDHS
system upgrades
implementation/management
Suffolk County Government
Number and dollar amount of aid for
data
Local hospitals
system upgrades
Office of the Comptroller
Academia (e.g., SUNY-Stony
Employment rate in OSDS/OWTS,
economic data
Brook)
commercial fishing, and recreational
NOAA Ocean and Great Lakes
Fishing and Recreation
industries
Jobs data
industries
Households living below federal poverty
Industry Reporting
level
U.S. Census Bureau/American
Annual household income
Community Survey
Monthly housing costs (renter and
HUD location affordability index
homeowner)
(http://www.locationaffordabilit
Number of cost -burdened households
y.info/lai.aspx)
Mean and median residential property
values
Location affordability index
Community Economics
Real estate transaction value
Office of the Comptroller
Suffolk County Government
Real property taxes
economic data
Fishing, Recreation, and
Mean and median residential property
Industry reports
Tourism Industries
values
Academia
Commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism
The Nature Conservancy
revenues
Page 271 of 305
-------
References
8. References
Abel, J. R., Bram, J., Deitz, R., & Orr, J. (2013, March 11). The Region's Job Rebound from Super Storm
Sandy. Retrieved from Liberty Street Economics Blog:
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/03/the-regions-job-rebound-from-
superstorm-sandy.html
Abramson, D., & Redlener, I. (2012). Hurricane Sandy: lessons learned, again. Disaster medicine and
public health preparedness, 6(04), 328-329.
Adler, R., Aschenbach, E., Baumgartner, J., Conta, J., Degen, M., Goo, R.,. . . Prager, J. (2013).
Recommendations of the On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems Nitrogen Reduction Technology
Expert Review Panel; Final Report. Fairfax, VA: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Ahmed, S., Hall, A., Robinson, A., Verhoef, L., Premkumar, P., Parashar, U., . . . Lopman, B. (2014). Global
Prevalence of Norovirus in Cases of Gastroenteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Lancet Infectious Diseases, 14(8), 725-730.
Algae Biomass Organization, (n.d.). Algae Basics: What are Algae? (U.S. Department of Energy ) Retrieved
December 3, 2015, from AllaboutAlgae.com: http://allaboutalgae.com/what-are-algae/
Alley, W. M., Reilly, T. E., & Franke, O. L. (1999). U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186: Sustainability of
Ground-Water Resources. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey.
Amper, R. (2016, May 13). Threat to Our Water Quality Demands Action. Retrieved from Long Island
Index: A Project of the Rauch Foundation, http://www.longislandindex.org/2016/05/13/12044/
Anderson, A., Heryford, A., Sarisky, J., Higgins, C., Monroe, S., Beard, R., . .. Glass, R. (2003). A
waterborne outbreak of Norwalk-like virus among snowmobilers-Wyoming. Journal of Infectious
Diseases, 187(2), 303-306.
Anderson, L. M., Scrimshaw, S.C., Fullilove, M.T., Fielding, J.E. & The Task Force on Community
Preventitive Services (2003). The Community Guide's Model for Linking the Social Environment to
Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24( 3S), 12-20.
Anderson, M. E., Smith, J. K., & McKay, S. K. (2011). Wave Dissipation by Vegetation. Coastal and
Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-l-82. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Andresen, E., Catlin, T., Wyrwich, K., & Jackson-Thompson, J. (2003). Retest reliability of surveillance
questions on health-related quality of life. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57,
339-343.
Page 272 of 305
-------
References
APHA. (1995). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed. Washington, DC:
American Public Health Association.
Arkema, K. K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S. A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., .. . Silver, J. M. (2013).
Coastal Habitats Shield People and Property from Sea-level Rise and Storms. Nature Climate
Change, 913-918.
Arnold, B. F., Wade, T. J., Benjamin-Chung, J., Schiff, K. C., Griffith, J. F., Dufour, A. P., . . . Colford, J. J.
(2016). Acute Gastroenteritis and Recreational Water: Highest Burden Among Young US Children.
American Journal of Public Health, 1690-1697.
Augustin, L. N., Irish, J. L., & Lynett, P. (2009). Laboratory and Numerical Studies of Wave Damping by
Emergent and Near-emergent Wetland Vegetation. Coastal Engineering, 332-340.
Baccus, S., & Barile, P. (2005). Discriminating sources and flowpaths of anthropogenic nitrogen discharges
to Florida springs, streams and lakes. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, 11(4) 347-369.
Barbeau, D., Grimsley, L. F., White, L. E., El-Dahr, J. M., & Lichtveld, M. (2010). Mold exposure and health
effects following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Annual Review of Public Health, 165-178.
Barrera, R., Amador, M., Diaz, A., Smith, J., Munoz-Jordan, J., & Rosario, Y. (2008). Unusual productivity of
Aedes aegypti in septic tanks and its implications for dengue control. Medical and Veterinary
Entomology, 22(1) 62-69.
Beal, C., Gardner, E., & Menzies, N. (2005a). Septic absorption trenches: are they sustainable? Water,
32(1), 22-26.
Beal, C., Gardner, E., & Menzies, N. (2005b). Process, performance and pollution potential: a review of
septic tank-soil absorption systems. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 43(7), 781-802.
doi:10.1071/SR05018
Bedimo-Rung, A., Mowen, A., & Cohen, D. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public
health: A conceptual model. Am J Prev Med, 28(2), 159-168.
Beketov, M. A., & Liess, M. (2007). Predation risk perception and food scarcity induce alterations of life-
cycle traits of the mosquito Culex pipiens. Ecological Entomology, 32(4) 405-410.
Bennett, E. R., & Linstedt, K. D. (1978). Sewage Disposal by Evaporation-transpiration, Volume 1.
Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA-600/2-78-163.
Berry, G. (2015). Pilot Study of Clustered Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems in the Peconic
Estuary. Riverhead, NY: Peconic Green Growth, Inc. Retrieved from
http://peconicgreengrowth.org/wastewater/peconic-estuary-study/
Bertness, M. D., Holdredge, C., & Altierei, A. H. (2009). Substrate Mediates Consumer Control of Salt
Marsh Cordgrass on Cape Cod, New England. Ecology, 2108-2117.
Page 273 of 305
-------
References
Beyer, K. M., Kaltenbach, A., Szabo, A., Bogar, S. F., Nieto, F.J., & Malecki, K.M. (2014). Exposure to
neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of
Wisconsin. IntJourn Env Res Pub Health, 11(3), 3453-3472.
Bhatia, R. (2011). Health Impact Assessment: A Guide for Practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
Bhatia, R., Farhang, L., Heller, J., Lee, M., Orenstein, M., Richardson, M., & Wernham, A. (2014). Minimum
Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment, Version 3.
Bhattacharya, J., Currie, J., & Haider, S. (2004). Poverty, food insecurity, and nutritional outcomes in
children and adults. Journal of Health Economics, 839-862.
Bhattacharya, J., DeLeire, T., Haider, S., & Currie, J. (2003). Heat or Eat? Cold-Weather Shocks and
Nutrition in Poor American Families. American Journal of Public Health, 1149-1154.
Birchler, J., Dalyander, P., Stockdon, H., & Doran, K. (2015). National Assessment of Nor'easter-induced
Coastal Erosion HazardsMid- and Northeast Atlantic Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2015-1154. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Bodin, M., & Hartig, T. (2003). Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained
through running? Psych Sports & Exercise, 4(2), 141-153.
Boesch, D. F. (2002). Challenges and Opportunities for Science in Reducing Nutrient Over-enrichment of
Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries, 886-900.
Borchardt, M., Bradbury, K., Alexander, E., Kolberg, R., Alexander, S., Archer, J., . . . Spencer, S. (2011).
Norovirus outbreak caused by a new septic system in a dolomite aquifer. Groundwater, 49(1), 85-
97.
Borchardt, M., Chyou, P., DeVries, E., & Belongia, E. (2003). Septic system density and infectious diarrhea
in a defined population of children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(5), 742.
Bouma, J. (1975). Unsaturated flow during soil treatment of septic tank effluent. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, 101(6), 967-983.
Bowen, J., Ramstack, J., Mazzilli, S., & Valiela, I. (2007). NLOAD: an interactive, web-based modeling tool
for nitrogen management in estuaries. Ecological Applications, S17-S30.
Bradley, K., & Houser, C. (2009). Relative Velocity of Seagrass Blades: Implications for Wave Attenuation
in Low-energy Environments. Journal of Geophysical Research.
Brank, R. (2015, July 14). Suffolk to Repair 500 Acres of Tidal Wetlands. Newsday.
Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Barclay, C. (2011). How Social Factors Shape Health: Income, Wealth and
Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved December 28, 2015, from
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf70448
Page 274 of 305
-------
References
Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Williams, D. R. (2011). The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age.
Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 381-398.
Braveman, P., Egerter, S., An, J., & Williams, D. (2011). Exploring the social determinants of health, Issue
Brief #6: race and socioeconomic factors affect opportunities for better health. Retrieved from
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
http://www.rqjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf70446
Brookhaven Town Board. (2008). Lake Ronkonkoma Clean Lake Study Update. Town of Brookhaven. .
Retrieved from Ronkonkoma Lake Foundation:
http://ronkonkomalakefoundation.org/page5/files/Main%20Text.pdf
Brouwer, J., Willatt, S., & van der Graaff, R. (1979). The hydrology of onsite septic tank effluent disposal
on a yellow duplex soil. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium. Perth: lEAust, ACT.
Bruland, G. (2008). Coastal wetlands: function and role in reducing impact of land-based management. In
A. Fares, & A. (. El-Kadi, Coastal Watershed Management (pp. 1-40). Southampton, U.K.: WIT
Press.
Brunkard, J., Namulanda, G., & Ratard, R. (2008). Hurricane katrina deaths, louisiana, 2005. Disaster
medicine and public health preparedness 2, no. 04, 215-223.
Buck, C. J. (2007). ICD-9-CM for Physicians, Vol. 1 and2. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders.
Burby, R. J., Nelson, A. C., Parker, D., & Handmer, J. (2001). Urban Containment Policy and Exposure to
Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
475-490.
Burke, R., Barrera, R., Lewis, M., Kluchinsky, T., & Claborn, D. (2010). Septic tanks as larval habitats for the
mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus in Playa-Playita, Puerto Rico. Medical and
veterinary entomology, 24(2), 117-123.
Cahoon, L., Hales, J., Carey, E., Loucaides, S., Rowland, K., & Nearhoof, J. (2006). Shellfishing closures in
southwest Brunswick County, North Carolina: septic tanks versus stormwater runoff as fecal
coliform sources. Journal of Coastal Research, 319-327.
Carrieri, M., Bellini, R., Maccaferri, S., Gallo, L., Maini, S., & Celli, G. (2008). Tolerance thresholds for
Aedes albopictus and Aedes caspius in Italian urban areas. Journ Am Mosq ContAssn, 24(3), 377-
386.
Carroll, S., Dawes, L., Hargreaves, M., & Goonetilleke, A. (2009). Faecal pollution source identification in
an urbanising catchment using antibiotic resistance profiling, discriminant analysis and partial
least squares regression. Water Research, 43(5), 1237-1246.
Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Hargreaves, M., Frost, R., & Dawes, L. (2006). Integrated risk
framework for onsite wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Management, 38(2), 286-
303. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0280-5
Page 275 of 305
-------
References
Carter, V. (1996). Technical Aspects of Wetlands: Wetland Hydrology, Water Quality and Associated
Functions. In J. Fretwell, J. Williams, & P. (. Redman, National Water Summary on Wetland
Resources. USGS Water Supply Paper 2425 (pp. 35-48). Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
Cashin Associates, P.C. (2006). Suffolk County Vector Control and Wetlands Management Revised Long-
Term Plan. Suffolk County, New York.
CDC. (2010, February 8). Elimination of Malaria in the United States (1947 1951). Retrieved from
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html
CDC. (2013a). Nitrates/Nitrites Poisoning: Patient Education Care Instruction Sheet. Retrieved from U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/nitrate_2013/docs/nitrate_patient-education.pdf
CDC. (2013b). Deaths Associated with Hurricane Sandy October-November 2012. MMWR. Morbidity
and mortality weekly report 62, no. 20, 393.
CDC. (2013c, September 25). Prevent mosquito production in your septic tank. CS214629-B. Washington,
DC, USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDC. (2015, October 7). Mold After a Disaster. Retrieved from U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention: Natural Disasters and Severe Weather:
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/mold/index.html
CDC. (2016a, May 4). Recreational Water Illnesses. Retrieved from U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/swimmers/rwi.html
CDC. (2016b, January 23). Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH)-related Emergencies and Outbreaks:
Septic & Onsite Wastewater Systems. Retrieved from U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/sanitation-wastewater/septic.html
CDC. (2016c, March 9). Keep mosquitoes out of your septic tank. CS250966. Washington , DC, USA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDM Cesspool Service. (2015). Frequently Asksed Questions About Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from CDM Cesspool Service:
https://www.cdmcesspool.com/FAQs.html.
Cefalu, W. T., Smith, S. R., Blonde, L., & Fonseca, V. (2006). The Hurricane Katrina Aftermath and Its
Impact on Diabetes Care Observations from "ground zero": lessons in disaster preparedness of
people with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 158-160.
Certified Cesspool and Drain, Inc. (2018, August 22). Cesspool Services. Retrieved from Certified Cesspool
and Drain, Inc.: https://certifiedcesspool.com/Emergency-Cesspool-lnstallation-Suffolk-County-
NY.html
Page 276 of 305
-------
References
Cesspool Service Long Island. (2015, December 19). Cesspool and Sewer Services. Retrieved from
Cesspool Service Long Island: http://www.cesspoolservicelongisland.org/
Chisolm, E. I., & Matthews, J. C. (2012). Impact of Hurricanes and FLooding on Buried Infrastructure.
Leadership and Management in Engineering, 151-156.
Cliver, D. (2000). Research needs in decentralized wastewater treatment and management: fate and
transport of pathogens. National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk Based Decision
Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment, (p. 31). Palo Alto, CA: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Cloern, J. E. (2001). Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 223-253.
Codd, G. A., Bell, S. G., Kaya, K., Ward, C. J., Beattie, K. A., & Metcalf, J. S. (1999). Cyanobacterial toxins,
exposure routes and human health. European Journal of Phycology, 34, 405-415.
Cogger, C., & Carlile, B. (1984). Field performance of conventional and alternative septic systems in wet
soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 13, 137-142.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Rabbitt, M. (2016, September 6). Definitions of Food Security.
Retrieved from Food Security in the U.S., United States Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-
the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx
Colin, S. P., & Dam, H. G. (2003). Effects of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense on the
copepod Acartia hudsonica: a test of the mechanisms that reduce ingestion rates. Mar Ecol Prog
Ser, 248: 55-65.
Colten, C. E., Kates, R. W., & Laska, S. B. (2008). Community Resilience: Lessons Learned from New Orleans
and Hurricane Katrina. CARRI Report 3. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Conn, K., Habteselassie, M., Bloackwood, A. D., & Noble, R. (2012). Microbial water quality before and
after the repair of a failing onsite wastewater treatment system adjacent to coastal waters.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 112, 214-224. doi:10.1111/j.l365-2672.2001.05183.x
Cook, J., de Cuba, S., March, E., Gayman, A., Coleman, S., & Frank, D. (2010). Energy Insecurity is a Major
Threat. Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension. (2013). Your Septic System: Septic System Failure. Retrieved
from Cornell University Cooperative Extension: Water Quality Information for Consumers:
http://waterquality.cce.cornell.edu/septic/CCEWQ-YourSepticSystem-Failure.pdf
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. (2012a). Seagrass Ecology: Water Quality.
Retrieved from SEAGRASS.LI: Long Island's Seagrass Conservation Website:
http://www.seagrassli.org/ecology/physical_environment/water_quality.html
Page Til of 305
-------
References
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. (2012b). Threats and Human Impacts on
Seagrass. Retrieved from SEAGRASS.LI: Long Island's Seagrass Conservation Website:
http://www.seagrassli.org/conservation/threats_impacts.html
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. (2012c). Why Is Eelgrass Important?
Retrieved from SEAGRASS.LI: Long Island's Seagrass Conservation Website:
http://www.seagrassli.org/ecology/why_is_eelgrass_important.html
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, (n.d.). Sewage System Maintenance.
Retrieved October 23, 2015, from Suffolk County Stormwater Management Program:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/stormwater/SepticSystemsandSuffolkCounty/SepticSystemMai
ntenance.aspx
Corum, J. (2016, September 3). A Sharp Increase In 'Sunny Day' Flooding. New York Times.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., & LaRoe, E. T. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
Craun, G., Brunkard, J., Yoder, J., Roberts, V., & Carpenter, J. (2010). Causes of outbreaks associated with
drinking water in the United States from 1971 to 2006. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 23(3), 507-
528.
Cutter, S. L. (2003). Gl Science, Disasters, and Emergency Management. Transactions in GIS, 439-445.
Dahl, T., & Stedman, S. (2013). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the
Conterminuous United States 2004 to 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Dale, D. (2017). Wastewater Management in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. Long Island, New
York: Long Island Commission for Aquifer Protection.
Davidson, J., & McFarlane, A. C. (2006). The extent and impact of mental health problems after disaster. J
Clin Psychiatry 67, no. suppl 2, 9-14.
Dawes, L., & Goonetilleke, A. (2001). Importance of site characteristics in designing effluent disposal
areas. On-site '01 Advancing On-site Wastewater Systems Design and Maintenance (pp. 133-140).
Armidale, NSW, Australia: Lanfax Laboratories, Univ. of New England.
Dawes, L. & Goonetilleke, A. (2003) An Investigation into the Role of Site and Soil Characteristics in Onsite
Sewage Treatment, Environmental Geology Vol. 44 No. 6 pp.467-477.
Deeds, J. R., Landsberg, J. H., Etheridge, S. M., Pitcher, G. C., & Longan, S. W. (2008). Non-traditional
vectors for paralytic shellfish poisoning. Mar. Drugs, 6(2): 308-348.
Deegan, L. A., Johnson, D. S., Warren, S. R., Peterson, B. J., Fleeger, J. W., Fagherazzi, S., & Wollheim, W.
M. (2012, October 18). Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature, 490, pp. 388-
394.
Page 278 of 305
-------
References
DeFelice, N., Johnston,J., & Gibson, J. (2016). Reducing Emergency Department Visits for Acute
Gastrointestinal Illnesses in North Carolina (USA) by Extending Community Water Services.
Environmental Health Perspectives, DOI:10.1289/EHP160.
Dennison, W. C., Marshall, G. J., & Wigand, C. (1989). Effect of "brown tide" shading on eelgrass (Zostera
marina L.) distributions. Novel Phytoplankton Blooms, 35: 675-692.
Dlugolecki, L. (2012). Economic Benefits of Protecting Healthy Watersheds: A Literature Review. Oak Ridge
Institute of Science and Education.
Duarte, C. M., Losada, I. J., Hendriks, I. E., Mazarrasa, I., & Nuria, M. (2013). The Role of Coastal Plant
Communities for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 961-968.
Dvarskas, A., & Smith, E. C. (2016). Economic Benefits from Addressing Nitrogen Pollution: The Role of
Water Quality Improvements in Improving Real Estate Values. Restore America's Estuaries.
Economics and Statistics Administration. (2013). Economic Impact of Hurricane Sandy: Potential Economic
Activity Lost and Gained in New Jersey and New York. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Elmer, W., Useman, S., Schneider, R., Marra, R., LaMondia, J., Mendelssohn, I., . . . Caruso, F. (2013).
Sudden Vegetation Dieback in Atlantic and Gulf Coast Salt Marshes. Plant Disease (The American
PhytopathologicalSociety), 97(4), 436-445.
EPA. (1991). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Methoprene. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA. (1997). Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. (2001a, July). Managing Septic Systems to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. Source Water
Protection Practices Bulletin, pp. EPA 816-F-01-021. Retrieved from
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/ww/septic/epa_septicwater_protection.pdf
EPA. (2001b). Threats to Wetlands. EPA 843-F-01-002d. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water.
EPA. (2002a). Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
EPA. (2002b). Nitrification. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Groundwater
and Drinking Water.
EPA. (2003a). Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems EPA 832-B-03-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Page 279 of 305
-------
References
EPA. (2003b). Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff. EPA 841-F-03-003. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
EPA. (2005a). A Homeowner's Guide to Septic Systems. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
EPA. (2005b, last updated July 11). Phosphorous. United States of America. Retrieved June 31, 2016, from
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/02/01244/www.epa.gov/agriculture/agl01/
impactphosphorus.html
EPA. (2006a). Method 1600: Enterococci in Water by Membrane Filtration Using membrane-Enterococcus
Indoxyl-B-D-Glucoside Agar (mEI). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. (2006b). Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA-842-B-06-003. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. (2010). Coastal Wetland Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA. (2011). Plan EJ 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Justice.
EPA. (2012a, March 6). Water: Educator Resources. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from United States
Environmental Protection Agency: http://water.epa.gov/learn/resources/measure.cfm
EPA. (2012b). Recreational Water Quality Criteria. 820-F-12-058. Washington, DC: United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
EPA. (2015a, last updated November 17). Source Water Protection Basics. Retrieved December 30, 2015,
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/
source-water-protection-basics
EPA. (2015b, November 2). What is Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from United States Environmental
Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure
EPA. (2016a, September 19). Sustainability. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gOv/sustainability/basicinfo.htm#sustainability
EPA. (2016b, January 20). Coastal Wetlands. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/coastal-wetlands
EPA. (2016c). Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. (2017a, May 18). Waters Assessed as Impaired due to Nutrient-Related Causes. Retrieved from U.S.
Environmental Protection agency: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/waters-assessed-
impaired-due-nutrient-related-causes
Page 280 of 305
-------
References
EPA. (2017b, February 27). What is a Wetland? Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what-wetland
Evergreen Drainage and Cesspool. (2018, March 21). Services. Retrieved from Evergreen Drainage and
Cesspool: http://www.evergreencesspool.com/allf418.html?action=comingsoon
EZ Cesspool. (2017, June 29). Cesspool Services, Maintenanceฆ, and Installations. Retrieved from EZ
Cesspool: https://www.ezcesspoollongisland.com/septic-tank-sag-harbor/
Ezenwa, V. O., Milheim, L. E., Coffey, M. F., Godsey, M. S., King, R. J., & Guptill, S. C. (2007). Land cover
variation and West Nile virus prevalence: patterns, processes, and implications for disease
control. Vector Borne Zoonot, 7(2): 173-180.
FEMA MOTF. (2014, November 13). FEMA-MOTF_CountylmpactAnlaysis_FINAL.xlsx. Retrieved from
FEMA MOTF FTP Site: https://data.femadata.com/MOTF/Hurricane_Sandy/
Fewtrell, L., Butler, D., Ali Memon, F., Ashley, R., & Saul, A. (2008). An overview of UK-based HIA research
on water management and flooding. In L. Fewtrell, & D. Kay, Health Impact Assessment for
Sustainable Water Management (pp. 29-43). London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Figgatt, M., Muscatiello, N., Wilson, L., & Dziewulski, D. (2016). Harmful algal bloom-associated illness
surveillance: lessons from reported hospital visits in New York, 2008-2014. Am. Journ. Public
Health, 106(3), 440-442.
Fletcher, J., Andreyeva, T., & Busch, S. (2009). Assessing the Effect of Increasing Housing Costs on Food
Insecurity. New Haven: Yale University.
Fonseca, M., & Cahalan, J. (1992). A Preliminary Evaluation of Wave Attenuation by Four Species of
Seagrass. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 565-576.
Fox, M. A., Nachman, K. E., Anderson, B., Lam, J., & Resnick, B. (2016). Meeting the public health
challenge of protecting private wells: Proceedings and recommendations from an expert panel
workshop. Science of the Total Environment, 113-118.
Francy, D., Stelzer, E., Bushon, R., Brady, A., Mailot, B., Spencer, S.,. . . Elber, A. (2011). Quantifying
Viruses and Bacteria in WastewaterResults, Interpretation Methods, and Quality Control.
Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5150. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Friends of the Bay. (2011). The C.E.S.S.P.O.O.L. Project. Retrieved July 21, 2016, from Friends of the Bay:
http://friendsofthebay.org/?page_id=2076
Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., & Harrison, A. (2001). Who Sprawls most? How Growth Patterns
Differ Around the U.S. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
Gastrich, M. D., & Wazniak, C. E. (2002). A brown tide bloom index based on the potential harmful effects
of the brown tide alga. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 5(4), 435-441.
Page 281 of 305
-------
References
Geary, P. (1992). Diffuse pollution from wastewater disposal in small unsewered communities. Australian
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 5(1), 28-33.
Geary, P. (1994). Soil survey and the design of wastewater disposal systems. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 16-23.
Gibbs, J. P., Halstead, J. M., Boyle, K. J., & Huang, J.-C. (2002). An Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Lake
Water Clarity on New Hampshire Lakefront Properties. Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review, 39-46.
Gillis, J. (2016, September 3). Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warning, Has Already Begun. New York
Times, pp. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-
warming-has-already-begun.html.
Glasmeier, A. K. (2016). Living Wage Calculator for Suffolk County, New York. Retrieved from Living Wage
Calculator: http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36103
Gobler, C. (2008, Fall). Brown Tide affects Long Island's Marine Ecosystem. I Fish NY, p. 1.
Gobler, C. J. (2014, May 19). How does excessive nitrogen loading effect the health and resiliency of Long
Island's coastal ecosystems?. Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dow/Long_lsland_2014/LI_Mtg_Presentations_May-19-
2014/Gobler%20N%20presentation,%205.19.14.pdf
Gobler, C. J. (2016). Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Eastern Bay Project: Nitrogen Loading,
Sources, and Management Options. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University.
Gobler, C. J., & Sanudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. (2001, July 31). Temporal veriability of groundwater seepage adn
brown tide blooms in a Long Island embayment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 217, 299-309.
Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor Recreation, Health and Wellness - Understanding and Enhancing the
Relationship. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Graham, J. L. (2013). Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms. Part 1: Summer Webinar Series to Build
Awareness About Harmful Algal Blooms and Nutrient Pollution. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved
December 30, 2015, from http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hab-
overview.pdf
Griffin, D. W., Lipp, E. K., Mclaughlin, M. R., & Rose, J. B. (2001). Marine Recreation and Public Health
Microbiology: Quest for the Ideal Indicator: This article addresses the historic, recent, and future
directions in microbiological water quality indicator research. Bioscience, 817-825.
Grossman, K. (2016, February 6 ). Suffolk Closeup: Spreading toxins into our water. Shelter Island
Reporter, p. Not Paginated.
Page 282 of 305
-------
References
Habteselassie, M., Kirs, M., Conn, K., Blackwood, A., Kelly, G., & Noble, R. (2011). Tracking microbial
transport through four onsite wastewater treatment systems to receiving waters in eastern
North Carolina. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 111{4), 835-847.
Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. P. (2014). Introduction to Emergency Management, 5th Edition.
Waltham: Elseveir, Inc.
Halasa, Y. A., Shepard, D. S., Fonseca, D. M., Farajollahi, A., Healy, S., Gaugler, R., Clark, G.G. (2014).
Quantifying the impact of mosquitoes on quality of life and enjoyment of yard and porch
activities in New Jersey. PLOS One.
Hall, A., Lopman, B., Payne, D., Patel, M., Gastanaduy, P., Vinje, J., & Parashar, U. (2013). Norovirus
Disease in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(8), 1198-1205.
Hall, L. (2014, June 07). Repairs vs. Improvements - What Can I Deduct from My Taxes? . Retrieved from
Landlordology: https://www.landlordology.com/repairs-vs-improvements-tax-deductions/
Hapke, C., Himmelstoss, E., Kratzmann, M., List, J., &Thieler, E. (2011). National Assessment of Shoreline
Change: Historical Shoreline Change Along the New England and Mid-Atlantic Coasts. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2010-1118. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Harke, M., Davis, T., & Gobler, C. (2008). Source analysis of nutrient loading and their impact on
cyanobacteria dynamics in a hyper-eutrophic freshwater system, Lake Agawam, Southampton,
NY, USA. SCERP.
Harris, P., Harris-Roxas, B., Harris, E., & Kemp, L. (2007). Health Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide.
Sydney: Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE).
Harville, E., Xiong, X., Smith, B., Pridjian, G., Elkind-Hirsch, K., & Buekens, P. (2011). Combined effects of
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Gustav on the mental health of mothers of small children.
Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing 18, no. 4, 288-296.
Hattenrath-Lehmann, T. K., & Gobler, C. J. (2016). Historical Occurrence and Current Status of Harmful
Algal Blooms in Suffolk County, NY, USA. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University.
Healthy People 2020. (n.d.). Disparities. Retrieved from United States Department of Health and Human
Services: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/Disparities
Heisler, J., Golbert, P., Burkholder, J., Anderson, D., Cochlan, W., Dennison, W., . . . Suddleson, M. (2008).
Eutrophication and harmful algal blooms: A scientific consensus. Harmful Algae, 3-13.
Heller, J., Malekafzali, S., Todman, L. C., & Wier, M. (2013). Promoting equity through the practice of
health impact assessment, www.policylink.org: PolicyLink.
Helman, H. J. (2015). Beyond Health Care: The Role of Social Determinants in Promoting Health and
Health Equity. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from The Kaiser
Page 283 of 305
-------
References
Family Foundation: http://kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/beyond-health-care-the-role-of-
social-determinants-in-promoting-health-and-health-equity/
Henry, D., Cooke-Hull, S., Savukinas, J., Yu, F., Elo, N., & Van Arnum, B. (2013). Economic Impact of
Hurricane Sandy Potential Economic Activity Lost and Gained in New Jersey and New York.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Herbert, C. E., McCue, D. T., & Sanchez-Moyano, R. (2013). Is Homeownership Still an Effective Means of
Building Wealth for Low-income and Minority Households? (Was it Ever?). Boston: Harvard
University, Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Hilborn, E. D., Roberts, V. A., Backer, L., DeConno, E., Egan, J. S., Hyde, J. B.,. . . Hardy, F. J. (2014, January
10). Algal Bloom-Associated Disease Outbreaks Among Users of Freshwater Lakes United
States, 2009-2010. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR):
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6301a3.htm
Hime, J. R. ([April] 2014). Evaluation of Nitrates in Suffolk County, New York Public Water Supply Wells.
Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County Division of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Resources.
HomeAdvisor. (2016a). How Much Does it Cost to Install a Septic Tank? Retrieved from HomeAdvisor:
http://www.homeadvisor.eom/cost/plumbing/install-a-septic-tank/#
HomeAdvisor. (2016b). How Much Does it Cost to Repair a Septic Tank? Retrieved from Home Advisor:
http://www.homeadvisor.eom/cost/plumbing/repair-a-septic-tank/#
House, M. A. (1996). Public perception and water quality management. Water Science and Technology
34, no. 12, 25-32.
Hrudey, S., & Hrudey, E. (2007). Published case studies of waterborne disease outbreaks- evidence of a
recurrent threat. Water Environment Research, 79(3), 233-245.
HUD. (2013). New York Recovers: Hurricane Sandy Federal Recovery Support Strategy - Version 1.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
HUD. (2016b). Data Sets: CHAS Background. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R):
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html
HUD. (2016a). Data Sets. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Policy Development and Research (PD&R):
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/ill6/FY16-IL-ny.pdf
HUD. (2017). Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis Nassau-Suffolk (Long island), New York.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved 2017, from
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/NassauSuffolkNY-comp-17.pdf
Page 284 of 305
-------
References
Human Impact Partners. (2011). A Health Impact Assessment Toolkit; A Handbook to Conducting HIA, 3rd
Edition. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
Human Impact Partners. (2014). HIA Summary Guides. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
IBM Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Affairs. (2014). Suffolk County, New York, United States Smarter
Cities Challenge Report. Armonk, New York: IBM Corporation.
Jack, S., Bell, D., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Norovirus contamination of a drinking water supply at a hotel resort.
New Zealand Medical Journal, 126(1387), 98-107.
Jadhav, R. S., & Chen, Q. (2012). Field Investigation of Wave Dissipation Over Salt Marsh Vegetation
During Tropical Cyclone. Coastal Engineering Proceedings.
Jensen, E. T. (2005). Beach Closings: Science versus Public Perception. American Institute of Biological
Sciences.
Johal, S., Mounsey, Z., Tuohy, R., & Johnston, J. (2014). Coping with disaster: General practitioners'
perspectives on the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes. PLoS Currents 6.
Johnson, C., Albrecht, G., Ketterings, Q., Beckman, J., & Stockin, K. (2005). Nitrogen Basices - The Nitrogen
Cycle. Agronomy Fact Sheet Series - Fact Sheet 2, p. pp. 2.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2015a). The State of the Nation's Housing.
Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2015b). Emerging Trends in the Remodeling
Market. Cambridge: Joing Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
Karegar, M. A., Dixon, T. H., & Engelhart, S. E. (2016). Subsidence along the Atlantic Coast of North
America: Insights from GPS and late Holocene relative sea level data. Geophysical Research
Letters, 3126-3133.
Kay, B. H., Ryan, P. A., Russell, B. M., Holt, J. S., Lyons, S. A., & Foley, P. N. (2000). The importance of
subterranean mosquito habitat to arbovirus vector control strategies in North Queensland,
Australia" . Journal of Medical Entomology, 37 846-853.
Keeler, B., Polasky, S., Brauman, K., Johnson, K., Finlay, J., O'Neill, A., . . . Dalzell, B. (2012). Linking water
quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 45, 18619-18624.
Kenworthy, W., Gallegos, C., Costello, C., Field, D., & di Carlo, G. (2014). Dependence of Eelgrass (Zostera
marina) Light Requirements on Sediment Organic Matter in Massachusetts Coastal Bays:
Implications for Remediation and Restoration. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 446-457.
Kilpatrick, A. M., Kramer, L. D., Jones, M. J., Marra, P. P., & & Daszak, P. (2006). West Nile virus epidemics
in North America are driven by shifts in mosquito feeding behavior. PLoS biology, 4.4 606.
Page 285 of 305
-------
References
Kinney, E. L., & Valiela, I. (2011). Nitrogen Loading to Great South Bay: Land Use, Sources, Retention, and
Transport form Land to Bay. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(4), 672-686.
doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00098.1
Kirwan, M. L., Guntenspergen, G. R., D'Alpaos, A., Morris, J. T., Mudd, S. M., & Temmerman, S. (2010).
Limits on the Adaptability of Coastal Marshes to Rising Sea Level. Geophysical Research Letters,
L23401.
Klaasen, C. D., & Watkins, J. B. (2010). Casarett and Doull's Essentials of Toxicology. McGraw Hill Medical.
Kneen, B., & Lemley, A. (Directors). (1994). CCE Septic System Video [Motion Picture],
Knutson, P. L., Brochu, R. A., Seelig, W. N., & Inskeep, M. (1982). Wave Damping in Spartina alterniflora
Marshes. Wetlands, 87-104.
Korhnak, L. V., & Vince, S. W. (2004). Chapter 12 Managing Hydrological Impacts of Urbanization. In S. W.
Vince, M. L. Duryea, E. A. Macie, & A. (. Hermansen, Forests at the Wildland-Urban Interface:
Conservation and Management (pp. 175-200). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Kosinski, K., & Isaacson, M. (2017). Tackling the nitrogen problem: The Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan.
Clean Waters, 10-12.
Kreissl, J. F. (1982). On-site Wastewater Disposal Research in the United States. In A. S. Eikum, & R. W.
Seabloom, Alternative Wastewater Treatment; Low-cost Small Systems, Research and
Development; Proceedings of the Conferene held at Oslo, Norway, September 7-10, 1981 (pp. 45-
71). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Kunkel, K. E., Karl, T. R., Brooks, H., Kossin, J., Lawrimore, J. H., Arndt, D.,. . . Wuebbles, D. (2013).
Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: State of knowledge. American
Meteorological Society, 499-514.
