Technology transfer in the marine environment of Long Island

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Information
Center
COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

CEM REPORT 4133-475

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

OF LONG ISLAND

Prepared for the
Marine Resources Council
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board

Under
Sea Grant Project NG-18-72
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

W. V. McGuinness, Jr.
February 1973 R. Pitchai
G. M. Northrop

Regional Marine Resources Council
GC
A CommITTEE OF THE NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD.
1021
.N7
M235
1973

lot,
Rast RoC*Oway Inl;t ZL '97 100 0'als
% 10

a % h Zf
0 %I
C@-

Nassau Co.
Suijolv. CO.
oq,
15,

Z
Ile
40@
PIP 'D <

od@ ro
4.bl z
4..
V

0
x
0
4lp* W

lab
7
C?

CEM REPORT 4133-475

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER
OF LONG ISLAND

W. V. McGuinness, Jr.
R. Pitchai
G. M. Northrop

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413
February 1973

Property of CSC Library

Prepared for the
Marine Resources Council
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board

Under
Sea Grant Project NG-18-72
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

MAR 10 1997

THE CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & MAN, INC.

275 Windsor Street Hartford, Connecticut 06120

FOREWORD

This report is part of a series of studies undertaken by The Center for the
Environment and Manjnc., for the Regional Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board under the continuing program- The Development of
Methodologies for Planning for the Optimum Use of the Marine Resources of the Coastal
Zone. The program is funded in part by the Sea Grant Program of the National Oceanic
and At7nospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and is structured
into six functional steps.
Functional Step One (Problems . Identifies, classifies and briefly analyzes
the problems that confront planners and decision makers with regard to the
area's marine resources.
Functional Step Two (Knowledge Requirements). Identifies the knowledge
necessary for making sound decisions with regard to the use of the marine

resources.

Functional Step Three (State -of-the -Art). Assesses the availability and
adequacy of the necessary data and knowledge.
Functional Step Four (Knowledge Gap ). Determines necessary data col-
lection and research activity.
Functional Step Five (Data Collection and Research Progra ). Formulates
a priority-oriented, marine-related data collection and research program
and monitors its implementation.

Functional Step Six (Management Information System . Develops a system
for organizing and synthesizing the knowledge and data and provides
analyzed information to marine resource planners.

Functional Steps One through Four, and most of Functional Steps Five and Six
were completed in the first and second year of the Sea Grant Program of the Marine
Resources Council and have resulted in previous reports of this series (see refer-
ences 45 through 58, Appendix A). This report summarizes CEM's activities during
the third year of the Sea Grant Program in support of the Council's adoption of guide-
lines and research program for Long Island's marine resources planning. It derives
basic inputs from Functional Steps One through Five and provides a characterization
of the means and processes by which analyzed and evaluated information could be
effectively made available to facilitate marine resource planning; in this sense, this
technology transfer report is a product of Functional Step Six.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of CEM's activity during 1972 and early 1973
in support of the third year Sea Grant Program of the Regional Marine Resources
Council ("the Council") of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. The scope
of the Program included adoption of the Council's Guidelines and research program,
research guidance and monitoring, and technology transfer to marine resources
planners, cognizant agencies and the scientific community. The major emphasis
during this phase of the Program has been on the adoption, by the Council, of marine-
oriented policy and planning guidelines and recommended high-priority research
applicable to Long Island.

CEM provided technology transfer support to the Council in the attaim-nent of their
objective by:
* Providing briefings of the analysis and findings of four high-
priority problem areas for Long Island, including recommenda-
tions for research:

- Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal
- Coastal Stabilization and Protection
- Dredging
- Wetlands

@ Interaction with Council Committees to provide assistance
and to help formulate Committee reports on guidelines related
to the four high-priority problem areas;
* Holding public seminars at academic institutions on Long
Island to describe and review the high-priority marine and
marine-related research needs of Long Island;
0 Reviewing the Council's draft guidelines and providing
supporting research and documentation; and
9 Cataloging the technology transfer activities contained in this
report.
At the time of publication of this report, the Council's Guidelines are being
reviewed by the Regional Planning Board. They are the first of this kind for Marine
Resources Planning in the U.S. Coastal Zone. Final modification and endorsement
by the Regional Planning Board is expected by mid-1973. The guidelines will then be
available from the Council.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of the Report 1
1.2 Background 1
1.2.1 The Island 1
1.2.2 The Board 2
1.2.3 The Council 2
1.2.4 The Council's Program 4
1.3 Outline of the Report 6
1.4 Uses of the Report 6

2.0 CEM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ASSISTANCE 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Objective of the 1973 Program 8
2.3 Approach 10
2.4 Briefings 10
2.4.1 Four Problem Areas 12
2.4.1.1 Dredging 12
2.4.1.2 Coastal Stabilization and Protection 12
2.4.1.3 Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal 12
2.4.1.4 Wetlands on Long Island 13
2.4.2 Recommended Research 13
2.4.3 Guidelines 15
2.5 Interactions with Council Guidelines Committees 16
2.6 Research Needs Transfer 16
2.6.1 Research Reports Distribution 17
2.6.2 Research Seminars 18

3.0 GUIDELINES ADOPTION PROCESS 20
3.1 CEM Presentations 20
3.2 Council Committee Activities 20
3.2.1 Formation of Committees 20
3.2.2 Instructions to the Committees 21
3.2.3 Committee Reviews 22
3.2.4 Committee Reports 22
3.3 Council Action on Committee Reports 23
3.4 Responses from Public and Private Agen 'cies 23
3.5 Subsequent Council Meetings on Guidelines and Research 24
3.5.1 Introduction 24
3.5.2 Presentation by NOAA on Wetlands Management 24
3.5.3 Presentation by Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control 24
3.5.4 Presentation of New York State Sea Grant Program 25
3.5.5 Council Considerations of Draft Guidelines 25
3.5.6 Presentations by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 25
3.5.7 CEM Review Assistance 26
3.5.8 Submission of Council Guidelines to the Board 26

Section Title Page

4.0 UNIQUENESS OF THE COUNCIL GUIDELINES 27
4.1 Purpose of the Section 27
4.2 Comparison of Final Council Guidelines with 27
CEM Recommended Guidelines
4.2.1 Wetlands Management 27
4.2.2 Coastal Stabilization and Protection 28
4.2.3 Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal 28
4.2.4 Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal 29
4.3 Other Coastal Management Guidelines 29

APPENDIXES
A REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY A.-1
B REGIONAL MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP B-1
C MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES FOR GUIDELINES C-1
D AGENDAS OF PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL BY D-1
FEDERAL AGENCIES, 1972-73

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to describe the actions taken throughout 1972 and
early 1973 by the Regional Marine Resources Council ("the Council") of the Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board ("the Board") to improve the relevancy of research
to the solution of selected, high-priority coastal zone management problems confronted
by comprehensive planners and decision makers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long
Island, New York.
The report is also intended as a summary of the interrelated activities of the
Council and The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc. (CEM) which were performed
to create public, governmental, and institutional awareness of:
� high-priority marine-oriented problems confronting Nassau
and Suffolk Counties;

e assessment of the state-of-the-art of research to cope with
these problems;
� recommended research to fill information and knowledge
gaps associated with the problems; and
� tentative guidelines to be used by policy and decision makers
in mobilizing efforts to solve the problems.

To accomplish this stated purpose required a transfer of technology-from the
experiences of researchers and the pages of technical reports- to the concerned
public, government officials, and staff members and students of Long Island institutions.
What was done and how this technology transfer was carried out is presented in this
report. A final purpose of the report is, then, to document experiences and provide a
guide for others who may want to perform technology transfer to solve marine environ-
mental and coastal zone management problems.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The Island

Long Island, New York, stretches 120 miles from its western edge in Brooklyn to
its eastern tip at Montauk Point. No location on the island is more than 10 miles from
salt water. In 1970, 7.145 million people lived on the island. Together with many
summer vacationers and day visitors from adjacent metropolitan areas (especially
from Manhattan and the Bronx), they share the island's 1,723 square miles, 791-mile
coastline and adjacent waters.

Two of the counties, Kings and Queens, are part of New York City. Although they
account for only 14 percent of the island's total land area, they contain 64 percent of
its 1970 population. Population in these two counties, however, is relatively stable.
For example, it increased by only 3.5 percent in the period 1960-1970.

This report focuses on the marine environment of the rapidly growing Nassau-
Suffolk bi-county area. Currently this less-populated part of Long Island has only
2.5 million people (larger than 23 states) but population growth has been rapid. After
World War II and up until about 1960, Nassau laid claim to being the fastest growing
county in the country. Population growth there began to level off between 1960 and
1970 (up approximately 10 percent). Suffolk, however, has had a ten-fold increase in
population during the last half century and is projected to accommodate an additional
1.5 million people (the current population of Dallas or Cincinnati) in the next 27 years.
Demands placed on the bi-county area's marine resources derive primarily
from this population base-the 2.5 million bi-county inhabitants plus many of the 10
million residents of the Greater New York area who move to Nassau-Suffolk as summer
vacationers or day visitors.
Eventually the decision must be made (1) for increased management of the environ-
ment-including its social, economic, and natural components-or (2) for continuing pri-
mary dependence upon a more laissez-faire pattern governed principally by individual
economic -environmental tradeoffs (e.g., the time and dollars tradeoff associated with
living "out on the Island" in a suburban-rural environment, but working "in the City").

1.2.2 The Board

To provide a rational management structure to cope with growth problems, the
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board was formed in 1965 with Leonard W. Hall, Esq.,
as Chairman and Lee E. Koppelman, R.L.A., as Executive Director (see Fig. 1). The
Board has prepared the Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Development Plan and 30 sup-
porting publications covering such subjects as transportation, housing, employment and
income, land use, taxing strategies, growth projections, soil interpretations, utilities,
fiscal inventories, zoning and socio-economic analyses of census data.* Although the
Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Development Plan is not legally binding on each county,
town, and zoning board, it has been widely endorsed throughout the bi-county area.