Lai, B. S., La Greca, A. M., & Llabre, M. M. (2014). Children's sedentary activity after hurricane exposure.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 6, no. 3, 280-289.
Lanciotti, R. S., Roehrig, J. T., Deubel, V., Smith, J., Parker, M., Steele, K., & ... Gubler, D. J. (1999). Origin of
the West Nile virus responsible for an outbreak of encephalitis in the norteastern United States.
Science, 286(5448), 2333-2337.
Lane, K., Charles-Guzman, K., Wheeler, K., Abid, Z., Graber, N., & Matte, T. (2013). Health effects of
coastal storms and flooding in urban areas: a review and vulnerability assessment. Journal of
environmental and public health, 1-13.
Latimer, J. S., & Rego, S. A. (2010). Empirical Relationship Between Eelgrass Extent and Predicted
Watershed-derived Nitrogen Loading for Shallow New England Estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 231-240.
Page 286 of 305
-------
References
Latimer, J., & Charpentier, M. (2010). Nitrogen Inputs to Seventy-four Southern New England Estuaries:
Application of a Watershed Nitrogen Loading Model. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 125-
136.
Leuzzi, L. (2015, July 23). Research project attracts county wetlands benefits. Long Island Advance.
LILWA. (2016, April 17). Certification. Retrieved from Long Island Liquid Waste Association:
http://www.lilwa.org/cert.html
Lipton, D. W., & Hicks, R. (1999). Linking water quality improvements to recreational fishing values: The
case of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. Fisheries Centre research reports. Vancouver BC 7, no. 2,
105-110.
LISS. (1990). Pathogens factsheet. Long Island Sound Study.
LISS. (2015, December 3). Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM). Retrieved from Long Island Sound
Study: http://longislandsoundstudy.net/research-monitoring/slamm/
LISS. (2017, February 17). Long Island Sound Study (LISS) Science & Technical Advisory Committee (STAC)
and Water Quality Monitoring Work Group Meeting Notes. Retrieved from Long Island Sound
Study: http://longislandsoundstudy.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/February-2017-STAC-
Meeting-Summary-Plus-Science-Needs.pdf
Lloyd, J. K., Duchin, J. S., Borchert, J., Quintana, H. F., & Robertson, A. (2013). Diarrhetic Shellfish
Poisoning, Washington, USA, 2011. Emerging Infectious Disease, 1314-1316.
Lloyd, S. (2014). Nitrogen load modeling to forty-three subwatersheds of the Peconic Estuary. Cold Spring
Harbor, NY: The Nature Conservancy.
Lloyd, S., Mollod, G., LoBue, C., & Lindberg, M. (2016). Modeling Nitrogen Source Loads on the North
Shore of Long Island. Long Island, NY: The Nature Conservancy.
Lomas, M. W., Glibert, P. M., Clougherty, D. A., Huber, D. R., Jones, J., Alexander, J., & Haramoto, E.
(2001). Elevated organic nutrient ratios associated with brown tide algal blooms of Aureococcus
anophagefferens (Pelagophyceae). Journal of Plankton Research, 23(12), 1339-1344.
Long Island Neighborhood Network. (2011, December 22). Retrieved from Alternatives to Pesticides:
http://longislandnn.org/pesticides/index.htm
Long Island Regional Development Council. (2015). The Long Island Strategic Economic Development Plan
for Long Island. Suffolk County: New York State. Retrieved from Regional Economic Development
Councils: http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/content/long-island
Loomis, G. (1996). Soil Based Wastewater Treatment. Eleventh Annual on-Site Wastewater Treatment
Conference Minimizing Impacts, Maximizing Resource Potential. Plymouth, NC: Vernon G. James
Research and Extension Center.
Page 287 of 305
-------
References
Loomis, G. (2014). Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Municipal Officials Conference: Managing
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems to Protect Long Island's Waters. Old Bethpage, New York:
New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program, University of Rhode Island.
Lowe, K. S., Rothe, N. K., Tomaras, J. M., DeJong, K., Tucholke, M. B., Drews, J., .. . Munakata-Marr, J.
(2007). Influent Constituent Characteristics of the Modern Waste Stream from Single Sources:
Literature Review. Alexandia, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation; IWA Publishing.
Lowe, K. S., Tucholke, M. B., Tomaras, J. M., Conn, K., Hoppe, C., Drewes, J. E., . . . Munakata-Marr, J.
(2009). Influent Constituent Characteristics of the Modern Waste Stream from Single Sources;
Final Report. London: Water Environment Research Foundation and IWA Publishing .
Mackay, A. J., Amador, M., Diaz, A., Smith, J., & Barrera, R. (2009). Dynamics of Aedes aegypti and Culex
quiquefasciatus in septictanks. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 409-416.
Mailer, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people:
contact with nature as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health
promotion international, 21(1), 45-54.
Mannocci, A., La Torre, G., Spagnoli, A., Solimini, a. G., Palazzo, C., & De Giusti, M. (2016). Is swimming in
recreational water associated with the occurrence of respiratory illness? A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Water and Health, 590-599.
Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet, 365, 1099-1104.
Marten, G. G., Nguyen, M., Mason, B. J., & Giai., N. (2000). Natural control of Culex quinquefasciatus
larvae in residential ditches by the copepod Macrocyclops albidus. Journal of Vector Ecology,
25(1), 7-15.
May, L., Place, C., O'Malley, M., & Spears, B. (2011). The Impact of Phosphorus Inputs from Small
Discharges on Designated Freshwater Sites. Edinburgh, UK: Natural England and Broads
Authority.
Mayer, P., DeOreo, W., Opitz, E., Kiefer, J., Davis, W., Dziegielewski, B., & Nelson, J. (1999). Residential
End Uses of Water. Denver, CO: Prepared for American Water Works Association Research
Foundation and AWWA.
McArdle, A. L. (2014). Storm Surges, Disaster Planning, and Vulnerable Populations at the Urban
Periphery: Imagining a Resilient New York After Superstorm Sandy. Idaho Law Review, 50, 19-47.
Meeroff, D. E., Bloetscher, F., Bocca, T., & Morin, F. (2008). Evaluation of water quality impacts of on-site
treatment and disposal systems on urban coastal waters. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 192, 11-24.
doi:10.1007/sll270-008-9630-2
Meeroff, D., Bloetscher, F., Long, S., & Bocca, T. (2014). The use of multiple tracers to evaluate the impact
of sewered and nonsewered development on coastal water quality in a rural area of Florida.
Water Environment Research, 86(5), 445-456.
Page 288 of 305
-------
References
Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. C., & Yohe, G. W. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Meyer, M. H., Campbell, S. R., & Johnston, J. M. (2017). Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and
sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere, e01854.
Miami-Dade Government. (2014, August 20). Phases of Emergency Management. Retrieved November
11, 2015, from http://www.miami-dade.gov/fire/about-emergency-management-phases.asp
Michael, H. J., Boyle, K. J., & Bouchard, R. (1996). Water Quality Affects Property Prices: A Case Study of
Selected Maine Lakes. Miscellaneous Report 398. Orono, Maine: Maine Agricultural and Forest
Experimentation Station.
Mid Suffolk Cesspool and Rooter Service, Inc. (2015). When to Service. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from
Mid Suffolk Cesspool and Rooter Service, Inc.: https://www.midsuffolkcesspool.com/when-to-
service.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Misut, P., & Monti, J. J. (2016). Delineation of Areas Contributing Groundwater to Selected Receiving
Water Bodies for Long-term Average Hydrologic Conditions from 1968 to 1983 for Long Island
New York. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5138. Reston, VA: U.S.
Geological Survey.
Moller, I., Spencer, T., French, J., Leggett, D., & Dixon, M. (1999). Wave Transformation Over Salt
Marshes: A Field and Numerical Modeling Study from North Norfolk. Coastal and Shelf Science,
411-426.
Moran, J. (2018). Managing Disasters at the County Level: A Focus on Technology. Washington, DC:
National Association of Counties.
Morris, J. T., Sundareshwar, P., Nietch, C. T., Kjerfve, B., & Cahoon, D. (2002). Responses of Coastal
Wetlands to Rising Sea Levels. Ecology, 2869-2877.
Morris, J., & Bradley, P. (1999). Effects of Nutrient Loading on the Carbon Balance of Coastal Wetland
Sediments. Limnology and Oceanography, 44, 699-702.
Moses, J. (2008). Generating Heat Around the Goal of Making Home Energy Affordable to Low Income
Americans: Current Challenges and Proposed Solutions. Washington, D.C.: Center for American
Progress.
Mulholland, M. R., Morse, R. E., Boneillo, G. E., Bernhardt, P. W., Filippino, K. C., Procise, L. A.,. . . Gobler,
C. J. (2009). Understanding causes and impacts of the dinoflagellate, Cochlodinium polykrikoides,
blooms in the Chesapeake bay. Estuaries and Coasts, 32(4), 734-747.
Page 289 of 305
-------
References
Nabihah, V. (2014). The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary. National Housing
Conference. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy.
Napolitano, J. (2013, February 24). How climate change could threaten, transform LI. Newsday.
Narahashi, T., Zhao, X., Ikeda, T., Nagata, K., & Yeh, J. (2007). Differential actions of insecticides on target
sites: basis for selective toxicity. Hum Exp Toxicol, 26(4) 361-366.
Nasci, R. S., White, D. J., Stirling, H., & Oliver, J. e. (2001). West nile virus isolates from mosquitoes in New
York and New Jersey, 1999. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 7(4), 626-630.
National Environmental Services Center, (n.d.). Septic Stats- New York. Retrieved December 10, 2015,
from National Environmental Services Center Septic Integrated Database:
http://www.nesc.wvu.edU/septic_idb/newyork.htm#septicstats
National Research Council. (2010). Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Improving Health in the United States, The role of Health Impact
Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, D.C.:The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf Coasts. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse, (n.d.). Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System.
Morgantown, WV: National Small Flows Clearinghouse.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1996, Summer). Wastewater treatment protects small community
life, health. Pipeline, Vol. 7, No. 3.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (1997, Fall). Basic wastewater characteristics. Pipeline, Vol. 8, No. 4.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (2006, Summer). First aid for a flooded septic system. Pipeline. Vol.
17, No. 3.
NCCOS. (2017). Protecting New Yorkers from Toxic Shellfish Poisoning with HAB Early Warning and Rapid
Response. Retrieved from National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Services:
https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/project/new-yorkers-shellfish-poisoning-hab-early-warning-
rapid-response/
Neralla, S., Weaver, R. W., Lesikar, B. J., & Persyn, R. A. (2000). Improvement of domestic wastewater
quality by subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Bioresource Technology, 75(1) 19-25.
Neria, Y., & Shultz, J. M. (2012). Mental Health Effects of Hurricane Sandy: Characteristics, Potential
Aftermath, and Response. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2571-2572.
Page 290 of 305
-------
References
New York Sea Grant. (2018, July 28). 2018 Suffolk County Harmful Algal Bloom Symposium: Summary
Report. Retrieved from New York Sea Grant: https://seagrant.sunysb.edu/articles/t/2018-
suffolk-county-harmful-algal-bloom-symposium-summary-report-harmful-algal-blooms-news?q=
New York State. (2014, October 28). Governor Cuomo Announces Actions to Strengthen Coastal Resiliency
Against Future Storms on Long Island [Press Release], Retrieved from
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-actions-strengthen-coastal-
resiliency-against-future-storms-long
New York State. (2015a, September 13). Governor Cuomo Announces $388 Million in Funding for Critical
Coastal Resiliency and Sewer Expansion Project in Suffolk County [Press Release], Retrieved from
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-388-million-funding-critical-
coastal-resiliency-and-sewer-expansion
New York State. (2015b, January 3). Suffolk Water Quality Initiative Program. Retrieved from New York
State Governor's Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR):
https://stormrecovery.ny.gov/infrastructure/suffolk-water-quality-initiative-program
New York State. (2016, February 18). Governor Cuomo Launches Statewide Water Quality Initiatives.
Retrieved March 26, 2016, from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-launches-
statewide-water-quality-initiatives
New York State, (n.d.). Apply for HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program). Retrieved from New York
State: http://www.ny.gov/services/apply-heap
New York State Comptroller. (2006). Economic Trends in Suffolk County. Report 7-2007. New York, NY:
Office of the State Comptroller, New York City Public Information Office.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. (2016). Home Energy Efficiency Programs.
Retrieved from NYSERDA : https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/AII-Programs/Programs/Home-Energy-
Efficiency-Upgrades
New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force. (2010). New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the
Legislature. New York.
New York State Seagrass Task Force. (2009). Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:
Recommendations to the New York State Governor and Legislature. New York: New York State
Seagrass Task Force.
NicholIs, R. J. (2004). Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES
climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 69-86.
Nichol Is, R. J. (2006). Storm Surges in Coastal Areas. In M. Arnold, R. S. Chen, U. Deichmann, M. Dilley, A.
L. Lerner-Lam, R. E. Pullen, & Z. Trohanis, Natural Disaster Hotspots Case Studies; Disaster Risk
Management Series No 6 (pp. 79-108). Washington: The World Bank.
Page 291 of 305
-------
References
Nierenberg, K. M. (2010). Florida red tide perception: Residents versus tourists. Harmful algae 9, no. 6,
600-606.
NOAA. (2004). Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980-2008. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association, National Ocean Service.
NOAA. (2013). Regional Impact Evaluation: An Initial Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Sandy on
New Jersey and New York Commercial and Recreational Fishing Sectors. Washington, DC:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Science & Technology and Northeast
Fisheries Science .
NOAA. (2014a). Sea Level Rise and Nuisance Flood Frequency Changes around the United States. NOAA
Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 073. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
NOAA. (2014b, October 31). NOAA: 'Nuisance flooding' an increasing problem as coastal sea levels rise.
Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140728_nuisanceflooding.html
NOAA. (2015a). Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Retrieved from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-
data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn
NOAA. (2015b). Frequent Questions: Ocean and Great Lakes Jobs. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA. (2016a, February 25). Are all algal blooms harmful? Retrieved from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/habharm.html
NOAA. (2016b). Wetland Benefits Snapshot: Suffolk County, New York. Retrieved from Coastal County
Snapshots: https://coast.noaa.gov/snapshots/
NOAA. (2016c). Suffolk County, New York. Retrieved from Ocean Jobs Snapshot:
https://coast.noaa.gov/snapshots/#/process?action=ocean&state=36&county=103&bounds=-
73.89706276858366,40.20987686223731,-71.45621477693045,41.69013049900105
NOAA. (n.d.-a). Coastal Wetlands. Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Habitat Protection: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/wetlands/
NOAA. (n.d.-b). Carbon Sequestration 101. Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Habitat Conservation:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/coastalcarbonsequestration.html
NOAA. (n.d.-c). Mapping Social Vulnerability. Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Office of Science and Technology:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-indicators/map
Page 292 of 305
-------
References
Novello, A. (2000). The Washington County Fair Outbreak Report. Albany, NY: New York State
Department of Health.
Nuzzi, R., & Waters, R. M. (2004). Long-term perspective on the dynamics of brown tide blooms in Long
Island coastal bays. Brown Tides, 3(4), 279-293. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2004.04.001
NYS 2100 Commission. (2013). Recommendations to Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire
State's Infrastructure. New York State.
NYSDEC. (2004). Coastal Resiliency and Water Quality in Nassau and Suffolk Counties: Recommended
Actions and a Proposed Path Forward. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
NYSDEC. (2010, November 6). Pathogen Contamination of Shellfish. Retrieved from New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation: https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/69463.html
NYSDEC. (2012, October 31). Certified CEHA Communities. Retrieved from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/86552.html
NYSDEC. (2014a). New York State Design Standards for Intermediate-sized Wastewater Treatment
Systems, March 5, 2014. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environemntal Conservation,
Division of Water.
NYSDEC. (2014b, September). Impaired/DeListed Waters NOT Included on the 2014 Section 303(d) List.
Retrieved from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dnotlisted2014.pdf
NYSDEC. (2014c). Nitrogen Pollution and Adverse Impacts on Resilient Tidal Marshlands: NYS DEC
Technical Briefing Summary. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
NYSDEC. (2015). Trends in Wetland Loss; Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Retrieved December 31, 2015,
from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/31989.html
NYSDEC. (2016a, September). The Proposed Final New York State 2016 Section 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy. Retrieved from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dproplist2016.pdf
NYSDEC. (2016b, June 3). Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Archive Page. Retrieved from NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/83332.html
NYSDEC. (2017). New York Ocean Action Plan, 2017-2027. Albany, NY: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
NYSDEC and LIRPC. (2016). Conceptual Draft Scope Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan; January 2016
Version 1.3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Long Island
Regrional Plannig Council.
Page 293 of 305
-------
References
NYSDOH. (2012). Residential Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook. Albany, NY:
Health Research Incorporated.
NYSDOH. (2013). 2012 Communicable Disease Annual Reports. Retrieved from New York State
Department of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/diseases/communicable/2012/.
NYSDOH. (2014, Revised October). Suffolk County Compliance Report 2013. Retrieved from New York
State Department of Health Violation Summary Map:
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/violations/2013/suffolk_county_compl
iance_report.htm
NYSDOH. (2016, April). Guidance when using Mosquito Dunks (larvicide). New York: New York State
Department of Health.
NYSDOH. (n.d.). Mold and Your Home: What You Need to Know. Retrieved from New York State
Department of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7287/
Oakley, S., Gold, A., & Ocskowski, A. (2010). Nitrogen control through decentralized wastewter
treatment: process, performance and alternative management strategies. Ecological Engineering,
36, 1520-1531.
Office of the Comptroller. (2015). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended December
31, 2014. Suffolk County: Suffolk County, New York.
Office of the Comptroller. (2016). Suffolk County, New York Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
the Year Ended December 31, 2015. Suffolk County, NY: Suffolk County.
Olson, C. (1999). Nutrition and health outcomes associated with food insecurity and hunger. Journal of
Nutrition, 521S-524S.
Onsite Wastewater Working Group, (n.d.). Detecting failing septic systems in your lake: a cost-effective
methodology. New York: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Orth, R. J., Carruthers, T. J., Dennison, W. C., Duarte, C. M., Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L., . . . Williams, S.
L. (2006). A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems. Bioscience, 987-996.
Osmond, D., Line, D., Gale, J., Gannon, R., Knott, C., Bartenhagen, K., . .. Lehning, D. (1995).
WATERSHEDDS: Water, Soil and Hydro-Environmental Decision Support System,
http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Paerl, H. W., Pinckney, J. L., Fear, J. M., & Peierls, B. J. (1998). Ecosystem responses to internal and
watershed organic matter loading: consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River
Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 166, 17-25.
Paerl, H. W., Fulton, R.S., Moisander, P. H., & Dyble, J. (2001). Harmful freshwater algal blooms, with an
emphasis on cyanobacteria. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 1, 76-113.
Page 294 of 305
-------
References
Paerl, H., & Otten, T. (2013). Harmful cyanobacterial blooms: causes, consequences, and controls.
Microbial Ecology, 65(4) 995-1010.
Pannell, M., & Yeakey, C. (2011). To Heat or to Eat: The Detrimental Effects of Competing Commodity
Costs on Low-Income Families. In C. Yeaky, V. Thompson, & A. [. Wells, Urban Ills: Twenty-first-
Century Complexities of Urban Living in Global Contexts (pp. 59-100). Lanham, MD.
Peconic Estuary Program. (2015, December 16). Peconic Estuary Program Management Committee
Meeting Summary. Retrieved from Peconic Estuary Program:
http://m.peconicestuary.org/pdfs/committees/9/CommitteeName_2015-12-16_minutes.pdf
Pendleton, L. H., & Rooke, J. (2006). Understanding the Potential Economic Impact of Marine Recreational
Fishing: California. Los Angeles: Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of
California.
Pendleton, L., Martin, N., & Webster, D. (2001). Public perceptions of environmental quality: a survey
study of beach use and perceptions in Los Angeles County. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, no. 11,
1155-1160.
Pennings, S. (2012). Ecology: The Big Picture of Marsh Loss. Nature, 490, 352-353.
PEP. (2001). Peconic Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Yaphank, NY:
Peconic Estuary Program.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2016). Household Expenditures and Income. Philadelphia: The Pew Charitable
Trusts.
Phaneuf, D. J., Smith, V. K., Palmquist, R. B., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Integrating property value and local
recreation models ot value ecosystem services in urban watersheds. Land Economics, 84(3): 361-
381.
Pickering, T. G. (2001). Mental stress as a causal factor in the development of hypertension and
cardiovascular disease. Current Hypertension Reports, 3(3), 249-254.
Pompe, J., & Rinehart, R. (1995). Beach quality and the enhancement of recreational property values.
Journal of Leisure Research, 143-154.
Postma, F. B., Gold, A. J., & Loomis, G. W. (1992). Nutrient and Microbial Movement from Seasonally
Used Septic Systems. Journal of Environmental, 5-10.
Potente, J. E. (2007). Geomorphic Alteration of Tidal Wetlands by Mosquito Control Agencies. Program
for the Fourteenth Conference on "Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York". Stony
Brook, NY: Stony Brook University.
Pouillot, R., Van Doren, J., Woods, J., Plante, D., Smith, M., Goblick, G., . . . White, J. (2015). Meta-Analysis
of the Reduction of Norovirus and Male-Specific Coliphage Concentrations in Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81(14), 4669-4681.
Page 295 of 305
-------
References
Pratt, H., & Moore, C. (1993). Mosquitoes of Public Health Importance and Their Control. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Quality Cesspools. (2015, July 21). Septic Services, Repairs, and Installations. Retrieved from Quality
Cesspools: https://www.qualitycesspool.com/septic-tank-babylon/
Quigley, R., den Broeder, L., Furu, P., Bond, A., Cave, B., & Bos, R. (2006). Health Impact Assessment
International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 5.. Fargo, ND: International
Association of Impact Assessment.
Rasmussen, E. (1977). The wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and its effects on environmental
factors and fauna. In C. McRoy, & C. (. Helfferich, Seagrass Ecosystems (pp. 1-51). New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Read, N. R., Rooker, J. R., & Gathman, J. P. (1994). Public perception of mosquito annoyance measured by
a survey and simultaneous mosquito sampling. Journ Am. Mosq Control Assn, 10(1), 79-87.
Reay, W. G. (2004). Septic tank impacts on ground water quality and nearshore sediment nutrient flux.
Groundwater, 42(7) 1079-1089.
Reguera, B., Riobo, P., Rodriguez, F., Diaz, P. A., Pizarro, G., Paz, B.,. . . Blanco, J. (2014). Dinophysis
Toxins: Causative Organisms, Distribution and Fate in Shellfish. Marine Drugs, 394-461.
Renwood RealtyTrac LLC. (2013, October 29). New York City and Long Island Foreclosures Continue to
Increase a Year After Hurricane Sandy Hit. Retrieved from RealtyTrac:
http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/new-york-city-and-long-island-
foreclosures-continue-to-increase-a-year-after-hurricane-sandy-hit-2/
Resh, V. H., & Rosenberg, D. M. (2008). Water Pollution and Insects. In Encyclopedia of Entomology (pp.
4158-4168). Springer Netherlands.
Rettner, R. (2013, October 28). Hurricane Sandy's Toll on Health. Retrieved from Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/40754-hurricane-sandy-health-impact.html
Rodriguez, J., & Kohn, R. (2008). Use of mental health services among disaster survivors. Current Opinion
in Psychiatry, 21(4), 370-378.
Rosenberger, R. S., Bergerson, T. R., & Kline, J. D. (2009). Macro-linkages between health and outdoor
recreation: the role of parks and recreation providers. Journ. Park & Rec. Admin., 27(3), 8-20.
RPA. (2016). Under Water: How Sea Level Rise Threatens the Tri-State Region. New York, NY: Regional
Plan Association.
RTI International. (2014). Current and Prospective Scope of Hunger and Food Security in America: A
Review of Current Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Page 296 of 305
-------
References
Rung, A. L., Broyles, S. T., Mowen, A. J., Gustat, J., & Sothern, M. S. (2011). Escaping to and being active in
neighbourhood parks: park use in a post-disaster setting. Disasters, 383-403.
Said, B., Write, F., Nichols, G., Reacher, M., & Rutter, M. (2003). Outbreaks of infectious disease
associated with private drinking water supplies in England and Wales 1970-2000. Epidemiology
and Infections, 130, 469-479.
Salo, T., & Pedersen, M. F. (2014). Synergistic Effects of Altered Salinity and Temperature on Estuarine
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Seedlings and Clonal Shoots. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 143-150.
Sanford, M., Chan, K., & Walton, W. (2005). Effects of inorganic nitrogen enrichment on mosquitoes
(Diptera: Culicidae) and the associated aquatic community in constructed treatment wetlands. .
Journal of Medical Entomology, 766-776.
SCDEP. (2008). Demographic, Economic, and Development Trends. Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County
Department of Planning.
SCDHS. (1995). Standards- Approval of Plans and Construction Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-
Family Residences. Yaphank, NY: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of
Environmental Quality.
SCDHS. (2007, August 24). Suffolk County Beaches FAQs. Retrieved from Suffolk County Department of
Health Services: http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/
EnvironmentalQuality/Ecology/BeachMonitoringProgram/SuffolkCountyBeachesFAQs.aspx
SCDHS. (2013, May 30). Larvicide Notice. Retrieved from Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/tabid/132/ctl/Details/mid/907/lt
emlD/1309/Default.aspx
SCDHS. (2014a). Proposed Sanitary Code Policy Changes for Upgrading Existing OSSDs- Revision 2: 8-15-
14. Yaphank, New York, United States of America: Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
SCDHS. (2014b). Suffolk County Chooses Four Vendors for Round One of Demonstaration of Innovative
Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County Department
of Health Services.
SCDHS. (2014c). Suffolk County Water Quality and Coastal Resiliency Action Plan. Municipal Officials
Conference: Managing Cesspools and Septic Systems to Protest Long Island's Waters, March 25,
2014 (p. PowerPoint). Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
SCDHS. (2015a). Suffok County Community Health Assessment 2014-2017. Great River, NY: Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
SCDHS. (2015b, December 15). Office of Water Resources. Retrieved from Suffolk County Government:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/EnvironmentalQuality/WaterReso
urces.aspx
Page 297 of 305
-------
References
SCDHS. (2015c). Beach water quality monitoring data, 2005-2015. Yaphank, N.Y.: Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology.
SCDHS. (2015d, June 8). Aerial Larvicide Spraying Notice. Retrieved from Suffolk County Department of
Health Services: http://suffolkcountyny.gov/Home/tabid/59/ctl/details/itemid/3578/mid/2638/
aerial-larvicide-spraying-notice.aspx
SCDHS. (2016a). Interim Standards- Approval of Plans and Construction Sewage Disposal Systems for
Single-Family Residences. Yaphank, NY: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of
Environmental Quality.
SCDHS. (2016b). Suffolk County Sanitary Code; Article 19 Management of Innovative and Alternative
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Yaphank, NY: Suffolk County Department of Health
Services.
SCDHS. (2016c, June 3). Harmful Algal Blooms. Retrieved from Suffolk County Government:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/EnvironmentalQuality/Ecology/IVI
arineWaterQualityMonitoring/HarmfulAlgalBlooms.aspx
SCDHS. (2016d, May 31). Mosquitoes. Retrieved from Suffolk County Department of Health Services:
http://suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/PublicHealth/PreventiveServices/Arthr
opodborneDiseaseProgram/Mosquitoes.aspx
SCDHS. (2017, September 29). Three New Mosquito Samples Test Positive for West Nile Virus. Retrieved
from Suffolk County Department of Health Services:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gOv/Departments/SocialServices/DSSHome/tabid/3324/ctl/details/i
temid/6965/mid/8053/three-new-mosquito-samples-test-positive-for-west-nile-virus.aspx
SCDHS. (2018). Mosquito-borne Diseases. Retrieved from Suffolk County Department of Health Services:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/PublicHealth/PreventiveServices/
ArthropodborneDiseaseProgram/MosquitoBorneDiseases.aspx
Schmeltz, M. T., Gonzalez, S. K., Fuentes, L., Kwan, A., Ortega-Williams, A., & Cowan, L. P. (2013). Lessons
from Hurricane Sandy: a Community Response in Brooklyn, New York. Journal of Urban Health,
799-809.
Schreiber, M., Yin, R., Omaish, M., & Broderick, J. (2014). Snapshot From Superstorm Sandy: American
Red Cross Mental Health Risk Surveillance in Lower New York State. Annals of emergency
medicine, 59-65.
Schwartz, M., & Wilson, E. (2008). Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?: A look at data from the 2006
American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.
SCWA. (2016). 2016 Drinking Water Quality Report; For the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
Oakdale, NY: Suffolk County Water Authority. Retrieved from
http://sl091480.instanturl.net/dwqr2016/water-quality-report-2016-scwa_vl.html
Page 298 of 305
-------
References
SCWA. (2019). Drinking Water Questions. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from Suffolk County Water
Authority: https://www.scwa.com/water-quality/water-education/faqs/
Seabloom, R. W. (1982). Objectives of On-site Wastewater Disposal. In A. S. Eikum, & R. W. Seabloom,
Alternative Wastewater Treatment; Low-cost Small Systems, Research and Development;
Proceedings of the Conference held at Oslo, Norway, September 7-10, 1981 (pp. 3-8). Dordrecht,
Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Shepard, C. C., Agostini, V. N., Gilmer, B., Allen, T., Stone, J., Brooks, W., & Beck, M. W. (2012). Assessing
future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of
Long Island, New York. Natural Hazards, 121-1 A3.
Shultz, J. M. (2005). Epidemiology of tropical cyclones: the dynamics of disaster, disease, and
development. Epidemiologic reviews, 27(1), 21-35.
Smith, D. G. (1995a). Human perception of water appearance: 1. Clarity and colour for bathing and
aesthetics. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29, no. 1, 29-43.
Smith, D. G. (1995b). Human perception of water appearance: 2. Colour judgment, and the influence of
perceptual set on perceived water suitability for use. New Zealand journal of marine and
freshwater research 29, no. 1, 45-50.
Smith, R. P. (2009). The Blue Baby Syndromes: Did environment or infection cause a blood disorder in
newborns? American Scientist, 94.
Smith, T., & Ince, M. (1989). Septic System Density and Groundwater Contamination in Illinois: A Survey of
State and Local Regulation. Springfield, IL: Illinois Institute of Natural Resources Energy
Department.
Sodurlund, D. M., Clark, J. M., Sheets, L. P., Mullin, L. S., Piccirillo, V. J., Sargent, D., . .. Weiner, M. L.
(2002). Mechanisms of pyrethroid neurotoxicity: implications for cumulative risk assessment.
Toxicology, 171(1), 3-59.
SOPHIA Equity Working Group. (2014). Equity Metrics for Health Impact Assessment Practice, Version 1.
Oakland, CA: Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment.
Southwick Associates. (2015). Economic Contributions of Recreational Fishing: U.S. Congressional
Districts. Alexandria, VA: American Sportfishing Association.
Sowah, R., Zhang, J., Rdcliffe, D., Bauske, E., & Habteselassie, M. (2014). Evaluating the influence of septic
systems and watershed characteristics on stream faecal pollution in suburban watersheds in
Georgia, USA. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 117{5), 1500-1512.
Stedman, S.-M., Linn, J., & Kutschenreuter, K. (2010, May-June). Celebrate Coastal Wetlands: Connecting
Us All! National Wetlands Newletter, pp. 20-23.
Page 299 of 305
-------
References
Stevik, T. K., Aa, K., Ausland, G., & Hanssen, J. F. (2004). Retention and removal of pathogenic bacteria in
wastewater percolating through porous media: a review. Water Research, 1355-1367.
Stewart, J. R., Gast, R. J., Fujioka, R. S., Solo-Gabriele, H. M., Meschke, S., Amaral-Zettler, L. A.,. . .
Holland, F. (2008). The coastal environment and human health: microbial indicators, pathogens,
sentinels, and reservoirs. Environmental Health, 7(2), 1-14. doi:10.1186/1474-069X-7-S2-S3
Stinnette, I. (2014). Nitrogen Loading to the South Shore, Eastern Bays, NY: Sources, Impacts and
Management Options (Master's Thesis). Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University: School of
Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.
Stony Brook Medicine. (2014). 2014 Community Needs Assessment, Suffolk County, New York. Suffolk
County: Stony Brook Medicine.
Stony Brook University. (2013, June 11). Brown tide has emerged off Long Island, NY in Moriches,
Quantuck and Shinnecock Bay, but not in Great South Bay. Retrieved from ScienceDaily:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130611130919.htm
Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research. (2006). Public Perception Survey of Long Island Sound
Watershed Residents. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research.
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works. (2016). Suffolk County Aerial Mosquito Larvicide Notification for
June 1. Commack: Long Island News & PR.
Suffolk County Government. (2011). Suffolk County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk
County Department of Planning.
Suffolk County Government. (2013a, April 27). What is an Absorption System? Retrieved from Suffolk
County Stormwater Management Program: https://appt.suffolkcountyny.gov/stormwater_bck/
SepticSystemsandSuffolkCounty/WhatisanAbsorptionSystem.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2013b, April 27). Identifying Septic System Failure. Retrieved from Suffolk
County Stormwater Management Program: https://appt.suffolkcountyny.gov/stormwater_bck/
SepticSystemsandSuffolkCounty/ldentifyingSepticSystemFailure.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2013c, March 13). Septic System Maintenance. Retrieved from Suffolk
County Stormwater Management Program: https://appt.suffolkcountyny.gov/stormwater_bck/
SepticSystemsandSuffolkCounty/SepticSystemMaintenance.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2014a, January 27). Tele-Town Hall Meeting on the Water Quality Crisis in
Suffolk County. Haupauge, New York, United States of America. Retrieved September 10, 2015,
from http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/CountyExecutive/WaterResources
ManagementPlan.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2014b). Muli-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Yaphank, NY:
Suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services.
Page 300 of 305
-------
References
Suffolk County Government. (2014c, May 15). Bellone and Hahn Announce: Legislature Approves Funds
for Algal Bloom Plan, Strategy. Retrieved from Suffolk County Press Releases:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/SuffolkCountyPressReleases/tabid/1418/itemid/2393/amid/29
54/bellone-and-hahn-announce-legislature-approves-funds-for-algal-bloom-plan-strat.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2015a). Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County Government.
Suffolk County Government. (2015b). Reclaim Our Waters Initiative; Comprehensive Water Resources
Managment Plan 2015- Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps; March 23, 2015. Retrieved
from Suffolk County Sewer District Capacity Study:
http://suffolksewerstudy.cdmims.com/Libraries/documents/Comp_Plan_Stakeholder_Presentati
on_3-23-15.sflb.ashx
Suffolk County Government. (2016a). RFPfor Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan and Generic
Environmental Impact Statement Consulting Services (Rev. 1/27/16); SC Purchasing FRP No.
16009. Haupauge, NY: Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
Suffolk County Government. (2016b). 2016 Annual Plan of Work - Division of Vector Control. Suffolk
County, NY: Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control.
Suffolk County Government. (2020). Private Well Water Testing Program. Retrieved from Suffolk County
Department of Health Services: https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/Health-
Services/Environmental-Quality/Water-Resources/Private-Well-Water-Testing-Program
Suffolk County Tick and Vector-Borne Diseases Task Force. (2015). Final Report of the Suffolk County Tick
and Vector-Borne Diseases Task Force. Great River, NY: Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services.
SUNY-Stony Brook. (1993). Long Island Groundwater. Proceedings of the Conference on Water Quality on
Long Island, January 26,1993 (pp. 1-7). Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony
Brook. Retrieved from http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/cen514/info/LI/Groundwater.pdf
SUNY-Stony Brook. (2014). Oyster Bay Wastewater Treatment Public Perception Survey. Stony Brook, NY:
Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research.
Sweet, W. V., & Marra, J. J. (2015). 2014 State of Nuisance Tidal Flooding. Washington, DC: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Sweet, W. V., & Park, J. (2014). From the Extreme to the Mean: Acceleration and Tipping Points of Coastal
Inundation from Sea Level Rise. Earth's Future, 579-600.
Tang, Y. Z., & Gobler, C. J. (2009). Characterization of the toxicity of Cochlodinium polykrikoides isolates
from Northeast US estuaries to finfish and shellfish. Harmful Algae, 8(3) 454-462.
Tanski, J. (2010). New York. In J. G. Titus, & D. (. Hudgens, The Likelihood of Shore Protection along the
Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 1: Mid-Atlantic. Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. . Washington, D.C.
Page 301 of 305
-------
References
Tanski, J. (2012). Long Island's Dynamic South Shore: A Primer on the Forces and Trends Shaping Our
Coast. Stony Brook, NY: New York Sea Grant.
Taylor, J., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2001). Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to the green play
setting. Environment & Behavior, 33(1), 54-77.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sage, R. M., Lehman, B. J., & Seeman, T. E. (2004). Early environment, emotions,
responses to stress, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1365-1394.
Thieler, R. E., & Hammar-Klose, E. S. (1999). National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level
Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast. USGS Open File Report 99-593. Woods Hole,
MA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Tiner, R. W., & Herman, J. (2015). Preliminary Inventory of Potential Wetland Restoration Sites for Long
Island, New York. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Northeast Region.
Tiner, R., McGuckin, K., & Fields, M. (2012). Changes in Long Island Wetlands, New York: Circa 1900-
2004. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.
TNC. (2012, July 24). Long Island Brown and Red Tides on Upsurge. Retrieved from The Nature
Conservancy:
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/newsroom/!
ong-island-brown-and-red-tides.xml
TNC. (2016). Coastal Resilience: New York. Retrieved from The Nature Conservancy: are
http://coastalresilience.org/project/new-york/
Tomarken, J. L., Gerstman, M., & Gobler, C. J. (2016). Investigation of Fish Kills Occurring in the Peconic
River - Riverhead, NY Spring 2015. Riverhead: Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services.
Tonjes, D. J. (2013). Impacts from ditching salt marshes in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United
States. Environmental Reviews, 116-126.
Tourism Economics. (2012). The Economic Impact of Tourism in New York - 2012 Calendar Year, Long
Island Focus. Wayne, PA: Tourism Economics.
Trauring, M. (2013, September 29). Is potentially fatal danger lurking underground? The East Hampton
Press & The Southampton Press.
Turner, R. (2011). Beneath the Salt Marsh Canopy: Loss of Soil Strength with Increasing Nutrient Loads.
Estuaries and Coasts., 34, 1084-1093 .
Turner, R., Howes, B., Teal, J., Milan, C., Swenson, E., & Goehringer-Tonerb, D. (2009). Salt Marshes and
Eutrophication: An Unsustainable Outcome. Limnology and Oceanography, 54(5), 1634-1642.
Page 302 of 305
-------
References
Turner, R., Swenson, E., & Milan, C. (2000). Organic and Inorganic Contributions to Vertical Accretion in
Salt Marsh Sediment. In M. Weinstein, & D. (. Kreeger, Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh
Ecology (pp. 583-595). Kluwer.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Selected Economic Characteristics 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-
year Estimates. Retrieved from American FactFinder:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Government Printing Office.
Ulrich, R. S. (2002). Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Plants for People, Prepared for International
Exhibition Floriade.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2013, April). Causes of Sea Level Rise: What the Science Tells Us.
Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/sealevelrisescience
United States Census Bureau. (2016, 4 21). County Business Patterns by Employment Size Class: 2014
Business Patterns. Retrieved from American Fact Finder:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_2014_00A
3&prodType=table
University of Minnesota. (2017). Cost and Funding: The Costs and Financing of Septic Systems. Retrieved
January 14, 2016, from Onsite Sewage Treatment Program: http://septic.umn.edu/septic-system-
owners/cost-funding
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. (2016). Suffolk (SF) New York 2016 Health Rankings.
Retrieved from County Health Rankings & Roadmaps:
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/new-
york/2016/rankings/suffolk/county/outcomes/overall/snapshot
USFWS. (2015). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from US Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USFWS. (2016a). What are Wetlands? Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Other/What-are-wetlands.html
USGS. (2015, September 30). Coastal Change Hazards: Hurricanes and Extreme Storms. Retrieved from
U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center:
https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/impact-scale/index.php
USGS. (2017, January 4). Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Sanitary Water Quality. Retrieved from U.S.
Geological Survey: https://mi.water.usgs.gov/h2oqual/BactHOWeb.html
Vaughn, J., Landry, E., Thomas, M., Vicale, T., & Penello, W. (1979). Survey of Human Enterovirus
Occurrence in Fresh and Marine Surface Waters on Long Island. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 290-296.
Page 303 of 305
-------
References
Volker, S. a. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and well-being-Salutogenetic health
effects of inland surface waters: A review. International journal of hygiene and environmental
health 214, no. 6, 449-460.
Wallender, E., Ailes, E., Yoder, J., Roberts, V., & Brunkard, J. (2014). Contributing factors to disease
outbreaks associated with untreated groundwater. Groundwater, 52(6), 886-897.
Walsh, C. (2015, June 11). Doubs, Ire Over Mosquito Spraying. The East Hampton Star, p. Not paginated.
Retrieved from The East Hampton Star:
http://easthamptonstar.com/Government/2015611/Doubts-lre-Over-Mosquito-Spraying
Walsh, P. J., Milon, J. W., & Scrogin, D. O. (2011). The Spatial Extent of Water Quality Benefits in Urban
Housing Markets. Land Economics, 628-644.
Water Resources Research Center & Engineering Solutions Inc. (2008). Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Survey and Assessment Honolulu, HI: State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic
Development and Tourism and Department of Health.
Watson, E., Oczkowski, A., Wigand, C., Hanson, A., Davey, E., Crosby, S., . . . Andrews, H. (2014). Nutrient
Enrichment and Precipitation Changes Do Not Enhance Resiliency of Salt Marshes to Sea Level
Rise in the Northeastern U.S. Climate Change, 125:501-509.
Weirich, C., & Miller, T. (2014). Freshwater harmful algal blooms: toxins and children's health. Current
Problems in Pediatric and Adolexcent Health Care, 44(1), 2-24.
Weiskel, P. K., Howes, B. L., & Huefelder, G. R. (1996). Coliform contamination of a coastal embayment:
sources and transport pathways. Environmental Science and Technology, 30, 1872-1881.
Weston, N. B. (2014). Declining Sediments and Rising Seas: an Unfortunate Convergence for Tidal
Wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts, 1-23.
Whitaker, R. C., Phillips, S. M., & Orzol, S. M. (2006). Food Insecurity and the Risks of Depression and
Anxiety in Mothers and Behavior Problems in their Preschool-Aged Children. Official Journal of
the American Academy of Pediatrics, e858-e868.
Whitehead, M. (1990). The Concepts and Principles of Equity and Health. Copenhagen: World Health
Organization, Regional Office for Europe.
Whittier, R. B., & El-Kadi, A. I. (2009). Human and Environmental Risk Ranking of Onsite Sewage Disposal
Systems- Oahu, Hawaii. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, School of Ocean and Earth
Science Technology.
WHO. (1948, April 7). Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health
Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of
61 States (Official Records of WHO, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April. World Health
Organization.
Page 304 of 305
-------
References
WHO. (2003). Social determinants of health: the solid facts. 2nd edition. (R. a. Wilkinson, Ed.) World
Health Organization.
WHO. (2011). Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-water. Geneva, SWZ: World Health Orgnaization.
doi:WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16/Rev/l
WHO. (2017). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth Edition Incorporating First Addendum, 4th
ed + 1st add. World Health Organization, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254637.
License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Wigand, C., Brennan, P., Stolt, M., Holt, M., & Ryba, S. (2009). Soil Respiration Rates in Coastal Marshes
Subject to Increasing Watershed Nitrogen Loads in Southern New England, USA. Wetlands, 29(3),
952-963.
Wigand, C., Roman, C., Davey, R., Stolt, M., Johnson, R., Hanson, A.,. . . Rafferty, P. (2014). Below the
Disappearing Marshes of an Urban Estuary: Historic Nitrogen Trends and Soil Structure.
Ecological Applications, 24(4), 633-649.
Wise, W. (2017). Suffolk County Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan. Stony Brook, NY: New York Sea Grant.
Woods Hole Group Inc. (2014). Southern New England and New York Seagrass Research Towards
Restoration - Phase II. East Falmouth, MA: Woods Hole Group, Inc.
Young, B. (2016, May 21). DEC, Fishermen Work to Cull Bunker from Peconic River to Avoid Fish Kill. East
End Beacon, p. Unpaginated.
Ysebaert, T., Yang, S.-L., Zhang, L., He, Q., Bouma, T. J., & Herman, P. M. (2011). Wave Attenuation by
Two Contrasting Ecosystem Engineering Salt Marsh Macrophytes in the Intertidal Pioneer Zone.
Wetlands, 1043-1054.
Zuidema Septic Service. (2015, January 14). Septic & Cesspool Inspections. Retrieved from Zuidema
Septic Service: https://www.davidzuidema.com/septic/septic-cesspool-inspections/
Page 305 of 305
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Regarding Sewerage
Systems and Algal Blooms
A.l Sewerage Sys ogy
Based on the assorted definitions found, the HIA will be using the following terms to describe individual
systems in Suffolk County.
Individual Sewerage System to describe the overall category of individual (onsite) systems used
to treat and/or dispose of wastewater from single-family residences in Suffolk County
Onsite Sewage Disposal System (OSDS) to describe the pre-1973 type of individual (onsite)
sewerage system that includes a disposal unit alone (i.e., a cesspool) serving single-family
residences in Suffolk County
Conventional Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (C-OWTS) to describe the post-1973 type
of individual (onsite) sewerage system that includes a septic tank and disposal unit (leaching
pool) serving single-family residences in Suffolk County
Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (l/A OWTS) to describe the
innovative (pending approval) type of individual (onsite) sewerage system designed for nitrogen
reduction/control used as an alternative to the C-OWTS serving single-family residences in
Suffolk County
~gy
Throughout the HIA report, you will find discussion of algal blooms; however, not all algal blooms are
the same. The HIA will use the following terms to describe the algal blooms that occur in Suffolk County:
Algal blooms to describe those blooms that occur as part of the normal growth and senescence
cycle of phytoplankton communities (i.e., communities of microscopic floating algae). These
algal blooms are not harmful. In fact, phytoplankton are a naturally occurring part of the food
chain in both marine and freshwater ecosystems, and many aquatic animals rely on algae for
food.
Toxic algal blooms to describe blooms of algae that produce toxins harmful to human or animal
life. According to NOAA (2016a), "less than one percent of algal blooms actually produce
toxins;" however, there are several algae present in Suffolk County that are toxic.
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) to describe those algal blooms that grow quickly in large
quantities and can have negative impacts on humans, marine and freshwater environments, and
coastal economies. Harmful algal blooms include toxic algal blooms and blooms of non-toxic
algae that have harmful effects on marine and freshwater ecosystems.
Page A-l of A-l
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B: The Proposed Code Changes
Propo: e Poli an, . sting OSDSs,
Rev. 2:8-15-1462
Overview: Suffolk County, New York is approximately 912 square miles and bounded by Nassau County
to the West, the Atlantic Ocean to the East and South, and the Long Island Sound to the North. The
estimated population of Suffolk County in 2013 is 1.5 million with 568,943 housing units. Many of
Suffolk County's residences utilize an onsite sewage disposal system (OSDS) as means of sewage
disposal and the effluent from these systems discharge directly into the ground. The Suffolk County
Sanitary Code Article 6 defines the means and methods for wastewater treatment requirements in
Suffolk County with respect to new construction (including additions to existing buildings or changes of
use of existing buildings). Suffolk County is proposing to amend the current Sanitary Code to include
requirements for upgrading existing OSDSs when no new construction is proposed.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services OSDS Requirements: Per Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code, property owners desiring to construct a new building including additions to existing
buildings or changes of use of existing buildings with an OSDS are required to obtain a permit from the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The permit is usually for a proposed new OSDS
conforming to current standards. In some cases, where an addition or change of use is proposed the
permit may be to simply verify the existing system meets current standards and is acceptable for the
proposed addition or change of use. The following is a brief history of Suffolk County Department of
Health Services Standards:
In 1958 the first Suffolk County Health Department Standards went into effect, requiring block cesspools
for single family homes. Up until 1972 these cesspools (also known as leaching pools) were permitted to
be installed without a septic tank. Leaching pools are defined as a covered pit with a perforated wall
through which wastewater will infiltrate the surrounding soil. Today leaching pools are reinforced
precast concrete structures, but the original leaching pools known as cesspools were constructed from
concrete blocks and are highly susceptible to collapse.
In 1972 the standards were revised to require basic treatment for single-family homes, consisting of a
900-gallon septic tank and precast leaching pools (also known as a conventional OSDS). Septic tanks are
watertight chambers used for settling, stabilizing and anaerobic decomposition of sewage. Today all new
62 These were the proposed code changes under consideration by Suffolk County during the HIA. Subsequent to the
completion of the HIA analysis and reporting of preliminary findings and recommendations to the decision-makers,
stakeholders, and community in the fall of 2016, Suffolk County entered into a period of robust activity working to
change the local nutrient pollution paradigm. This included, among other things, consideration of different sanitary code
changes than those assessed in the HIA. For more information on these changes, see Appendix K.
Page B-l of B-3
-------
Appendix B
construction including additions to existing buildings or changes of use of existing buildings are required
to install a conventional OSDS when a community sewage disposal system is not available.
Currently property owners with older OSDSs such as cesspools are not required to make an application
to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to upgrade their system to current standards.
When either a cesspool fails or a conventional OSDS fails, the property owner has the right to re-install
the system in-kind without obtaining a permit from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
However, as stated in the current residential construction standards, the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services recommends property owners follow the standards as a guideline for re-construction of
a failing system.
Some Important Facts Regarding OSDS within Suffolk County:
There are approximately 365,000 homes that currently utilize OSDSs as means of sewage
disposal.
Approximately 252,000 of these systems were installed prior to 1972 and are assumed to be
cesspools only.
Approximately 209,000 homes with OSDS are located in areas considered to be high priority
areas. High priority areas are as follows:
o Areas in the 0-50 year contributing zone to public drinking water wells fields
o Areas in the 0-25 year contributing zone to surface waters
o Areas located in a SLOSH zones (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from JHurricanes)
o Areas located in an area where groundwater is less than 10 feet below grade.
Proposed Code Changes: The Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 defines the means and methods for
wastewater treatment requirements in Suffolk County with respect to new construction (including
additions to existing buildings or changes of use of existing buildings). However, the code does not
provide the authority to Suffolk County to enforce upgrading of existing OSDSs to conventional or
innovative/alternative OSDSs when no new construction is proposed. Suffolk County is proposing three
(3) possible changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code to permit the enforcement of OSDS upgrades
as follows:
1) Require upgrading of all existing cesspools to conventional OSDSs.
2) Require upgrading of all cesspools for lots located in identified high priority areas.
3) Requiring upgrading of all existing OSDSs to innovative/alternative systems for lots located in
identified high priority areas (either cesspool or conventional OSDS).
Method of Implementing the Sanitary Code Changes in Order to Facilitate the Upgrading of Existing
Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems: The proposed methods that will be used to implement the proposed
code changes are still under investigation, but the following three (3) proposed pathways or
combination of pathways are examples of possible methods to implement the code changes requiring
OSDS upgrades:
Page B-2 of B-3
-------
Appendix B
Failure of existing OSDS - As part of their license obligations, cesspool contractors will be required to
report to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services when a system has been pumped or when a
system is in need of replacement. When the system has been pumped multiple times in a given period
of time or is in need of replacement the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will then send a
legal notice to the property owner ordering them to submit an application to obtain a permit to upgrade
their OSDS.
Property Transfer - In order for a property owner to initiate the sale of their property they will be
required to obtain a certificate from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services indicating their
existing OSDS complies with current codes (certificates will be valid for a 1-year period). If their OSDS
does not comply with current codes, they will be required to submit an application to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services to upgrade their OSDS prior to sale.
Upgrading of OSDS based on a fixed schedule by region - Suffolk County will prioritize areas of the
County that utilize OSDSs. Each area will be assigned a fixed schedule for property owners to upgrade
their OSDS or provide proof to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services that their system
complies with current standards.
Expected Water Quality Improvements Due to Sanitary Code Changes Requiring Upgrading of Existing
OSDSs: The primary water quality improvements will be due to reduced nitrogen discharge to
groundwater. By reducing the nitrogen load, partly due to OSDS upgrades, Suffolk County hopes to
decrease nitrogen levels in the aquifer, increase the dissolved oxygen in impaired water bodies (e.g.,
Forge River), decrease the threat of harmful algal blooms, and revitalize eelgrass and wetlands to
improve coastal resiliency.
Secondary water quality improvements are due to emerging technologies that have the ability to
remove prescription drugs and personal care products from wastewater, which are being discovered in
drinking water supplies. In addition, the proposed code changes will require existing sanitary systems
located in groundwater to be placed above groundwater allowing soils to filter harmful pathogens from
the effluent wastewater that could potentially affect water quality.
Page B-3 of B-3
-------
Appendix C
Appendix C: Innovative/Alternative OWTS Under
Consideration at the Time of the HIA Analysis and
Development of Sanitary Code Article 1963
ative/Alter m
Suffolk County Chooses Four Vendors for Round One of Demonstration of
Innovative Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Program
(Suffolk County, NY-February 4, 2015) -Suffolk County has selected four firms with proprietary nitrogen
removal technology- BUSSE Green Technologies, Hydro-Action Industries, Norweco and Orenco Systems
-to participate in Round One of the Suffolk County's demonstration of innovative/alternative OSDS
program.
The selection followed a thorough review conducted by the selection committee consisting of
representatives from the County Departments of Economic Development and Planning, Health Services,
and Public Works. As part of the evaluation, selection team looked at the applicants' system approvals
on national and state level, financials, treatment process, effluent testing data, performance in
comparable climate conditions, as well as the costs of the installed system and annual maintenance. All
of the selected vendors previously demonstrated average effluent concentrations of total nitrogen equal
to or below 19 mg/l (i.e., nitrogen reduction of 50% or more).
Three vendors (BUSSE, Hydro-Action and Norweco) have been recommended for demonstration of their
systems on private residential properties. The fourth vendor (Orenco) was recommended for
demonstration of its systems on county municipal property. The self-reported costs of advanced
treatment systems proposed by three firms ranged from $5,000 to $16,500 installed; the cost of a
system proposed by the fourth firm was $23,000 installed. The annual maintenance cost for all systems
ranged from $200 to $600 per year. In addition, one non-proprietary treatment technology -
constructed wetlands - has been added to the demonstration program and is expected to be tested on
select county parkland residencies and town park settings. Additional information about four selected
vendors is provided below.
BUSSE technology has been installed in Maine and Massachusetts. It was also approved in
Maryland and New Jersey. BUSSE MF. the system proposed for demonstration, utilizes
Membrane Bio Reactor (MBR) treatment process. MBR technology combines biological
treatment with a membrane filtration into one unit process and, as such, requires smaller
footprint.
63 Note that this Appendix presents the l/A OWTS under consideration at the time of the HIA analysis. Since that time,
additional l/A OWTS technologies have been considered, tested, and approved for residential use in Suffolk County (see
Appendix K).
Page C-l of C-6
-------
Appendix C
Hydro-Action technology has been installed in Illinois and Ohio (n = 7,700 systems in IL and
5,600 systems in OH) and several other states, according to the firm. Hydro-Action AN Series.
the system proposed for demonstration, uses extended aeration activated sludge process in
which microorganisms that treat wastewater remain in the treatment process for longer period
of time (more than 24 hrs.).
Norweco technology has been approved and installed in Massachusetts (n = 140 systems), Maryland,
Ohio and Rhode Island. Norweco Singulair TNT and Hydro-Kinetic are two systems proposed for
demonstration project; both of these systems use extended aeration activated sludge process.
Orenco technology has been approved and installed in Massachusetts (56 systems), Maryland,
Rhode Island and several other states. According to the firm, more than 20,000 Orenco systems have
been installed in the U.S. and Canada. Two systems proposed for the demonstration, Orenco
Advantex AX-RT and Advantex AX. use attached growth packed bed reactor process where
microorganisms responsible for biological treatment are attached to textile media.
Bellone Announces Lottery for Second Phase of Suffolk County Septic
Demonstration Pilot Program
Additional Homeowners to Receive Free State-of-the-Art Septic System to
Reduce Nitrogen Pollution & Enhance Water Quality
(Hauppauge, NY-March 21, 2016) -Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone announced today a lottery
which will be held for the second phase of the County's Septic Demonstration Program for single family
homeowners. Applications for the second lottery are due Friday, April 8, 2016, and winners will receive
a free advanced wastewater treatment system - which includes free installation, monitoring and
maintenance for five years.
The program is part of Suffolk County's Reclaim Our Water initiative, a comprehensive plan to improve
the region's water quality by reducing nitrogen pollution through the implementation of advanced on-
site wastewater treatment systems and means of sewering in targeted areas.
"Suffolk County has made tremendous strides in reclaiming our water since we launched this initiative
nearly two years ago," said Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone. "The first phase of the septic
demonstration program has been extremely successful to date as we have received tremendous
feedback from our residents who are currently participating in the program and from our wastewater
experts who are managing the program. This second phase will be essential to our region as we intend
to integrate new wastewater technologies to Suffolk County to help combat our region's nitrogen
pollution crisis."
The application for the second lottery of the Suffolk County Septic Demonstration Program can be found
on www.suffolkcountvny.gov,http://www.suffolkcountvny.gov/Departments/Planning/ReclaimOur
Waterlnitiativellpdate.aspx or by emailing septicdemo@suffolkcountvny.gov.
Minimum requirements for Suffolk County residents include year-round residency, living in a household
with 3-9 people and not residing in a sewer district.
In December 2014, County Executive Bellone and officials conducted an initial lottery for the first phase
of the state-of-the-art pilot program. Nineteen homeowners out of more than 150 applicants were
randomly selected to receive a free advanced wastewater treatment system on their property.
Page C-2 of C-6
-------
Appendix C
Eighteen of the nineteen systems were installed over a nine-month period, and are currently being
monitored by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and wastewater industry experts. The
19th system will be installed this April and includes a pressurized shallow drain field to provide further
treatment and disposal. Based on early results, some of the installed systems could be provisionally
approved by the Department of Health Services for residential use by the end of the Summer.
The systems that were used for the first phase of the program were donated by four national
manufacturers, all of whom have extensive experience across the country in removing excess nitrogen
from residential and commercial properties, and consisted of six different technologies. The advanced
wastewater treatment systems were each valued at up to $16,000 per system.
The second phase of the County's septic demonstration program is designed to utilize two types of
innovative alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems that are designed to reduce total nitrogen
in septic system effluent to 19 mg/l or less.
One of the technologies that will be incorporated in the second phase is a pressurized shallow narrow
drain field system, which will distribute treated effluent where nutrient adsorption is at its highest. The
shallow narrow drain field technology is being used in one of the systems installed in the first phase of
the program.
The number of homeowners who will be selected for the second lottery will be based upon the number
of responses received by the County in regards to two Request for Expressed Interest (RFEI) that were
issued to manufacturers nationwide. Applications for the RFEIs are due to the County on April 8, 2016 as
well.
The majority of the advanced wastewater treatment systems that will be installed in the first and second
phases of the Suffolk County Septic Demonstration Program were observed by county experts on a tour
of septic programs conducted in other states in the northeast. Suffolk County is modeling its
homeowner education program on a successful program that has been established in Rhode Island over
the past fifteen years.
For more information on Suffolk County's septic demonstration program and information on the second
lottery for single family homeowners, log onto www.suffolkcountvnv.gov or email
SepticDemo@SuffolkCountyNY.gov.
Bellone Announces Key Milestone in Suffolk County Septic Demonstration
Pilot Program
First AI tern a ti ve Wastewater Treatment System to Be Approved In
County's History during National Septic Smart Week
(Suffolk County, NY-September 20, 2016)- Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone was joined by regional
water quality experts and environmental advocates to announce that for the first time an on-site
advanced wastewater treatment system has been provisionally approved for residential use in Suffolk
County, marking a significant moment in Suffolk County's Septic Demonstration Pilot Program.
Page C-3 of C-6
-------
Appendix C
The program is part of the County's Reclaim Our Water initiative, which is designed to eliminate the
region's nitrogen pollution crisis through the installation of advanced on-site wastewater treatment
systems and sewering where viable and appropriate.
"This is yet another victory for all of us in Suffolk County and is a true indication that we are committed
to reducing nitrogen levels in our waters. In the past few weeks, we have taken several steps forward to
ensure that clean water will continue to be a top priority." said Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone.
"We are extremely grateful to the 39 homeowners who are currently participating in the septic
demonstration program. Their participation has been essential in achieving this step, and we anticipate
that additional treatment systems will be approved by the end of the year for provisional use."
"Septic systems are a major source of nitrogen pollution in Long Island, threatening water quality and
valuable coastal water resources," said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. "An estimated three
out of four households in Suffolk County rely on septic systems and even those systems that are working
properly release large amounts of nitrogen into the groundwater. Innovative technologies provide an
important opportunity to cut nitrogen pollution on Long Island."
"Thanks to the leadership of County Executive Steve Bellone, the Suffolk County Departments of Health
and Planning the water quality of the county will now, with the use of these emerging technologies,
improve into the future," said Suffolk County Legislator Al Krupski.
"As Co-Managers of the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan, the Long Island Regional Planning Council
salutes Suffolk County and County Executive Bellone on its initiative of advancing state-of-the-art onsite
wastewater treatment technology for the purpose of reducing nitrogen discharges into our ground and
surface waters. The County's approval of the first commercial installation of Innovative/Alternative
technology will enable the County to thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of these systems and to
assess the operational reliability in actual residential applications," said John Cameron, Long Island
Regional Planning Council Chairman.
The approved system, manufactured by Hydro-Action Industries, was one of the initial technologies to be
used when the Septic Demonstration Pilot Program launched in December 2014. The system has reduced
nitrogen levels to 19 mg/l for six consecutive months effectively. Currently, more than 14,000 of these
particular systems have been installed in homes throughout the Midwest and in Maryland.
Suffolk County has granted provisional residential approval for the installation of the Hydro-Action
system. Any single-family homeowner will be able to install this specific system at their home without
having the apply for a variance from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The department
will continue to monitor performance of these systems for at least two years with bimonthly samples
before general approval is issued.
The approval of the Hydro-Action technology is based on the state of Massachusetts' regulatory model.
The announcement comes nearly six weeks after Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone signed Article 19
of the County's Sanitation Code in law, granting the Suffolk County Department of Health Services the
authority to formulate procedures and protocols in order to approve the use of wastewater treatment
systems throughout the county. The amendment also established procedures to ensure that the
alternative wastewater treatment systems will function in the long-term and to monitor its effects on the
environment.
Page C-4 of C-6
-------
Appendix C
Since the launch of the Suffolk County Septic Demonstration Pilot Program, more than 330 Suffolk
County homeowners have entered two lotteries and 39 homeowners have been selected to receive a
free system - which includes free installation, monitoring and maintenance for five years.
Suffolk County has more than 360,000 individual cesspools and septic systems - more than the entire
state of New Jersey. As part of the solution, clean water experts project that tens of thousands of onsite
wastewater treatment systems will need to be installed throughout the county to effectively treat the
region's declining water supply.
The announcement came during National Septic Smart Week, designated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
For more information on the Septic Demonstration Pilot Program and the County's Reclaim Our Water
initiative, log on towww.facebook.com/stevebellone or www.suffolkcountvny.gov.
, 1 1 ' Je Article " ฆ
In July 2016, Suffolk County amended the Sanitary Code, adding Article 19, which gave SCDHS the
authority to develop procedures, protocols, and standards for approving the use of l/A OWTS
throughout the County and establishing effluent total nitrogen concentrations of 19 mg/L or less as a
requirement for l/A OWTS approval. In addition, Article 19 does the following:
Establishes a framework for SCDHS, as the Responsible Management Entity, to evaluate,
approve, register, oversee, and facilitate the use of l/A OWTS to ensure that l/A OWTS continue
to function effectively over the long-term and to benefit the environment.
Establishes that SCDHS shall have the legal authority and technical capacity to ensure/enforce the
long-term operation, maintenance and management of all l/A OWTS (e.g., monitoring, operation
and maintenance, and data management)
Establishes that SCDHS shall develop standards and methods for evaluating the performance of
l/A OWTS in meeting this effluent standard at each stage of the approval process. SCDHS shall also
establish procedures for the periodic evaluation of new l/A OWTS technologies to ensure that
performance verification standards represent the best available technologies. This evaluation shall
occur, at a minimum, on an annual basis, and more frequently if advances in technology so
warrant.
Note: Nothing in Article 19 affects the operation of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. l/A
OWTS shall be considered individual sewerage systems under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code, and shall not be considered sewering, community sewerage systems, or modified subsurface
sewage disposal (denitrification) systems by the Department under Article 6.
Responsibilities under Article 19
The responsibilities of SCDHS, property owners, and services providers are outlined in Article 19.
SCDHS responsibilities include:
o Serving as the Responsible Management Entity (RME) of l/A OWTS
o Overseeing Installation and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the systems
Page C-5 of C-6
-------
Appendix C
o Promulgating Procedures, Standards, & Protocols for l/A OWTS
o Enforcement
Property owner responsibilities include:
o Maintaining current O&M contract
o Implementing requirements to ensure system function
o Registering l/A OWTS with the County prior to construction, upon property transfer, and
every 36 months after initial registration
Service provider responsibilities include:
o Maintaining Liquid Waste Endorsement K
o Performing annual O&M
o Notifying SCDHS w/ 30 days when O&M contract is canceled or not renewed
o Reporting all O&M, recommendations, & emergency services
Page C-6 of C-6
-------
Appendix D
Appendix D: Key HIA Community and Public Meetings
D.l HIA Kickoff Meeting Agenda and Notes
December 19, 2014
Suffolk County Office, Yaphank, New York
Meeting Agenda
8:45
Welcome, Introductions, and Overview
8:50
HIA 101 Training
Objectives
What's the Connection? Programs, Policies, Plans, Projects and Health
8:55
Introduction to HIA
What is HIA? - Types of HIA
Why HIA? - Context of HIA
History of HIA - Intervention Points of HIA
9:15
HIA Process Overview
Steps of HIA - Stakeholder and Community Engagement
HIA Process/Minimum Elements - Communication in HIA
Principles and Values of HIA - HIA Outcomes
Equity and Stakeholder Participation
9:35
Q&A
9:40
HIA Examples
9:45
Screening
09:55
Scoping
10:25
Break
10:40
Assessment
11:30
Recommendations
11:40
Reporting
11:45
Monitoring and Evaluation
12:00
Lunch
12:00-
Over-lunch Discussion: Concurrent Projects in Suffolk County, NY
12:15
1:00
HIA Scoping Workshop
Background About Suffolk County
Current issues facing Suffolk County
Existing policies regarding Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems in Suffolk County
Proposed Policy Changes and Potential Decision Outcomes
1:15
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Proposed Policy Changes for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems in
Suffolk County, NY
Screening the HIA
Anticipated Value Added
Feasibility of Performing an HIA
Timeliness and Opportunity for HIA to Inform the Decision
1:35
Scoping the HIA
1:40
Task A: Establishing HIA Participant Groups and Rules of Engagement
1:45
Task A Exercise
2:10
Break
2:20
Task B: Defining the Boundaries (Scope) of the HIA
2:30
Task B Exercise
2:50
Task C: Identifying Potential Impacts to Health
3:00
Task C Exercise and Discussion
Page D-l of D-30
-------
Appendix D
4:00
Q&A
4:10
Task D: Solidifying the Assessment Plan
4:20
Task D Exercise and Discussion
4:50
Wrap-up and Charge to Participants
5:00
Adjourn
Meeting Overview
After an informal meet and greet session, EPA's Florence Fulk gave the welcome and opening remarks
and led the attendees in brief introductions. This was followed by an HIA 101 training presentation that
introduced the concept of HIA, the importance of HIA in decision-making, and the principles and
methods used in HIA practice. Facilitators highlighted each step of the six-step HIA process using an
example HIA performed in Vinton, Texas. The Healthy Vinton/Vinton Saludable HIA appraised the health
and economic impacts of a proposed municipal drinking water and sewering project.64 The HIA 101
training was followed by lunch and an informal talk about other projects occurring in Suffolk County.
The afternoon of the HIA Kickoff Meeting was devoted to an HIA Scoping Workshop in which
participants were introduced to the proposed code changes and asked to walk through some of the
tasks associated with the Scoping step of the HIA process. Walter Dawydiak, Acting Director of Suffolk
County's Division of Environmental Quality, provided background information about why the changes
were proposed. Attendees used the information given to identify the individuals that will be affected by
the decision and/or have an interest in the result of the final decision (i.e., stakeholders) and to identify
the environmental, social, and economic pathways or mechanisms through which the "no change"
alternative (Alternative 1) could affect health.
At the conclusion of the meeting, attendees were asked to share the information they received with
fellow stakeholders and invite them to participate in the HIA.
Meeting Attendees
Of the twenty (20) attendees at the HIA Kickoff Meeting, five (5) represented county government, seven
(7) represented an environmental advocacy group, six (6) represented a federal government agency,
one (1) represented a local university, and one (1) was a federal government contractor.
Meeting Attendees and Organizations Represented
Attendee(s)
Organization(s) Represented
Adrienne Esposito
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Lauren Adkins
CSS-Dynamac (contractor to the EPA)
John Halfon
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Kevin McDonald, Liz Smith
The Nature Conservancy
Dan Gulizio
Peconic Bay Keeper
Alison Branco
Peconic Estuary Program
Glynis Berry
Peconic Green Growth
Marshall Brown
Save the Great South Bay
Anthony Dvarskas
Stony Brook University, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
64 More information about this HIA can be found online at https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/external-
sites/health-impact-proiect/utep-hia-report,pdf.
Page D-2 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Attendee(s)
Organization(s) Represented
Amy Juchatz, Chris Lubicich, John
Sohngen
Sarah Lansdale
Walter Dawydiak
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Division of Environmental Quality
Florence Fulk, Kristina
Heinemann, Anhthu Hoang, John
Johnston, Rabi Kieber
U.S. EPA
About the Health Impact Assessment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is leading a health impact assessment (HIA) in Suffolk
County, New York (NY). The HIA will evaluate proposed changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
Article 6 regarding existing onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS). Suffolk County Department of Health
Services proposed the code changes as one of many actions to address the growing issues from nitrogen
overloading in the county's surface waters and groundwater.
The "No Change" Alternative and Three Proposed Changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Alternative 4
No change
(policy not
updated)
Required upgrading of | Required upgrading of all
all existing cesspools to | cesspools for lots (parcels)
conventional OSDS | located in identified high
| priority areas
Required upgrading of all existing OSDS
(cesspool or conventional OSDS) to
innovative/alternative OSDS for lots
(parcels) located in identified high priority
areas
Why is EPA Leading an HIA?
The purpose of the HIA is to help inform Suffolk County's decision regarding the proposed changes to
the County Sanitary Code Article 6 by advocating for health and wellness of all stakeholders. EPA is
evaluating HIA as a decision-support tool for promoting sustainable and healthy communities. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who is also considering HIA to promote resilient
communities, partnered with EPA to perform the HIA.
HIA 101 Training Short-Course
The HIA 101 Training presentation covered what HIA is and why it is performed, the history behind the
HIA process, differences between the different types of HIA, the sectors in which they have been
implemented, and the points in the decision-timeline where an HIA can provide value. The meeting
facilitators also provided an overview of the HIA process, including the steps of HIA and the guiding
principles for the process, stakeholder engagement, and communications. Before going further in depth
on each of the tasks associated with each HIA step, the facilitators discussed some of the shared
outcomes from completing an HIA.