1.2.3 The Council

One of the earliest acts of the Board was to place emphasis on the marine environ-
ment by establishing its Oceanographic Committee. After a year of researching the
status and potential of the marine environment, two major recommendations were made:

1. Establishment of a Regional Marine Resources Council;

2. Development of a research program culminating in a method-
ology for marine resources planning for the bi-county area of
Long Island.
The Council was established in 1967 and has served the Board as a special
advisory committee and as the administrative agent for the research program. Chaired
from its inception by Rear Admiral Edward C. Stephan (USN-retired), the Council, s
membership is representative of the many and varied interests utilizingthe coastal
zone for their livelihood or enjoyment. There are 16 voting members, eight from each

*References and bibliographies are found in Appendix A.

Chairman

Hon. Leonard W. Hall

Nassau County Members Suffolk County Members

Hon. Leonard Hall Seth A. Hubbard
600 Old Country Road Vice Chairman
Garden City, N.Y. 11530 45 East Main Street
� Walter G. Michaelis Riverhead, N.Y. 11901
Commissioner H. Lee Dennison
Dept. of Planning & Econ. Dev. Arbutus lane, Belle Terre
Town of Hempstead Port Jefferson, N.Y. 11777
Town Hall Thomas Halsey
Hempstead, N.Y. 11550 Deerfield Road
� Vincent R. Balletta, Jr. Watermill, N.Y. 11976
150 Main Street
Port Washington, N.Y. 11050

Ex-Officio Members Ex-Officio Members

� John H. Peters Rudolph M. Kammerer
Commissioner Commissioner
Nassau Co. Dept. of Public Works Suffolk Co. Dept. of Public Works
I West Street Yaphank Avenue
Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Yaphank, N.Y. 11980
� M. Hallstead Christ 0 Henry D. Claussen
Nassau Co. Comptroller Suffolk Co. Comptroller
C'_-I Court House Suffolk County Center
Mineola. N.Y. 11501 Riverhead, N.Y. !1901

Advisory Members Advisory Members

0 Hon. Ralph G. Caso e Hon. John V. N. Klein
Nassau County Executive Suffolk Co. Executive
Executive Bld., 1 West Street Veterans Memorial High way
Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787

9 Hon. Francis T. Purcell 0 Michael J. Grant
Vice Chairman Presiding Officer
Nassau Co. Brd. of Supervisors Suffolk Co. Legislature
Town Hall Veterans Memorial Highway
Hempstead, N.Y. 11550 Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787

0 W. Kenneth Chave, Director 0 Arthur H. Kunz
Nassau Co. Planning Commission Assistant Director
240 Old Country Road Suffolk Co. Planning Dept.
Mineola, N.Y. 11501 Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787

Executive Director

Lee E. Koppelman

Fig. 1. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.

county, representing leading academic institutions, industries, recreation interests,
agriculture, fishing, conservation and preservation interests. Sitting as advisory
members are five representatives of county government, four representatives of the
state, eight representatives of Federal agencies, and one representative from a
private environmental group. All members voluntarily contribute their time, efforts,
and expertise to the public interest. (Appendix B gives a list of current members and
their affiliations.)
Regular Council meetings with published minutes have been held semi-monthly
over the last six years. Attendance has averaged 20-25 Council members and staff,
and on occasion, as many as 5 to 25 guest speakers and visitors. Special meetings,
such as seminars, site visits and public hearings, have drawn 100 or more attendees.
Committees of the Council arrange special meetings of their own.

1.2.4 The Council's Program
The research program of the Marine Resources Council has been financed by the
Board and by the National Sea Grant Program, formerly in the National Science Founda-
tion and now in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. The Council was the. first non-academic institution to be
funded by Sea Grant.
The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc.,-formerly The Travelers
Research Corporation-of Hartford, Connecticut, was selected in 1968 as research
program consultant. Six functional steps were outlined in 1969, and developed in a
series of reports. Table I outlines these steps,together with the 14 related reports
prepared by CEM, two reports prepared by the Council staff, and four reports prepared
for the Council by the Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York,
at Stony Brook,

Seventeen marine resource problems were originally identified. Following review,
three were de-emphasized and Functional Steps One and Two were carried out for the
remaining 14 problems. It became evident, however, that a major re-orientation of
the technical planning information was required to make it useful to planners and
decision makers.

To insure that the information about technology could be transferred to the
planning/decision making/administrative community, the 14 problems were consoli-
dated and given priorities so that more intensive investigation could be concentrated
on four major subject areas:

� integrated water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal;
� coastal stabilization and protection;
9 dredging and spoil disposal; and
� wetlands management.

TABLE 1
FUNCTIONAL STEPS AND RELATED REPORTS FREF. NO.
FUNCTIONAL STEPS RELATED REPORTS

The Status and Potential of the Marine Environ-' 31
ment, Oceanographic Committee Dec. 166.
1. PROBLEMS. Identify, classify and briefly Functional Step One: The Classification of 45
analyze the area's marine resources Marine Resources Problems of Nassau and
planning problems. Suffolk Counties, CEM, May '69.
Fourteen Selected Marine Resources Problems 46
of Long Island, New York: Descriptive
Evaluations, CEM, June 170.

2. KNOWLEDGE REQU REMENTS. Categorize
the data and knowledge requirements for Functional Step Two: Knowledge Requirements, 47
meaningful decision making in marine. CEM, Feb. 170.
resources management.
Proceedings of the Conference on Shellfish 32
Culture, Marine Resources Council, Dec. 169.

Quality Standards for the Coastal Waters of 48
Long Island, New York, CEM, Apr. 170.

The Movement and Quality of Coastal Waters: A 49
Review of Models Relevant to Long Island, New
York, CEM, Jul. 170.

High Priority Research and Data Needs (an 50
3. STATE OF THE ART. Assess the avail- interim report), CEM, Nov. '70.
ability and adequacy of the necessary Integrated Wal r Supply and Waste Water 51
data and knowledge. Disposal on Long Island, CEM, Feb. 172.
4. KNOWLEDGE uAib. Determine required Coast Stabilization and Protection on Long 52
data collection and research activity. Island, CEM, Feb. 172.
Dredging on Long Island, CEM, Feb. '72. 53
Wetlands on Long Island, CEM, Feb. 172. 54

State of the Art for Selected Marine Resources 55
Problems on Long Island, CEM, Feb. '72.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Advanced Waste- 33
water Treatment and Disposal, Marine
Resources Council, Jul. 172.

A Proposed Problem -Oriented Marine Research 56
Program for Long Island, CEM, Feb. '72.
Guidelines for Marine Resources Planning and 57
Policy on Long Island, CEM, Feb. 172:

Hydrographic Data Report: Long Island 36
5. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH Sound-1970, Part II, Stony Brook, Jan. 172.
PROGRAM. Formulate a priority- Characteristics and Environmental Quality of 37
oriented, marine-related data collection Six North Shore Bays, Nassau and Suffolk
and research program, and monitor its Counties, New York, Stony Brook, Jan. 172.
implementation. Survey of Water Quality and Sediments in Six 38
North Shore Bays, Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
New York, Stony Brook, Feb. '72.

The Marine Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk 39
Counties, New York, Stony Brook, Mar. 172.
6. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. The Design of a Management Information System 58
Develop a system for organizing and for Coastal Resources Planning,CEM, Feb. '72.
synthesizing the data and knowledge.

1.3 outline of the Report
The remainder of this report summarizes the activities of CEM during 1972 and
early 1973 in providing technology transfer assistance to the Council in creating
public, governmental, and institutional awareness of the research, recommendations
and guidelines resulting from work performed for the Council by CEM and others
throughout the period: 1969-1971.
Section 2 tersely outlines CEM's activities in assisting the Council in tech-
nology transfer in the marine environment of Long Island. A major feature of this
technology transfer process was the explanation and refinement of policy and decision
making (draft) guidelines for four high-priority problem areas, which had been sub-
mitted to the Council by CEM in early 1972. Section 3 documents respective roles of
the Council, the guidelines advisory Committees formed by the Council, and CEM in
achieving adoption of a final set of guidelines by the Council and submission of the
guidelines to the Board for review.
In undertaking this process of research to support policy and decision making
and technology transfer in the marine environment,the Council has undertaken a
pioneering effort. Section 4 compares the guidelines generated by the Council with
similar efforts in the draft stage recently adopted in other coastal zone regions of the
nation.

The references and bibliography for this report are given in Appendix A. The
members of the Council and their affiliations are found in Appendix B. The member-
ships of the four Committees established by the Council to review and recommend guide-
lines for the high-priority problem areas are given in Appendix C. Agendas of presenta-
tions to the Council by Federal agencies are found in Appendix D.

1.4 Uses of the Report

The primary users of this report are expected to be the Regional Marine Resources
Council and its parent body, the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. The interests
of the Board are bi-county and comprehensive -they cover the long-range preservation,
use and development of the entire area,-inland as well as coastal. The report reflects
these interests by considering the coastal dimensions as important, but subordinate,
parts of the overall problem. For the Council to be responsible and successful, its
coastal input must be formulated within a broad objective understanding of the overall
problem.

In addition to serving the Council's needs, the report should provide insights for
the research community on Long Island and elsewhere. Although the research needs
and guidelines have been derived from analyses of Long Island problems, there is a
high degree of commonality with needs and guidelines in other coastal zones.

The methodology employed herein, particularly the approach followed and the
lessons learned, should be of value to those concerned with coastal zone management
problems elsewhere, for they too must confront and solve the problem of technology
transfer in the marine environment.

Lastly, these summarized comments provide one additional case history of an
attempt to create public, governmental, and institutional awareness of, and interaction
with, the products of research in support of policy and decision making. The report
should, therefore, be of value to those involved conceptually or pragmatically in the
general process of technology transfer.