Participants had many questions related to stakeholder engagement, most notably: How does the HIA
team achieve equity in the stakeholder engagement process? Democracy is one of the guiding principles
that each HIA project strives to uphold and it is essential that the HIA accepts and utilizes diverse
stakeholder input. Practitioners have developed guidance and best practices for stakeholder
engagement in HIA that describe many tools, methods, and examples for identifying and engaging key
Page D-3 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
stakeholder groups.65 Most notably, practitioners must use multiple avenues to solicit input. For
example, EPA is identifying stakeholders to participate in this HIA by soliciting contact information from
the decision-makers (i.e., Suffolk County elected officials and representatives) and existing partners in
the region, performing a desktop search of organizations, agencies, research institutions, and advocacy
groups active in the area, and releasing public flyers to local community gatekeepers.
Other questions included what proposals make good HIA candidates and who can initiate and/or
perform an HIA. It is important to note that not all proposals are appropriate for the HIA process. The
proposal must be developed enough so that an assessment can be performed and in advance of the
decision for the HIA to be relevant once completed. Any individual and/or group can initiate or lead an
HIA. However, most successfully completed HIAs are led by a team that includes an HIA practitioner or
advisor. Although most HIAs have been initiated by grassroots organizations, HIAs have also been led by
local, state, and federal agencies, advocacy or decision-support groups, research institutions, or were
integrated with other studies. EPA is leading only a few HIAs to evaluate the potential for HIA as a
decision-support tool.
Audience Questions and Responses from EPA
Question Raised
EPA's Response
How does the HIA team
intend to achieve equity
in the stakeholder
engagement process?
In order to ensure transparency and equitable stakeholder engagement, EPA will enact a Rules
of Engagement Agreement for HIA participants, offer different roles of various commitment
levels for stakeholders (e.g., HIA Research Team, Community Stakeholder Steering Committee,
and Technical Advisory Committee), and ensure diversity in stakeholder outreach. The HIA
community of practice also developed Equity Metrics for HIA (Revision 1) to ensure equitable
stakeholder engagement throughout the process.
What is expected to
come from the HIA and
how will that information
be used to inform the
decision? Will the HIA
look at other alternatives
that have not been
proposed?
The purpose of the HIA is to bring health considerations into the decision-making processes in
Suffolk County. The HIA is evaluating the three proposed code changes and the "no change"
alternative to determine their potential impacts to health and provide recommendations to
manage the potential health impacts of these alternatives. Thus, the HIA is limited to
evaluating only the options that are under consideration and will not advocate for a specific
alternative.
How does the HIA plan to
address any potential
differences between
actual and perceived
conditions?
Stakeholder input will be used in each step of the HIA process, including assessing impacts and
developing recommendations. There are generally-accepted methods to capture and interpret
qualitative (non-numeric) information, as well as quantitative (numeric) data. In regards to
perceptions, the HIA Project Team will be responsible for following standard methods of data
collection and interpretation and ensuring accurate representation of the information. Thus, it
is critical that the stakeholders participating in the HIA are representative of the populations
affected by the proposed decision. To ensure this, EPA is performing a stakeholder analysis and
will invite stakeholders to participate in the HIA through a variety of roles.
HIA Scoping Workshop
Information gleaned from the HIA Scoping Workshop would be used to inform the HIA scope. In the HIA
Scoping Workshop, participants identified several pathways in which health could be affected if no
65 The guidance and best practices for stakeholder engagement in HIA can be found online at
http://www.hiasociety.org/documents/guide-for-stakeholder-participation.pdf.
Page D-4 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
changes were made. The discussions focused mainly on the environmental aspects of those pathways,
which indicates that environmental health is a priority concern in this area. The HIA Project Team will
use the stakeholder interests and/or concerns identified in the meeting to inform the HIA scope. The
next steps in the HIA will be to reach out to community residents and stakeholders to solicit their input
on the proposed code changes, document their priority concerns and/or interests, and establish the HIA
Project Team.
The HIA Scoping Workshop was intended to:
Explore the principles of HIA and how this tool can be used to inform decisions;
Develop an understanding of what HIA is and the steps involved in the HIA process; and
Build capacity for conducting an HIA on the proposed changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code.
As a group, attendees and facilitators walked through two major tasks associated with the Scoping step:
Identifying individuals that will be affected by the decision and/or have an interest in the result
of the final decision (i.e., stakeholders), and
Identifying environmental, social, and economic pathways or mechanisms through which the
decision could affect health, although this task was only completed for the "no change"
alternative (Alternative 1) at this meeting.
The key stakeholder groups identified in the first task included the decision-makers (Suffolk County
elected officials and representatives); homeowners and renters; local civic organizations and
governments; federal and state tribes; environmental advocacy groups; realtors and real estate property
builders and developers; and business owners and workers in the tourism, recreation, and sanitary
waste industries. In the second task, attendees developed pathways of impact through which the
decision could affect health in the "no change" alternative.
If no changes are made to the Suffolk County Administrative Code regarding onsite sewage disposal
systems, individual and community health could be affected through:
A change in risk of illness from toxics and/or pathogens in the water and soil;
A change in physical activity (a health-related behavior) as a result of beach closures, fish
advisories, and the avoidance of recreational spaces due to the spread of harmful algal blooms
(HABs);
A change in outdoor air quality as a result of increased vehicle emissions, because residents
have to travel farther to reach safe beaches and other recreational areas;
A change in employment/unemployment as a result of decreased demand on fishing, shellfish,
and recreation industries due to beach closures, fish advisories, and loss of patronage;
A change in diet/nutrition, specifically the consumption offish and shellfish, as a result of the
increased spread of HABs and die-off of native species;
A change in housing security/insecurity as a result of the increased risk of flooding and storm
damage from reduced shoreline resiliency;
A change in costs of living as a result of increasing property insurance costs, increased municipal
costs to remove pollutants and pathogens from drinking water, and reduced real estate tax from
loss in property values;
Page D-5 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
A change in funding available for public services (e.g., sanitation, public works, recreation
management) as a result of reduced tax revenue; and
A change in blight and/or crime resulting from increased transience and decreased stewardship
of the community due to loss of perceived quality of the environment and community.
Meeting Wrap-up
After the scoping workshop, the meeting concluded with an overview of the HIA's next steps and some
final considerations and assignments for the participants. As a next step, the HIA Leadership Team
planned to provide the same information shared today with residents in a series of public meetings. The
goals of the public meetings were to engage community stakeholders in the HIA process, hear their
interests and/or concerns about the proposed policy changes, and solicit further participation in the HIA.
Once that task was completed, the HIA team would take the input provided and finalize the scope of the
HIA, develop an assessment plan, and initiate the Assessment step. The HIA Leadership Team requested
that meeting attendees review the (draft) HIA Rules of Engagement Agreement, discuss the HIA with
fellow residents and colleagues, and look for upcoming materials and meeting invites.
Page D-6 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
D.2 March 2015 Public Meetings Agenda and Notes
March 4-5, 2015
Suffolk County, New York
Meeting Agenda
Meeting Agenda
Cold Spring
Riverhead, NY
Harbor, NY
Meeting
Meeting
Meet and Greet Session
12:30 PM
5:30 PM
Welcome
1:00 PM
6:00 PM
Introductions - Meeting Agenda
Meeting Objectives - Ground Rules
What's the Connection?
1:10 PM
6:10 PM
FEMA, EPA, and HIA
What is a Health Impact Assessment?
Why perform an HIA?
Overview of HIA Process
1:25 PM
6:25 PM
Steps of HIA
Guiding Principles and Core Values
About the HIA in Suffolk County
1:40 PM
6:40 PM
Background about Suffolk County, NY
Proposed Code Changes
HIA First Steps
Break for Q & A
2:00 PM
7:00 PM
HIA Scoping Workshop
2:30 PM
7:30 PM
Group Exercise: Identifying Interests and/or
Concerns
Group Exercise: Prioritizing Interests and/or
Concerns
Meeting Wrap-up
3:20 PM
8:20 PM
Next Steps in the HIA
Charge to Participants
Thank You
Meeting Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is leading a health impact assessment (HIA) to evaluate
proposed changes to the Suffolk County Administrative Code Article 6 regarding onsite sewage disposal
systems (OSDS). The purpose of the HIA is to identify the potential health impacts that may result from
the final decision and provide recommendations to manage those impacts. The HIA Leadership Team
held a set of public meetings to provide information to stakeholders about the HIA and the proposed
policy changes, and to solicit their input. The HIA Project Leads scheduled three meetings March 4-5,
2015 in Cold Spring Harbor, Riverhead, and Brentwood, New York. Unfortunately, EPA had to cancel the
last community meeting in Brentwood due to inclement weather. The following information documents
the activities and discussions from those meetings.
Both meetings opened with a welcome from the HIA Leadership Team, represented by Florence Fulk of
EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL). At the HIA Kickoff Meeting in December 2014, the
HIA Leadership Team reached out to community and County representatives to inform the community
about the plan to perform an HIA and invite fellow stakeholders to attend this meeting. The objectives
for the public meeting included:
Page D-7 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
~ Building awareness about the proposed changes to the Suffolk County Administrative Code and
the developing HIA;
~ Developing an understanding of what HIA is and the steps involved in the HIA process;
~ Identifying community stakeholder interests and/or concerns regarding the proposed changes
and related health outcomes; and
~ Encouraging community stakeholder participation in the HIA.
Meeting Attendees
The audience was composed of Suffolk County residents, non-residents, leaders and/or representatives
of groups in the community, having local knowledge or expertise about the areas, and/or professional or
non-professional expertise related to the waste management industry, ecosystem and/or public health,
and/or economic development. Meeting facilitators and representatives of the HIA Leadership Team
included Florence Fulk from EPA NERL and Lauren Adkins from CSS-Dynamac (contractor to U.S. EPA).
Attendees and Organizations Represented*
Cold Spring Harbor
Organization(s) Represented
Riverhead Meeting
Organization(s) Represented
Meeting Attendee(s)
Attendee(s)
XXX, XXXXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXXXXX X xxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXX, XXXXX
XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXX, XXXXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXX
XXXX, XXXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX
(XXXXXX)
XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXX, XXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX
XXXXXXXX, XXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX, XXXXX
XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX, XXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXX xxxxxxxxxx-
XXXXXXXX X
XXXXX, XXXX
XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX,XXXXXX
XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX, XXX
XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXX
XXXX, XXXXX
XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
XXXX XXX XXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXX, XXXXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXX, XXXX
XXXX XXX XXXXXX
[Blank]
[Blank]
XXXXX, XXXX
XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
* Names and organizations redacted for publication in report.
About this HIA
FEMA. EPA, and HIA: What's the Connection?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and EPA are collaborating to help communities
rebuild from disasters in ways that protect the environment, create long-term economic prosperity, and
enhance neighborhoods. FEMA and EPA also help communities incorporate strategies into their hazard
mitigation plans that improve quality of life for all populations and help promote environmental justice.
In 2010, EPA and FEMA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to make it easier for the two
agencies to work together to fulfill common goals.
Shortly after Hurricane Sandy (2012), the EPA, FEMA, New York State Department of State and
Department of Environmental Conservation, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and the Metropolitan Transit
Authority began a partnership to collaborate on several efforts on Long Island aimed at promoting more
resilient and sustainable recovery. HIA is one of the many tools used to help communities reach their
sustainability and resiliency goals.
Page D-8 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Health Impact Assessment Background
HIA is a six-step, systematic process that uses an array of data sources and analytic methods and
considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential effects of a proposed policy, plan,
program, or project on the health of a population and the distribution of the effects within the
population; and provides recommendations on monitoring and managing those effects. The ultimate
goal of all HIAs is to promote health and wellness, regardless of the final decision.
Question from the audience: Is there going to be an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
performed on the proposed code changes?
There is no EIA planned to evaluate the proposed code changes. Although they are similar in some
aspects, ElAs are different from HIAs. ElAs are used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
from proposals and to encourage and provide recommendations to mitigate anticipated harmful effects.
ElAs are required if the proposal is an action of the federal government and has the potential to result in
significant environmental and/or health effects. HIAs are voluntary (except in a few local and state
jurisdictions), and focus on health impacts, both beneficial and adverse, of a proposal. HIAs can be used
to evaluate any proposed policy, plan, project, or program, not just federal actions. Furthermore, HIAs
provide recommendations, that the decision-makers can choose to adopt or reject, and can be led by
entities other than the proponents of the proposal.
Question from the audience: What is the criteria for performing an HIA?
The HIA community of practice developed a set of Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for HIA
(Available at http://hiasociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ll/HIA-Practice-Standards-September-
2014.pdf). These minimum elements and practice standards follow the five guiding principles of HIA: a
comprehensive approach to health issues, sustainable development, democracy in the decision-making
process, equity in the opportunity for healthy living, and ethical use of the evidence that ensures
transparent and rigorous methods are used.
Question for the Audience: What is "health?"
The audience responded with a list of aspects to health, including physical health, economic health,
mental health, community health, environmental health, the absence of disease, and the ability to enjoy
the natural environment. The internationally accepted definition of health, from the World Health
Organization, states that "health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being; not
merely the absence of disease and infirmity."
HIA acknowledges that an individual's health status is attributable to a number of factors, including
health behaviors, clinical care, physical environment, and socio-economic factors. These factors, known
to directly or indirectly affect human health, are referred to as determinants of health. HIA evaluates a
proposal's potential to affect determinants of health, which lead to health outcomes, and provides
recommendations to manage those health impacts.
HIAs follow a six-step process that includes screening, scoping, assessment, recommendations,
reporting, and monitoring and evaluation. This HIA is in the Scoping step, in which stakeholders identify
which health effects are considered in the assessment and set the HIA parameters.
Page D-9 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
About Suffolk County. New York
Questions for the Audience: When you think of Suffolk County, what comes to mind?
The audience responded with a list of favorable assets and conditions in Suffolk County, including
beaches, bays, the ocean, parks and natural areas, farms and vineyards, good air quality (better than in
the city), and diverse lifestyles. Some of the listed unfavorable conditions in Suffolk County included
susceptibility to storms surges (e.g., the damage from Hurricane Sandy), a population over the carrying
capacity for the geographic area, and the mass loading of nitrogen in the environment.
Suffolk County is experiencing challenges with nitrogen overloading in surface waters, spreading of
harmful algal blooms, losses in shellfish populations and jobs in the shellfish industry, and receding
eelgrass boundaries. All of these challenges have implications for reduced resiliency to severe storm
surges, contaminated foods, and increased exposure to water-borne pathogens and toxins. One of the
causes identified for overloading of nitrogen is waste coming from residential OSDS.
Members in the audience informed the presenters that there was updated (newer) data and
graphics than those presented in the PowerPoint. Since the HIA is not yet in the Assessment step, that
information would be very valuable to the HIA Research Team. Ms. Adkins invited those persons to
share where the new data could be obtained (if available) or contact information for those with access
to up-to-date data with the HIA Leadership Team. In addition, stakeholders were invited to participate
on the HIA Research Team to collect and analyze that information.
The Proposed Code Changes
Suffolk County Department of Health Services proposed changes to the County Sanitary Code Article 6,
regarding existing OSDS. The final decision can result in Suffolk County choosing to enact one or more of
these alternatives.
Potential Alternatives Considered by Suffolk County
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
No change
(code not
updated)
| Required upgrade of all
| existing cesspools to
| conventional OSDS
| Required upgrade of all
| existing cesspools to
| conventional OSDS for parcels
| located in high priority areas1
Required upgrade of all existing OSDS |
(cesspool and conventional systems) to |
innovative/alternative OSDS for parcels j
located in high priority areas1 |
1 Suffolk County designates the high priority areas as parcels located in a 0-25 year contributing zone to surface water; 0-50
year contributing zone to groundwater; Sea, Lakes, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) zone; and/or groundwater
located within 10 feet below grade (ground level).
It is important to note that alternatives 2-4 may also result in changes to related (in-house) policies, such
as Suffolk County General Guidance Memorandum #12- Guidelines for issuing approval of sewage
disposal systems and water supplies for existing residences (pre-1973). These changes are only one of
many approaches Suffolk County is considering to address the legacy of policies contributing to the
growing environmental issues related to nitrogen loading.
Page D-10 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Question from the audience: Will the HIA consider options other than the proposed code changes?
EPA acknowledges that there are many alternatives to addressing the issue of nutrient overloading in
the environment. However, HIAs are applied to inform specific decisions in which a proposal has been
established. Within the context of the proposed code changes, the HIA will evaluate the different
alternatives and provide recommendations for managing impacts, should any one of them be selected.
Question from the audience: What type of innovative/alternative systems is Suffolk County
considering?
The list of acceptable innovative/alternative systems was not included in the initial proposal, because
Suffolk County is still in the process of developing that list. Suffolk County is leading a formal evaluation
of innovative/alternative OSDS capable of denitrification and is in the pilot testing phase. The systems
that pass the pilot testing and further monitoring phases and meet denitrification standards will be
approved for general use in Suffolk County. The HIA Leadership Team will follow up with Suffolk County
on the innovative/alternative systems considered for general use.
Additional questions related to the details of the proposed code changes:
Members of the audience stated that the proposal does not provide enough specifics regarding the
actions residents will be required to take. For example, is there going to be inspection and/or
maintenance requirements for OSDS? Currently, there are no standards for inspections, nor
requirements for maintaining existing OSDS. Furthermore, when would residents be required to
upgrade their system from the code changes (e.g., a year after adoption, within three years after
adoption)? There was uncertainty whether the proposal accounted for the parcels that are located in
areas where sewering is planned. The HIA Leadership Team will follow up with Suffolk County regarding
these concerns.
HIA Scoping Workshop
Group Activity: Identifying Stakeholder Interests and/or Concerns
Stakeholder input is a critical piece to the HIA process. Engaging stakeholders helps to gain local
knowledge of health and existing conditions in the community, identify areas of concern that may not
be readily apparent, and gain contextual/cultural perspectives and experiences related to the pending
decision. One of the essential activities in the Scoping step is to identify stakeholder interests and/or
concerns related to the proposal and use that input in a meaningful way. For this HIA, the HIA
Leadership Team plans to use stakeholder interests and/or concerns to inform the pathways of impact
evaluated in the assessment. Attendees were given a Scoping Workbook to help facilitate the discussion
of health impacts.
Question for the Audience: How might the proposed changes to the County code affect daily life in my
community?
The following responses from the audience are grouped by decision alternative.
Page D-ll of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Audience-identified Potential Impacts From The "No Action" Alternative
Decision Alternative
"No action" or "business as usual" alternative where no changes are made
Social Impacts
There could eventually be social disruption in valued ecosystem-based assets (e.g., gardens,
environmental quality).
Economic Impacts
There would be an immediate financial benefit for the property owner in the sense of avoided
expenditures to upgrade the OSDS. However, there could be long-term costs to the environment
and property owner. For example, the home may loose monetary value as a non-sewered home
with an outdated sewage disposal system. Considering the pollution of Forge River, residents and
environmental advocates argued that the odor was also affecting property values in the area. If
property values are depreciating, that can lead to less tax revenue and shift to higher tax burden
for everyone else. Furthermore, the loss of jobs in the aquaculture industry will continue to rise
and may expand to the tourism/recreation industry.
Environmental Health
Impacts
There is evidence that supports that nutrient overloading in waters (eutrophication from nitrogen)
can lead to increased toxicity levels of the water from harmful algal blooms. Therefore, this
alternative may result in increased illnesses from eating unhealthy shellfish and fish that live in
polluted waters and illness from contact with polluted waters.
Audience-identified Potential Impacts From The Two Alternatives That Require Cesspool Upgrades
Decision Alternative
All cesspools are required to be upgraded
(either countywide or in the high priority areas)
Social Impacts
Residents may feel the government is applying too much oversight and choose not to upgrade
their system (i.e., ignore County policy/law). This may lead to more penalties and/or violations of
the ordinances and/or a shift in political support. The residents' perceived benefit of upgrading
their system may change.
Economic Impacts
There could be a perceived risk that establishing the boundaries of "high priority areas" may lead
to changes in jurisdiction boundaries and may result in additional taxes. The financial burden and
increased inconveniences that come with upgrading OSDS for the property owner will be high (i.e.,
septic systems require more maintenance than being sewered but less maintenance than a
cesspool). The property owners may pass on the additional OSDS upgrade and maintenance costs
to renters, which will increase housing costs for renters. The changes in housing costs may lead to
gentrification (i.e., low-income populations moving out of areas and higher-income households
moving in to the area). There will be a minimum environmental impact among the different
upgrade alternatives, but a high cost to homeowners (i.e., a cost-benefit analysis may show high
costs with little to no benefit). The homeowner may adopt a perceived increase in the monetary
value of the home if the OSDS is upgraded that may not be realized in the market.
Environmental Health
Impacts
There may be negligible or minimum environmental impact from upgrading cesspools to
conventional septic systems, since conventional systems do not have high nitrogen-removing
efficiencies compared to innovative/alternative systems.
Audience-identified Potential Impacts from the "All OSDS Upgraded to Innovative/Alternative Systems"
Alternative
Decision Alternative
All OSDS are required to be upgraded to innovative/alternative systems in high priority areas
Social Impacts
This alternative may be a perceived benefit from the changes in attitudes and home-management
behaviors of residents.
Economic Impacts
There will be a greater cost for the homeowners, because these systems are typically more
expensive to install than conventional septic systems. There may be a greater maintenance
requirement and/or increased inconvenience for homeowners, since these systems typically
require more maintenance than conventional systems. However, the increased demand for OSDS
in the area may lead to the creation of a new industry/market (e.g., manufacturing for OSDS) in
Suffolk County. The additional work/services needed may lead to job creation and/or expansion in
the waste management industry.
Environmental Health
Impacts
Assuming that these systems will yield a significant reduction in total nitrogen effluent, there may
be a measurable environmental benefit.
Page D-12 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
After the discussion, the facilitators asked attendees to write their interests and/or concerns related to
and post those items on a flip chart labeled with overarching topic categories.
List of Stakeholder-identified Interests and/or Concerns Related to the Proposal
Topic
Cold Spring Harbor
Riverhead
Economics
Economic benefits of quality of life on Long
Island
Financial impact on property owners
Household economies (cost of upgrading
your system and maintain it)
Public-private partnerships
Financial impacts on the individual
household
Cost to homeowners, renters, all
environmental justice related issues
Equitable cost structure (most important)
Cost of this versus government building small
sewage treatment plants
Industry
Creation of new industry- installation,
monitoring, maintenance
Monitoring and maintenance
Loss of maritime culture due to loss of
fishing/shellfishing industry
Job potential for installing and building new
systems
Potential to improve public and environmental
health from improved systems
Healthy shellfish
Lifestyle
Overall high- quality of life with less nitrogen
in aquifers and bays by upgrading to
advanced treatment
Better water quality means increased
recreation and better outlook
Less money because of cost means less quality
food
Fresh food, local food and preservation of
agricultural resources
Healthy natural resources, e.g., forests,
wetlands, drinking water
Culture/Social
None
Retroactive law very controversial and costly
Social impacts of retroactive law
Safety/Security
Resiliency to storms
Preserving farmland to grow produce and
produce other food is a public safety/security
issue (e.g., when gas prices are high on roads,
transport infrastructure cut off, food can't get
here)
Water quality and safe drinking water
Housing/
Infrastructure
None
Potential for increased density and all
associated impacts
Cost to homeowners
Environment /
Ecosystem
Health
Peace of mind knowing that the
environmental issues caused by the issues
are being solved
Upgrading to advanced treatment would
result in improvement to marine system-
good for the environment and ecology
Loss of shoreline communities due to
flooding and/or marsh loss
Nitrogen reduction in receiving waters and
drinking water aquifer
Impacts to the natural systems like beaches
and bays, water quality
Restoration and Protection of drinking water
supply
Resilient shoreline
Page D-13 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Topic
Cold Spring Harbor
I Riverhead
Nature and
Upgrading to advanced treatment means
|* Hiking, nature and scenic views
Recreation
healthier waters making bays and harbors
| Natural environment
safer for me and my family to recreate
| Shellfish industry
(swim, eat shellfish)
Restoration of surface waters (fishing,
swimming, recreation), shellfishing, etc.
Maintenance and invigoration of businesses
that rely on clean water, recreation, fishing,
beaches, etc.
Group Activity: Prioritizing Stakeholder Interests and/or Concerns
The facilitators asked each attendee to write, on an index card, the top three needs for their community
and reasons to be most proud of their community. The items written will be considered in the
prioritization of health effects included in the assessment.
Stakeholder-identified Community Needs and Assets
What are the top 3 needs for your community?
What are you most proud of in your community?
Cleaner water for drinking wells
Great public schools
Cleaner marine coastal water
Access to water and can make it part of our everyday lives
Smart growth/sustainable development/coastal resiliency
Diversity of population
Additional sewers
Public access to waterways
Clean water-reduce nonpoint source pollution
Environmental justice-make sure poorer communities don't
get negatively impacted by environment
More public access to natural areas, parks, etc.
Improvement in water quality-groundwater and local bays
Economic development
Preservation of environmental quality.
More diverse housing opportunities
Flanders needs affordable septic systems- we're a low-
income community on Reeves Bay that sits over the high
quality groundwater in the Pine Barrens.
Better water management-stop polluting waterways
Housing is way too expensive
Taxes too high
Waterless systems
Cost analysis- get rid of sewer systems and equipment and
replace with an advanced systems component or cluster
for $1/3 the price.
Great diversity on land use purposes
Great golf courses
Nearby oceans and bays for recreation
Close to waterways, diverse area
Bays and beaches
Parks, farms, vineyards
Active downtowns
The big ducts
The Peconic Bay
Bob Bourgignon- the scallop seller
The Fire Department
Farmland to grow food
Healthy environment
Serene environment
Beaches, bays, fishing, boating, etc.
Parks and natural areas
Schools
Wildlife and natural systems being destroyed by current
flood systems
Vibrant down town revitalization
Find a way to help homeowners upgrade cesspools to stop
pollution or rivers, bays and Long Island Sound-too big of a
job for local government
South shore sewage treatment plants clean up
Extend New York City outflow pipe 40 miles out
Wild lands left
Organic treatment of greens
All new developments are required to have hookups to
sewage treatment plants, but 1 am not sure if the current
treatment plants can handle the density.
Page D-14 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
What are the top 3 needs for your community?
What are you most proud of in your community?
1 have more of an interest in seeing help for protecting and
restoring coastal wet lands, eel grass, zebra mussels, clams,
oysters, snails, etc. They filter salt water extremely
efficiently. Some new oyster farms are cleaning lots of
water around them.
[Blank]
Additional Discussions
The following items were not originally included in the meeting agenda, but were documented using the
flip chart, titled "Parking Lot."
Considerations for the Assessment Step
Members of the audience suggested the HIA Project Team consider the following as the HIA moves
forward into the Assessment step:
In the assessment, the HIA Research Team needs to consider whether there is evidence of a
correlation between high nitrogen levels and toxic levels of harmful algal blooms and pathogens
in the water (potential source for information: Chris Gobler).
The HIA Research Team should include an analysis of existing policies and/or laws that may be
applicable (e.g., New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act and the National
Environmental Protection Act) and existing zoning codes, uses, and jurisdictions to understand
Consider performing a cost analysis for the different alternatives, especially for low-income
communities. For example, it would cost an estimated $197 million (by Martin Shirley) to
implement stage I and II (of IV) sewering. Whereas, for a third of that cost, every home could be
given a compost toilet, which would provide greater benefit for environmental health.
Consider the difference in the nitrogen reduction performance between the systems. There are
different levels of sophistication between the septic system and the alternative/innovative
systems that will yield different efficiencies in nitrogen reduction. In addition, the HIA Research
Team needs to consider whether measuring the nitrogen-reduction efficiencies of each system
will also comprise the draining field components. The HIA Research Team should also include
cumulative pounds of nitrogen avoided when assessing the different alternatives.
There was a development boom in Long Island in the 1950s and 1960s that is still contributing to
the nutrient loading. If the cesspools are all taken out and the leaks stopped, you maybe won't
see a change for a long time. Therefore, monitoring environmental impacts may be time-
dependent, because it takes years for the nutrients to syphon through the ecosystem. Thus, the
HIA Project Team should consider sub-stratifying the high priority areas by travel time to
recreational areas and private versus public wells.
The HIA Project Team should look to equations and/or models available for estimating source-
contributions for nutrient loading in Suffolk County (e.g., there were methods used to estimate
nutrient source contribution in the Forge River and Cape Cod water sampling analyses).
Question from the audience: How do you (the HIA Project Team) plan to account for differences
between perception (subjective data) and facts (objective data) in the assessment?
HIAs use a variety of data sources and methods to evaluate health impacts of a proposal. Most HIAs use
a combination of measurable (quantitative) and non-measurable (qualitative) information in the
analyses. There are scientific and/or standardized protocols for analyzing this type of information that is
Page D-15 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
available through peer-reviewed social and public health research. One of the Core values (guiding
principles) of HIA is the ethical use of the evidence and ensuring transparent and rigorous methods are
used. The HIA Research Team will be charged with providing caveats/cautions wherever the evidence is
limited or uncertainty exists. Furthermore, stakeholder committees will review information used in the
HIA and provide feedback prior to publication.
Question from the audience: How do you avoid how the information from the HIA is used politically
(for example, November 2015 is an election year)? It is important to note the timing of the HIA relative to
the upcoming elections.
The purpose of all HIAs is to inform the decision. That said, the HIA Project Team (or EPA) cannot control
how the different stakeholder groups will use the information gained from the HIA. Misrepresentation
of the HIA findings and recommendations is best avoided by publicly releasing the information and
providing consistent outreach and messaging to the different stakeholder groups.
Considerations for the Recommendations Step
Members of the audience suggested the HIA Project Team and Suffolk County consider the following as
the HIA moves forward into the Recommendations step:
The HIA Project Team should consider the recommendation of lowering the nitrogen standard
to protect ecological resources (i.e., adverse effects are seen at levels lower than 10 ppm).
Suffolk County should consider greater enforcement and penalties for existing systems that
don't meet current code requirements and/or are no longer functioning as intended.
The HIA Project Team and Suffolk County should consider drinking water quality (groundwater)
as the #1 priority when developing recommendations.
Suffolk County should consider offering incentives to upgrade existing OSDS, such as tax
abatements (see New Jersey Pinelands program for new systems and cost sharing example).
Suffolk County should consider a stage-approach when requiring upgrades, such as establishing
time schedules by area for residents required to upgrade their OSDS and guidance for how and
where a system should be implemented.
Next steps of the HIA
The next activities of the HIA include completing the Scoping step and initiating the Assessment step.
The HIA Leadership Team will prepare notes documenting the discussions and activities from the public
meetings and solicit individual stakeholders to participate in a formal role of the HIA. Once the HIA
Project Team and stakeholder committees are established, work can begin to complete the scope of the
HIA. The HIA Leadership Team charged the attendees with sharing the information they received today
with other community stakeholders and look for upcoming materials and invites to participate in the
HIA.
Page D-16 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
D.3 August 2016 Community and TAC Meetings Notes
August 16 - 18, 2016
Suffolk County, New York
Meeting Agenda:
5 minutes
Welcome
Meeting Agenda
Meeting Objectives
15 minutes
About the HIA in Suffolk County
FEMA, EPA, and HIA
What is Health Impact Assessment (HIA)?
First Steps of the HIA in Suffolk County
50 minutes
Poster Presentations Key Preliminary Findings
35 minutes
Poster Presentations Key Preliminary Recommendations
10 minutes
Priority Recommendations Comment Cards
5 minutes
Next Steps in the HIA and Wrap-up
120 minutes
Adjourn
Meeting Overview: The purpose of these meetings was to update the community residents and
stakeholders on the HIA's progress; report the preliminary findings and initial recommendations from
the HIA; and elicit feedback on those findings and recommendations.
Meeting Attendees:
No one showed to any of the three public meetings, despite flyers being posted in libraries in the three
meeting locations and issued to the TAC to distribute to their community counterparts. Meeting
attendees at the final TAC meeting included members of the HIA Project Team and Technical Advisory
Committee.
TAC Meeting Attendees and Organizations Represented
Attendee(s)
Organization(s) Represented
Alison Branco
Peconic Estuary Program
Chris Clapp
The Nature Conservancy
Steven Colabufo
Suffolk County Water Authority
Julie Hargrave
Central Pine Barrens
Chris Lubicich, Ken Zegel
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Kevin Moran
Long Island Builders Institute
Sean O'Neill
Peconic Baykeeper
Kristina Heinemann,
U.S. EPA
Lauren Adkins
HIA Leadership Team/Pegasus Technical Services (contractor to the EPA)
Florence Fulk, Rabi Kieber, Grace
HIA Leadership Team/U.S. EPA
Musumeci
Mark Meyers
HIA Research Team/ORISE Fellow
Page D-17 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
Meeting Presentation:
Two posters were staged around the room for each pathway one describing the findings of the
assessment and the other identifying the preliminary recommendations. A member of the HIA Project
Team stood at each of the posters to answer questions and facilitate discussions about the predicted
impacts of the proposed project on that health determinant. After the poster presentation was
completed, the HIA Project Team solicited feedback and comments from stakeholders about the
assessment and findings presented. Stakeholders were asked to respond to the following prompt
questions:
What are your thoughts on the findings? Did anything "stand out" to you?
Was there anything that was presented today that you had not seen/heard before?
Do you agree with what was observed or what the findings showed?
Do you have any concerns/issues with what was presented?
The posters presented at the meeting follow.
Page D-18 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT
INDIVIDUAL SEWERAGE
SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE AND FAILURE
How is the performance and/or failure of individual sewerage systems related to health?
Structural failure (i.e., the collapse, deterioration, and'or cover ma 1 fimction/removal) of a system is a falling hazard thaE may lead to human injury and'or death- Historically, cesspools were constructed
with brick and mortar or concrete blocks that break down over tnne. making them increasingly susceptible to collapse. Newer-age leach pools can be constructed with reinforced precast concrete, which
make diem less susceptible to collapse. When untreated wastewater surfaces (ponds above ground) it poses a direct health risk to humans and animals. Health hazards associated with exposure to
untreated wastewater include gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, rash or itchy skin, eye ailments, earache, or infected cut. Hood-prone-high groundwater areas appear to be the best predictor
of sewerage system failure both hydraulic and structural failures.
Kev Preliminary findings Summary
The Decision:
The -TciTing mr.irir-ryrK nnrt trends (note: tot static).
Baseline
Alternative I All new AND existmg individual (oote) uwa.Ee disposal
systems (OSDS) seivmg single-family residences must confbnn
lo currant t_ each' f f ii-v Coda ip.^ itandardi.
Alternative AIL new AND e\:srmg OSDS. serving single-family residences in
n high priority areas* must conform to current County Sanitary
Code Tid standards
AIL iwarw ~--"D <
AltซrmtDTซ
EH
Lndiv.du j1 Mnarซrag4 ;y it-ami. ostkar
cesspool-only systems or conventional onsite wastewater
treatment systems (OUTS), serving single-family residences in
hirh prtosiev areas* xmL-M be upgraded to irsnovattve altenmtsve
OWTS. |
'high priority areas include areas m tfaa 0-50 year groundwater contributing zone
to public drinking water wells fields, areas m the 0-25 year groundwater
ceaHEflwfliig zone to surfice waters, areas locate in SLUSH zones Lake. ah<3
Overland Surges from Humcanes). and areas located where groundwater is less
than 10 feet bexrw grade. High priority areas constitute 72ฎ-. of total land in
Suffolk County.
Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts:
Cesspools, septic tanks, and leatfi pools are not designed to control'redoce
nn trient: {nitrogen and phosphorous) or pathogens. since the;." are placed
below the "treatment zone" of the soiL and effluent from the se systems is
considered equivalent to untreated wastewater Estimated total nitrogen. (TN)
loading to the euvuoument from each individual sewerage system would be 14.65
lz (33.23 poundij TN p-sr ysar. acraminjz "<*ฆ -irtc1nn:-.in.-.i- occurs. T in fey
coLiform counts range 1-3 orders of maenirude (n % 10 to 1G1).
If the upgraded sewerage systems achieve Suffolk Count's goal of 50*t> reduction
in i: an centra Ban of currsn! T\ 1b affluent (ฃ0 rua.T_l, it in avaraga Sloxt a! 50
gal person day. the resultant TN loading &om an individual sew erase system
wouid be 7.29 kg (I.Ch6 pounds) TN" per year The ability to control fecal colifbrm
Deyond the conventional sewerage system is unknown at this time
Neither Suffolk County Departmeait of Health Services (SCDHS) nor Departm-Hit
of Public Works (5CDPW) inspects or monitors existing individual sewerage
systems aฑer the system is backfilled. The homeowner is entirely responsible for
uiau:cn&ฃ ati nylintainin; siisii indiriduBl jewerafe system qks
Currently, maintenance of existing individual sewerage systems varies widely, but
more often is. performed as part of a lit rather than as routine maintenance.
Ieanปv a ti ve-sj ttniWi OWTS sre
similar to mini-sewage treatment
plants and i*qmr? intensive
management and monitoring to
rtniiin oparstsoonl and effective.
Most of the pre-J? 7 j. single-
fa tr-i-y homes are located m the
aieh pnontv areas, such thai
there would be litite difference
(estimated 17.3 W) < boosing
bซ tvMa repairing: apscrad-i'.
across the county versos only
in high priority areas.
TYHCAL HtSCCHT^i 3E
-------
Appendix D
INDIVIDUAL SEWERAGE
ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE AND FAILURE
How is the performance and/or failure of individual sewerage systems related to health?
Structural failure (i.e., the collapse, deterioration, and'or cover malfimction-'removal) of a system is a falling hazard thai may lead to human injury and'or death- Historically, cesspools were constructed
with buck and mortar or concrete blocks that break down over tune, making them increasingly susceptible to collapse, viewer-age leach pools can be constructed with reinforced precast concrete, which
make them less susceptible to collapse. When untreated wastewater surfaces (ponds above ground) it poses a direct health nsk to humans and animals. Health hazards associated with exposure to
untreated wastewater include gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, rash or itchy skin eye ailment*: earache, or infected cut. Fiood-prone'Mgli groundwater areas appear to be the best predictor
of sewerage system fcuJure both hydraulic and structural failures
Key Preliminary Recommendations
Community Input
Regardless of the alternative chosen. Suffolk C ounty should:
Create an inventory of existing individual sewerage systems, including their
location, design type- and (if possible) maintenance schedule (e.g.. last
inspection anclor evacuation).
Create a checklist or logic framework that cesspool'septic service contractors
can easily and consistently deploy to determine whether a system is in need of
maintenance, repair, or needs to be upgraded.
. Develop an open-access, web-based platform for cesspool'septic service
contractors to report properties that need to upgrade their sewerage systems
and cited issuers;.
Ensure adequate County personnel and fund's are in place to accommodate the
anticipated increased demand for sewerage system permits and compliance
cemncatioDS (based on the inventory of existing systems!
Establish auditing and enforcement strategies ta address scenarios when
cesspool septic service contractors. QWTS system manufacturers, and-or
homeowners fail to meet statutory requirements {e.g.. failed to report a system
needing to be upgraded or in failure, certification of compliance deadline is
approaching and system has not been certified or certification of compliance
was not acquired).'
Require good practice in the siting, design, installation, and maintenance of
individual sewerage systems.
- Perform homeowner outreach early and often that provides information on
each system rireagn inHnriing the average life span, operation and
maintenance needs, average treatment performance, signs of system failure,
and the benefits of routine inspections and maintenance {'e.g.. increase in
system longevity, reduced costs over the life of the system, etc.).
Allow homeowners to upgradeTeplace existing systems to more sustainable
sewerage options that lower the nsk of svstem failure in the event of a flood-
extreme weather event (e.g.. high precipitation), and'or tidal surge.
If Alternative HI Is chosen. Suffolk Counry should:
Ensure OWTS management plans are followed by the service professionals.
iuwludc pathugeiL (ui uiditutui uiiciubiaJ) muuitui niฃ fui the 1'A OWTS au
that data can be obtained to better judge the treatment performance of such
systems for pathogen control.
Not allow the elimination or reduction of the drain fiekt/disposal footprint
without ensuring optimal design for wastewater loading, siting, and
maintenance
Page D-20 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY
(QUALITY OF WATER RESOURCES)
Pollutants from individual sewerage systems navel through the environment in aquifer recharge and or stormwates- imaS Pollutant loading to groundwater. which, is Suffolk County's source for drinking water, and receiving waters (water bodies downgradient m
the watershed) can affect the risk of waterbome illness from toxins and pathogens, includmg bacteria, viruses and protozoa ingesting too much nitrate from drsnking water can be harmful by reducing the blood's abiliry to cany and deliver oxygen to tissues In
aquatic environments, nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) supnort tile zrowlb of aigae and aquatic plants, whsib provide food and habitat lor fin fish shellfish, ami smaller organisms that live m water. However. Coo much X and P discharged into surface waters
directly or through subsurface flows can exacerbate alga5 growth (some of which can be to sic), degrade water quality. and cause loss or contamination of aquatic animal life. Water is one of the most rrrportant landscape elements, bath physically and
aesthetically. considering water spaces can reduce stress, enhance mood and enhance mental attention. However human stress and welibeing effects from watse spaces are dependent upon perceptions of water, restoration. and recreation
How is water qualify related to health?
Key Preliminary Findings Summary
Potential Health Impacts of Proposed C ode Changes
laowmg concerns relied to mrraan.mg aipl OiOOZLJ. Eปach closures. coKammasoD and.
or loss of '.helVfhh and submerged vegetation, and the furure integrity of the sole-source
fox drinking water are dnvmg forces of tbt perceived quality" of water resources in Suffolk
County.
For both Alternatives I and E, there would be no appreciable change in nutrient or
pathogen loading to the emironment. If the average total nitrogen (TN) load going
to the disposal mut (coming km the sepdc tank) is 5 kg (11 poimds) TN per person per
faa, st an nvsiฃ.ฃe 2.?3 pcrwn; yer DEsicten.ee and. & tcnai of 3S5, i 17 unseiwered, Mrijpg-
family parcels, cumulative TN loading to die eovirottnปni equate'* to 5 64 uhEjoq Lg
(12.41 million pounds) TN per year
Far Alternative IE, there would be considerable reduction in nutrient {specifically
nitrogen) UMUttng to cbe eDrtranawai irthe upijiiei nuovattve atrerralive caiue
wastewater treamnan: systems (OWTS) achieve Suffolk County's goal of 50% reduction
m efffnpnt TN concentration from each system. then the cumulative reduction in TS
loading to the environment from systems in high priority- areas, would be 1.S3
million kg (4.04 million pounds) TN per year Mere information is needed to discern
pathosen ccmrroi wf ir nr.Tivm.-A ฆ 71 frarn nrivo OWTS.
All pabbc drinking waters in Suffolk County met both federal (EPA) and state
(NVDOH) standards for drmldng water ฆquality. The quality of source water used by
pubis: supply systems is satisfactory (jgensally free of pafbogen-mdicatins
mkroorganisms acd oinaie-niirogen levels iar below the standard of 10 mg"L) and largely
disinfected prior to distribution. The quality of scarce water used in pavate dnrking
sy stems is unknown and Li eh* to be highly variable m quality. However, nitr ogen levels
m drinking water wells are increasing (average nitrate-niu"ogen concentrations rose by
40.9% in fee Upper Glacial Aquifer and by 93 2% in the Magothy Aquifer from 19B7 to
2013) Most private aad aoBawwIty drinking water well; pomp source water
from the shallower Upper Glacial Aquifer, wherea s. public wa ter supply wells pump
source water from the deeper Magotbv Aquifpr
Nat all sewerage-derived TN loading to the environment reaches receiving waters
Even as- nitrogen loadmc vnrses widely sawi sub-wtKersbtds. only an eKiEoawd 10 to
30% of original TN loading reaches receiving waters. Wastewater influences the quality of
receiving water; by farther enhancing die effect of e a tropin cation dissolved oxygen (DO)
ton^nmptjo-n. and landiur ef auircwrjAnvm* Unaewered parcels and icapo ired
waters are widespread across Suffolk County.
>itrogen impairment. depleted DO. algal blooms, and decreased wetland acreage
have been observed in all three Snffolk Comity estuaries. Recreational waters in
Suffoli County are iecueady iai^'actefi Irv qBBmriMtaaa. ic
closrores and off health risk advisories. Se\=eral beaches on the north and south shores
tested above the allowable limit far KปfK-rgฆ <.TซrTt"n--Tno for several days. Beaches that had
m-oral day: avar tta alVigahla limit -crara 1c c^ted in bath highly dfrxtm. cuL^xvirs-d iioii
and less dense, nnsewered and sewered areas.
Algal bboomc. which occor in both fresh and marine waters of Suffolk C ounty, cause
K-rn- tjj- "starving" othei psuits by oui-cocnpecng thop-i 5fbT TTi-itrynr; biockscz out
sunliaia. 5-onw jJbm. in fn^ii as>d TiMTina watari, pnxiuca toxiK our ara iuzardou; 14
fr irfnn- and other animais. ^Tien the algae sn algal blooms dse, die decomposition of
bioznass causes the consumption of DO at such a rapid pace that it reduces the ability of
fnfrsh and other aquanc >ti"tis*1 iife h> survive, leatkng to iarge die-off;.
In Suffolk County, rt ks
difficult to discern whether the
source of fecai cMitananation.
mdh-Ldua: "?n.-&raEe
sv stems or sewage treatment
plants, considermg both
-*^1 irga till *3Ti-v i r.H ti r
t-oui am wida^>raปd kiou
Suffolk County.
Illness from
aeuadc
recreation
(e.g.. bathing
swunmmg.
boating. fi=.hrng.
Baseline Healfh Status
According to the most recent Suffolk County Communin,- Health Assessment (2015). "waterbonie Alness cases have frequently been related to watsrbeme
esusare from waser parks or lakes." in die State of .New leak. ewosure 10 toxic algal bloocns caused an average of 31 reported hospital visits per year However,
infocmadon on fa'T*" illness from harmful algae is difficult to collect, as exposure often causes general symptoms such as rashes, respiratoey mitatson, or eye
ram easily be t*^ jttti;cc ho umepoffted.
etc.)
Qlness from
sewerage-
dem'ed
pollutants in
source water
/groundwater)
Direction
ฆAlternatives I and II:
These alternatives w.ll detract
from health because there
wcroii De do apjarecia'tiLe
reduction in pollutant loading
to receiving waters.
Alternative HI:
This alternative wiE benefit
health iom the r educed
nitnenr loading (and potential
to control odior c-oUuia&u / itia<
siow the progress of algri:
bloom focmation and lessen
habitats suitable for wateabome
pathogens.
Baseline Health Status
Likellliood
Alternateves I and IF:
The continued risk of illness from.
apjatK recrearson ฎae to
tol3logens or HABs is bigiilv
likely
Alternative TTT
Gs\ren the hitholopc connection
between groundwater and surface
waters of Suffolk County,
reckons mnrignrc. (and potentially
podioaoc^ j diichiUiEซd go rocซ:vsaf
waters may possibly reduce beach
closures and eiqwsure to toxic
algal blooms.
-Magnitude
The ewem of health
impact, bodi positive
a-Tirr nesatri'ei. would
"w tegfi. considannf
aquatic recrasoon is a
widely practiced form
of physical acdwty
for bothrpurHtn (1.5
million people) and
\isitocs to Suffolk
C-ouari-
Distribution
Children are most at risk to the
effects of toxx algal blooms,
because of their lower body
weiftit. t^aviOf, and tcoiic
effects an development Young
children, the elderly, and chose
who are immunocompromised
are more likely to became
infected by waterbocne
pathogens.
Severitv
The health
^triplications of
to3dn exposure
feoaiiHABsls
severe, ivheress
the health
UEEjiicadcais of
exposure to
sewerage-derived
pathogens is kปw to
moderate.
Fermanence
The effects of
waterbome illness
from aquatic
r&crsaEoo may be
short-term, but
the changes m r.sk
may not occur for
i long time.
:onsideting
hydro logic travel
berwsec.
sewerage systems
and receiving
waters may be 0-
5 \ears.
Most cases of waterbome illness in Suffolk County were caused by bacterium, such as Shigotls and Saimo!wiia. although incidence rates suggest the absence of
wide-spread disease outbreaks. On ax:erage. approximately oese in every IdO.COO people are affected by harmful Escherichia cot! each year in Suffolk County,
ccnpared to about one in every 167.000 people in New Ybai State Tb= use of prtvate drmking wells and individual sewerage systems have not been associated
with a disease outbreak in Suffolk County However, the combination of risk factors suggests a possibility that current conditions may contribute to sporadic or
unreported illnesses There are no known cases of nitrate tonicity (MethemogLobmprna oc "blue baby syndrome") m luriblk Cousnv
Direction
These aitexnatives will detract
from health because there
would be no afHjrecsable
sdu-isju iu p"uilu.toLi iuddinj*
to groundwater
Alrematn e TTT-
This altarcach^ wouid benefit
health by reducing the risk of
illness 30m seweiage-dem'ed
nrtrara-miroEEn in lir'-rfcinp
water It is unclear whether
improi-emeair in pathogen
loading may occur
Likelihood
Altgnati^ftlmd It
Waterbome illness from
comnmnrtv water suppl"ป" systems
is sntikely but illness from prsvate
Oild 1 -t 11i 111ป111 11 rirv ',s jtti auypC't
wells is possible
Aiternatrve IU:
Sisi of watarbom* iilcesj anions
persons using private and Don-
:ซnmumn- water supply wells ts
highly hkeh" to decrease. This
alternative is unlikely to impeove
drmking water qua:in from public
water supply, since publx water
ฆapply is already satiifacHHy
Magnitude
lbs \'i ป'ttV j'Ls
affecced would be
considermg
nublic and cammunit^r
watar supply saroa;
7ฐ-ซ of the total
population (appros.
1.3 million people )
arvrf private
(individual; wells and
noc -coenmumr.
rriteati s^ave about
13% of residents
(appcos. 194.000
-vanpiiaT
Distiibution
Pie-jtiLt nvuirn aud 1 n..ii/v
under 6 months are more at risk
so nitrate toxicity m drinkmg
water. Ybuns r^fiitrctn the
aldociy. and dwu who ara
anmucoconzprccmsed are mooe
likely to become infected by
waiert-ome padiosens.
Resiifences wsth a private well
and mdrvidaal sewerage
ฆrv stem have a hisher ricfc 101
tirinkaif wacs coomnuinacgL
especially where groundwater
fallow and/or density of
'jasewerttd ts high
Severitv
Ibsheakh
impHcatioais of
sewerage-
cantaminaTBd
dnaliing waw Ls
low to moderate
i" :;a; rra ~T\ fi=- yHr.Tl
symptcans
emeasdi frtr most
of the population,
bur severe amoaig
pRgayi; wouea
ard iriVinrc, less
rhnrt 6 months.
Permanence
Tha sSeib uf
waterbome illness
from contaminated
dunking wells may
fc-i sfaott to Loug-
term. but the
rh in ill risk
may not occur fer
a Ions time.
hydro k>gsc tiawl
Tihs; beTO'eec,
sewerage systems
and well screens
ciay 5ซ U-* U -%-aari.
Stress and
Welibeing
raLuad co
perceived
quaiiry of water
eauuiLea
Baseline Health Status
Baseline community data from 2013-2014 indicates that I S.7% of adults in Suffolk County were diagnosed depression According to County Health Rankings, the
age-adjusted average number of mentally unhealthy days reported sn past 30 days in Suffolk County in was 3 J. lower than the New York state average of 3.7 days.
Alteraatives I and II will
Direction
detract from health, due to
the perceived degradation erf
Alternative HI may benefit
health nom improved
perceptions of water quality.
Likelihood
Perceptions of the quality of water
resources (both ground and
surface waters; of Suffolk County
- possibly infhiaaca acd
-welibeing among ressdents-
Maซninide
The ewenr of people
afiected would be
moderate
cocAidacins IS.
already suffs- nom an
existing mental health
condition-
Distribution
Low-income popuLanons.
coastal populations, and
individuals with p^ -'T-ry
maolal hAalth cocidicoc^ would
be affected mote by the
perceived quality of water
Severitv
The severity of
health tmpiications
from rl-nnyp; in
would be lo w and
couM easily
chaaige.
Permanence
The effects would
be:
-term
Page D-21 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY
(QUALITY OF WATER RESOURCES)
How is water quality related to health?
Pollutants from mmvichiai sewerage systems travel through the emiromaeEt in aquifer recharge and-OT stomnrater nmoff Pollutant loading to groundwater, which is Suffolk County's source for drinking water, and receiving
waters (water bodies downEracsiexl m the watershed) ray affect the tt~V of'watsrbome iIItip.-- frnm tosms *nn ^jalhosens. inrhrrlm a~ bacteria. "viruses ~~nrl protozoa. Tt cp-nn? too n h in from iTnT-Ving n a it-r i-yn be ป11 ฆfri* by
reducing the blood's ability to carry and deliver oxygen to tissues. In aquatic environments. mnoeen {N) and phosphorous CP) support the growth of algae and aquatic plants, which provide food and habitat foer shellfish,
and smaller organisms that live m water. However. too mutch N and P discharged into surface waters directly on- through subsurface flows can exaeeabate aigal growth (some of which can be toxic}, degrade water quality, and cause
loss or contamination oฃ aquatic .^ninfw? life. Water is cue of *3^ most irepesrtant landscape elements, both, physically .^T^i aestheCLcalHr. considering water spaces reduce stress, enhance mood. ar<-l enhance attention.
Howe\"er, human stress and mBbemg effects from water spaces at e dependent upon perceptions of water, restoration, and recreation-
Key Preliminary Recommendations Community Input
The Decision:
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative HI
The existing conditions and trends {note: not static j
AH new AND existing individual (ensile) sewage disposal systems (OSDS) serving
iiaiLs-racuy re-siaeoces muปT couTarci to cuiraa County Santary Code aen
standards.
All new AND existing OSDS serving single-family residences in high priority
areas* must conform to current Cc-unty Sammy Code and standards
Ail new AND existing individual sewerage systems, either cesspool-only systems ox
convenrioml onsite wastewater treatment -systems (OWTS). sen-ing single-family
residences in high prioriry areas* must be upgraded to inravative-alternative
owts
ฆ hjgii priocirv ataas inciucLs xraa> m tha 0 50 ysir a?ซK3GAfovac
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT
RESILIENCY TO NATURAL
DISASTER
How is resiliency related to health ?
According to the Natural Research Council, resiliency is "the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb: recover front and more successfully adapt to adverse events." In coastal resiliency, this means
reducing vulnerabilities and potential exposure to natural hazards (e.g., severe storms and storm and.'or tidal surges) and their impacts before they occur, in hopes of decreasing the consequences of the
event Severe storms and their surges can affect health in a number of ways, including direct exposure to the storm, secondary hazards (e.g., falling trees, rising waters, electrocution- and carbon monoxide
poisoning), disruption of services, evacuation, displacement, trauma and stress, and clean-up and recovery activities, and can range from changes m overall health and wellbeing to injury and death.
Kev PreKminarv Findings Suminarv
The Suffolk County Multi-Jurisdicdonal Hazard Mitigation Plan states tie highest
risk natural hazards for Suffolk County, as a whole. axe: nor"eaiteis. severe winter
stoimi. ปTซre storms, Brant saws, ami coastal erosion. Because or Patrols
County's orients non to the Atlantic Ocean aid iksw-Syine southern coastline, it is
exposed to coastal stcems that head up the East Coast and their associated storm
suites.
Wetlands provide a Dumber of ecosystem services (eg. ecological, economic,
and social benefits) Wetlands regulate the movement of water widim watersheds,
hold and slowly release precipitation and flood waters; recharge
groundwater, act as fitteis to cleanse water of impurities and sedmaenr; recycle
nutrient; soch as nitrogen: reduce erosion. act as car bos suiks. off-secnng
sreenhcise gas emissions (one of the ma:or causes of s-obaL warpiaigV. and
provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and a variety of plants In addition to these
services. coastaL'tidat wedaads also help protect thoreline areas from wave erosion
ana provide ?. natural beffer from stonn and tidal sarses.
The most well-documented causes of wetland loss m SuffoSi County are
development and other dredge and ฃ11 activities It is estimated by 2004 that
SuTHxlk Councy hjd loi? ooore than 21.000 acrs; of and tidal watla&ds
that e^ssted there in die early 1900s Recent studies have also pointed to excess
nutrient nitrogen loading as a significant feet or in coastartidal wetland loss m.
Suffolk County. Excess nitrogen Loading overwhelms the capacity of wetlands to
remove nitrogen, leads to the-declare of stabilizing vegetation. alters the sediment
regime: and in concert with other factors l wasting disease, algal blooms, climate
change, dredging, coating, and sheilfishmgj. contributes to eeigxass decline.
ฃ 03ibxr.il] wetlands ore also screwed by wave acaou acd sea level nซ. As sea
level rises, wetlands must grow vertically and horizontally to avoid submersion
(s.e . converted from vegetated wetland to unvegetated mud fla? or even open
water). In New Yoafc. some coastaitidai wetiands seem to be keeping pace with sea
level rise, but many are not
The proposed code changes may reduce nitrogen Loading to coastal tidal wedands.
ant thai does not mesn"imj)roved community T*s&m& to natural disasters
because...
While studies bave shown that more Elan half ef oorma; wave erargy ss dissipated
within the first three meters of marsh vegetation. stonn singe is considerably
different from normal wave action.
Natural shoreline habitat ฆ i>\ict a tarrier beaches, eelgrassbedk wetlands.
dunes, b jiffs and caffs, and reefs), as well a s hardeeed shorelines (such as rip rap
walls, bulkheads, and seawalls) provide Tarring levels of protection
Continued loss of coastaLridal wetlands is expected due to the rapid acceleration
of sea level rise NY Department of Environmental Conservation projects that
Long Island coulci see sea level rises of 2-10 inches (above the 2 m a I
lanUail in Kn W
Potential Health Impacts of Proposed Code Changes
Baseline Health Status
The percentage of adults repotting fair or poor health {age~ad?usced) in Suffolk County was 12% in 2014 and baseline community data from 2013 to 2014
indicates that 13.7% of aduirs m Suffolk County were -diagnosed with depression.
The health benefits from regular, moderate physical actrvsty is strong aid well-established including chronic disease prevention, improved menial health,
and a better quality of Me. However immediately following natural disasters or storm events, physical activity can be riifB-utt due to evacuation and
displacement, infrastructure and property damage, closed recreational areas and facilities, and safety concerns Impacts to respiratory health are also a
concern due to mold contamination resulting from water -damage. A Gallup-Healthways poll found that in die most affected areas of New York. New Jersey.
and Connecticut, there was a 25% increase m -diasnoses of depression in arjnlr=- in rfro =.tc weeks following Hurricane Sandy*.
Directioii
Human Injury>
Death
tav iiuRiatss r*nA
KtiaJU M ป4i*inifasai
Imliiii in Wrw i..u. <
No Change
Although the proposed code
changes may reduce nitrogen
loading to coastai tidai wetlands,
there is no evidence that
would impact community
resiliency to natural disasters or
ibe:r associated health impacts
due to die confounding factors
affeenns community resiliency,
including climate change, sea
Level rise, coastal development,
and individual behaviors (?ach
as willingness to evacuate).
D.i'clinc Health Status
Likelihood
Highly Likely
Natural disasters aie
highly likelv to impact
overall health and
wellbeing. as evidenced
Oy pa it urarai fiasaaers.
aha impacts are likely to
mcrease widi increased
storm frequency and
intensity. as well as
greater extent and
frequency of coastal
ฃcocins due to saa :evsl
rise.
Magnitude
High
Thousands of people
live and work in each of
the four SLOSH Zones
areas afreeted bv Sea.
Laie. acd OveiLaatfJ
Surges froca Hurricanes;
*nd could experience
iacis to overall health
wellbeing from
hurricanes, severe
3ซปtms. and their
Ksodared storm
;urees.
A in:alcilc 19 7-m i
rank mt m 47?i ui-mi
riiatn ib|C aid t 7314 U
MRthcrti duo of Uiq| liiaul 1>
Distribution
Disproportionate
Populations living and
working in the SLOSH
zones are disproportion-
ately affected by
fcujilcaaei asi itourn
events, but there are
certain subpopmlatioais
that aie particularly
vulnerable, mrii.+'rg
those on barrier islands,
the elderly, physically
disabLed. tfetss with rra-
exisring conditions, low
income p-opuladons. and
the licOTi-sncaliy
isolated
Minor to Moderate
Impac ts to overall
health and wellbeing
can range in severity
mav or many not
rsqjoire "me-iiai"
treatment or
inteivention-
Severirs"
Permanence
Immediate to
Long-term
Impacts to overall
health and wellbeing
are likelv immediate,
but caa potsiuaa^y
persist long-term"
e g , mental health
rmpacts).
Historical hf. of human causalities from hurricanes are due to storm surge Riverine flooding due to rainfall, -fari-ng trees due to high winds, tryim;*
from Eying debris, and indirect impacts 13te falls, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, and electrocution, can also cause injury and dearh. Despite afeances
in husricane -waj-nsng -sad ซ'scusn svwesaaa. drownicc rtuaaizis om c-f th.ซ leedaits cassises of h.-jrnciiEt-reiat^d deatfaa (55) deaths wซe ceported
in NT due 10 Hurricane Sandy* (14 or'which were on Cong Island), with S0% of iiose deaths due to diownmg The median age of'the deceased from
Hurricane Sandy was 55 year of age. in 2010. persons age 65 and over comprised 14% of Suffolk County 's population
Direction
No Change
Aldiough the proposed code
i h.Tii^et iaa> isduis: uiuvs.su
loading to coastai tidai wetlands,
there is no evidence dial this
would impact community
resiliency to nat^jral disasters or
their associated impacts
due to die confounding factors
affecting community resiliency,
including climate change, sea
level nse. coastal development,
and lBdftioiM behaviors (sacfi
as wiHsnsness to evacuate;-.
Likelihood
Highly Likely
Injury and death are
hi a hi > aheLy, aa
evidenced by past natural
disasters, and likeSy to
increase widi increased
storm frequency and
intensity, as well as
sreater evtent and
frequency of coastal
flooding due to sea le\el
Masuitude
Low to Moderate
Although the magmtude
ซiiWp'ltt jiak tf
injury anr! -lealh is ^' g'h
advances in warning
and wacuation sj-stems
reduce the number of
people who actually
expenence these
impacts
Distribution
Dispr op ortionate
Populations living and
iv u. the 'sLQ'Sif
zones are disproportion-
ately affected by
huiricanes and storm
events, but there are
rprtirr sub-populations
that are particularly
vulnerable, including
those on the barrier
islands, tho elderlv.
physicilly -li-45i#ฃL low
income popuiadons. and
the linguisdcaliy
isolated
Severitv
Minor to High
Impacts from steam
v. ftadl aiuau >. iu
range in severity- from
minor injuries to more
moderate injuries
requiring medical
treatment or
inten:enrion and even
disabling injury or
Permanence
Immediate to
Long-term
Iuj.ii > aud 5s:.Ci
from'storm and'ox
tidal surges often
occur immediately o-i
sboitlj following the
event, but can also
occur longer arm.
during clean-up aid
recovery Impacts
can range from
remporay lnjan- ki
l>ermanent -disabaing
snjtny and death.
Page D-23 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT
RESILIENCY TO NATURAL
DISASTER
How is resiliency related to health?
According to the Natural Research Council, resiliency is "the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events." In coastal resiliency this means
reducing vulnerabilities and potential exposure to natural hazards (e.g., severe storms and storm and/or tidal surges) and their impacts before they occur, in hopes of decreasing the consequences of the
event Severe storms and their surges can affect health in a number of ways, including dnect exposure to the storm, secondary hazards (e.g., falling trees, rising waters, electrocution, and carbon monoxide
poisoning), disruption of services, evacuation, displacement, trauma and stress, and clean-up and recovery activities, and can range from changes m overall health and wellbeing to injury and death..
Kev Preliminary Recommendations
Community Input
The Decision:
Alternative
Alrtrn.irh-e
The existiBE conditions and trends (note: not static).
All new AND panting; individual (onsrte) sewage disposal systems (OSDS) servmH
angle-family residences must conform to cturent County Sacinar}' Code and
standards-.
AH new AND existing OSDS serving singie-faaiily residences in high ccioriry
areas* must conform to current Cosintv Sanitarv Code and standards
"
HI A3 new AND existing individual sewerage systems, either cesspool-onJy systems or
comendotal onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), serving smgie-fenuiy
residences in high pnoriry areas* must be upgraded to innovative-alternative
loWTS.
high prtoriEy areas include areas ai the >3-50 yea-r groundwa&ar contntmnng zone to public onrtiine wasei
weDs fields, areas in the &-25 vear grcoindwiter concriinrtsng zone to surface waters, areas Sotsred tn
SLOSH zcnst (Sea. Lake, md Overlaid Surss; from Hurricanes). and are it located where srcmaidvfiieT Li
.ess tLin 10 feet below grade High priority areas constitute 72% of total land m. Suffolk County
Regai'dless of the alternarive clioeen. Suffolk County should:
* Pnonuze resiliency efforts (e.g.. fcabitat restciadc-iL shoreline mmasemeci. and
planning activities) based on risk of exposure and social and economic
vulnerability to sea level rise, severe storms, and storm and'or tidal surges.
Ensure that the impacts of accelerated sea level rise and increased storm
frequency and intensity are adequately examined and accounted for in the initial
phases of all planning efforts.
i Undertake activities., such as voluntary buyouts, land use and zoning
regulations, and disincentives to development, to reduce the infrastructure and
people m vulnerable coastal areas and create more naturally-fimctioning coastal
floodplains. and provide space for coastal'tidal wetlands to retreat and expand.
- Protect, restore, and create freshwater and coastal'tidal wetlands or other green
infrastructure alternatives to improve resiliency.
~ Evaluate the use of hybrid approaches that combine natural habitats and built
defense structures to improve resiliency.
~ Undertake efforts in emergency management planning and outreach to ensure
that mdividuals receive and comprehend evacuation messages and have the
necessary resources to comply with them.
Page D-24 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT VECTOR CONTROL
How is vector control related to health?
Insect vectors, especially mosquitoes, spread diseases such as West Nile Fever. Eastern Equine Encephalopathy, and Zika.
Nuisance and irritation from the presence of biting insects can deter participation in outdoor activities, discouraging exercise and appreciation of nature
Excessive insect populations and Mgh-visibility pesticide application can create a negative perception of the environment and the community.
Key Preliminary Findings Summary
Mosquitoes in Suffolk County are vectors, -or disea se-tran emitting onanisms.
" the potentially deadly viruses Wwt Nit \lrns (WNV) and Extern Equine
EucepbaJapaOiy me species coxites implicated il me spread nrwifV. cw#x
pipfปi-rtz3i6Jfz. breeds in inpuTed aud poDoEed watec Sources of polluted
water include containers such as flowerpots, old ores, and laddie pools, a; well as
ponds. culverts, drainage ditches. and stona drains The invasive Asian tiger
mosquito, A edes aibopicms, while ow unpbcaeed in the spread o-f WNV. breeds in
large numbers fallowing seasonal flooding of its saltwater wetland habirrar and is
known for aggressive biting behavior during the day&me Other prominent
mosquito species, of the approximately 50 found in Suffolk, include A edez
KAafa ana. .isiuphfctei.
Nuisance from mosquito bites can be a significant barrier to outdoor acEmiy.
and at its most severe can cause avoidance of the worst-affected areas altogether.
Outdoor recreational areas and parks, especially in Suffolk County, are often in
close proximity 10 water bodies such as lakes, ponds, creeks, or wetlands While
scientific stady of attitudes towards mosquitoes m Sufioflc Count* has not been
attempted anecdotal examination of local news articles reveals fh.ir summer
m-oiq'iltoes. sure a ceeimonuy-cieed isritacrt
On-site sewage disposal systems can contribute to mosquito populations m
several ways. Old or improperly maintained individual sewerage systems cam
crack, flood., or colbipse. provading access to polluted water that serves as an
ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes Their natural predators such as
mosquito fish ana small predatory copepods cannoi stavive m such adverse
cocdrtums. Niougrn contnnnrutiaa iium individual a j smm decrsds lias qualrty
0: jiuncg waters ata ^radisJi veslaauls. eaceuraauf"els grawib 01 itcsin
>arvae ana the loss of predator spec-es Even low to moderaue lewis of organic
nutrient pollution can lead to a significant increase m the survival of mosquito
larvae, and subsequently increase adult mosquito populations.
The County has instituted a program for controlling mosquito populations that
xvclvei eoucar.cn. water xatisesjst]. xcxrorja ajii smveKUance, iaa
larvicide and adulticide application. Annual applications of mosquito kuvicide
tod adulticide are conducted to iini.ii mosquito populations and combat the
piead of disease Insecticide compounds used to control mosquito larvae include
methoprene. an insect hormone inhibitor, and the bactenal controls B aril ins
tfairingimst; and Bacillus sphairrictts. Ahilticides currently inchide xesicethrin.
praDethnn sumithruL which are synthetic pvrethroids that ;m'tnip ite effect of
compounds found in chrysanthemums. These insecticides are widely agreed-upon
by tosacologists. medical doctors, and emitctthental regulncm i to be safe for
die; Soma rasldouJtE, 2; evtienced hv minatas. of tocra riaafi-n r:
news articles. and soc-al media posts, are concerned about potential health effects
of mosquito insecticide treatment These residents may be discouraged fram
going outside in areas that have recently received treatment, and may experience
stress from perceived health risks of insectk&de exposure
Stress and
Well be ins
Potential Healtli Impacts of Proposed Code Changes
Illness
from
Vector-borne
Pathogens
Baseline Health Status
The Suffolk C ounty Department of Health conducts yearly surveillance of mosquitoes through the momtoring network developed by the Arthropod-Borne
Disease Laboratory. Trends in West Nile Virus surveillance reveal that on a yearly basis, from 200B-2015. the range of mosquito traps testing positive for che
virus WW 3. >:-e to 19.294- In chat same nmi* period. iS5 people eoMrscted WNV. resolfirg in 3 deaths. Eastern E-qraiae Encephslopalby has no* been deserted
in mosquitoes since 2008. No locally-transmirted cases of Zika have been resorted
Direction
Unsure
Because the mosquito
implicated m the spread
of WNV in Suffolk
ounty breeds in
impaired and polluted
water, the chosen
alternative could impact
mosqusto populations:
however, a direct link
between mosquito
population and disease
incidence for WNV ha;
not been shown.
Possible
It is possible to contract
WNV from mosquitoes in
Suffolk County, but the
likelihood of contracting
the disease is low.
Likelihood
Magnitude
Moderate
There are relatively few
cases of mosquito-borne
disease in Suffolk County.
bu.1 a moderate number of
individuals are co-located in
areas whore WNV-positive
mosquitoes have been found
Disproportionate
The young, the elderly, the
immirnoc ompxomised. and
those in proximity to
WNV-positive mosquitoes
would be affected more.
Distribution
Severity
Minor to His fa
Ihe majority of
individuals infected
with WNV do not
develop any
symptoms and about 1
in 5 will develop
minor symptoms. In a
i/erv small percentage
WNV canniailr
in ifeadi cgpgraraatt
menial notary
Permanence
Long-term
Mosquito populations
would be altered m the
yeari's) following
changes to sewage
disposal systems, arvl
any rented health
impacts would be
expected to be long-
lasting. given the long
life spans of the
systems. Impacts from
WNV can range from
temporary to
pacmaoant
Baseline Health Status
Some citizen groups and lawmakers express concern that insecticides used in mosquito control efforts are unsafe for children and the allergic Mosquito
populations, especially near wetland areas or after floods, reach nuisance status m warm months. Both can have an effect on stress and wellbeing by
i&craaiixLS coccsni ao-our tha itata of tha cooam'onity's aoviroiuiaani Pudjc paicaptioa of tha anvimiiiait LnBuanca; choica> of whore. whan, and how ofron
to engage in outdoor activities. Studies have shown that participating m outdoor recreation leads to decreases in stress. lowers the chance of obesity and high
blood pressure, acd increases feelings of overall "wellness ~
Benefit to Health
Newer sew stage
;y stems and.-or
improved water quality
sre expected to help
lontrol mosquito
copulations. leducsig
nuisance and Che need
for insec ticide
ippLicauoj;. r=vv=j
mosquitoes lead to
increased enjoyment of
the outdoors, which
reduces stress and
increases general
wdRnaiK
Possible
Seduced tmsance mosqiiioes
ha\e been shown an mcrease
willir-grwi* to in
otsdoor sccvmes. ahfaough
mc-squi tees alone likeh"
occounr x*r n i^iaiivelr miner
part of discourasng &ese
activities c.fifHnc irrifnp
ap^tiiaooD an.d sagitwed
parcepcoeis cf fiie ecvjcccaent
are jackmE
Low
Less than one petcesoi of
Sirffblk County properties
are listed on tbe Do Not
Spray Law listing, indicating
that concern over perceived
envdronicectai qTiaim- dus to
insecticide is relatively low
Participation in outdoor
acdvtaea. may tie xcieaปea.
but the extent of that impact
unknown-
DKprcซpซaTionate
mdrvsdials who Is>e in
proKimity to mosqurto
breafing areas and. 01
insecticide application
area s could be affected
Minor
Nuisance mosqustos
ind perceived toxiaty
of injectscides ป113
have minor impacts co
stress and wellbeing.
innncucc
Long-term
Mosquito populations
would be altered m the
yean's) followinf
changes to sewage
disposal systems, and
ncr related hearth
impacts would be
expected to be long-
ฃ;vsa :ca?
life spans of the
systems. Stress can
have lasting effects on
a'flllhamp
Page D-25 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ENVIRONMENT VECTOR CONTROL
How is vector control related to health?
Insect vectors, especially mosquitoes. spread diseases such as West Nile Fever; Eastern Equine Encephalopathy, and Zika
Nuisance and irritation from the presence of biting insects can deter participation in outdoor activities, discouraging exercise and appreciation of nature.
Excessive insect populations and high-visibility pesticide application can create a negative perception of the environment and die community.
Community Input
Kev Preliminary Recommendations
The Decision:
Baseline
Tie existing conditions and trends (note: not static).
Alternative I
All new AND existing individual (onsite) s-svage disposal systems (OSDS) serving
single-family residences must confirm to 'current County Sanitary Code and
standards
Alternative II
All new-AND existing OSDS serving single-family residences in high priority
areas * must conform to 'Current Canity Sanitary Code and standards
Alternative III
All new AND existing individual sewerage systems, either cesspool-only systems or
conventional onsite w-astewater treatment systems (OWTS), serving single-family
residences in high priority areas * must he upgraded to innovaive alternative
OWTS-
~hist priority =2=2.= include areas in the 0-50 ye* groundwater contributingzane to puMicdrinkingwater
wells fields. areas in. the -[>-25 year groundwask contributing zone to surface ฆwaters, areas located in
SLOSH zones (Sea, Late, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes), and areas located where groundwater i s
less thai 10 feet below grade Hiah priority areas constitute 72% of total land in Suffolk COunry
Regardless of the alternative chosen:
Owners of onsite wastewater treatment systems should inspect their installations
for cracks, leaks, and loose manhole covers. Any cracks or gaps between the
blocks should be patched with cement. Vent pipes should be covered by screen
mesh to deny mosquitoes access to the water within.
Unused or abandoned systems should be filled completely with sofl. both to
eliminate a source of standing water and to avoid potential collapse and injury.
Existing systems should be routinely pumped, as this reduces the risk of
flooding and excessive retention of standing water.
Public outreach should emphasize the role individual homeowners can take
in helping prevent mosquito infestation.
If Alternathe III is chosen:
Innovative alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems under consideration
by the County should be evaluated to ens me that they do not provide breeding
habitat for mosquitoes. Ideally, the innovative alternative systems chosen
will innately discourage mosquito breeding by incorporating access-restricting
features, such as screened vents and inspection ports, crack-resistant
construction, and tightly-fitting manholes.
Page D-26 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ECONOMY HOUSEHOLD EC ONOMIC S
How is Household Economics related to health?
Housing is generally Tie largest expense for an individual household. The proportion of a households income renaming after housing costs can determine the ability to afford other essential health-related goods and services, such as food. clothing. utilities,
healthcare, sad child-ore The inability to afford these essentials can iacrease the risk of poor health outcomes, such as chronic disease, iafectious disease, exposure to environmental toxins, mental distress, and preterm "births and infant law torth.weij4.ts among
expecting femilies Children of lo".-income households and households displaced by financial insecurity have a higher risk for developmental delays and mental b^avioral problems, than those in non-cost hardened households Households with affordable
housing costs generally have better health outcomes than other households with the same income level
Key Preliminary Findings Summary
The proposed code changes will result in additional costs to individual households
for county fees, installaiiHi, operation, and maintenance related 10 individual
sewerage systems However, the cost amounts are dependent obi the type of upgrade
that is required Estimated caste can range fro m 55,000 to 523,000 for installation,
5100 "Ei S500 dollars per year for maintenance, and no cost to 5500 a year for
operation After the system has been upgraded, additional consideraticffis include
when the system will need to be repaired replaced (i e, what is the life expectancy oi
the system and the costs associated with replacing a failed system)
A household is considered cost-burdened when total housing casts (i e, including
mortgage, rent, insurance utilities, taxes, etc.) exceeds 30% of total household
income- In Suffolk County, an estimated 42 .
-------
Appendix D
ECONOMY HOUSEHOLD EC ONOMIC S
How is Household Economics related to health?
Housing is generally 15 largest gqpaise for an individual household. The proportion of ahousdiolds income remaining after housing costs can determine the ability to affbid other essential health-related so ods and services, such
as food, clothing, utilities, healthcare, and chtldcare. The inability to afford fcssฎ essentials can increase the risk of poor health outcomes, such as chronic disease, infectious disease, exp osure to ar-'ironmental toxins, mental
distress, and preterm births and infant lo%v birlb'.vsi.ghts among expecting families. Children of low-inc ome households and households displaced by financial insecurity have a higher risk for developmaatal delff-'s and mental
b ehavi oral p rob lan s. than those in non-cost burdened househoHs. HousehoHs with affordable housing costs gaaeralh'hat-e better health outcomes than other households with the same income level
Kev Preliminary Recommendations
Community Input
The Decision:
Baseline
The exis tin a conditions and trends (note: not static)
Alternative I
All new AND existing individual (onsite) sevage disposal systems (OSDS) serving
single-family residences must conform to current County* Sanitary Code and
standards
Alternative II
All new AND existtngOSDS serving single-family residences in high. priority areas4
must conform to current County Sanitary Code and standards
Alternative III
All new AND existing individual sew erase systems, either cesspaol-onJv systems or
conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). serving single-family
residences in hi eii prioriry areas * must te upgraded to innovaive alternative OWTS
*hi eii priority areas include areas in The 0-50 year groundwater contrifctitingzane to pub Ik drinlcinH water
wells fields, areas in the 0-25 year groundwater contributing zone to su1f3.ce waters. areas located in
SLOSH zones (Sea, Late, and Overland Suraes from Hurricanes), and areas located ".here groundwater i
less Tliaa 10 feet "below grade Hi eh priority areas constitute 72% of total land in Suffolk COunty
Regardless of the alternative chosen; Suffolk County should:
Seek outside funding to reduce the costs for individual households. As sistance
funding could occur at the county level, as well as at die local municipal level.
Assistance should be made available for all household types (both family and
non-family), but prioritized for cost-burdened and low-income households and
property owners renting to low-income households.
Consider protection for renters, such as rent control. Preventing rent from
increasing is crucial for the housing security of at-risk residents of Suffolk
County, given the number of at risk renters, the extreme scarcity of vacant
rental properties, and rental practices employed by some property owners.
Educate cost-burdened households about the benefits of improving home
energy efficiency. There are several federal, state, and local assistance programs
that help low- and middle-income households make improvements to their
homes and reduce utility costs. For many low-tncome households, these
improvements could be done at no cost to the homeowner and or renter.
Work with communities and OWTS vendors to plan concurrent upgrades to
neighboring properties to help reduce construction costs.
If Alternative III is chosen. Suffolk County should take steps to encourage I A
OWTS businesses to locate and hire within the county. The demand for
installation, maintenance, repair, and inspection of I. A OWTS will significantly
increase in Suffolk County, providing new opportunities for employment. Possible
strategies include, tax incentives and waivers or decreases in certification fees for
L A OWTS companies that locate in Suffolk County and support a community jobs
program to train local residents in I. A OWTS technology installation,
marntfrmries. repair, and inspection.
Page D-28 of D-30
-------
Appendix D
ECONOMY COMMUNITY ECONOMICS
How is community economics related to health?
Local municipalities (Count}'. Town. Village, etc.) provide many of the essential services that support the overall health and wellbeing of their residents, including (but not limited to) education,
employment, parks and recreation, environmental protection, police and law enforcement, transportation, and public health education and protection. The capacity to provide these services is directly tied
to the economic vitality of the community, specifically the revenue generated and the ability to remain solvent. The public services provided are a reflection of the community's priorities and the
administr ative policies and commitments to the community that it serves.
Kev Preliminary Findings Summary
Water resources are an integral part oflife among Suffolk County residents and a critical
resource fir the local economy, especially for commacial fishing and shdlfishing.
recreation and tourism, and the contribution to the desiri-flity ofliving in Suffolk County.
Decline in thequdity ofwater resources places revenue streams fo r Suffolk County series at
riskfordedine In SuffolkCaunty's2015 Comprehensive Annual Finanaal F.eport. Real
Property- Taxes and Bales andUse Tax were identified a; the prima ry revenue sources fcr
the County (25%) fiom 2001 to 2D 12 The 2013 IvOAA
Coasts County Snapshot for Suffolk County reported that die number of commtrri d fishing
johs in the County was 1,054 and revenue fiom commercial fishing totaled $57.7 million
Suffolk CountyExecutive Stป-e Eellone r^joned thousands ofjob losses in theshdlfishing
industry-due to declining shellfish populaions
The proposed .changes to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code will lead to increased revenue and
costs for administering the Counn- sewerage system inspectionand certification program,
due a theincre3sed demand for permits, inspections, and certificaions of compliance
Increased demand for administering the code changes may also presait opportunities for
employment vrith the Counts- The increasein demand far sewerage system upgrades may-
lead td mo re job opportunities in die sevferagesystem sendee and manufacturing industries,
although, die location of such opportunities may not he limited to Suffolk County
Ins tailing innovative alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems (LA OTYTS) under
Alternativein will result insignificant reductions in nitrogen loading to the environment,
which may dovr die desredation o f vrtfer resources. sudh as formaionof algal blooms, loss of
aquatic a-nitr-al Hfe, and or beach closures in surface waters Comity resources ex p aided on
vector control mayr be reduced, due to the reduction in habitas suitdjle for mosquitoes. and used
for a tier public services
Potential Health Impacts of Proposed Code Changes
Overall
Health and
Wellbeing
Baseline Health Status
According/to The Univesity ofV, isconsin Population Hedth Institute's Cotmty Health Rankings, Suffolk Canity is ranked -?thbest of New York's 62
counties for overall health outcomes (i e, lengdi and quality of life), andoth best for overall health factors related ra sodal.eccHiomic, environmentd. and
behavioral daerminants ofheahh In 2014. die age-adjusted average number of maitdly unheal thy-days reported in past30 dare was 3 Jin Suffolk
Counn,-, lower dian die New Tcoik state averass of 3 7 days
Direction
Alternatives I andll
wiH detract from health
based on die lade of
reduction in nitrogen
loading thepotentid for
water quality to continue to
degrade, and possible
impacts to revenue streams
for county services
Alternativein will benefit
health, considering ".ater
resources support major
revenue streams for healdi-
relatedpubHc services, and
improvements to waer
quality wiE help safeguard
rev enue s trearns
LikeHhtKKl
Changes in Suffolk County-
revenue aid cost streams make
it possible for overall hedth
and wdlbeing to be affected
from changes in health-related
public services Howeva. the
county ms* takeodier actions
to improve water quality and
create and protect revalue
streams to minimize impacts to
countv services
The likdihood of the benefit is
highly likely However the
benefits are dependent on
successful irqplementaion of
the program, including
installation, monitoring and
madntaianceof the IA QWT5
in single-family residences
required to upgrade
The number ofpeopL
affected wouldbe high,
since dl residaits
(about 1.49 million)
utilize multiple services
provided by the county-
Same as above
Distribution
Subgroups who are
highly dependent on
health-related pub li c
services would be
disproportionately
effected if those
sen-ices are reduced
or elirrinaed
Same .as above
Severity
The healdi effects wiL
range fiom mi no rto
severe depending on
the ability of die
countyrto provide
heal th-rel ated p ub he
Same as above
Overall heddi and
wellb eing o f res idents
could be affected on a
short-term or long-
term basis, depending
on other actions takai
by Suffolk 'County to
manage impacts to
revenue, cost streams,
and services provided
Same as above
Sittatk I ซMl> ti
-------
Appendix Ds
ECONOMY
COMMUNITY ECONOMICS
How is community economics related to health?
Local municipalities (County. Town. Village, etc.) provide many of the essential services that support the overall health and wellbeing of its residents. including (but not limited to) education, employment
parks and recreation, environmental protection, police and law enforcement, transportation and public health education and protection. The capacity to provide these services is directly tied to the
economic vitality of the community, specifically the revenue generated and ability to remain solvent. The public services provided are a reflection of the community's priorities and the administrative
policies and commitments to the community that it serves.
Key Preliminarv Recommendations
Community Input
The Decision:
Baseline
Hie e>:isting condtttans and trends (note: not static)
Alternative I
All new AND existing individual (onsite) selvage disposal systems (OSDS) serving
single-family residences must confirm to current County- Sanitary Code and
standards
Alternative II
AH new AND existing OSDS serving single-family residences in high priority areas *
must conform to current County Sanitary Code and standards
Alternative in
All new AND existing individnal sewerage systems, either cess pool-only systems or
conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). serving single-family
residences in high priority7 areas 4 must be upgraded to innovativealternative OWTS
high priority areas include areas in tie 0-50 year groundwater cantributihe zone to publicdrini.ing water
argils fields, areas in Hie 0-25 year groundwater oamritming zane to surface waters, areas located in
SLOSH zones (Sea. Late, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes/, and areas located where groundwater
is less than 10 feet below grade Hi gh priority" areas constitute 72% of total land in Suffolk County
Regardless of the alternative chosen, Suffolk Count}- should:
* Continue to make protection of water resources a high priority. High quality
water resources support recreational and tourist activities in Suffolk County,
which provide essential tax revenue. In addition, property values are influenced
by the quality of the surrounding environment and declines in property value
may impact county revenue from property tax.
* Use the revenue gained from fees due to code changes to support costs of the
OWTS program (i.e.; inspections, training, administrative needs). Self-
sufficiency of the program would be ideal, in order to not detract from
other essential services provided by Suffolk County.
If Alternative III is chosen, Suffolk County should take steps to encourage
I/A OWTS businesses to locate and hire within the county. The demand for
installation, maintenance, repair, and inspection of I A OWTS will significantly
increase in Suffolk County, providing new opportunities for businesses and
employment. Possible strategies include tax incentives and waivers or decreases
in certification fees for IA OWTS companies that locate in Suffolk County and
support a community jobs program to train local residents in IA OWTS
technology installation maintenance, repair, and inspection.
Page D-30 of D-30
-------
Appendix E
Appendix E: HIA Rules of Engagement
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT
In order to participate in the health impact assessment (HIA) in an official capacity, individuals must
understand and agree to the following rules. The rules of engagement (ROE) cover a number of topics,
including commitments and information sharing, which are critical to the overall success of the HIA.
Members of the HIA Leadership Team, HIA Research Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and
Community Stakeholder Steering Committee must understand and agree to the following ROEs.
A. HIA Roles and Responsibilities
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Fulfill all the responsibilities of my role, as described in Table 1.
Table El. HIA Roles and Associated Responsibilities
HIA Role
Responsibilities
HIA Leadership
Team
Members will meet bimonthly (more often if needed), either in person or by phone. Members are responsible
for discussing and managing HIA progress; planning logistics for upcoming HIA activities; designing the HIA
processes; attending HIA Leadership Team, Research Team, Technical Advisory Committee, Community
Stakeholder Steering Committee, and other HIA meetings; contributing to the development of HIA materials;
approving HIA materials for distribution; and managing specific HIA tasks. The HIA Project Leads are
responsible for securing funding vehicles and personnel to perform HIA activities, schedule and lead HIA
meetings, lead group discussions, communicate with stakeholders, distribute final HIA products, and make
final decisions regarding HIA activities.
HIA Research
Team
Members will meet monthly (more often if needed), either in person or by phone.
Members are responsible for assisting in the development and completion of the assessment plan and
performing other specific tasks related to collecting, synthesizing, and analyzing data; contributing to the
development of HIA materials; attending HIA Research Team meetings; and identifying initial
recommendations. Members will also be responsible for appraising the HIA Leadership Team of the progress
of and any challenges completing specific tasks.
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Members will meet monthly (more often if needed), either in person or by phone. Members are responsible
for advising the HIA Project Team on technical aspects of the proposed changes (e.g., implementation,
enforcement, funding); attending TAC meetings (or provide a representative); and providing input and
feedback on the HIA goals, assessment plan, recommendations, follow-up activities, HIA materials, and
implementation of the HIA process.
Community
Stakeholder
Steering
Committee*
Members will meet monthly (more often if needed), either in person or by phone. Members are responsible
for advising the HIA Project Team on non-technical aspects of the proposed changes (e.g., local knowledge,
history, and interests and/or concerns of other community stakeholders); attending CSSC meetings (or
provide a representative); and providing input and feedback on the HIA goals, assessment plan,
recommendations, follow-up activities, HIA materials, and implementation of the HIA process.
*The CSSC was later combined with the TAC due to low participation.
2. Acknowledge that the HIA will be led by Florence Fulk (EPA Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program) and Rabi Kieber (EPA Region 2 Green
Building/Sustainability Coordinator) and performed by the HIA Project Team, which
includes members of the HIA Leadership Team and HIA Research Team.
3. Recognize that I may serve in more than one role, but must fulfill the responsibilities for
each role.
Page E-l of E-4
-------
Appendix E
4. Recognize that the responsibilities for each role may include voluntary or assigned sub-
tasks essential to the forward progress of the HIA.
5. Operate in a proactive manner to anticipate potential issues and work to prevent them
from occurring.
6. Only agree to do work that I am qualified and capable of doing in the time allowed.
7. Conduct my work with integrity and perform duties in an ethical and timely manner.
8. Keep other team members informed of any changes or challenges that arise.
B. Decision-making Related to HIA Activities
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Remain neutral to the decision result and advocate only for health and wellness.
2. Agree that all decisions specific to the HIA process will be made by the HIA Project Team
(which includes the HIA Leadership Team and Research Team), with input from the TAC
and CSSC.
3. Agree that all decisions regarding the HIA will be documented with supportive rationale
and made public through the HIA report.
4. Agree that the final authority in all HIA-related decision-making is reserved for the HIA
Project Leads (Florence Fulk and Rabi Kieber), especially in the event of a decision
crossroads between participant groups.
C. Commitments
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Make every effort to meet the commitments promised in the HIA.
2. Hold one another accountable for work completion and time commitment.
3. Agree to serve in my role until the completion of the HIA or find and secure a
replacement.
4. Be responsive and timely to requests for outreach or information regarding the HIA.
5. Be responsive to the needs of the decision timeline and commit to set deadlines.
6. Recognize and accept the purpose of the HIA.
NOTE: The purpose of this HIA is to help inform Suffolk County's decision regarding the
proposed changes to the Sanitary Code Article 6 and other County policies regarding
existing onsite sewage disposal systems by advocating for health and wellness of all
stakeholders.
D. Meeting Procedures
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Understand that all HIA meetings will be documented, via scribe and/or pictures.
2. Agree to schedule HIA meetings well in advance of a set date (i.e., at least two weeks
prior to the meeting) and distribute any material that will be discussed prior to meeting.
3. Agree to begin and end meetings on time and be prepared for meetings.
4. Send a representative with authority to make decisions, if unable to attend a meeting.
Page E-2 of E-4
-------
Appendix E
E. Communication
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Be clear, concise, and keep discussions on track.
2. Practice active, effective listening skills.
3. Use visual means such as drawings, charts, and tables to facilitate discussion.
4. Be mindful and respectful of the view and opinions of all other participants, when
communicating one's own view or opinion.
F. Information Sharing and Material Review
As a participant in the HIA, I will:
1. Understand that, by default, all information provided or developed during the HIA will be
documented and shared with others. Sensitive information must be noted as such prior
to being shared.
2. Recognize that all HIA materials will undergo an internal review process (Level 1) that will
encompass review and editing by the HIA Project Team (see Figure 1).
3. Recognize that HIA materials will undergo an external review process (Level 2) in which
stakeholders outside the HIA Project Team will have an opportunity to provide
feedback/input on the information shared and propose edits to the HIA materials (see
Figure 1).
4. Recognize that HIA materials may undergo an external review by the Agency (EPA)
and/or peer-review (Level 3) for quality assurance (see Figure 1).
5. Recognize that feedback not provided by the assigned due date will not be considered.
Reviewers will receive a minimum of two weeks and maximum of one month to review
materials and provide feedback (see Figure 1).
6. Accept that not all input or suggestions received will be incorporated into HIA materials.
Any significant changes proposed must be accompanied by evidence-based rationale.
Information that is not evidence-based will be incorporated at the discretion of the HIA
Project Team.
NOTE: All interim (draft) materials from the HIA must be approved first by the HIA Project
Leads (Florence Fulk and Rabi Kieber) before being distributed or shared with other
groups and/or individuals outside the HIA Project Team. This is to help prevent the
dissemination of misinformation and/or miscommunication between stakeholder groups.
Figure 1 outlines the flow of materials and how the decisions regarding dissemination of
such materials will be made.
Page E-3 of E-4
-------
U)
'5
Bl
a.
i
91
'>
a>
ft
M
Material Flow
HIA Project Team
Decision Tree
^ HIA Project Leads
TAC
CSSC 1
EPA
Yes
Yes
Does material need revision?
| No
Is stakeholder Input needed?*
No
ฅes Does material require Agencv
or external peer-review?
No
Distribute Material'
Agency External
Reviewers Reviewers
"H stakeholder Viput has already bwr< included in the frtatteriad ex
ihe purpose of the material fe to rawe Jvwenซ! of HIA practice
or EFA's work in HIA, the material dees not need i-jbahtvefcr
nvinv.
* "All distribution o# niirteripl outyde the HIA Project "Seam vrill be
perforin ad solely the HIA Project L*acte.
Figure 1. The process outline for communicating and sharing HIA information and material review.
Conflict Resolution
As a participant in this HIA, I will:
1. Seek first to understand and then be understood.
2. Agree that disagreements are expected, but a common ground should always be sought.
3. Agree to be respectful of one another and make a collaborative effort so that conflicts
can be resolved as quickly as possible.
4. Agree to be inclusive and respectful of others, regardless of differing priorities,
viewpoints, or concerns.
NOTE: In the event of a persistent conflict or disruption (i.e., participant is not abiding by
the ROE), the participant may be asked to serve in a less committed role or be relieved of
responsibilities. The authority to relieve responsibilities of another participant rests with
the HIA Project Leads.
Page E-4 of E-4
-------
Appendix F
Appendix F: Pathways Excluded from the Final Scope of
the HIA
Due to the large number of potential impacts, the HIA Project Team agreed that the HIA could not
evaluate all of the pathway categories identified within the project timeframe. The HIA Leadership Team
asked the Advisory Committee members to rank the pathway categories on a scale from most important
(1) to least important (10) and ordered the average rank for each pathway category to help prioritize
which pathways to include in the HIA Assessment. The pathways excluded from assessment, the means
of influence and/or impact on health, and potential health outcomes, based on that prioritization
exercise, are included here for transparency.
Pathway
Means of Influence/Impact
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Food Safety
Waters contaminated with sewage and/or harmful algal
Food-borne
and/or Security
blooms can disrupt the prosperity and productivity of
illness from
aquatic animal-life (e.g., shellfish, finfish, reptiles) in addition
consumption of
to introducing toxic and/or pathogenic contaminants to a
contaminated
food source for human consumers.
food
Food washed with sewage-contaminated drinking water
poses a human health risk for illness.
Nutrition-
In Suffolk County, shellfish, finfish and crustaceans are a
related
food source and part of the social and economic culture.
outcomes from
Therefore, the quality (safety) and availability of local
changes in food
aquatic foods may determine diet and nutrition at the
availability
household and individual-level.
and/or
Household economics, such as housing costs and income
(financial)
available, is a strong driver in the selection and quality of
security
food consumed in the household. Households which are
highly dependent on local aquatic food sources as their
primary means of diet or as their primary means of income
may see changes in nutrition and diet.
Aquatic Recreation
The actual quality and/or perceived quality of waters used
Overall health
(Physical activity)
for recreation, as a result of frequent beach closures and/or
(mental health
posted hazard advisories, are major drivers in the long-term
and physical
recreational use of the water body, such as avoidance of the
health [obesity/
area or travel to other recreational destinations.
overweight,
Changes in the long-term recreational use of the water body,
cardiovascular
coupled with the accessibility of other recreational
health, etc.])
destinations may affect physical activity levels at the
from physical
household and (later) community level.
activity level
Page F-l of F-2
-------
Appendix F
Pathway
Means of Influence/Impact
Potential Health
Outcome(s)
Social Beliefs
and/or Norms
The quality of collective water resources, both ground and
surface waters, affects a person's perceived quality of their
surrounding environment, which is internalized as a stressor.
The perceived safety or perceived risk to self and/or
property in an area affected by a storm and/or tidal surge
also acts as a stressor.
Mosquito infestations and/or the perceived health risks
associated with application of insecticides to large areas,
which may already be under environmental stress, can be
internalized through a person's perceived quality of the
environment.
Perceived risks and internalization of environmental
stressors are drivers of human behavior, attitudes, and
feelings of overall well-being, which can determine priorities
and values.
The collective social priorities/shared values and identity of
the community, whether in agreement (i.e., social cohesion)
or disagreement (i.e., social discord), influence social norms
and/or beliefs, which drive public policy.
Mental and/or
behavioral
health related
to perceived
risks and
environmental
stressors
Overall health
related to
behaviors,
attitudes and
well-being
Housing Quality
In cases of severe damage to residences from storms and/or
tidal surges, the decision of those to stay in the home or the
relocation/displacement of residents to alternative housing
may have health consequences, depending on the quality
(e.g., presence of mold, sewage-contaminated flood waters,
pest invasion) and affordability of the living space after the
storm event.
Changes to housing costs for renter households will affect
their affordability for healthy housing.
Respiratory
illness from
exposures in the
home
Overall health
related to
environmental
stressors
Air Quality
Households that choose to travel to other recreational
destinations, as a result of the perceived quality of local
water resources may change the air emissions and traffic
patterns across Suffolk County.
Air emissions include pollutants that, at certain
concentrations, have direct human health consequences.
Respiratory and
cardiovascular
illness from
travel-related
air pollutants
Crime and
Perceived Safety
and/or Security
The extent of investment/disinvestment in the community
(e.g., extent of blight, vacant and/or derelict properties, and
resident longevity) coupled with changes to social norms
and/or beliefs (e.g., the priority of environmental
stewardship) may affect crime, which can have direct health
consequences.
Crime and blighted areas affect the perceived safety and
security of a community, which acts as an environmental
stressor.
Injury and/or
death related to
crime
Overall health
related to
environmental
stressors
Page F-2 of F-2
-------
Appendix G: Quality Assurance: Peer Review, Data
Sources, and HIA Methodology
Prior to conducting this HIA, EPA reviewed over 80 existing HIAs to determine the current state of the
science and to identify best practices and areas for improving HIA implementation (EPA, 2013). The
findings from EPA's review, along with several HIA practice documents, were used to direct the HIA
process and promote quality assurance (QA); the HIA practice documents reviewed included:
Bhatia, R. (2011). Health Impact Assessment; A Guide for Practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact
Partners.
Bhatia R, Farhang L, Heller J, Lee M, Orenstein M, Richardson M and Wernham A. (2014).
Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment, Version 3.
Green, L, et al. (2019). Development of a quality assurance review framework for health impact
assessments, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37:2, 107-113.
National Research Council. (2011). Improving Health in the United States; The Role of Health
Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Quigley, R, et al. (2006). Health Impact Assessment; International Best Practice Principles,
Special Series No. 5. Fargo, USA: International Association for Health Impact Assessment (IAIA).
WHO. (1999). Health Impact Assessment; Main Concepts and Suggested Approach. Gothenburg
Consensus Paper. Brussels (Belgium): World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for
Europe, European Center for Health Policy.
The HIA Project Team used these documents to manage the execution of the HIA. In addition, the HIA
Leadership Team, including an HIA advisor, continuously monitored and guided the process to ensure
the HIA followed the minimum elements and practice standards set forth by the North American HIA
Practice Standards Working Group (Bhatia, et al., 2014) and best practices in the field based on
professional expertise.
Additionally, QA audits were conducted annually throughout the lifespan of the research by CSS-
Dynamac/Pegasus Technical Services, contractor to EPA, in their roles on the HIA Leadership and
Research Teams. No findings or corrective actions were identified during these annual audits. For more
information on roles and responsibilities of the HIA Project Teams, see Section 3.3.1 of the full HIA
Report.
PEER REVIEW
Upon completion, the HIA Report underwent extensive review by three EPA members and one non-EPA
member of the HIA Research Team. In addition, eight members of the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) from the following organizations contributed to the review process: Suffolk County Government,
Page G-l of G-14
-------
New York State Department of State, FEMA, Suffolk County Water Authority, Stony Brook University,
Earlham College, the Nature Conservancy, and EPA Region 2 Water Division.
Furthermore, scientific peer review was performed by two invited non-EPA subject matter experts, Dr.
Michael Piehler and James Dills, to provide an experienced perspective outside of those directly involved
in the process and/or the decision. The non-EPA scientific peer-reviewers were charged with evaluating
the HIA against the HIA Minimum Elements and Practice Standards (Bhatia, et al., 2014) and providing
input on the soundness of the evidence regarding nutrient transport and coastal waters. Dr. Piehler is
the Program Head of Estuarine Ecology and Human Health at the UNC Coastal Studies Institute and a
professor of Marine Sciences and Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He studies transport and transformation of nutrients in coastal systems, ecology
and biogeochemistry of the tidal freshwater zone, and microbial processes in shallow coastal waters.
James Dills is a Research Associate II at the Georgia Health Policy Center who works to advance a Health-
in-AII-Policies perspective in decision-making. He is an expert in HIA and serves on the Steering
Committee of the Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment (SOPHIA). The external peer
reviewers provided comments and proposed revisions, which the HIA Leadership Team considered and
incorporated into the HIA Report, as appropriate.
DATA SOURCES
The HIA Project Team established Suffolk County, New York as the study area, given that the policy
and/or decision being evaluated in this HIA is at the county-level. Data were matched to the spatial
extent of the study area and the most recent health and demographic data available at the time of the
assessment step (2014-2016) were used to characterize the population.
The HIA Research Team developed an Assessment Workplan that identified the following for each
variable in the five pathways (1. Individual Sewerage System Performance and Failure; 2. Water Quality;
3. Resiliency to Natural Disasters; 4. Vector Control; 5. Household and Community Economics) evaluated
in this HIA:
Baseline research question - to identify the current conditions in Suffolk County related to the
variable
Impact research question - to determine how the proposed decision alternatives would
potentially impact the variable
Indicators and data sources - to be used to answer the research questions
Approach or methods - to be used to answer the research questions
Data gaps and/or data acquisition needs
Task Lead - individual(s) responsible for leading and carrying out the assessment of that
variable.
The Assessment Workplan was presented to the TAC to gather their input and help identify potential
data sources that could be used in the Assessment.
Page G-2 of G-14
-------
This HIA utilized both quantitative and qualitative metrics retrieved from existing data sources to
characterize the demographics, physical characteristics, or other properties of the Suffolk County
geographic extent. However, the HIA did not involve any primary data collection efforts, such as water
sampling, water quality testing, or administration of human health surveys. Data sources included the
following:
Esri Data and Maps
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Flood Insurance Program
New York State Department of Health
New York State Department of Health Communicable Disease Electronic Surveillance System
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York Department of Transportation
New York State GIS Program Office (GPO)
New York State Office of Emergency Management
Suffolk County Community Health Assessment, 2014-2017
Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control
Suffolk County Office of Comptroller
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008-2012
US Census Bureau, National Decennial Census, 2010
US EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database
US EPA EJSCREEN
US Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory
In all the above listed data sources, the Federal, State, and Local government agencies with statutory
authority to collect these data were used. Federal data sets undergo extensive scrutiny and quality
control measures prior to being posted for public distribution. CSS-Dynamac/Pegasus Technical Services,
contractor to EPA, verified that data from federal sources were satisfactory for use according to "A
Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and Technical
Information" (EPA, 2003) and determined federal data sources satisfy the five assessment criteria in the
following ways:
1. Soundness
a. The data are reasonable and consistent with the design of the intended application.
b. The data sets are based on sound scientific, statistical, or econometric principles.
2. Applicability and Utility
a. The data sets' purpose, design, outcome measures and results are relevant to EPA's
intended use of the analysis.
Page G-3 of G-14
-------
b. The domains (e.g., duration, species, exposure) of the data, models, or results are valid
and useful to EPA's application.
3. Clarity and Completeness
a. The documentation clearly and completely describe the underlying scientific, statistical,
or economic theory and the statistical and analytic methods used.
b. The complete data sets are accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and
embedded definitions.
4. Uncertainty and Variability
a. Appropriate statistical techniques have been employed to evaluate variability and
uncertainty.
b. The studies or data sets identified potential uncertainties such as those due to inherent
variability in environmental and exposure-related parameters or possible measurement
errors.
5. Evaluation and Review
a. There have been independent verification or validation of the data sets and results.
b. The procedures, methods, or models have been used in similar, peer reviewed studies.
Although state and local data sets do not necessarily have the same standards as data collected by
federal agencies, the data used from New York State and Suffolk County come from the government
agency with the statutory authority to collect these data and, to our knowledge, are the only data of
their kind. For details on how the HIA Research Team managed data regarding the presence, age, and
design of individual sewerage systems (ISS) in Suffolk County, see section 'Methodology for Estimating
Residences Affected, Persons Affected, and Total Nitrogen Loading' below.
In addition, the HIA Project team evaluated data sets from State and local sources for the assessment
criteria described above on an as-needed basis. Table G1 was used to evaluate whether the data could
be used without additional qualification.
Table Gl. Criteria to evaluate State and Local data sources for use in Suffolk County HIA analyses
Criteria
Data Relevance
Geography
Timeframe
Good
Data directly represent
needed information, such
as pollution concentration
measurements to assess
pollution levels.