2.0 CEM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ASSISTANCE

2.1 Introduction

In developing methodologies for planning for the optimal utilization of the coastal
zone s resources, it is not enough to be able to analyze and evaluate the state-of-the-art
of high priority problems and indicate what needs to be done. It is equally essential
that the findings be effectively communicated to planners and decision makers, thereby
facilitating rational action. The results of the activities undertaken in 1970 and 1971
by the Council are available in reports cited in Appendix A. A clear need exists for
transferring this technology to planners, decision makers, and the scientific community
of Long Island. During this phase, the role of CEM has been to serve as a catalyst in
bringing about the transfer of technology to assist in the adoption of the Council's
Guidelines and research program. This section summarizes the support activities
undertaken by CEM to achieve these goals.

2.2 Objective of the 1972 Program

The objective of the 1972 program was to:

Improve the relevancy of research to,the solution of the four selected
high-priority coastal management problems confronted by compre-
hensive planners and decision makers in the bi-county area; namely,

e Integrated Water Treatment and Wastewater Disposal
e Coastal Protection and Stabilization
9 Dredging
* Wetlands.

The objective was attained by achieving four contributory goals:

e Adopting a priority-oriented research program and major
planning and policy guidelines. (Task 1)
a Using this program and the guidelines in a systematic way to
make the research community more aware of the most
important needs of policy formulators and planners. (Task 2)
@ Making policy formulators and planners more aware of the
relevant findings of the research community. (Task 3)
@ Melding the first three contributing goals into a systematic
interplay between the continual reformulation of guidelines,
the readjustment of relevant research programs, and the
prompt incorporation of research findings into policies and
plans. (Task 4)
taken. Figure 2outlines the steps involved. The next section describes the approach

MRC CEM Research Community
(user) (catalyst) (provider)

Task 1

Adopt Program
and Guidelines

Present Present
Recommended Recommended
Guidelines Guidelines

71
Response
Respond Invited

Incorporate Re sponses

Adopt
Program and
Guidelines

Task 2 Reformulate
offer Research Research
Guidance Programs

Task 3
W- Conduct
Monitor the Research
Research
Adopt
to Policy, Task 4
Planning, and Improve Technology Report
Action Findings
Program Transfer

Produce
Results Flow

- - - Feedback

Fig. 2. Technology transfer flow diagram.
@
PC
F:d i 3
s

2.3 Approach
The approach used for accomplishing Tasks 1 through 4 is described below:

Task 1. Guidelines and Research Program Adoption

* Presentation of CEM-recommended research program and
guidelines, together with the reports from which they
derived;

e Response by the Council and by others whose opinion it
solicits;

* Reformulation of the research program and guidelines by
incorporating the response; and

9 Adoption of the revised program and guidelines by the
Council.

Task 2. Research Guidance

Dissemination of the research program;
Encouragement of its review and'analysis; and

Encouragement of its use in formulating future research.

Task 3. Research Monitoring

* Awareness of on-going research programs; and

9 Correlation of these programs with the Council's needs.

Task 4. Technology Transfer

� Structuring the feeder reports for clarity and ease of
understanding;

* Building up a dialogue; and

� Writing this report.

Each of the tasks is discussed in detail separately in the following pages. Task 1
is covered in depth in Section 3, since greater emphasis was placed on this task during
the current year's program. Tasks 2 and 3 are discussed under Section 2.6, Research
Needs Transfer. Task 4 is essentially embodied in this report.

2.4 Briefings

During the spring of 1972, CEM briefed the Council on all of its reports [Refs.
45 through 58] at the regular Council meetings in the main auditorium of the County
Center at Hauppauge, New York, according to the following schedule:

Date Report Ref * Presenters Attendance
No.

March 20, 0 Introduction 53 Ellis 26 Council & staff,
1972 0 Dredging 52 Dowd 7 guests
* Coastal Stabilization McGuinness

McGuinness 25 Council & staff,
April 3, e Water Supply and Wastewater 51 Pitchai 10 guests, including
1972 * Wetlands 54 Zoellner the press
Green

April 17, * State of the Art 55 McGuinness 22 Council & staff,
1972 9 Research Program 56 McGuinness 8 gue sts
Pitchai

Ellis
May 1, 0 Guidelines 57 McGuinness 27 Council & staff,
1972 Pitchai 13 guests
Zoellner

June 19, Management Information 58 Ellis 17 Council & staff,
1972 System Cheney 20 guests

Advance copies of the CEM reports were distributed to the Council members and staff
and other selected parties. All were encouraged to read the reports before the sched-
uled CEM briefing. As could be seen from the attendance record above, keen interest
was evidenced in the contents of the presentations.
Each of the four high-priority problem area reports, presented on March 20
and April 3, 1972, consisted of:

� Analysis and assessment, including a definition and description
of the problem, a presentation of the key facts bearing on the
problem, an analysis, a delineation of alternative solution
strategies, an evaluation and recommended solutions.

� State -of-the -Art expressed as a heavily-documented synthesis
of the pertinent facts bearing on the analysis and assessment.

* Research program expressed as an itemization of the major
inadequacies in the current state-of-the-art interfering with
the search for solutions.

� Guidelines expressing the recommended solutions in terms of
broad policy and planning statements.

It is not possible in this report to describe the details of each briefing. However,
highlights of the briefings are given in the next section. For the interested reader,
reports from which the CEM briefings were taken are available from the Council. All
reports are open to public review at the Council's Headquarters, Veterans Memorial
Highway, Hauppauge, New York, 11787.

2.4.1 Four Problem Areas

Highlights of the CEm briefings on the four high priority problem areas on Long
Island are presented in summary form below.

2.4.1.1 Dredging

* Location and contents of major dredging applications
e Significance of dredging (removal) phase on water quality and
biota

o Significance of dredge spoil disposal on marine environment

* Structure of e-Nisting Corps approval procedures
* Type of applications and percent approval

2.4.1.2 Coastal Stabilization and Protection

* Effects of natural phenomena and human interactions

* Physical characterization of Long Island shoreline

o Shoreline ownership pattern in Long Island

* Critical and non-critical erosion areas and location

o Summary of reach-by-reach analysis

o Summary of Guidelines

2.4.1.3 Integrated Water �y2ply and Wastewater Disposal
o Water budget for Long Island: natural and man-influenced
o Contamination of water in the man-influenced hydrologic
system
e Possible effects of unrecharged groundwater usage in the
future

o Identification and evaluation of alternative, integrated water
supply and wastewater disposal systems

- costs
- general environmental impacts
- major politic al/j urisdictional considerations

a Range of choice in four surviving alternative systems
* Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) technology overview

- improvements in municipal wastewater treatment
- solids removal, suspended and dissolved
- wastewater renovation and reuse
- ultimate disposal methods
- physical-chemical processes vs AWT as "add-on"
secondary treatment
- cost comparisons
* Forty-seven recommended data collection and research needs
for resolving water supply/wastewater related issues
@ Recommended guidelines for Council consideration

2.4.1.4 Wetlands on Long island
� Comprehensive wetlands management considerations

- moratorium and acquisition
- classification, inventory and quality evaluation
- plan preparation and implementation
- physical and non-physical management techniques

� Recommended wetlands guidelines on policy and planning,
research and analysis, and Council responsibility and
activity

2.4.2 Recommended Research

The data and knowledge assessments contained in the four problem-area reports
and elsewhere were integrated in a State -of-the -Art report [ 55] into an eight-category
generic framework closely correlated with research disciplines. The report is
documented with 377 selected citations of the most relevant current literature.

The inadequacies in data and knowledge identified in earlier reports were
organized into an applied, problem -oriented marine research program for Long Island
[56]. The program recommends 77 projects divided into priority-rated quartiles and
is expected to have a price tag of about $25 million in 1971 dollars. However, costs
can be significantly reduced by drawing upon the findings of relevant research outside
of Long Island (technology transfer) and by emphasizing projects with the highest
priorities and benefit/cost ratios. The report includes, for each of the 77 projects, a
set of descriptors such as:

0 Short title and number
9 Classification by generic group
0 Degree of relationship to marine environment
* Adequacy of supplementary data and information base
* Feeder relationship to other projects
* Probable degree of public interest
0 Current status (whether underway)

e Value of results for problem-solving
e Probable level of effort
9 Benefit/cost ratio
9 Breadth of applicability of results
& Potential sponsors
e Key references where project is discussed in detail, and
* Relative priorities.
Table 2 is an extract from the research program report providing an overview of
the diversity and characterization of individual projects in the program. The briefings
by CEM on April 17, 1972, covered highlights of both the "State-of-the-Art of Research"
related to Long Island problems and "Recommended Research."
TABLE 2
PRIORITY-RATED RESEARCH PROJECTS'k PROPOSED IN LONG ISLAND PROGRAM

0
Project Title 0 Project Title
0 Z -
0
0 a-

101. Water usage data C C 601. Contaminant effects in bays B B-
102. Wastewater inventory B B 602. Salinity effects in bays A A+
103. Unit cost data A A+ 603. Toxic effects in the food chain C C
104. Ocean dumping data C C 604. Contaminant effects of ocean outfalls A A+
105. Survey of sports fish catch D D 605. Contaminant effects of ocean dumping C C
106. Beach attendance dat3 C C 606. Contaminant effects of oil spills D D
107. Coastal use survey A A 607. Effects of potholes D D
108. Man-induced surface changes B B 608. Effects of inlets on biological exchange C C
109. Inventory of land use regulations C C 609. Eelgrass control D D
110. Inventory of major development plans C C 610. Ecology-productivity analysis of wetlands C C
111. Usage of dredged spoil areas C C 701. General usage impacts B B+
201. Monitoring groundwater levels B B 702. Fish diversity and density C C
202. Onshore geological information D D 703. Feasibility of opening shellfish areas C C
203. Offshore geological inforTnation A A 704. Feasibility of requiring depuration 8 a-
204. Offshore sand inventory A A- 705. Impact of groundwater level changes A A
205. Wetlands classification and inventory A I A+ 706. Limit to cesspool sites
206. Water quality data bank C C 707. Extent of beach closures C C
708. Understanding wetland values B B
207. Coastal water quality monitoring system A A+
208. Monitoring groundwater quality B B 801. Surface hydrological accretion model 8 5
209. Monitoring possible land subsidence D D 802. Subsurface hydrological model A A-
401. Future travel times C C 803. Groundwater quality models B B
402. Future public values C C 804. Water quality models in bays A A-
403. Offshore petroleum B B+ 805. Water quality models in the ocean D D
404. Future industrial water requirements D D 806. ictive inlet models A A
405. Future coastal usage A A 8e7 Feasibility of importing water A A+
Pred
406. Information on water quality violations B B 808. Feasibility of desalination 0 0
407. Adequacy of coliform standards B B 809. Feasibility of iron removal D D
408. Adequacy of bacterial pollution indices D D 810. Feasibility of leakage control D 0
409. Adequacy of thermal discharge criteria C C 811. Feasibility of evaporation control C C
410. Improving water transport system design B B 81Z. Feasibility of sewer infiltration control C C
501. Evapotranspiration processes B B 813. Feasibility of AWT B A-
502. Infiltration processes B B 814. Feasibility of packaged treatment plants D D
503. Movement of contaminants in groundwater B B 815. Feasibility of recharge by injection C C
504. Movement of contaminants in bays C C 816. Feasibility of recharge by spray irrigation B B
505. Movement of contaminants in the ocean D D 817. Feasibility of recharge through storTn basins 8 B
506. Salinity changes in bays D D 818. Feasibility of stream recharge A A+
819. Feasibility of dir. recycling of AWT effluent 0 D
820. Value judgments on water systems +
821. Fea ibility of land use management techniques B B
822. Screening of dredging applications A A
823. Wetlands management A A
@6
0
6'2
603
604
605

606
6(17'

The projects and project numbers are explained in detail in Ref.56,"A Proposed Problem-Oriented Marine Research Program for Long Island.-,

LEGEND
Value of Result,.FA - Highest; B = Relatively High; C = Relatively Low; D = Lowest.
Priority:, A = Top Quartile; D - Bottom Quartile, among 01 high-priority projects.

2.4.3 Guidelines

A briefing on the CEM guidelines covering the four high-priority problem areas
was given to the Council on May 1, 1972. The briefing stressed that the guidelines
section of each of the subject area reports was reworked by CEM/Committee inter-
action to produce a succinct, integrated guideline draft report. By deliberate choice,
much of the reasoning and analyses which are found in the supporting reports were not
repeated in the guidelines draft report. For each of the four high-priority problem
areas, a set of guidelines pertaining to policy and planning, research needed, and recom-
mended Council action was outlined. Summary versions of the CEM guidelines pre-
sented in the briefings are given in Table 3. It is emphasized that the CEM guidelines
preceded and are distinct and separate from the Council's own guidelines, which have
been formulated and are now under review by the Board (see Section 3.5).

TABLE 3
HIGHLIGHTS OF CEM GUIDELINES FOR
FOUR HIGH-PRIORITY PROBLEM AREAS

Water Supply and Wastewater Guidelini Dredging Guidelines

Policy and Planning Polf cy -and Planning

e Groundwater Quality * Classification System
e Groundwater Use 9 "Major" Project Definition
* Complete Recycling * Environmental Impact Statements
* Inland Sewering * Physical, Chemical, Biological Descriptions
9 Ocean Outfalls 9 Monitoring Provisions
* Embayment Outfalls 9 Dredging Spoil Deposits
9 Development Sewering * County and Municipal Projects
Research and Analysis Research and Analysis

Groundwater Recharge * Spoil Disposal Alternatives
Outside Water Supply a Predictive Models

Council Activity Council Responsibility and Activity

9 Decision Framework e "Major" Applications
9 Progress Reports

Wetlands Guidelines Coast Stabilization and Protection

Policy and Planning Policy and Planning

Three-Stage Program 9 North Shoreline Regression
1 - Two-Year Moratorium * North Shore Beaches and Navigation Channels
2 - Wetlands Acquisition * South Shore Beaches and Dunes
3 - Regional Land-Use e South Shore Inlets
e South Shore Barrier Beaches and Estuaries
Research and Analysis * Eastern Forks
e Wetlands Classification Research and Analysis
e Inventory e Offshore Sand Inventory
Council Responsibility and Activity 9 Inlet Development and Stabilization
Wetlands Planning * Models
Management Plan Design
Meetings and Hearings

2.5 Interactions with Council Guidelines Committees
An important part of CEM's technology transfer assistance activity was providing
technical assistance to the four Committees appointed by the Chairman of the Council
(see Section 3.2 for the Council's Committee activities) to draft Council guidelines.
This activity was, by direction, at a restrained level. CEM was available on call
either to clarify or explain the findings or recommendations contained in its reports
[45 through 58). Examples of this type of interaction, as well as others, are cited
below.
On January 3, 1972, CEM participated in a public hearing organized by EPA,
Region H Office, on the environmental impact of wastewater treatment facilities con-
structions grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York; the Council submitted
a statement on the draft prepared by EPA.
On August 16, 1972, upon invitation, CEM attended a meeting of the Dredging
Committee at Point Lookout, New York. CEM personnel had brief discussions with the
other Committees at several Council meetings. There were many phone discussions and
letters. This informal process was an effective means for incorporating CEM assistance
into the independent reviews conducted by the Committees themselves.

At the meeting of August 21, Mr. A. Taon nina and Mr. J. L. Renkevinsky of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation discussed CEM's suggested
guidelines on wetlands. On that date, members of the Coast Stabilization Committee
received a guided tour of part of Fire Island, New York, sponsored by the Davis Park
Fire Company and the Fire Island National Sea Shore of the National Park Service.

On September 15, the Council, in cooperation with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration held a seminar on Wetlands Management (see Section 3.5.2
and Appendix D); CEM participated in the discussions.

On February 15, 1973, the Council, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, held a seminar on dredging and coastal stabilization problem areas; CEM
members participated in the discussions. CEM members were also present at the
October 30 and November 13, 1972,wastewater guidelines review sessions organized
for the Council by the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control.
At the direction of the chairman, CEM staff reviewed the draft guidelines docu-
ment prepared by the Council and added supporting material by way of references
and footnotes. Thereby, important statements are keyed to earlier CEM reports
wherever applicable.

2.6 Research Needs Transfer

The objectives of this effort were the following.
1. Employ the Council's research program and guidelines
adopted in Task 1 to guide the formulation of responsive
applied research programs by cooperative research
institutions.
2. Increase the Council's awareness of the on-going research
on Long Island and elsewhere which is related to the Council's
research needs.

Because the adoption of the Council's guidelines and research program was a
thorough and deliberate process (as explained in Section 3) nearing completion, and
the research needs transfer effort could not be postponed until the process was
completed, CEM initiated the technology transfer with the presentations made to the
Council in the spring of 1972 (see Section 2.4). Being public presentations, members
of the research community (both academic and governmental) were present in the
audience and participated in the discussion sessions. Thereby, a dialogue on respon-
sive, problem-oriented applied research was established and continues to the present,
between the Council and the research community in Long Island.

2.6.1 Research Reports Distribution

The awareness of the governmental and academic research community in Long
Island and elsewhere to the research needs was enhanced by selective news releases.
In October 1972, NOAA's "Sea Grant 701s,11 a newsletter carrying information on Sea
Grant program activities across the country, published a feature article [60] on the
Council's program. The reports prepared by CEM and others for the Council were
listed in this feature and in a subsequent newsletter (November 1972). The publicity
has resulted in over 170 requests to date for one or more reports, including the
research program. CEM printed a total of mote than 700 copies of their reports and
the Council printed a total of 2,800 copies of the seven reports listed below.

Report Title No. of Copies

Dredging on Long Island 300

Coast Stabilization and Protection on Long Island 300
Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal 600
on Long Island

Wetlands on Long Island 500*

State of the Art for Selected Marine Resources 300
Problems on Long Island

A Proposed, Problem -Oriented Marine Research 500
Program for Long Island
The Design of a Management Information System 300
for Coastal Resources Planning

*Note that the Council also printed 1,500 copies of "The
Marine Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York,"
prepared by SUNY, Stony Brook, bringing the number of
copies printed of reports on wetlands to a total of more than
2,000.

2.6.2 Research Seminars

In order to encourage study of the research program and further its implemen-
tation, CEM staff conducted seminars on the proposed research programs in Long
Island according to the schedule shown below.

Date Location CEM Staff Audience
Participating

Institute of Marine Science Dr. H. Brenowitz)
November Adelphi University W.V. McGuinness, Jr. Director; 4 staff
21, 1972 Idle Hour Boulevard R. Pitchai members; 20 students
Oakdale, New York 11769

Marine Sciences Research Mr. Fred Roberts,
1972 Center, State University W.V. McGuinness, Jr. Assoc. Director; approx.
of New York, at Stony R. Pitchai 30 public officials,
Brook, New York faculty and students

At these seminars, an overview of the methodology used to derive and structure
the program was given, followed by a brief outline of the contents of the program.
Approximately half the sessions were devoted to audience participation by way of
interaction with CEM staff. Keen interest was evidenced on the methodology employed
to assign priority to individual projects. CEM also learned that the problem-area
reports [51-541 are being used as references in Marine Science courses in Long
Island (for example, in a course on marine and marine-related problems at the Stony
Brook campus of the State University of New York).* During several presentations to
the Council by the ac ademic/re search institutions in Long Island, the awareness of
and responsiveness to needed research by the academic community has become evi-
dent.

Research on the high-priority marine and marine-related problems, presently
underway and being planned by governmental agencies, was presented in seminars
organized by the Council, where personnel from the appropriate agencies participated.
The schedule of such public seminars and their contents are covered in some detail
in Section 3 (Guidelines Adoption Process).

2.7 Technology Transfer Report
The presentations made by CEM, interactions with the committees of the Council,
discussions with faculty and students at academic institutions, technical assistance
to the Council in formulating their guidelines and research program, and writing this
report have been important parts of the technology transfer effort. Based on these,
the Council and other interested parties have an opportunity to reflect on the program's
accomplishments, its effectiveness, and the scope of future efforts. Within a broad

*Personal communication.

definition of technology transfer as the establishment of a rapport between people
who need answers to solve their problems and people who can produce such answers,
the accomplishments of the Council and their staff are open for all to see. The
Council's Guidelines and research program have been formulated and submitted to the
Board. The Council is a sub-element of the Regional Planning Board and, as such,
its effectiveness in planning is reflected in its responsiveness to the needs of the
Comprehensive Plan for the bi-county region. Further efforts at critically evaluating
the coastal dimensions of the master plan for the region are continuing.

3.0 GUIDELINES ADOPTION PROCESS
The purpose of this section is to review briefly the process by which the Council
formulated and adopted its guidelines relative to the four high-priority marine pro-
blems in Long Island. The Council views their guidelines as a distinctive contribu-
tion to marine resources planners and decision makers in Long Island and elsewhere,
because the guidelines have been derived over the past three years from problem
analysis, state-of-the-art review, and research needs identification. The Council
created a deliberate process of public review and interaction before the guidelines
could be adopted and submitted for consideration by the Regional Planning Board.
The activities undertaken for public review and interaction are described below.

3.1 CEM Presentations
I The guidelines adoption process began with CEM presentations of its recommended
research program and guidelines, together with the four high-priority problem area
reports. The presentations took place in the spring of 1972, as explained above in
Section 2.4. They were open to the public and were well attended. Prior distribution
of CEM reports insured an active participation by the Council and members of the
audience, and set the stage for the following activities.

3.2 Council Committee Activities

Prior to the presentations, the Chairman of the Council, RAdm. E. C. Stephan,
announced that he would be forming committees of Council members to review each
problem area report, evaluate CEM-suggested guidelines, and formulate draft guide-
lines for consideration by the full Council. The Council members, accordingly, were
well prepared to discuss with CEM staff their problem areas of interest during and
after the presentations.

3.2.1 Formation of Committees

At the start of the third briefing (April 17, 1972), RAdm. Stephan announced the
four Council Committees for guidelines with the following as chairmen.

Council Committee Chairman

Leo Geyer, Deputy Director
Committee on Integrated Water Supply Ocean Systems Dept.
and Wastewater Disposal (Short title: Plant 30
Wastewater Committee) Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Committee on Coast Stabilization and Bethpage, New York
Protection (Short title: Coast Stabiliza- Matthew M. Klein
tion Committee) Hauppauge, New York
Committee on Dredging & Spoil Dis- Harold F. Udell, Commissioner
posal (Short title: Dredging Committee) Dept. of Conservation & Waterways
Town of Hempstead

Edward D. Patterson, Director
Committee on Wetlands Management Nassau County Museum of Natural
(Short title: Wetlands Committee) History *
Glen Cove, New York

Each Committee comprised seven to nine voting and advisory members. A few
appointees, at their own request, were reassigned to Committees of their choice. In
general, the Committee assignments reflected the principal areas of expertise and
interest of the appointees.

An alternative approach to Committee assignments would have been to mix the
appoiniznents so that each Committee was composed of (1) a few with considerable
experience in the subject area, (2) a few with high personal interest but little
experience, and (3) a few with little experience or interest or even some disagree-
ment with the prevailing mood (i.e., want to fill in wetlands, do more dredging, stop
all shore protection efforts, or de-emphasize water quality).
The choice of method reduces to deciding whether to make maximum use of
existing knowledge and dedicated interests of unpaid public-spirited members or to
forfeit some of these advantages in order to attempt to obtain broader objectivity.
In this case, the first choice, the more pragmatic of the two, was made.
For a list of all Council Guidelines Committee members and their affiliations,
see Appendix C.

3.2.2 Instructions to the Committees

From the minutes of the Council meeting of April 17, 1972, the following extract
is furnished:

"The mission of each Committee will be to:

1. assess the state-of-the-art for its study area;
2. develop guidelines relating to its study area; and
3. recommend research designed to fill in the major knowledge
gaps of each of the study areas."
From the minutes of the Council meeting of May 15, 1972, extracted below, the
wide scope of the Committee efforts becomes evident:

"Admiral Stephen described the tasks, needs, goals and responsibilities
of the special Committees in developing their guidelines.
"By way of questions from individual MRC members, various points
were clarified:

1. The final guidelines will cover all activities relating to the
subject area and will not be limited to research recommenda-
tions, but rather will include action and planning aspects as
well;
2. Individual Committees may hold unofficial mini-hearings,
seek outside advice or do anything which will further their
quest for information;
3. At present there will be no set format regarding guidelines
presentation, etc. This aspect will be dealt with after some
feedback has been reviewed by the staff.

ItSince some members placed on one Committee may have expertise
useful to anotherCommittee, it was decided that a directory listing
the name, position, telephone numbers (home included, if possible)
and a brief description of the field of expertise of each member
should be prepared."
At the meeting of July 10, 1972, September 25 was set as the deadline for the sub-
mission of the first drafts of the Committee reports.

3.2.3 Committee Reviews

The Council Committee reviews began at the meeting following the appointment
of Committees. At that time (May 1, 1972), the members present seated themselves
in proximity to the chairmen of their assigned study areas. This arrangement allowed
for the input of some combined Committee impact during the discussion following
CEMI s presentation of its recommended guidelines for each of the four problem areas.
The desirable extent of CEM's interactions with the Committees was weighed
by the Council Chairman. He observed that CEM had presented its reports and
recommendations and now it was time for the Committees to develop their own con-
clusions. Although CEM could certainly help the Committees, he felt that the merits
of essentially completely independent Committee review warranted a restrained
level of CEM participation at this stage. Accordingly, the Chairman announced that
after the Committees had become established and discussed the guidelines, CEM would
be available to clarify or explain its findings. All of the Committees followed this
guidance.

Parts or all of the Council meetings of July 10, August 7 and 21, and September
11 and 25 wem devoted to the Council Committee reviews. The various Committees
also met at other times on their own. Some of the presentations made to Committees
by academic and govermnental scientists, and field visits undertaken by the Com-
mittees have been cited earlier in Section 2.5. By and large, the entire review of
CEM's suggested guidelines and the formulation of new draft guidelines, inclusive of
recommended research, was made independently by the Committees.

3.2.4 Committee Reports
At the meeting of September 25, the Chairmen of the Coast Stabilization, Dredg-
ing, and Wetlands Committees presented their first draft reports and distributed a
copy to each Council member present, Copies were mailed to all members who were
unable to attend this meeting. The deliberations of the Committee on Integrated
Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal were delayed for a further assessment of the
state-of-the-art on coastal water quality modeling and advanced wastewater treatment
with a view to assessing the potential impact of wastewater disposal on coastal and
groundwaters. Presentations on these topics were made to the entire Council in the
seminars organized by the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control on
October 30 and November 13, 1972. Further details of these presentations are given
in the following section.

3.3 Council Action on Committee Reports
At the meeting of September 25, after the Committees had presented their draft
reports and/or comments, the Council Chairman requested the views of those present
on how the guidelines should be presented. He pointed out that there are two extremes
on this matter: (1) that the guidelines should reflect the idealistic viewpoint of what
is best for the natural environment, and (2) that the guidelines should take into con-
sideration current social, economic and political factors for a more realistic approach.
Most of the responses indicated that a compromise of the two extremes was probably
the best approach to take. Admiral Stephan said that the Council staff would work to
consolidate the draft reports and prepare an executive statement. Both would be pre-
sented to the Council for discussion. At the request of Mr. Matthew Klein, it was
decided that the final guidelines statement would receive the vote and comment of all
Council Members.

Staff action In October 1972, the Council staff outlined the Council Guidelines
Report. It was to consist of three parts: (1) the discussion (the main report with
guidelines attached), (2) the enclosures, and (3) the references. The letter of trans-
mittal and the introductory material for Part 1 were drafted.
These drafts were discussed with Council members at the regular meeting of
October 16 and several changes were made in both documents as a result of construc-
tive comments.

Following the January 8, 1973,meeting, the Council chairman integrated the CEM
water supply/wastewater guidelines with those suggested by Commissioner Flynn of
the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control.

Working with the staff, CEM prepared worksheets to compare the substantive
points in the CEM guidelines with parallel or differing points in the draft guidelines
given in the Committee reports. CEM also prepared for consideration by the staff
a working draft of one of the guidelines to serve as a model for format, style, and
degree of documentation and detail.

3.4 Responses from Public and Private Agencies

The Chairman mailed copies of the Committee reports and CEM's reports to
the major local, state and Federal agencies and requested review and comment.
Responses were received from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department
of the Interior, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the Suffolk County Department of Environ-
mental Control and scientists at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. A
suggested set of guidelines for wastewater was presented by the Suffolk County Depart-
ment of Environmental Control on November 13, 1972, and revised on November 27,
1972. Copies of these responses were provided to each Council member on November
24. Council members wishing to submit written comments or make oral presentations
were invited to do so at the Council meetings of December 4 and 18, 1972.

3.5 Subsequent Council Meetings on Guidelines and Research

3.5.1 Introduction

This section reviews the activities in the Council meetings from the submission
of draft guidelines to the Council by the Committees, until the Council's Guidelines
were finally transmitted to the Regional Planning Board. This review highlights the
thoroughness with which the Council and its Committees exposed themselves to views
from the general public, private citizens, and agencies in order to insure that the
final guidelines document became a significant workable contribution to the planners
and decision makers in Long Island. It also provides an illustration of the technology
transfer inherent in such meetings.

3.5.2 Presentation by NOAA on Wetlands Management
On September 15, 1972, a seminar was sponsored by the Council at which scien-
tists from Federal, state, and local agencies and academic institutions presented
their points of view in briefings @to the Council on the state-of-the-art, research needs,
and guidelines for wetlands planning and management. Topics discussed at the
seminar and the list of speakers are given in Appendix D. Council members par-
ticipated fully in the discussion sessions which followed the presentation.

3.5.3 Presentation by Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control

The views of Nassau and Suffolk Counties on design, construction and study of
outfall sewers, wastewater treatment and the implications of sewers on water resources
development were presented to the Council in two seminars organized by the Suffolk
County Department of Environmental Control. These presentations took place at the
Council meetings held on October 30 and November 13, 1972, at the County Auditorium
at Hauppauge.

Commissioner John Flynn of Suffolk County opened the seminars by discussing
the current engineering studies of the Suffolk County Department of Environmental
Control, especially the ocean outfall design for the Southwest Sewer District of Suffolk.
Two of the consultants to the department discussed their special areas of interest in
greater detail. Dr. Donald J. O'Connor of Manhattan College (and formerly of Hydro-
science, Inc., Westwood, New Jersey) presented the water quality modeling studies
conducted in connection with the location of the outfall sewer and concluded that
effluent discharge three miles off the Fire Island coast would not damage the marine
environment within acceptable standards. Dr. Edward Baylor of the Marine Sciences
Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, and a Council member,
discussed studies undertaken to determine the potential effects of the southwest sewer
district ocean outfall on marine life.

Speakers at the November 13th meeting included two other consultants to the
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control. Mr. Wallace Beckman, profes-
sional engineer of Consoer, Townsend and Associates, discussed the state-of-the-art
and role of AWT techniques, and Mr. Robert Holzmacher, professional engineer of
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, described recharge feasibility studies of Suffolk
County. At the end, Commissioner Flynn summarized the contents of the presentations
and orally presented a list of water supply/wastewater treatment guidelines to the
Council. Copies of these guidelines were subsequently provided for consideration by
the Council.

3.5.4 Presentation of New York State Sea Grant Program
On January 8, 1973, Dr. Donald F. Squires, Director of the New York State Sea
Grant Program, and staff members of the State University of New York at Stony Brook,
Marine Sciences Research Center (MSRC), and SUNY, Binghamton,made presentations
to the Council on marine research relevant to the high-priority problems of Nassau-
Suffolk Counties. The goals of the New York State Sea Grant Program were stated as
the conservation, management, exploitation, and improvement of the marine resources
of the state. Dr. J. L. McHugh of MSRC summarized the results of his historical
survey of the marine fisheries of New York State. Dr. Orville Terry of MSRC dis-
cussed his wetlands restoration, alteration, and creation (with disposal) studies.
Dr. Donald Coates of SUNY at Binghamton described several projects constituting a
long-range study of the geomorphology of Fire Island. Dr. Donald Squires discussed
the organization of the Sea Grant Program and its interest in formulating research
priorities and program goals on a yearly basis.
There are other on-going.studies. at MSRC of potential interest to the Council;
some of these are the continuing program on coastal water quality monitoring, model
studies for management of the Long Island Sound resources, development of new
indices for coastal water quality, and interchange studies between sediments and water
in the New York Bight.

3.5.5 Council Considerations of Draft Guidelines

As 1972 ended, the Council staff, under the leadership of RAdm. Stephan, drafted
the revised version of the letter of transmittal and the guidelines document. These were
considered at Council meetings early in 1973. The review by the public agencies, and
comments and suggestions offered at the various presentations were useful in prepar-
ing the revised material which was ready for consideration and voting by the entire
Council.

In the meetings of January 22 and February 5, 1973, the Council reviewed and
voted on the letter of transmittal and the Council Guidelines report. The draft guide-
lines for wetlands, dredging, and coastal stabilization were reviewed, modified, and
approved by the Council at the January 22 meeting. A subcommittee on water supply/
wastewater further revised these guidelines. On February 5, 1973, the final draft of
the water supply/wastewater guidelines was reviewed and approved by the Council.

3.5.6 Presentations by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On February 15, 1973, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the invitation of
the Council, made a presentation on the state-of-the-art, current research and research
needs related to the high-priority problem areas of
a dredging and dredged spoils disposal, and
9 coastal stabilization and beach protection.

The presentation covered engineering as well as other measures. It included speakers
from the New York District Office who discussed the dredging and coastal stabilization
problems and control measures as they are directly applicable to Long Island. A com-
plete list of speakers and topics is contained in Appendix D.

3.5.7 CEM Review Assistance
At the direction of RAdm. Stephan, CEM staff reviewed the final draft of the
Council Guidelines with a view to adding relevant supporting information, as follows.
* Footnotes were added, keying significant statements,
especially recommendations, to relevant passages in
earlier CEM reports,

9 References to earlier CEM reports and certain other
supporting publications were cited at appropriate places,
and a list of references was added.

3.5.8 Submission of Council Guidelines to the Board

At the time of publication of this report, the Council's Guidelines have been
reviewed by all voting members of the Council, and submitted to the Regional Planning
Board for:
* Review by the Board members and their agencies/organ-
izations;

9 Modification, as mutually deeme d appropriate by the
Board and Council;

0 Endorsement by the Board; and
* Dissemination to interested and/or affected townships,
agencies, organization and citizens.

It is anticipated that these guidelines will continue to evolve, as experience is
gained in their application and new knowledge is acquired in these marine resource
areas. Also, it is expected that the Council will next turn its attention to other areas
of concern, such as the remaining ten of the fourteen marine resource problems
defined by CEM in 1969-70 [46]. Other problem areas-brought to the attention of
the Council by agencies, towns, communities, interest groups, and citizens-will also
be given consideration. The experience of the Council will be brought to bear on
these problems,thus continuing and improving the process of:

* Delineating problem areas;
e Identifying the state-of-the-art and knowledge gaps;
9 Recommending data collection and research programs; and
* Preparing and coordinating policy and action guidelines.
Throughout this continuing process, it is expected that the aspects of technology
transfer described herein will be employed, with evolutionary improvements made, to
accommodate the special characteristics of each problem.

4.0 UNIQUENESS OF THE COUNCIL GUIDELINES

4.1 Purpose of the Section
Multiple use of the coastal zone and conflicts arising therefrom are common to
most shoreline communities in the U.S. today. With forecasts of increasing popula-
tion concentrations in the coastal region, the environmental stresses already present
will worsen. The planner will be forced to make increasingly difficult choices among
alternatives; in such a context, the development of guidelines for marine resources
planning and policy assumes enormous significance. The Council and its parent body,
the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board have, accordingly, arrived at their Long
Island Guidelines by a deliberate process of high-priority problem identification,
analysis, evaluation of the state-of-the-art, delineation of needed research formulation
of draft guidelines, subjecting them to critical review, and eventual endorsement of
resulting guidelines. Since the problems are not uncommon in other coastal areas, it
is of interest to determine the degree of correspondence with other area guidelines,
if any. Also, the Council Guidelines have gone through a process of review and evalua-
tion during which necessary and desirable modifications to the CEM-suggested guide-
lines have resulted. It is of some value to other resource planners to describe in
summary form the scope and emphasis of suchmodifications, since they reflect the
awareness of the community and bring out the value judgments of Long Island residents
represented by the Council members. In effect, the purpose of this section is to
examine the Council Guidelines in the light of other guidelines formulated for similar
problems and/or similar situations.

4.2 Comparison of Final Council Guidelines with CEM Recommended Guidelines*
It is emphasized that, by and large, there is considerable correspondence between
the Council Guidelines and those suggested by CEM as a result of their problem analysis
and evaluation of the state-of-the-art. Here, the objective is to bring out, in summary
form, significant differences, in style and substance. A problem -by-problem discus-
sion follows.

4.2.1 Wetlands Management

The wetlands management guidelines of the Council integrates the priority
research requirements with guidelines on policy and Council responsibility and activ-
ities. In addition to the classification and inventory of wetlands suggested by CEM,
the priority research needs stress identification of wetlands values and management
techniques, the development of a uniform use code, and a comprehensive wetlands
management plan, as well as restoring wetlands. The policy guidelines of the Council
expressly identify alternative means by which public ownership of remaining wetlands
can be fostered, with a view to their preservation. The Council Guidelines also recom-
mend establishment of uniform regulation for the use of individual tracts of wetlands,
both private and public. As part of these regulations, environmental impact statements
would be required for encroachment type activities on wetlands. The Council sees its
role as a land-use advisory body to assist local governments in wetlands management
and research.

*Publication of this report has occurred prior to the Regional Planning Board's
endorsement of the Council Guidelines. Therefore, only the general context of the
guidelines is discussed in this section.

4.2.2 Coastal Stabilization and Protection
The Council' s policy and planning guidelines on coastal stabilization and protec-
tion distinguish between (1) guidelines for the reduction of losses related to shore
erosion, and (2) guidelines for shoreline maintenance and erosion control.
Land use management concepts and other legal tools, such as flood plain zoning
and bluff hazard zoning, are specified for reducing losses related to shore erosion.
On primary dune lines associated with barrier beaches and bayniouth bars, construc.
tion is to be prohibited. All CEM-suggested guidelines are included in the more
extensive Council Guidelines. Additionally, the Council would discourage the expendi-
ture of public funds for shore protection on private lands without stipulation for public

access.

The Council's research and analysis guidelines emphasize the need to critically
evaluate the practice of constructing shore protection works. They recommend obtain-
ing Federal funding for research on economical sand transfer techniques from deep
waters to the shore, innovative -fixed shore structures, and the dynamics of natural
shore areas including wetland fringes. Under recommended local research, the
Council Guidelines identify offshore sand inventory, sand transport in the littoral
drift, sand bypassing systems at Shinnecock and Moriches inlets, and effects of sand
mining on adjacent beaches. The description more specifically identifies, therefore,
the details of the CEM guideline suggesting an inventorying of offshore sand deposits
in sufficient detail to assess "the feasibility of using these sands to maintain and
enhance major Long Island beaches." The Council Guidelines also recommend (1) a
flood plain mapping project for Suffolk, and (2) the creation of an erosion control
research team to study the legal, economic and political aspects of such programs.

4.2.3 Integrated Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal
The Council's research and analysis guidelines on groundwater/wastewater identify,
in depth, ten topics for which research needs to be initiated,and fourteen topics for
which research needs to be continued and expedited. Two comprehensive overall
research programs (with several common elements) have been suggested in CEM guide-
lines. The Council Guidelines give greater emphasis to research on aspects of marine
disposal of wastewaters; CEMI s suggested research priority was on groundwater
recharge. Advanced wastewater treatment research is stressed in both Council and
CEM guidelines.
Both the Council Guidelines and CEM-suggested guidelines on groundwater/waste-
water policy and planning have recommended programs of installation of sewage
collection, treatment, and disposal systems, including ocean outfalls. However, CEM-
suggested guidelines advocated (1) the use of groundwater as the continuing source of
water supply for the region insofar as it can be used without degrading this source, and
(2) the complete recycling of wastewater in the region by AWT-groundwater recharge.
The Council Guidelines reflect an awareness of such an approach being a Long Island-
unique goal, and also an awareness of the question connected with its feasibility. One
of the Council Guidelines, therefore, states, "While continuing ocean disposal projects,

treatment of wastewaters should be of acceptable quality for ocean dumping but it
must be recognized that this system lowers groundwater levels." CEM-suggested
guidelines advocate prohibiting new sewer outfalls in embayments and Long Island
Sound and phasing out existing outfalls in these areas as it becomes feasible; such
site-specific criteria are not included in the Council Guidelines. The Council
Guidelines specifically permit access over wetland areas where necessary for
efficient and economic installation of important wastewater equipment.

4.2.4 Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal
A succinct comparison of the Council Guidelines and those suggested by CEM
for dredging and spoil disposal is rendered complicated by the diversity of style,
format and substance. A really fruitful comparison can only be achieved and differences
perceived by the reader by references to the appropriate sections of the two documents.
However, a list of some significant points includes:
� For the sake of brevity, CEM-suggested guidelines did not
include any introductory material. For the same reason, no
definitions or appendices were included. The Council Guide-
lines include both introductory material and supporting
appendices.
� CEM-suggested guidelines recommended classifying dredg-
ing applications with a view to concentrating attention on
Itmajor" applications. The Council's Guidelines recommend
considering each proposal on its own merits.

9 The Council's Guidelines describe in detail the motivation
and need aspects of applications, the criteria to be considered
in evaluating projects, and the procedure for processing the
applications. CEM-suggested guidelines did not include these,
although these topics are developed in the CEM report,
"Dredging on Long Island" [ 531.

4.3 Other Coastal Management Guidelines

In an effort to ascertain the current status of policy and planning guidelines for
management of high-priority problems in the coastal zone, a literature review was
made and persons knowledgeable in the area were contacted. No guidelines seem to
exist which are equivalent to those CEM developed for the Marine Resources Council
of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. What does exist are either ambiguous
general statements, such as "to enhance the ecology of the shoreline" or "to prevent
further deterioration of the shoreline," most often in the preamble to legislation. Or,
guidelines are in the form of very explicit statements providing criteria for the
issuance of licenses, usually in the body of the legislative act. In some cases, guide-
lines for segments of the shoreline, with very limited objectives, have been issued
(such as the Wetlands Guidelines of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protec-
tion), usually by state agencies. (Florida and Michigan have general shoreline manage-
ment guidelines in draft form.) To CEM's knowledge, as of this writing, the methodology
employed in arriving at the Council's Long Island Guidelines, and the specific guidelines
for the high priority problem areas of Long Island are unique to the work performed for
the Council.

However, several states and Federal agencies have been concerned with the
question of comprehensive planning in the coastal zone and in the formulation of
guidelines for coastal resources management. In order to indicate the breadth
of this concern, a short summary of the status of the efforts from a selected set of
agencies is given below. (It is stressed that the list is just a sample and is by no
means exhaustive.)

1. California The state has a Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan.
It has just established six regional and one state-
level Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions.
The first task of the new commissions will be to
develop comprehensive management guidelines [ 61].
2. Connecticut The state recently issued Inland and Coastal Wet-
lands Guidelines. Funding from Federal sources
is awaited to develop additional plans and guidelines [ 61).
3. Delaware The state has a recent Coastal Zone Management law
covering manufacturing firms only. It requires that
a comprehensive plan and guidelines be developed [61].
4. U.S. Dept. of The Department does not have "management guide-
the Interior lines," but has a variety of regulations. The Bureau
of Land Management will shortly issue some instruc-
tions for compliance with NEPA (environmental
impact statements) requirements.
5. United States The Agency has issued water quality criteria and
Environmental approves the Water Quality Standards of the states.
Protection General shoreline management is not EPA's mission;
Agency it does not appear that EPA will issue any shoreline
guidelines. The existing Water Quality Standards
implicitly place certain limitations on shoreline
construction and use.

6. Florida The state has its fourth draft of state guidelines in
review by its government agencies and expects
further revision before public hearings [ 62] .
7. Michigan The state has a management plan including guide-
lines. It has held public hearings and the most
recent revision is expected to be published in
1973 [ 62) .
8. NOAA The Coastal Zone Management Act is being admin-
istered through NOAA. It has developed guidelines
for states in seeking funds for coastal zone planning.
The Act is very state-oriented. The timing of -
issuance of comprehensive guidelines is uncertain,
because of the present Federal budget situation.

9. Virginia and The states are involved with the Chesapeake Bay
Maryland Consortium and look to it for coastal zone manage-
ment guidelines [ 62] .
The summary above is a result of limited telephone and personal contact with
selected officials and scientists in the respective agencies [621. Its main objective,
as explained above, is to indicate a sample of on-going efforts in this important area
of national concern.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDI X A
I REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A-1

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD PUBLICATIONS

1966

1. Republic Airfield
2. Special Report-Proposed Bayville Rye Bridge

1967

3. North Shore Transportation Corridor
4. Proposed Bayville-Rye Bridge-A Special Report-Summary
5. Residential Market Analysis, Volume 1
6. Suffolk County Inventory of Existing Bus Systems
7. The Economy of Long Island -Employment and Economic Trends
8. The Economy of Long Island-Employment and Income Trends-Appendix

1968

9. A look Ahead at Long Island Employment
10. Existing Land Use
11. Housing-Better Homes for Better Communities
12. Inventory of Public Lands and Facilities
13. Projected Employment and Occupational Mix
14. Residential Market Analysis, Volume 2
15. Sales Tax Study

1969

16. Population
17. Soil Interpretations -Inventory and Analysis
18. Utilities -Inventory and Analysis

1970

19. Comprehensive Development Plan-Summary
20. Transportation Plan
21. Zoning-Inventory and Analysis
22. Housing Code Enforcement

1971

23. The Long Island Economy-Anatomy of Change
24. On Planning and its Uses in Government
25. Nassau County Comprehensive Plan
26. U.S. Census' 70, Volume One-Number of Inhabitants

A-2

1972

27. U.S. Census 170, Volume Two-Color and Race
28. U.S. Census '70, Volume Three-Age
29. U.S. Census 170 Volume Four-Housing
30. U.S. Census 170, Volume Five-School District Population

NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PIANNING BOARD (OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMITTEE
PUBLICATION

31. Oceanographic Committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board,
"The Status and Potential of the Marine Environment," Hauppauge, New York:
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, December 1966.

REGIONAL MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS

32. Regional Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, "Proceedings of the Conference on Shellfish Culture," Hauppauge, New
York: Regional Marine Resources Council, 1971.

33. Regional Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, "Proceedings of the Seminar on Advanced Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal," Hauppauge, New York: Regional Marine Resources Council

34. Regional Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, "Proceedings of the Wetlands Management Seminar," Hauppauge, New
York: Regional Marine Resources Council (in press).
35. Regional Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, "Guidelines for Marine Resources Planning and Policy on Long Island"
(in preparation as part of Sea Grant Project NG-18-72).

REGIONAL MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL RESEARCH REPORTS FUNDED BY
THE NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD

36. Hardy, Charles, D., "Hydrographic Data Report: Long Island Sound-1970
Part III', Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research Center, State
University of New York, Technical Report Series No. 13, January 1972.
37. Gross, M. Grant, et al., "Characteristics and Environmental Quality of Six
North Shore Bays, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York," Stony Brook, New
York: Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Tech-
nical Report Series No. 14, January 1972.
38. Gross, M. Grant, et al., "Survey of Water Quality and Sediments in Six North
Shore Bays, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York (Appendix to
Technical Report No. 14),11 Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research
Center, State University of New York, Technical Report Series No. 15, February
1972.

A-3

39. O'Connor, Joel and Orville Terry, "The Marine Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, New York," Hauppauge, New York: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, March 1972.
40. Cummings, Halleck, "Public Responses to Types of Bathing Beaches," Stony
Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New
York, Technical Report Series (in press).
41. O'Connor, Joel, "Dredging and Spoil Activities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
Long Island, New York," Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research
Center, State University of New York, Technical Report Series (in press).
42. O'Connor, Joel, D. Davies, and W. Axelrod, "Coastal Inventory, North Shore,
Long Island, New York," Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research
Center, State University of New York, Technical Report Series (in press).

43. O'Connor, Joel, and Paul Lin, "Survey of Water Quality and Sediments in Six
South Shore Bays of Long Island, Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences
Research Center, State University of New York, Technical Report Series (in
press).
44. O'Connor, Joel, "Preliminary Considerations in Estuarine Monitoring Around
Long Island," Stony Brook, New York: Marine Sciences Research Center, State
University of New York, Technical Report Series (in press).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGIES FOR PLANNING FOR THE OPTIMUM
USE OF THE MARINE RESOURCES OF THE COASTAL ZONE, by The Center for
the Environment and Man, Inc.

Nassau-Suffolk County Regional Planning Board Research Report

45. Ellis, Robert H., et al., "Functional Step One, The Classification of Marine
Resource Problems of Nassau and Suffolk Counties," May 1969.
Regional Marine Resources Council (Research Reports of the Sea Grant Project
46. Smith, Frank A., et al., "Fourteen Selected Marine Resource Problems of Long
Island, New York: Descriptive Evaluations," January 1970.
47. Cheney, Philip B., "Functional Step Two, Knowledge Requirements," February
1970.

48. Ortolano, Leonard, "Quality Standards for the Coastal Waters of Long Island,
New York," April 1970.
49. Ortolano, Leonard and Philip S. Brown, Jr., "The Movement and Quality of
Coastal Waters: A Review of Models Relevant to Long Island, New York," July
1970.

50. Cheney, Philip B., "High Priority Research and Data Needs, Interim Functional
Step Four," November 1970.

51. McGuinnes, W. V., Jr., and R. Pitchai, "Integrated Water Supply and Waste
Water Disposal on Long Island," February 1972.

A-4

52. Bartholomew, F. L., and W. V. McGuinness, Jr., "Coast Stabilization and
Protection on Long Island," February 1972.
53. Dowd, Richard M., "Dredging on Long Island," February 1972.
54. Green, Ralph F., "Wetlands on Long Island," February 1972.

55. McGuinness, W. V., Jr., "State of the Art for Selected Marine Resources
Problems on Long Island," February 1972.

56. Pitchai, R., and W. V. McGuinness, Jr., "A Proposed Problem-Oriented Marine
Research Program for Long Island," February 1972.
57. Ellis, R. H., et al., "Guidelines for Marine Resources Planning and Policy on
Long Island," February 1972. (For Council use only; will be superceded by
the Council Guidelines report when it become available.)
58. Ellis, R. H., et al., "The Design of a Management Information System for Coastal
Resources Planning," February 1972.
59. McGuinness, W. V., Jr., R. Pitchai, and G. M. Northrop, "Technology Transfer
in the Marine Environment of Long Island, February 1973.

RECENT PERTINENT REFERENCES

60. NOAA, "Sea Grant 70's," Volume 3, No. 2, October 1972.
61. Bradley, E. H., Jr., and J. M. Armstrong, "A Description and Analysis of
Coastal Zone and Shoreline Management Programs in the United States," March
1972, University of Michigan, Sea Grant Technical Report No. 20, Coastal
Zone Management Project.
62. Donnelly, R. S., "Shoreline Management Guidelines," CEM Memo, The Center
for the Environment and Man, Inc., January 9, 1973.

A-5

APPENDIX B
REGIONAL MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
(As of January 15, 1973)

B-1

APPENDIX B

REGIONAL'MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

(As of January 15, 1973)

RAdm. Edward C. Stephan Dr. Clarke Williams
USN (ret.), Chairman Research Administrator
Term ending: 12/72 Regional Marine Resources Council
5304 Elliott Road Veterans Memorial Highway
Washington, D.C. 20016 Hauppauge, New York 11787
Tel.301-229-2877 Tel. 724-2500 Ext. 325

Dr. Lee Koppelman Mr. DeWitt Davies
Executive Director Marine Environmental Planner
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board Regional Marine Resources Council
Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 1178 7 Hauppauge, New York 11787
Tel. 724-2500 Ext. 251 Tel. 724-2500 Ext. 325

H. Crane Miller'
Legal Consultant
Alvord & Alvord
918 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel.202-393-2266

TERM MEMBERS

Nassau County

Dr. John C. Baiardi Dr. A. Harry Brenowitz
Term ending: 12/74 Term ending: 13/73
President, New York Ocean Science Lab. Director, Institute of Marine Science
P.O. Box 867 Adelphi University
Montauk, New York 11954 Idle Hour Boulevard
Tel.668-5800 Oakdale, New York 11769
Hon. John J. Burns Tel.589-7311
Tenn ending: 12/73 Mr. Leo Geyer
166 DuBois Avenue Term ending: 12/75
Seacliff, New York 11579 Advanced Aircraft Systems
Tel. OR 1-2282 Plant 5
Mr. Edward Patterson Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Term ending: 12/76 Bethpage, New York 11714
Assistant Director-Planning Tel. LR 5-3923
Nassau County Museum
Sands Point Park and Preserve
Middle Neck Road
Port Washington, N.Y. 11050
Tel. 883-1610

B-2

Mr. Joseph Shapiro Mr. Harold Udel, Director
Term ending: 12/74 Term ending: 12/76
Commander Oil Co. Dept. of Conservation and Waterways
South Street Town of Hempstead
Oyster Bay, New York 11711 One Parkside Drive
Tel.922-7000 Point Lookout, New York 11569

Suffolk County

Mr. Dennis Puleston Mrs. Ann Carl
Term ending: 12/74 Term ending: 12/75
Chairman, Environmental Defense Fund Lloyd Lane
162 Old Town Road Huntington, New York 11743
Setauket, New York 11733 Tel.271-5769
Tel. 751-5191

Prof. Edward R. Baylor Mr. Matthew M. Klein
Term ending: 12/74 Term ending: 12/76
Marine Sciences Research Center Box 126
State University of N.Y. at Stony Brook Hauppauge, New York 11787
Stony Brook, New York 11790 TeLAN 5-3653
Tel.246-7714 Mr. John E. Suydam
Prof. Walter L. Smith Term ending: 12/75
Term ending: 12/73 910 South 7th Street
Chairman, Biology Department Lindenhurst, New York 11757
Suffolk County Community College Tel.226-5395
533 College Road Mr. George Vanderborgh, Jr.
Selden, New York 11784 Term ending: 12/76
Tel. 732-1600 Ext. 243 Vice President
Mr. Nathaniel Talmage, Vice Chairman Long Island Oyster Farms, Inc.
Term ending: 12/73 Box 94
36 Sound Avenue West Sayville, New York 11796
Riverhead, New York 11901 Tel.757-1600
Tel. PA 7-2326

ADVISORY MEMBERS

County

Mr. Carl Eisenschmeid Mr. John Flynn
Principal Civil Engineer Commissioner
Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Control
Yaphank Avenue 1324 Motor Parkway
Yaphank, New York 11980 Hauppauge, New York 11787
TeLYA 4-3451 Tel.234-2622

B-3

Mr. Stanley Juczak Mrs. Carlyn S. Larson
Nassau County Dept. of Health Secretary
Nassau County Office Building Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality
Old Country Road County Center
Mineola, New York 11501 Hauppauge, New York 11787
Tel.535-2404 Tel. 724-2500, Ext. 259

Dr. Edith Tanenbaum
Nassau County Planning Commission
240 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Tel.535-5220

New York State

Mr. Edward Bevelander Mr. Albert Jensen
Regional Supervisor Regional Supervisor of Marine & Coastal
Metropolitan Regional Office Resources
Div. of Marine & Recreational Vehicles N. Y. State Dept. of Environrnental Conservation
150 Broad Hollow Road-Suite 209 Bldg. 40, State University of New York
Melville, New York 11746 Stony Brook, New York 11790
Tel. 271-9818 Tel.751-7900

Mr. Howard Quinn Mr. Randolph Stelle
District Director, New York State N. Y. State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Office of Planning Services Water Management Planning
1841 Broadway Bldg. 40, SUNY at Stony Brook
New York, New York 10023 Stony Brook, New York 11790
Tel.212-586-7800 Tel. 751-7900

Federal

Dr. John Winslow Mr. Charles Durfor
Hydrologist in Charge Acting Chief, Water Programs Grants
U.S. Geological Survey Environrnental Protection Agency
1505 Kellum Place 26 Federal Plaza
Mineola, New York 11501 New York, New York 10007
Tel. 212-264-1833

Mr. Morris Colen Mr. James W. Godbolt
Plan Formulation Branch Assistant Superintendent
North Atlantic Division Fire Island National Seashore
Corps of Army Engineers National Park Service
90 Church Street U.S. Department of the Interior
New York, New York 10007 Box 229
Tel. 212-264-7088 Patchogue, New York 11772
Tel.289-4810

B-4

Cmdr. James Waskiewicz Mr. L. Ruggles Porter
C/o Commander (ecv) , Supervisor, Long Island Area Office
Third Coast Guard District Division of River Basin Studies
Building 107, Rm 107 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Governors Island U.S. Department of the Interior
New York, New York 10004 50 Maple Avenue
Tel. 212-264-4838 Patchogue, New York 11772
Tel.475-3434

Mr. Charles R. Barnet Mr. Louis Pinata
District Conservationist Operations Division
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture U.S. Army Engnr. Dist., New York
Soil Conservation Service 26 Federal Plaza
127 Fast Main Street New York, New York 10007
Riverhead, New York 11901 Tel.212-264-0182
Tel.727-2315

Non-Governmental Conservation Councils

Mrs. Claire Stern
Executive Director
L.I. Environmental Council
95 Middle Neck Road
Port Washington, N. Y. 11050
Tel.883-4725

B-5

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
I MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES FOR GUIDELINES
As of September 25, 1972
1 (The date on which committee reports were due)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I C-1

APPENDIX C

MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES FOR GUIDELINES

As of September 25, 1972
(The date on which committee reports were due)

COMMITTEE ON COAST STABILIZATION AND PROTECTION
("Coast Stabilization Committee")
Name I Affiliation
Mr. Matthew M. Klein, Chairman Public Representative
Dr. John C. Baiardi N.Y. Ocean Science Laboratory
Mr. Morris Colen U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. James W. Godbolt National Park Service
Mr. John E. Suydam Public Representative
Mr. Nathaniel Talmadge Public Representative

COMMITTEE ON DREDGING A ND SPOIL DISPOSAL
Name ("Dredging Committee") Affiliation
I
Mr. Harold Udell, Chairman Dept. of Conservation and Waterways,
Hempstead
Mr. Edward Bevelander Marine and Recreational Vehicles Division
Hon. John J. Burns Suffolk County Executive
Mr. Carl Eisenschmeid Civil Engineer
Mr. Louis Pinata U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Howard Quinn N.Y. State Office of Planning Services
Prof. Walter L. Smith Biology Dept., Suffolk Co. Community
College
Mr. George Vanderborgh, Jr. Long Island Oyster Farms, Inc.

COMMITTEE ON WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
("Wetlands Committeelf )
Name I Affiliation
Mr. Edward Patterson, Chairman Nassau Co. Museum of Natural History
Dr. A