Data directly represent the
geographic area of interest
with representative
Data coincide with
timeframe of interest and
have appropriate temporal
coverage.
resolution, (within 5 years)
Adequate
Data are related to needed
information but not a direct
representation, such as age
of homes to indicate type of
Data can be used to garner
information of the area of
interest but with
limitations, such as zip code
data applied to
Timeframes do not
necessarily coincide but are
close enough (within 10
Page G-4 of G-14
-------
ISS in use to manage
wastewater.
neighborhoods. Must cover
50% of area of interest
years) in time to provide
relevant information.
Deficient
Data have no association to
needed information.
Data are too far removed
geographically from area of
interest to be relevant.
Data represent a timeframe
that is too old to be
representative or do not
have adequate resolution.
(>10 years)
Generally, only Good or Adequate data were used; however, if only Deficient data could be found, the
data and interpretation were sufficiently qualified in the HIA Report using the clearly identified symbols
along with descriptions of the caveat:
EH
Context Clue - indicates information unique to Suffolk County and/or extenuating
circumstances (e.g., effect of sea level rise, climate change, and soil erosion)
Limitation - indicates assumptions made and/or limits of data and/or analysis
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING RESIDENCES AFFECTED, PERSONS
AFFECTED, AND TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING
Residences Affected
At the time of this analysis, Suffolk County did not have the known presence, age nor design of
individual sewerage systems. Some towns and hamlets tracked this information, but not consistently. To
overcome this challenge, the HIA Research Team used parcel shapefiles from the Suffolk County Real
Property Tax Agency Service and overlaid them with the best available data from the U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), Suffolk
County Government (and others) using GIS-based methods. This approach is consistent with the
approach used in other studies performed in Suffolk County, including Kinney & Valiela (2011) and Lloyd
(2014).
Residential parcel boundaries that were not contained within or did not intersect sewered areas were
examined for their geographic proximity to high priority areas; impaired waters; Sea, Lake and Overland
Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) zones; sewage treatment plants; flood-prone and/or high groundwater
areas; and waterfronts.
Tax Parcel Data
Information on building structure age, sewage connection, or sewerage service type was not
included in the tax parcel data obtained from the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Agency
Service; only the parcel outlines and land use classification codes. We assumed that residential
Page G-5 of G-14
-------
properties were classified using the New York State Office of Real Property Services classification
codes (https://www.tax.nv.gov/research/propertv/assess/manuals/prclas.htm). We selected all
parcels with classification codes of 200 (residential) except for 220 (Two-family, Year-round
Residential), 230 (Three-family, Year-round Residential), and 242 (Recreational, n = 1). We then
added Vacant Residential (classification codes 310; 311), Vacant Residential with Small
Improvement (code 312), Subdivided land (code 317), and code 318 (n = 18), which, based on a
visual inspection, appeared to contain residential properties. Our final count of single-family
residential parcels was 488,375.
Note: The total number of residential parcels was slightly different (0.3% difference) than
Suffolk County's estimated 487,082 residential parcels smaller than or equal to one half acre
(Suffolk County Government, 2015a). The selection of codes and/or variations in the GIS
techniques may account for this difference. There were some classification codes in the parcel
data that did not match a value in the NYS classification system, but the data set did not include
metadata to explain such variations. We assumed that the non-matching numbers belonged to
the matching hundreds place category (e.g., 213 does not match a subdivision, but since it is
2##, it is a residential lot).
Sewered Polygons and Unsewered Parcels
The sewered area polygons and point locations of sewage treatment plants were obtained from
the Suffolk County GIS Portal (https://gisportal.suffolkcountvny.gov/gis/home/). The sewered
area data were made up of six separate files. We merged the files into one coverage to
designate areas that are sewered. In order to identify the unsewered areas we started with the
residential parcels and then removed the parcel polygons intersecting or contained within the
sewered area polygons (Figure 1). Our final count of unsewered, single-family residential
parcels was 385,117 (Table G2).
Figure 1. Parcel polygons overlaid with sewered polygons.
Page G-6 of G-14
-------
Note: The total number of unsewered, single-family residences was slightly different (7.0%
change) than Suffolk County's estimated 360,000 parcels (Suffolk County Government, 2015a).
The selection of codes and/or variations in the GIS techniques may account for this difference.
This approach assumes parcels not intersecting or contained within sewered areas are
unsewered and does not distinguish "unsewered parcels" further into individual or cluster
wastewater systems. It is also important to consider that only single-family residences were
included in the analyses, which does not address multifamily and commercial parcels with onsite
wastewater systems (i.e., underestimates number of OSDS present in Suffolk County).
High Priority Areas
The high priority area data were defined in the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (Suffolk County Government, 2015a). The data were created or obtained
from the following sources: 1) 0-25 year baseflow contributing areas to surface waters,
provided by Suffolk County, 2) the 0-50 year estimated groundwater travel time to public water
supply wells, digitized from Suffolk County (2015a); and 3) land with <10-feet depth to
groundwater downloaded from USGS Hydrologic Conditions Maps for Long Island, NY, 2010; and
4) parcels in SLOSH zones, which were downloaded from the State of New York and needed no
pre-processing. We selected unsewered polygons intersecting and within high priority areas and
tallied the numbers. Table G2 lists the counts for the unsewered residential parcels intersecting
and within high priority areas. Suffolk County's Department of Economic Development and
Planning (SCDEDP) estimates from Suffolk County (2015a) are included for reference. The counts
of parcel polygons within the high priority areas were closer to Suffolk County's numbers, so the
HIA Research Team decided to use those numbers going forward, but it should be noted that this
may be underestimating the number of residential parcels affected. Our final count of
unsewered, single-family residential parcels in high priority areas is 251,502 (Table G2).
Page G-7 of G-14
-------
Table G2. Counting of Unsewered, Single-family Parcels in High Priority Areas
Unsewered, Single-family Residential Parcels
Suffolk County
Estimate*
HIA
Estimate
Difference
1n 1
Percent
Difference
None (Total Unsewered Parcels)1
360,000
385,117
25,117
6.7%
High Priority Areas
0-25 Year Baseflow Contributing Areas to
Surface Waters
155,939
201,200*
45,261
25.3%
183,850ฎ
27,911
16.4%
0-50 Year Estimated Groundwater Travel
Time to Public Water Supply Wells
55,169
73,698*
18,529
28.8%
62,497ฎ
7,328
12.5%
< 10 Feet Depth to Groundwater
38,143
71,397*
33,254
60.7%
31,743ฎ
6,400
18.3%
< 10 Feet Depth to Groundwater* AND
EITHER 0-25 Year Baseflow Contributing
Areas to Surface Waters OR 0-50 Year
Estimated Groundwater Travel Time to Public
Water Supply Wells
30,250
60,455*
30,205
66.6%
24,938ฎ
5,312
19.3%
Total unsewered parcels in high priority
areas
0-25 feet baseflow contributing areas to
surface waters OR 0-50 year estimated
groundwater travel time to public water
supply wells OR < 10 feet to Groundwater OR
in SLOSH zones.
209,000"
282,477*
73,477
42,502
29.9%
18.5%
251,502ง
* Source: (Suffolk County Government, 2015a)
fSCDEDP total residential parcels: 487,082. HIA calculation: 488,375 parcels
^Polygon Intersect, ^Polygon Within
" Does not include unsewered parcels in SLOSH zones, but instead "unsewered parcels with densities greater than what is
permitted in Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code."
Older (pre-1973) Systems versus Newer (post-1973) Systems
Prior to 1973, individual sewerage systems for single-family homes in Suffolk County consisted
of a cesspool without a septic tank (i.e., an OSDS), but in 1973, that requirement changed to
require both a septic tank and leaching pool (i.e., a conventional onsite wastewater treatment
system). As discussed above, the data are limited such that identifying where older systems (i.e.,
cesspool-only) are located within Suffolk County cannot be determined. To overcome this
challenge, the HIA Research Team used existing data from national and local surveys to estimate
what percent of the existing unsewered, single family residential parcels are likely to be served
by cesspools alone. Considering existing Suffolk County policies allow for structures built prior to
1973 to be replaced in-kind, it can be assumed that a large percentage of housing structures
built prior to 1970 are likely to still be served by OSDS (i.e., cesspools only). Suffolk County
Department of Economic Development and Planning (SCDEDP) estimates that 252,530 of the
unsewered parcels pre-date the requirement for a septic tank, using 1970 Census data (Suffolk
County Government, 2015a). The HIA Research Team used the 2008-2012 American Community
Page G-8 of G-14
-------
Survey 5-year estimates in analysis, which show that approximately 53.9% of the 568,570 total
housing units in Suffolk County at that time (n= 315,602) were built before 1970. This is
consistent with estimates of percent OSDS used in other studies performed in Suffolk County,
including Stinnette (2014), Lloyd (2014), and Gobler (2016). The nitrogen load modeling
conducted for 43 subwatersheds in the Peconic Estuary (Lloyd S., 2014) "assumed that any
unsewered residence constructed before 1973 has its waste handled by a cesspool rather than a
septic system because residences constructed after 1973 are required by the County to install
septic systems. This year-built information, unfortunately, was only consistently tracked by the
Town of Southampton in the parcel data, and so this cesspool rate (53%) estimate was applied
across the study area." The nitrogen loading study of the South Shore, Eastern Bays by Stinnette
(2014) and Gobler (2016) noted that a large portion (nearly 50%) of the homes in the study area
had cesspools. Based on the data available, a reasonable estimate for the number of existing,
individual sewerage systems that preclude (and therefore do not conform to) the 1973
standards, would be at least 50% of unsewered, single-family residential parcels. To calculate
the number of unsewered, single family residential parcels assumed to be served by OSDS alone
in total and in high priority areas only, the total number of unsewered, single-family residential
parcels and the final count of unsewered, single-family residential parcels in high priority areas,
were halved, respectively (Table G3).
Persons Affected
According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census summary file, the total population in Suffolk County in
2010 was 1,493,350 and the average household size was 2.93 persons. To calculate the number of
persons affected, it was assumed that one single-family residential parcel contained one household
(Table G3).
Table G3. Number of Single-family Residential Parcels and Persons Affected
HIA Counts
Total
Persons
Affected*
50% of Total
(Assumed to have
a cesspool)
Persons
Affected*
Unsewered, Single-family
Residential Parcels
385,117
(Baseline)
1,128,392.81
192,558
(Alternative 1)
564,194.94
Unsewered, Single-family
Residential Parcels in High
Priority Areas
251,502
(Alternative III)
736,900.86
125,751
(Alternative II)
368,450.43
*Average no. persons per household = 2.93; assumed that one single family residential parcel contained one household
Note: The HIA Research Team applied GIS techniques to help get a better understanding of where the
older residences may be. Figure 2 maps the Census block groups ranked by a) the number of housing
units built before 1970, b) the number of housing units that are single-family, and c) those two
indicators grouped by quartiles and shown relative to the location of high priority areas in Suffolk
Page G-9 of G-14
-------
County. The areas highlighted in pink in Figure 2 are the most likely to have many residences that are
both single-family and older homes (built before 1970); thus, they are also more likely to have a high
proportion of residences served by OSDS. As shown in the map, the majority of Census block groups that
are more likely to have a high proportion of single-family residences served by OSDS are also located in
high priority areas.
Base Map: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Housing Estimates: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 2. Census block groups ranked by a) number of housing units built before 1970 and b) number of housing units that
are single-family, and c) a compilation of those two indicators relative to the location of high priority areas (HPAs) in Suffolk
County.
C) Quartiles and High Priority Areas
B) Housing Units, 1 -Unit Attached or Detached
30 mi
Housing Units A + B
Quartiles 1 and 2
Quartiles 3 and 4
Page G-10 of G-14
-------
Appendix G
Nitrogen Loadings from Individual Sewerage Systems (at the edge of the system)
An OWTS Nitrogen Reduction Technology Expert Review Panel (Adler, et al., 2013) was charged with
reviewing the available science on pollutant removal performance of various individual onsite
wastewater treatment practices and providing concise definitions and percent reductions for nitrogen
loading for those practices. Based on their review, Adler et al. (2013) recommended using the minimum,
average mass loadings of total nitrogen (TN) of 5 kg TN per person per year (or 11 lbs per person per
year) the minimum, average TN concentration in effluent from an OWTS (60 mg/L), assuming an average
flow of 60 gallons per person per day1, for septic tank effluent.
[60 mg TN/L] X [60 gal/person/day] X [365 days/yr] X [1 L/0.264172 gal] X
[1 kg/1,000,000 mg] = 4.974 kg TN/person/year ~ 5 kg TN/person/yr
We assume, as Adler et al. (2013) also recommended, that TN concentrations in septic tank effluent is
equivalent to TN concentrations in untreated wastewater (i.e., no TN reduction in septic tank effluent
from incoming wastewater), and that no attenuation occurs from the house to the edge of the
cesspool/leaching pool (i.e., the point of discharge from the system)2.
Nitrogen loading from an individual cesspool or conventional OWTS
If the average TN load going to the disposal unit is 5 kg (11 lbs) TN per person per year, at an average
2.93 persons per residence in Suffolk County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), TN loading to the environment
from an individual cesspool or conventional OWTS would be 14.65 kg (32.30 lbs) TN per year,
assuming no TN reduction in septic tank effluent from incoming wastewater.
TN mass loading from an individual cesspool or conventional OWTS:
[1 unsewered, single-family residence] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] =
14.65 kg TN/residence/yr
1 The Suffolk County Stormwater Management Program claims typical flow rates of 55-75 gallons per person per day
(Suffolk County Government, 2013c); therefore, the 60 gallons per person per day used by Adler et al. (2013) is
reasonable to use in the HIA analysis.
2 Note that the Nitrogen Loading Model used in several recent Long Island nitrogen loading studies assumes 4.8 or 4.82
kg TN per person per year and a 6% reduction in TN in septic tank effluent. The HIA uses the Adler et al. (2013)
parameters in its analysis to be conservative and protective of public health.
Page G-ll of G-14
-------
Nitrogen loading from an individual innovative/alternative OWTS
If the upgraded, innovative/alternative OWTS achieve Suffolk County's requirement of 19 mg/LTN in
effluent, at an average flow of 60 gallons per person per day per Adler et al. (2013), the resultant TN
loading from an individual l/A OWTS would be 4.63 kg (10.21 lbs) TN per year.
TN mass loading from an individual innovative/alternative OWTS:
[19 mg TN/L] X [60 gal/person/day] X [365 days/yr] X [1 L/0.264172 gal] X [1 kg/1,000,000 mg] =
1.58 kg TN/person/year
[1 unsewered, single-family residence] X [2.93 persons/household] X [1.58 kg TN/person/yr] =
4.63 kg TN/residence/yr
Nitrogen loading from individual sewerage systems across Suffolk County
Table G4 provides the cumulative TN loading from individual sewerage systems in Suffolk County under
the baseline and three alternatives, using the number of single-family residential parcels affected by
each decision scenario, as calculated previously. Note that Alternative I and II assume the same TN
nitrogen loading as the baseline, because nitrogen levels in septic tank effluent are assumed to be
equivalent to levels of untreated wastewater (i.e., no attenuation or treatment occurs from the house to
the edge or point of discharge from the cesspool/leaching pool).
Table G4. Cumulative TN Loading from Individual Sewerage Systems in Suffolk County
Decision
Scenario
Number of Unsewered,
Single-family Residential
Parcels
Total Nitrogen
Loading
(kg TN/year)*
Difference in Total Nitrogen
Loading from Baseline
(kg TN/year)
Baseline
385,117
5,641,964.05*
Alternative 1
192,558
5,641,964.05*
0
Alternative II
125,751+
5,641,964.05*
0
Alternative III
251,502+
3,121,763.11ฎ
(2,520,200.94)
* Average no. persons per household = 2.93, Average flow of 60 gallons/person/day
f In high priority areas
* Average TN Mass Loading = 5 kg TN/person/yr, assuming 60 mg TN/L in system effluent
ฎ Average TN Mass Loading = 1.58 kg TN/person/yr, assuming 19 mg TN/L in system effluent
Page G-12 of G-14
-------
Baseline:
[385,117 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 5,641,964.05 kg TN/yr
Alternative I:
[192,558 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 2,820,974.70 kg TN/yr
[385,117 - 192,558 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 2,820,989.35 kg TN/yr
2,820,974.70 kg TN/yr + 2,820,989.35 kg TN/yr = 5,641,964.05 kg TN/yr
Alternative II:
[125,751 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 1,842,252.15 kg TN/yr
[385,117 - 125,751 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 3,799711.90 kg TN/yr
1,842,252.15 kg TN/yr + 3,799711.90 kg TN/yr = 5,641,964.05 kg TN/yr
Alternative III:
[251,502 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [1.58 kg TN/person/yr] = 1,164,303.36 kg TN/yr
[385,117 - 251,502 parcels] X [2.93 persons/household] X [5 kg TN/person/yr] = 1,957,459.75 kg
TN/yr
1,164,303.36 kg TN/yr + 1,957,459.75 kg TN/yr = 3,121,763.11 kg TN/yr
Works Cited
Adler, R., Aschenbach, E., Baumgartner, J., Conta, J., Degen, M., Goo, R.,. . . Prager, J. (2013).
Recommendations of the On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems Nitrogen Reduction
Technology Expert Review Panel; Final Report. Fairfax, VA: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Bhatia, R. (2011). Health Impact Assessment: A Guide for Practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
Bhatia, R., Farhang, L., Heller, J., Lee, M., Orenstein, M., Richardson, M., & Wernham, A. (2014).
Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment, Version 3.
EPA. 2003. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and
Technical Information. EPA/100/B-03/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy
Council, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2013. A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best Practices,
and Areas for Improvement. EPA/600/R-13/354. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Gobler, C. J. (2016). Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Eastern Bay Project: Nitrogen Loading,
Sources, and Management Options. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University.
Page G-13 of G-14
-------
Green, L., Gray, B. J., Edmonds, N., & Parry-Williams, L. (2019). Development of a quality assurance
review framework for health impact assessments. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
37(2), 107-113.
Kinney, E. L., & Valiela, I. (2011, July). Nitrogen Loading to Great South Bay: Land Use, Sources,
Retention, and Transport form Land to Bay. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(4), 672-686.
doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00098.1
Lloyd, S. (2014). Nitrogen load modeling to forty-three subwatersheds of the Peconic Estuary. Cold Spring
Harbor, NY: The Nature Conservancy.
National Research Council. (2011). Improving Health in the United States, The role of Health Impact
Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Quigley, R., den Broeder, L., Furu, P., Bond, A., Cave, B., & Bos, R. (2006). Health Impact Assessment
International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 5.. Fargo, ND: International
Association of Impact Assessment.
Stinnette, I. (2014). Nitrogen Loading to the South Shore, Eastern Bays, NY: Sources, Impacts and
Management Options (Master's Thesis). Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University: School of
Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.
Suffolk County Government. (2013c, March 13). Septic System Maintenance. Retrieved from Suffolk
County Storm water Management Program: https://appt.suffolkcountyny.gov/stormwater_bck/
SepticSystemsandSuffolkCounty/SepticSystemMaintenance.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2015a). Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management
Plan. Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County Government.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). 2010 Census Summary File 2- New York State. Prepared by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
WHO. (1999). Health Impact Assessment; Main Concepts and Suggested Approach. Gothenburg
Consensus Paper. Brussels (Belgium): World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for
Europe, European Center for Health Policy.
Page G-14 of G-14
-------
Appendix H
Appendix H: Resiliency Pathway Supporting Materials
H.l Suffolk County Wetland Restoration Efforts
The Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County has implemented an eelgrass program, with
funding from various partners, aimed at restoring eelgrass along Long Island (Cornell University
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, 2009). There have also been efforts made to restore salt
marshes in Suffolk County by the USFWS and others as part of Hurricane Sandy recovery and resiliency
efforts (e.g., Lido Beach and Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge; USFWS (2016a), and in 2015, Suffolk
County undertook efforts to restore 500 acres of tidal wetlands (Brank, 2015). A USFWS inventory of
wetland restoration sites on Long Island (Tiner & Herman, 2015) found 12,543 acres of impaired Suffolk
County wetlands that may be able to be repaired to bring back lost or reduced function. Table 1 shows
the acreage of freshwater and estuarine (e.g., tidal) wetland sites in Suffolk County that could
potentially be restored to regain wetland function. Impairments included wetlands that were tidally
restricted (i.e., where tidal flow is restricted by roads, undersized culverts, tide gates, and other
structures), partly drained (ditched), excavated, impounded (diked), or farmed (i.e., partly drained for
agriculture, but still wet enough to be considered a wetland). As the table shows, the vast majority of
these wetlands (almost 9,664 acres) are partly drained (ditched) estuarine wetlands. A 2004 study
conducted by the USFWS in the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (Suffolk County, NY) showed that
grid ditched marshes that were restored to re-establish tidal flow and eliminate invasive plant species
flourished, not only regaining absorption and habitat functioning, but also resulted in a 70% reduction in
mosquito spraying when compared to remaining grid ditched marshes in the refuge (Leuzzi, 2015). By
restoring the natural hydrology and plant communities of these grid-ditched salt marshes and
implementing integrated marsh management techniques for mosquito control (see Vector Control
section), Suffolk County can regain function in a large number of wetlands.
Table HI. Acreage of Potential Wetland Restoration Sites in Suffolk County, NY
Type of Restoration Site
Suffolk County
(acres)
Estuarine Excavated
2.2
Estuarine Impounded
4.6
Estuarine Partly Drained
9,663.6
Farmed
19.3
Freshwater Excavated
429.2
Freshwater Impounded
1,163.9
Freshwater Partly Drained
405.6
Estuarine Tidally Restricted
583.3
Freshwater Tidally Restricted
271.2
Total
12,542.9
Page H-l of H-6
-------
Appendix H
H,2 FEMA Flood Hazards and the National Flood Insurance Program
As part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has designated flood zones based on the probability of areas being inundated by flooding of
different magnitudes in a given year; flood insurance rates and regulations are then based on these
mapped zones. If a structure is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., a high-risk zone), the structure must
be insured against flooding and any new construction or structural renovations have to meet certain
regulations and building codes (FEMA, 2017). Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zones A and V (Figure 1)
are areas that have a 1% annual chance of being flooded and a 26% chance of being flooded over the life
of a 30-year mortgage by what is considered a "100-year flood" (base flood); Zone V takes into account
not only the flooding hazard, but also the additional hazard of storm waves (Manning, Carnevale, &
Rubinoff, 2014; FEMA, 2017). Some FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) will also show a Limit of
Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA), where breaking waves 1.5 feet in height are expected from the 100-
year flood, as these breaking waves have the potential to cause foundation failure (FEMA, 2016). It
should be understood that the "100-year flood" is not a flood that occurs every 100 years; it is the flood
that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. As FEMA (2016) notes, flooding
doesn't only occur in these high risk zones, however; people in low to moderate risk zones (Zone X) are
responsible for filing over 20% of the claims and receive a third of disaster assistance for flooding
through the NFIP.
Wave height i 3 feet
I COASTAL I
r ฃ ฃฃ I
UMWA
BFE ^ Pood level
j including ^ y\i
wave effects I r
100-year
Stillwater elevation 1
Wave height 3.0-1.5 feet
Properly elevated building
Sea level
ri
Wave height
< 1.5 feet
H
Limit of
base
flooding
and waves
Unelevated building constructed before community entered the NFIP
11 11
Shoreline Sand beach Buildings Overland Vegetated Limit of SFHA
wind fetch region
Figure 1, Schematic of FEMA Flood Hazard Zones used in determining coastal flood risk.
Taken from (FEMA, 2016).
Page H-2 of H-6
-------
Appendix H
mcy Management
Forecasts from the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center, and in the case of storm
surges, the SLOSH Zone maps and HURREVAC software, are used in emergency planning to determine
the need and routes for evacuation, identify where shelters should be located, and where resources
should be staged in preparation for the storm. Suffolk County also provides the SLOSH Zone maps in an
interactive mapping feature on the County's website to help build awareness and provide the general
public the information needed to determine if they are in a storm surge zone and if evacuations orders
are given, what shelters are nearby (Suffolk County Government, 2016b).
In the event of an emergency, the Suffolk County Office of Emergency Management communicates
information and instructions, including evacuation notices, via several outlets including radio, television,
the CodeRED Emergency Notification System, the Suffolk County's Public Information for Emergency
Events website, and the Suffolk County Department of Fire Rescue and Emergency Services Facebook
and Twitter pages (Suffolk County Government, 2016c). The CodeRED Emergency Notification System is
a high-speed, mass notification service that allows emergency notifications to go out to residents and
businesses by telephone, cell phone, text message, email, and social media (Suffolk County Government,
2016d). The notification system uses information available in public databases, but individuals in Suffolk
County are encouraged to enroll online or by calling the Suffolk County Office of Emergency
Management to ensure their contact information is in the system (Suffolk County Government, 2016d).
Evacuation routes are established by the Suffolk County Office of Emergency Management and posted
on the county website. As Figure 4-42 showed, some of the major evacuation routes along the coast are
actually located in designated SLOSH zones, exposing them to flooding, surges, and erosion. As
discussed previously, any of these coastal hazards can make roads impassable, causing issues during
evacuation and hampering emergency response actions. It is also important to note that officials in
Suffolk and Nassau Counties acknowledge that due to the population of Long Island and the limited
east-west roadways on the island, it would be impossible to evacuate the entire island should there be
an extreme, large-scale event that warranted it (Von Zielbauer, 2005).
It is important for public health and safety that individuals are prepared for emergencies and heed
evacuation notices. As the CDC (2013b) notes, a successful evacuation depends on the timely and
effective communication of evacuation orders, on affected individuals receiving the evacuation order,
and on those individuals having the capacity, resources and willingness to evacuate. When Hurricane
Sandy hit in 2012, advanced notice and mandatory evacuations were ordered for New York City's
Evacuation Zone A based on storm surge predictions. Yet 45% of the drowning deaths in New York
related to Sandy occurred in flooded homes in Evacuation Zone A (CDC, 2013b). These deaths were all
preventable. Given the inability and/or unwillingness of some individuals to evacuate, more research is
needed to identify barriers, motivators, and effective interventions to prevent senseless surge-related
injury and death.
Page H-3 of H-6
-------
Appendix H
H.4 Suffolk County Emergency Response Capacity
In the early stages of response, it is important for emergency response mobilization to be made based
on the best available information, but sometimes even with the best planning, emergency response
actions can be slowed and even thwarted by road and infrastructure flooding and damage, downed
trees, and more, leaving emergency response routes impassable and residents stranded.
Figure 2 shows how emergency preparedness and the initial emergency response actions (rescue and
relief) fit into the emergency management cycle. Following rescue and relief efforts, emergency
response transitions to recovery and reconstruction. During this phase of the process, efforts are aimed
at restoring the affected areas physically, economically, and socially to pre-emergency conditions, taking
into account potential mitigation measures in reconstruction to reduce the vulnerability of the area to
emergency events and/or the potential damage caused by those events (Colten, Kates and Laska 2008).
In storm and/or tidal surge and flooding events, recovery efforts may include risk communication;
disease control (e.g., ensuring a safe food and potable water supply, sewage treatment, and vector
control); restoration of services such as electricity, water, and phones; cleanup of debris; rebuilding of
roads, buildings, and key infrastructure; reuniting separated family members; financial assistance to
individuals and the community; care of displaced individuals, animals, and businesses; facilitating the
permanent return of residents; and addressing the long-term needs of affected individuals (Colten,
Kates, & Laska, 2008; Miami-Dade Government, 2014).
In December 2015, Ed Schneyer, Director of Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk County, outlined the
County's emergency response capacity and infrastructure (Personal communication). Suffolk County's
emergency response services and infrastructure at that time included:
Suffolk County Government
10 Townships
33 Villages
23 Police Departments, with 3,800 sworn officers
109 Fire Departments and 27 EMS Companies, with 11,000 Fire/EMS personnel
12 Hospitals, with 3,200 beds / 160 intensive care unit (ICU) beds
0
Figure 2. Phases of emergency management. Taken from: (Cutter 2003).
Page H-4 of H-6
-------
Appendix H
141 Evacuation Shelters
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), with 500 members
Auxiliary Police, with 150 members
Medical Reserve Corp, with 200 members
Community-based volunteer organizations (approximately 200 faith-based organizations, non-
governmental organizations, and private non-for-profits) coordinated through the Long Island
Health and Welfare Council and the Long Island Voluntary Organization Active in Disaster
(LIVOAD)
The County also has a 42-ft Major Emergency Response Vehicle that is designed to support long-term
emergency incidents, provide mass casualty response and transport, medical evacuations, triage, and
firefighter and EMS rehabilitation and medical support; and access to similar vehicles operated by
Nassau County, New York City, and others, as part of an Urban Area Securities Initiative agreement.
In Suffolk County, the CERT program trains citizens to provide for the well-being and safety of
themselves and those around them until the professional responders arrive. The SLOSH maps and
HURREVAC software allows emergency managers to determine where emergency response efforts and
resources need to be focused to minimize impacts to human life. During Sandy, Suffolk County
emergency response personnel rescued 250 people from flooded homes and evacuated two major
hospitals and several adult homes.
Works Cited
Brank, R. (2015, July 14). Suffolk to Repair 500 Acres of Tidal Wetlands. Newsday.
CDC. (2013b). Deaths Associated with Hurricane Sandy October-November 2012. MMWR. Morbidity
and mortality weekly report 62, no. 20, 393.
Colten, C. E., Kates, R. W., & Laska, S. B. (2008). Community Resilience: Lessons Learned from New
Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. CARRI Report 3. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. (2009). Restoration: About Our Program.
Retrieved from SEAGRASS.LI: Long Island's Seagrass Conservation Website:
http://www.seagrassli.org/restoration/about_our_program.html
Cutter, S. L. (2003). Gl Science, Disasters, and Emergency Management. Transactions in GIS, 439-445.
FEMA. (2016, October 24). Coastal Flood Risk Study Process. Retrieved from Federal Emergency
Management Agency: https://www.fema.gov/coastal-flood-risk-study-process
FEMA. (2017, March 14). Special Flood Hazard Area. Retrieved from Federal Emergency Management
Agency: https://www.fema.gov/special-flood-hazard-area
Leuzzi, L. (2015, July 23). Research project attracts county wetlands benefits. Long Island Advance.
Page H-5 of H-6
-------
Appendix H
Manning, H., Carnevale, M., & Rubinoff, P. (2014). Rhode Island Coastal Property Guide. Narragansett,
Rl: The University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center and Rhode Island Sea Grant.
Miami-Dade Government. (2014, August 20). Phases of Emergency Management. Retrieved November
11, 2015, from http://www.miami-dade.gov/fire/about-emergency-management-phases.asp
Suffolk County Government. (2016b). Shelter and Storm Surge Zone Mapping Tool. Retrieved from
Suffolk County Fire Rescue and Emergency Services:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/FireRescueandEmergencyServices/StormSurgeZ
oneShelterLocatorMap.aspx#.WO-NevkrLIU
Suffolk County Government. (2016c). Emergency Notification Systems. Retrieved from Suffolk County
Office of Emergency Management:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/FireRescueandEmergencyServices/OfficeofEmer
gencyManagement/EmergencyNotificationSystems.aspx
Suffolk County Government. (2016d). Suffolk County Emergency Notifications: Red Code Notification.
Retrieved from Suffolk County Office of Emergency Management:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/FireRescueandEmergencyServices/OfficeofEmer
gencyManagement/EmergencyNotificationSystems/CODEREDNOTIFICATION.aspxff.WO-
HMfkrLIU
Tiner, R. W., & Herman, J. (2015). Preliminary Inventory of Potential Wetland Restoration Sites for Long
Island, New York. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Northeast Region.
USFWS. (2016, November 4). Salt Marsh Restoration and Enhancement:. Retrieved from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service: Hurricane Sandy Recovery:
https://www.fws.gov/hurricane/sandy/proiects/LonglslandSaltMarsh.html
Von Zielbauer, P. (2005, September 24). A Fast Long Island Evacuation? Impossible. New York Times.
Page H-6 of H-6
-------
Appendix I
Appendix I: Federal Funding Opportunities to Support
Implementation of Proposed Code Changes.68
The Federal Government provides funding to local municipalities through many avenues. Funding may
flow directly from the federal government to an individual household or to federally supported State
Revolving Funds managed by state governments. Suffolk County has a dual responsibility to pursue
federal funding to support these new regulations and facilitate the towns and citizens of the County in
their effort to seek funding directly. This is an additional capacity need for the County. Potential Sources
for funding support include:
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program: EPA provides guidance and grants for
states, tribes and territories to implement their approved nonpoint source management
programs. Activities supported by the grants include technical assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the
success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) manages and implements the EPA Nonpoint Source
Section 319 Grant through a Performance Partnership Grant Agreement (NYSDEC, n.d.-b;
NYSDEC, 2013). All of this nonpoint source funding passes from the federal level to the state
who distributes it to eligible applicants, which include state, local and inter-municipal agencies,
academic institutions, and the private sector.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): EPA sponsored funding to support a wide range of
water infrastructure projects. EPA provides grants to capitalize state CWSRF loan programs, and
the states provide an additional 20% in matching funds and manage the CWSRF loan programs
in their states. Onsite wastewater treatment systems are just one example of the projects
eligible for funding. New York has had a CWSRF since 1990. In July 2016, the New York State DEC
and the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) published the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Federal Fiscal Year 2017 Draft Intended Use Plan, and it includes 46 projects for Suffolk
County. These projects include those focused on sanitary sewer and sewage treatment projects
and range from $900,000 to $136 million.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Administration
and the USDA Rural Development Program69 provide low cost financing for both multi-family
and single family homes to address health or safety concerns in their homes (Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2016). Individual households in Suffolk County may apply
directly for funding to support OWTS or l/A OWTS installation. Suffolk County Department of
Health Services may consider implementing a program to help households apply for this
funding.
68 See Appendix K for federal, state, and local funding sources secured following completion of the HI A analysis to
support implementation of cesspool and septic system upgrades.
69 Note that only a small portion of northwestern Suffolk County (e.g., Mattituck, Southold, Greenport, Shelter Island)
meets the USDA Rural Development Program criteria for "rural" property and grants and loans through this program
have strict income limits.
Page 1-1 of 1-2
-------
Appendix I
Works Cited
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (2016) Energy and Environmental Affairs, Title 5 /
Septic Systems: Financial Assistance Opportunities for System Owners.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/grants/title-5-septic-systems.html.
NYSDEC. (2013) New York State Nonpoint Source Management Program Annual Report. Albany: NY:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Water.
NYSDEC. (n.d.-b) Nonpoint Source Guidance and Technical Assistance. Albany, NY: New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Bureau of Water Resource Management.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/96777.html
Page 1-2 of 1-2
-------
Appendix J
Appendix J: Case Studies: Rhode Island and Maryland
Onsite Sewage Disposal System Replacement Programs
)ool - , - A
Regulation
According to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Resources,
the Rhode Island Cesspool Act of 2007 mandated that all cesspools would have to be replaced upon this
schedule:
1. Cesspool must be removed from service within one year of the closing date.
2. If the cesspool has failed an inspection, it has to be replaced within a year of the failure, or more
quickly if it poses an imminent threat to public health.
3. If the property is a non-residential facility or multifamily dwelling, then the cesspool should be
replaced following current DEM and EPA regulations.
4. Replacement is required by January 1, 2014 if the cesspool falls under the following conditions:
Within 200 feet of an inland edge of all shoreline features bordering tidal water areas (i.e.,
Coastal Resources Management Council's jurisdiction);
Within 200 feet of all public wells; or
Within 200 feet of a water body with an intake for a drinking water supply. (Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management, 2015)
On July 09, 2015, the Act was amended, increasing the impact of the 2007 Cesspool Act by mandating
that beginning January 01, 2016, all purchasers of property in Rl must replace the cesspool with a septic
system within one year of the purchase date, whether or not it was a failed cesspool system (Rhode
Island General Assembly, 2015). The updated bill also applied to all property owners in the event of a
failed inspection and cited an estimate of 25,000 cesspools that still needed to be replaced as of 2013,
half of the amount estimated in 2006. The amended bill added detail regarding which households are
eligible for a waiver of the requirement because of undue hardship, which is defined as "having an
annual income of less than or equal to eighty percent of the appropriate household size area median
income determined by federal Housing and Urban Development standards for the community within
which the cesspool is located" as long as the cesspool has not failed (Rhode Island General Assembly,
2015).
In addition, the State of Rhode Island coupled this 2015 cesspool update requirement with an overall
plan to increase the amount of households on a sewer system. Households in neighborhoods with a plan
to be sewered are exempt from requirements to replace their septic system in the event of:
The cesspool has not failed;
The property will be sewered no later than January 1, 2020;
Page J-l of J-7
-------
Appendix J
The household will not expand its flow of wastewater by adding a bedroom, etc. prior to the
installation of the sewers;
The city or town has obtained bonding authorization for expansion of sewers to the area;
The household provides certification that it will be connected to the sewer system within 6
months of receipt of notification to connect (Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, 2015).
Financing
The Rl Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources estimated the average cost to
replace a cesspool with a conventional septic system is approximately $10,000 - $15,000, noting that
sites with small lots or in close proximity to wells or water bodies may affect the price and ability to
install a conventional system. They also quoted the cost to tie into a sewer system at $2,000 to $4,000,
which could include any required re-plumbing in the home.
In order to facilitate the removal and replacement of the cesspools, Rhode Island is providing 2%
interest short term loans for eligible homeowners through the Rl Infrastructure Bank, formerly known as
the Rl Clean Water Finance Agency (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2015).
The Rl Infrastructure Bank was founded in 1989 as a quasi-public agency to administer federal and state
funding programs relating to municipal or community waste water and drinking water (Rhode Island
Infrastructure Bank, 2016a). There are infrastructure banks in 31 states, including the state of New York.
The Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank administers the Water Pollution Control and the Rhode Island
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (RIWPCRF) loan funds sent to the state as part of Title VI of the
Federal Clean Water Act (i.e., funds known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund). The RIWPCRF is
intended to finance water pollution abatement projects that do not qualify for the federal revolving
fund program. These funds are also available for municipal projects. The Clean Water State Revolving
Fund is made up of federal EPA funds and an irrevocable 20% commitment from the State of Rhode
Island to match the fund (Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, 2016a).
The Community Septic Service Loan Program (CSSLP) began in 1999 to provide funding for community
member repair or replacement of failed septic systems and is administered by Rl Infrastructure Bank
(Rhode Island Housing, 2017a). The CSSLP program provides communities without wastewater
treatment facilities the opportunity to access low-interest loans for the cost of repairing or replacing
failing or substandard septic systems. In order for a community to be eligible, it must first complete an
On-site Wastewater Management Plan, after which the community can negotiate for a loan with the Rl
Infrastructure Bank. Once Rl Infrastructure Bank approves the community, residents can then apply for a
low interest loan.
Page J-2 of J-7
-------
Appendix J
Loan Terms for the Community Septic Service Loan Program (CSSLP)
No income limits for program participants
Can be used for residential properties with up to 4 units
One-time $300 origination fee to Rhode Island Housing and a 1% service fee on the
outstanding loan balance that is split between Rhode Island Housing and Rhode Island
Infrastructure Bank for servicing the loan
Other program criteria vary somewhat from community to community. However, most
programs cap loans at $25,000, require a debt-to-income ratio for borrowers of no
more than 45% and allow non-owner occupants, as well as homeowners whose primary
residence can benefit from CSSLP, to participate
Funding can generally cover engineering costs, as well as system replacement costs
Funding is released to the homeowner when Rhode Island Housing receives a
Department of Environmental Management Certificate of Conformance after the work
is completed
Work must by a completed by a state-licensed installer (Rhode Island Housing, 2017a)
As of February 2017, the following communities participate in this program: Bristol, Charlestown,
Coventry, Glocester, Hopkinton, Jamestown, Johnston, Narragansett, New Shoreham, North Kingston,
Portsmouth, Scituate, South Kingstown, Tiverton, Warren, and Westerly (Rhode Island Housing, 2017a).
Rhode Island Housing, a public agency that generates its own funding through its loan services and
reinvests its profits into its program of providing low-interest loans, grants, education, advocacy, and
consumer counseling on real estate rental, buying, and selling, provided the following statistics for the
CCSLP (Rhode Island Housing, 2017b). The RIH keeps track of the real estate market in Rhode Island and
provides clear facts about the progress of these federal and state partnership loans.
$13 million in loan funds provided to communities through the CSSLP since 1999
670 loans closed
Average loan amount: $15,108
Monthly Payment for a $15,000 loan with a 10-year term would be $131 (Rhode Island General
Assembly, 2015)
Recently, the Rl Infrastructure Bank implemented a new program, the Sewer Tie-In Loan Fund (STILF), to
assist households who are able to join the municipal sewerage system. These loans are also available at
2% interest, with up to $10,000 to borrow for 5 years (Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, 2016b). The
Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank provides loans of up to $150,000 to sewer system owners who then
provide the funds to individual homeowners. Participating Rhode Island communities include: Coventry,
North Smithfield, Tiverton, and Warwick (Rhode Island Housing, 2017a).
Page J-3 of J-7
-------
Appendix J
Loan Terms for the Sewer Tie-in Loan Fund Program
Maximum loan amount is $10,000, with a term of up to five years
Most other loan terms are the same as the CSSLP
Funding is released to the homeowner when Rhode Island Housing receives a DEM
Certificate of Conformance after the work is completed
Cost to properly abandon the existing septic system (pumping out its contents and filling
it with sand) are also STILF-eligible (Rhode Island Housing, 2017a)
As of February 2017, the Rhode Island Housing website listed the following participation statistics for
the Sewer Tie-In Loan Fund Program:
41 loans closed for a total of $146,970
Average loan amount: $3,585
Monthly payment for a $4,000 loan with a 5-year term would be $68 (Rhode Island Housing,
2017a).
J.2 The Bay Restoration (Septic) ^mentation
Guidance for Fiscal Year 2017
Maryland has created a thorough implementation guide for their plan to update and replace their aging
septic systems with the best available technology (BAT) to address nitrogen pollution. Using the Bay
Restoration Fund, the Maryland Department of Environment has upgraded over 12,000 conventional
septic systems by installing BAT or by connecting to a public sewer system. On November 24, 2016,
Maryland Department of the Environment finalized the regulations regarding the implementation of
BAT installation from a universal requirement to include an exemption for households outside of the
Critical Area (within 1,000 feet of tidal waters). Installation of BAT for nitrogen removal would still be
required for septic systems with a design flow of greater than 5,000 gallons per day and local
governments would not be pre-empted.
The Bay Restoration Septic Fund was established in 2004 to provide grants for wastewater treatment
facilities to reduce nitrogen pollution. The Bay Restoration Fund is managed by the Maryland
Department of Environment Capital Program, "comprised of the Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund, the
Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, the Bay Restoration Fund, the Biological Nutrient Removal
Program, the Water Supply Financial Assistance Program, and a new program for fiscal 2017 - the
Energy-Water Infrastructure Program" (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2016). The Maryland
Water Quality Financing Administration (WQFA), part of the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) administers all of these programs. The table below is taken from the WQFA website and explains
the purpose of each financial program (MDE Water Quality Financing Administration, 2016).
Page J-4 of J-7
-------
Appendix J
11 ^ j u.. i-u . ซ*.& ufซ&.u a...i:i...
Financial Program
Purpose
Water Quality Revolving Loan
Program (WQRLF)
Provides low-interest loans to local governments to finance
wastewater treatment plant upgrades, nonpoint source projects,
and other water quality and public health improvement projects.
Drinking Water Revolving Loan
Program (DWRLF)
Provides low-interest loans to local governments to finance water
supply improvements and upgrades.
Water Supply Assistance Grant
Program
Helping communities meet their water supply needs.
Biological Nutrient Removal
Cost -Share Grant Program
Upgrade of publicly-owned wastewater facilities with biological
nutrient removal.
Bay Restoration Fund
Wastewater Grant Program
ENR upgrade at major or minor wastewater treatment
plants.
Improvements to existing wastewater conveyance
systems.
Sewer extension to connect homes on septic systems to a
BNR/ENR wastewater treatment plant.
Nutrient-reducing BAT shared community septic
systems.
Storm water (MS4) projects by local governments with a
system of charges.
Bay Restoration Fund - Septic
System Grant Program
Upgrades of existing septic systems to best available technology
for nitrogen reduction to the Bay.
Linked Deposit Program
Water quality capital improvements
Following the 2002 State Executive Order 01.01.2002.24, Maryland established a policy to achieve the
nutrient reductions necessary to restore the Chesapeake Bay and satisfy the requirements of the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement. While initially these efforts were contained to wastewater treatment
plants, in 2015, Senate Bill 133 extended use of the Bay Restoration Fund Wastewater fund to include
combined sewer overflow abatement, rehabilitation of exciting sewer systems, and upgrading
conveyance systems (Maryland Department of the Environment, n.d.-a). Beginning Fiscal Year 2018,
once 67 significant wastewater treatment plants are updated with enhanced nutrient removal
technology, the remaining funds will be allocated base on priority ranking of the following projects:
Improvements to existing wastewater systems (e.g., combined sewer overflow [CSO]/sanitary
sewer overflow [SSO] abatement and sewer rehabilitation);
Sewer extensions to connect homes on septic [systemsjs to a biological nutrient removal
(BNR)/enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP);
Page J-5 of J-7
-------
Appendix J
Nitrogen reduction using best available technology at shared community septic systems; and
Storm water (MS4) projects undertaken by local governments with a system of charges
(Maryland Department of the Environment, n.d.-a).
The Bay Restoration (Septic) Fund Program Implementation Guidance for Fiscal Year 2017 outlines how
funding on septic systems will be executed. This seven-page document outlines the following:
Prioritization (of grant recipients); Income Based Grant Eligibility; Eligible Projects for Bay Restoration
Fund (Septic) Fund Grant Funding; Options for Connecting to Wastewater Treatment Plant; MDE
Approved best available technology (BAT) for Nitrogen Removal; and Grant Recipient BAT Selection,
Procurement, and Price (Maryland Department of Environment, n.d.-b). The plan could be seen as a
model for Suffolk County implementation, as the state has a similar number of unsewered households,
421,766 in the entire state of Maryland versus 385,117 in Suffolk County.
Applications for financial assistance are prioritized based on the following:
1. Failing OSDS in the Critical Areas
2. Failing OSDS outside the Critical Areas
3. Non-Conforming OSDS in the Critical Areas
4. Non-conforming OSDS outside the Critical Areas
5. Other OSDS in the Critical Areas, including new construction
6. Other OSDS outside the Critical Areas, including new construction (Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2017)
The Fund provides details on what type of assistance, loans or grants, and the eligibility requirements of
grant assistance. If a household earns less than $300,000 a year, they are eligible for a grant up to 100%
of the cost, while a household with over $300,000 income a year may be eligible for up to 50% of the
cost. Households may use the funding for the cost to upgrade an existing conventional septic system
with the installation of the BAT for nitrogen removal; or for the cost differential between installing a
new onsite disposal system (OSDS) and one that includes the BAT (Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2017)
The Implementation Guidance also outlines special assistance opportunities for low-income households
including eligibility for a 50% grant to cover the annual operations and maintenance costs beyond the
initial 5 years' operations and maintenance covered at the time of BAT installation.
Works Cited
Maryland Department of the Environment, (n.d.-a). Bay Restoration Fund - Wastewater Program.
Retrieved from Maryland Department of the Environment:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualitvFinancing/SaterQualityFinanceHome/Pag
es/Programs/W
Page J-6 of J-7
-------
Appendix J
Maryland Department of Environment, (n.d.-b). Best Available Technology Classification Definitions.
Retrieved April 4, 2016, from Maryland's Nitrogen-Reducing Septic Upgrade Program:
http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/BayRestorationFund/OnsiteDisposalSystems/Docum
ents/BAT%20Classifications%20Definitions.pdf
Maryland Department of the Environment. (2016). Department of the Environment - Capital Budget
Summary FY 2017. Maryland: Maryland Department of the Environment.
Maryland Department of the Environment. (2017). Bay Restoration (Septic) Fund (BRF) Program
Implementation Guidance for FY 2017. Providence, Rhode Island: Maryland Department of the
Environment.
MDE Water Quality Financing Administration. (2016). Water Quality Financing Administration. Retrieved
from Maryland Department of the Environment:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Pages/Programs/WaterProgra
ms/Water_Quality_Finance/index.aspx
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Resources. (2015, September
01). Frequently Asked Questions: Cesspools and the Rhode Island Cesspool Act. Retrieved from
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Resources:
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/permits/isds/pdfs/cessfaqs.pdf
Rhode Island General Assembly. (2015, July 09). An Act Relating to Health and Safety - The Rhode Island
Cesspool Act of 2007. Rhode Island General Assembly. Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Rhode Island Housing. (2017a). Septic System and Sewer Tie-In loan programs. Retrieved from Rhode
Island Housing: http://loans.rhodeislandhousing.org/SepticSewer/
Rhode Island Housing. (2017b). About Us - Rhode Island Housing. Retrieved from Rhode Island Housing:
http://www.rhodeislandhousing.org/sp.cfm?pageid=411
Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank. (2016a). About. Retrieved from Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank:
http://www.ricwfa.com/about/about-ricwfa/
Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank. (2016b). Sewer Tie-In Loan Fund - STILF. Retrieved from Rhode Island
Infrastructure Bank: http://www.ricwfa.com/programs/sewer-tie-in-loan-fund/
Page J-7 of J-7
-------
Appendix K
Appendix K: Activities that Have Occurred in Suffolk
County Since the HIA Analysis was Complete
This appendix summarizes the actions that have been taken in Suffolk County to change the nutrient
paradigm, since the completion of the HIA analysis and communication of preliminary findings and
recommendations in fall of 2016. Information was taken from Suffolk County communications or their
Reclaim Our Water website (http://www.reclaimourwater.info/), unless otherwise noted.
K.l Sanitary Cocle# Standards, Policy, and Guidance
In the fall of 2016 (after the completion of the HIA analysis and communication of the preliminary HIA
findings and recommendations), a work group was formed, consisting of County legislators and staff,
staff from various towns/villages, non-governmental organizations, and the public, to begin the process
of developing amendments to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6 defines the means
and methods for wastewater treatment requirements in Suffolk County with respect to new
construction (including additions to existing buildings or changes of use of existing buildings) and
divisions of land.
Residential Standards for Construction of Sewage Disposal Systems
On December 29, 2017, Suffolk County adopted revised "Standards for Approval of Plans and
Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Single Family Residences." These standards were updated
to keep up to date with the progress of the l/A OWTS program and technology advances, including the
use of a pressurized shallow drainfield with l/A OWTS.
Standards for the Management and Approval of l/A OWTS
On December 29, 2017, Suffolk County adopted revised "Standards Promulgated Under Article 19 for
the Approval and Management of Innovative and Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems."
These standards outline how Suffolk County Department of Health Service (SCDHS) is to administer
Article 19 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, including the development and use of innovative
alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems (l/A OWTS) to benefit the environment and public
health (i.e., meet maximum treated effluent concentrations for total nitrogen (TN) of 19 mg/L) and its
role as a Responsible Management Entity (RME) for l/A OWTS in the County.
Article 6
Suffolk County, with input from the work group, amended Article 6 in January 2018 to include
requirements for replacements and retrofits of existing onsite sewage disposal systems and
requirements to use an l/A OWTS as means of sewage disposal for certain cases. The changes
implemented by this amendment are considered short-term policy changes (Phase 1 policy changes);
additional (Phase 2) changes to Article 6 are expected when the Suffolk County Subwatersheds
Page K-l of K-10
-------
Appendix K
Wastewater Plan (SC SWP) and General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) findings are complete.
This amendment sets the stage for Suffolk County to move from the use of cesspools to septic systems
and l/A OWTS. Beginning July 1, 2018, contractors or developers holding an active Liquid Waste License
must notify SCDHS of all pumping, replacements, or retrofits of cesspools, septic tanks, l/A OWTS,
grease traps, and leaching structures; and beginning July 1, 2019, a SCDHS permit will be required for
replacements or retrofits of existing systems. With the July 2019 permit requirement, the installation of
new cesspools in Suffolk County will be prohibited (i.e., existing systems will no longer be replaced in-
kind), as all OSDS will have to be upgraded to meet the SCDHS standards (a septic tank-leaching pool or
l/A OWTS).70 This amendment to Article 6 also defines failure of a cesspool or individual sewerage
system as one "that does not adequately treat and/or dispose wastewater so as to create a public or
private nuisance or threat to public health or environmental quality," and includes conditions of both
hydraulic and structural failure, including above ground pooling of wastewater, pumping four or more
times per year, seepage of groundwater into the individual sewerage system, etc.
SCDHS General Guidance Memorandum #34
This general guidance memo. "Procedures for the Evaluation and Approval of Single-Family Residential
Innovative and Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems", issued on January 3, 2018, serves as
a procedure to guide the SCDHS's review and approval of single-family residential l/A OWTS and
elaborates on the methodology to be used to determine whether an l/A OWTS technology is able to
achieve the desired 19 mg/L TN in effluent. The statutory authority for the guidelines can be found in
Article 19 and the Standards Promulgated Under Article 19.
Standards for Replacement and Retrofits of Existing Sewage Disposal Systems
On July 11, 2019, Suffolk County adopted "Standards for Procedures for the Replacement and Retrofits
of Existing Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-Family Residences and Other Than Single Family
Residences." These standards outline the process and requirements for replacing or retrofitting existing
systems and reinforces the requirement prohibiting the installation of new cesspools; a septic tank-
leaching pool system or l/A OWTS must be used.
Amendment to Sanitary Code to Require l/A OWTS for All New Construction
On October 15, 2020, Suffolk County amended the sanitary code to require l/A OWTS in all new home
and commercial construction, and for single family home renovations that increase the number of
bedrooms to more than five and increase the building's footprint or floor area. The amendment will also
70 With this revision of Article 6, it appears that individual sewerage system upgrades to meet the current Suffolk
Sanitary Code and standards (septic tank-leaching pool or l/A OWTS) will not be mandatory, as was originally proposed in
the Alternatives analyzed in the HIA, but will be implemented as homeowners replace existing systems. Future revisions
to the Sanitary Code could reflect other methods of implementing upgrades, including by mandate (e.g., for priority
areas), upon property transfer, etc.
Page K-2 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
allow greater flexibility for the use of small sewer plants in downtown business districts. The new
requirements take effect in July 2021.
111 - ฆ tion Prof ฆ , : 1 spool
Upgrade Program Enterprise (SCUPE) grant from NYSDEC].
Various l/A OWTS technologies were installed in Suffolk County as part of the Demonstration Program
(initiated in 2014) to assess the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the systems and
their ability to meet the County's nitrogen reduction goals. As part of the program, l/A OWTS vendors
install, test, and maintain the systems at little to no cost to the homeowner. The Demonstration
Program was administered in two phases, and technologies received provisional approval for use in
Suffolk County if 75% of the installed units achieved a combined average TN effluent value of 19 mg/L or
less.
Residential Phase 1 - Septic Demo Program
Four (4) manufacturers were selected to install six (6) types of systems. A total of 19 systems were
installed at single family residences; homes were selected throughout the County by lottery.
Systems installed included:
HydroAction
Norweco SingulairTNT
Norweco Hydro-Kinetic
Orenco Advantex AX-RT
Orenco Advantex AX-20
BUSSE MBR
Residential Phase 2 - Septic Demo Program
Six (6) manufacturers were selected to install eight (8) types of systems. A total of 23 systems were
installed at single-family residences. Systems installed included:
PremierTech Aqua's Ecoflow Coco Filter
Ampridrome by F.R Mahoney & Associates
microFAST by BioMicrobics
BioBarrier by BioMicrobics
SeptiTech STAAR by BioMicrobics
Waterloo Biofilter
Fuji Clean CEN
Pugo Systems
Residential Phase 2 - Alternate Leaching Demonstration
A number of alternate leaching systems were selected for demonstration in Suffolk County. These
systems serve as an alternate to the use of the conventional leaching pool and are designed to evenly
disperse effluent into the soil just below the ground surface where biological activity is greatest.
Alternate leaching systems being demonstrated include:
Page K-3 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
Seven (7) pressurized shallow drainfields (Spring 2017)
Three (3) drip irrigation drainfields (Spring 2017)
One (1) gravity fed gravelless trench (February 6, 2017)
Six (6) additional gravelless trench (Spring 2017)
As of January 2019, the l/A OWTS Demonstration Program resulted in provisional use approval of six (6)
systems*:
Two systems provisionallyapproved during
the timeframe of the HIA analysis
HydroAction - September 2016
Norweco Singulair TNT - October 2016
Orenco AX-RT - March 2017
Norweco Hydro-Kinetic - April 2017
Fuji Clean CEN - January 2018
SeptiTech STAAR - July 2018
There is no cap on the number of these systems that can be installed in the County. The first 20
provisionally-approved year around systems must be sampled every month for 24 months and all others
must be sampled every 12 months. The 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 Report on the Performance of l/A
OWTS in Suffolk County are available at: https://reclaimourwater.info/Regulatory.aspx.
;rades
The average total cost for approved systems, including engineering and design services, purchase, and
installation, is approximately $19,200, although costs vary on a case-by-case basis. For more detailed
information on estimated engineering costs and vendor costs, see http://www.reclaimourwater.info/
septicimprovementprogram.aspx.
In addition to the initial costs of having an l/A OWTS installed, there are costs associated with owning an
l/A OWTS, including:
Operation and Maintenance: The first three years are covered as part of the manufacturer's
warranty. However, homeowners will need to sign yearly maintenance contracts and will be
responsible for maintenance costs after the 3-year warranty expires. It is anticipated that
operation and maintenance (O&M) will cost approximately $300 a year.
Annual Electrical Costs: Depending on the treatment process and manufacturer's system, the
system either runs continuously or on-demand. Based on information provided by
manufacturers, the systems that are provisionally approved have approximate annual electric
costs ranging from $57 to $266 per year.
Pumping Costs: Although these systems provide advanced treatment, they will still need to be
occasionally pumped by a septage hauler. Depending on use of the system, it is estimated that
the average system would need to be pumped out every 3-5 years. This increases the treatment
and useful life of any sewage disposal system including l/A OWTS. A typical pump-out is
estimated to cost $300 - $500.
Repair and Replacement Costs: Homeowners should be aware that although l/A OWTS have a
long track record of use in the US, they do contain components such as pumps, floats, air
Page K-4 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
compressors, and controls that may need to be replaced at some point during the useful life of
the system. These component repair and replacement costs could range from $50 to $200.
K.4 Financial Assista jrades71
Septic Improvement Program Summary72
In July 2017, the County announced a new incentive program - the Septic Improvement Plan (SIP) - that
provides grants and low-interest financing to make the installation of l/A OWTS more affordable for
homeowners of single-family residences. The program is currently funded at $2 million/year through the
year 2021. Under the program, grants up to $11,000 ($10,000 for an l/A OWTS and $1,000 for a
pressurized shallow drainfield used to improve distribution of wastewater from the systems) are
available to homeowners with an adjusted gross income < $500,000/year that meet certain criteria:
The single-family residence is the owner's primary residence, occupied by the owner year
around, and is not a rental property or new construction.
The residence is served by a cesspool or septic tank, is not connected to sewer, and is not
located in a current or proposed sewer district
No in-home businesses are run at the residence
No residents of the home are employees of Suffolk County, elected officials, or office holders of
a political party
The residence has a valid Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Zoning Compliance
Verification of income (copy of federal tax returns) is provided
o Adjusted gross income < $300,000/year - eligible for 100% of grant
o Adjusted gross income $300,000-$500,000/year - eligible for 50% of grant.
In conjunction with the grant, a low-interest loan program, administered by the Community
Development Corporation of Long Island, is also available under SIP to help homeowners finance the
remaining costs of installing the l/A OWTS (which costs between $14,500-$17,500 in total). Homeowner
may be eligible for a loan of up to $10,000 at a 3% interest rate and loan terms up to 15 years.
Under SIP, preferential consideration is given to residences in environmentally-sensitive areas (i.e.,
Priority Critical Areas or Critical Areas) or with failed systems. Priority Critical Areas include high- and
medium-density residential parcels less than one acre in size within the 0-2 year groundwater travel
time to surface waters or high- and medium-density residential parcels within 1,000 feet of enclosed
71 Financial assistance to homeowners performing upgrades of their individual sewerage systems was captured in several
of the recommendations of this HIA. The funding described here is funding available as of October 2018, but is limited.
The County's Septic Improvement Program combined with the money from New York State's Septic System Replacement
Fund is capable of providing grants for approximately 2,000 residences. Additional funding will need to be secured in
order to continue to offset the costs of l/A OWTS installation for the close to 200,000 residences assumed to be served
by cesspool alone.
72 Suffolk County's Septic Improvement Program grant was modeled after Maryland's Bay Restoration Fund - Septic
System Grant Program and the low-interest loan program was modeled after Rhode Island's Community Septic Service
Loan Program (CSSLP).
Page K-5 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
water bodies. Critical Areas include high- and medium-density residential parcels less than one acre in
size within the 2-25 year groundwater travel time to surface waters.
As of April 16, 2020, 370 l/A OWTS systems have been installed under the SIP program, 187 installations
are in progress, and another 205 installations are pending. There have also been an additional 418
systems installed outside the SIP program, some of which were funded through other means, as
described in the next section (NYSDEC, 2020).
Other Funding
New York State allocated $10 million from its State Septic System Replacement Fund to Suffolk County
in February 2018 to help expand the grant program. Beginning October 12, 2018, Suffolk County's Septic
Improvement Program grants can be coupled with NY State Septic System Replacement Program grants.
Through this effort, Suffolk County residents were eligible for combined grants of up to $21,000 to
install an l/A OWTS ($20,00 toward the purchase, engineering, design, and installation of a SCDHS-
approved l/A OWTS and leaching structure and an additional $1,000 toward the installation of
pressurized shallow drainfields). In December 2018, the law that established the County's SIP program
was amended to expand the eligibility requirements and the amount of funding available through the
program. Increased staffing for SCDHS was included in Suffolk County's budget to administer the
expanded program, which is expected to draw up to 1,000 applicants per year. The revised law became
effective on January 22, 2019 and allowed County and State grants to be combined for up to $30,000
towards the purchase and installation of an l/A OWTS.
Several eastern Suffolk County towns, including East Hampton, Southampton, and Shelter Island, have
their own grant programs through the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund (CPF). The CPF is
funded by town-approved taxes on real estate transactions and allows the towns to offer grants up to
$16,000 to residents who qualify based on need (Dooley & Schwartz, 2018).
"" ฆ . ' . . - icat'ion ; :
Suffolk County has worked with the Long Island Liquid Waste Association (LILWA) to ensure there are
qualified individuals capable of installing and providing maintenance for l/A OWTS in the county. In
2016, the County passed a law requiring liquid waste professionals to acquire training and certification
for septic tank plumbing, cleaning and maintenance; waste line cleaning and inspection; bulk liquid
waste transportation; vactor (pump/vacuum) services; conventional septic system maintenance
inspection; conventional septic system installation; l/A OWTS installation; and l/A OWTS service
provider, among others (LILWA, 2016). LILWA and SCDHS provide the required training, in cooperation
with the University of Rhode Island New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program (LILWA, 2016). As
of July 2018, 400 workers have graduated from the training (Moran, 2018).
K.6 Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan (SC SWP)
In accordance with Suffolk County's Reclaim Our Water initiative and the Long Island Nitrogen Action
Plan (LINAP), Suffolk County is pursuing proactive measures to reduce nitrogen pollution to our waters.
Page K-6 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Suffolk County Government,
2015a) characterized negative trends in the quality of groundwater in the upper glacial and Magothy
aquifers in recent decades. Suffolk County Government (2015a) linked increasing nitrogen levels in
groundwater not only to drinking water, but also to surface waters, including significant adverse impacts
of nitrogen on dissolved oxygen, harmful algal blooms (HABs), eelgrass and other submerged aquatic
vegetation, wetlands, shellfish, and, ultimately, coastal resiliency. For the first time, the Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan established an integrated framework to address the legacy problem
of onsite wastewater disposal systems in a meaningful manner; with acknowledgement that patchwork
sewering will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
The Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan (SC SWP) will provide a recommended wastewater
management strategy to reduce nitrogen pollution from non-point wastewater sources. The SC SWP is
considered an early action/initial step of the overall long-term LI NAP program. In addition to being a
guide for establishing County wastewater policy, the primary objective of the SC SWP will be to provide
critical information regarding data gaps, areas requiring further detailed study, and ultimately to provide
data that can support long-term LI NAP scope refinement and focus and other related initiatives ongoing
throughout Suffolk County (e.g., Long Island Sound Study, Peconic Estuary Program, South Shore Estuary
Reserve, and related Town/Village initiatives). In alignment with these objectives, the SC SWP will be
executed on an accelerated timetable and will not include the generation of new, sophisticated models
that are typically used for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies. Rather, the SC SWP will build,
expand, and unify existing individual models and studies from the wealth of resources that already exist.
To support development of the recommended wastewater management strategy, a sequenced,
technically-driven series of evaluations will be completed as follows:
Delineation of the County's priority subwatersheds (~189 individual surface water receiving
bodies) using the existing Suffolk County Groundwater Model. The groundwater model
provides a common platform of assumptions and boundary conditions to ensure a uniform and
consistent set of subwatersheds boundaries. A parallel evaluation will be completed for the
protection of groundwater and public and private supply wells. The evaluation will use the
Suffolk County Groundwater Model to estimate predicted nitrogen concentrations in public
supply wells and groundwater and required load reduction through wastewater management
to reduce nitrogen concentrations to agreed upon endpoints.
Generation of land use based annual nitrogen loading rates for each of the subwatersheds using
the existing Suffolk County Groundwater Model mass transport module. The SC SWP will
calculate the total nitrogen loads from all major sources (e.g., wastewater, residential fertilizer,
agriculture, deposition, and pet wastes) and be used to support the identification of areas
where legacy nitrogen may be of concern, although the SC SWP evaluations will not include the
legacy nitrogen in its evaluation. While all nitrogen loads will be considered in the determination
of an overall first order reduction goal for a water body, the focus of the SC SWP will be
assigning nitrogen load reduction goals for non-point wastewater sources to support
achievement of the overall load reduction goals. LINAP and/or other related future initiatives
Page K-7 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
will further consider these loads and reductions and will expand on alternate available
management measures such as permeable reactive barriers and in-water aquaculture.
Development of surface water residence times for each of the 189 surface water bodies using
the Environmental Fluids Dynamic Code (EFDC) modeling software
(https://www.epa.gov/ceam/environmental-fluid-dynamics-code-efdc).
Establishment of baseline water quality using existing, readily-available surface water data from
available studies and monitoring programs completed within Suffolk County.
Establishment of tiered priority areas for wastewater management upgrades, using the results
of the modeling efforts and baseline water quality. The objective of establishing tiered priority
areas is to provide a framework for implementing the recommended wastewater alternatives in
a phased approach . This would allow the allocation of funding and resources to be focused on
the highest priority areas.
Development of preliminary load reduction goals for each surface water body using empirical
data relationships, existing regulatory target guidelines, and other readily available data sources
from related studies.
Development of recommendations for wastewater management upgrades will be provided for
each priority tier based upon the ability to meet nitrogen load reduction goals. Recommended
wastewater upgrades will focus on the use of l/A OWTS, the use of sewering at locations where
existing sewer feasibility studies indicate sewering is cost effective, and the use of
decentralized/clustered systems (e.g., small pre-packaged treatment plants or l/A OWTS that
connect multiple tax lots or buildings together). The SC SWP cost benefit analysis will, amongst
other evaluations, identify the criteria and locations where the use of decentralized/clustered
systems represent the most cost-beneficial wastewater management approach. In addition, the
SC SWP will evaluate and provide preliminary recommendations on how to overcome some of
the potential challenges associated with implementing these systems (e.g., existing setback
constraints, long-term O&M responsibility, approval process, etc.). Finally, increase of the
minimum lot size may be considered in select subwatersheds where sufficient undeveloped land
exists to provide a meaningful environmental benefit. The recommended implementation plan
developed as part of the SC SWP will balance the need for providing a program acclimation
period (e.g., hire staff for Responsible Management Entity, training of industry, industry market
preparation, and funding source identification) with providing an aggressive implementation
approach that provides meaningful environmental benefit.
The County determined that implementation of the recommendations in the SC SWP may have a
significant impact on the environment, so a General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) was
prepared to accompany the implementation of the SC SWP. Work on the SC SWP began in summer
2016, with a draft plan expected in January 2018 and a final plan in March 2018.
The draft SC SWP was issued in July 2019 and the public comment period for the draft GEIS ran August
14, 2019 through October 16, 2019 (https://www.reclaimourwater.info/TheSubwater
shedsWastewaterPlan.aspx). A revised SWP and a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(FGEIS) incorporating public comments and comments received by the Suffolk County Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) was posted in February 2020. After minor revisions to address
Page K-8 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
requirements of the NYSDEC Nine Element (9E) Watershed Plan program (see the NYSDEC website for
more details on 9E plans), the final SC SWP (SCDHS, 2020) was published in July 2020. Approval of the SC
SWP as a 9E Plan will make Suffolk County eligible for additional state and federal funding to advance
water quality improvements.
The SC SWP identified a phased countywide strategy to replace cesspools and C-OWTS in Suffolk County
with l/A OWTS, sewering, or clustering. This $4 billion approach would be implemented over 50+ years,
with an initial 5-year ramp-up period (Phase I) that includes establishing a countywide wastewater
management district and a new, yet to be specified, $50-75 million recurring annual funding stream.
With the establishment of a stable and recurring funding source, Phase II would require upgrades to
systems in the highest priority areas (i.e., the near shore 0-2 year groundwater contributing zone to
surface waters and watersheds with the most impaired or vulnerable waterbodies). Implementation
would continue in Phase III upgrading systems in the remaining priority areas, and in Phase IV, upgrades
to the remaining systems (primarily in Central Suffolk County) would take place. As of the time of the
SWP, a funding source had not yet been secured for the upgrades. However, as documented in the SWP,
Suffolk County has made it clear that the implementation of a countywide wastewater upgrade program
is contingent on identification of a stable and recurring revenue source to make the program affordable
to homeowners.
;tewater Management District
In February 2021, Suffolk County announced the release of a feasibility study and implementation plan
to guide the establishment of a Countywide Wastewater Management District. Next steps in the process
are development of an implementation strategy and timeline.
Suffolk County Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan
In September 2017, SCDHS released its Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan, which includes a
comprehensive strategy to address harmful algae blooms that threaten both Suffolk County's
environment and economy (Wise, 2017).
Works Cited
Dooley, E. C., & Schwartz, D. M. (2018, April 26). Here's a Look at the Added Costs of the Advanced
Septic Systems. Newsday.
LILWA. (2016, April 17). Certification. Retrieved from Long Island Liquid Waste Association:
http://www.lilwa.org/cert.html.
Moran, J. (2018). Managing Disasters at the County Level: A Focus on Technology. Washington, DC:
National Association of Counties.
NYSDEC. (2020, April 24). Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan (LINAP) - Newsletter, Suffolk County Updates.
Retreived from NYSDEC: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/NYSDEC/
bulletins/285db00.
Page K-9 of K-10
-------
Appendix K
SCDHS. (2020). Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan. Happauge, NY: Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
Suffolk County Government. (2015a). Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management
Plan. Hauppauge, NY: Suffolk County Government.
Wise, W. (2017). Suffolk County Harmful Algal Bloom Action Plan. Stony Brook, NY: New York Sea Grant.
Page K-10 of K-10
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |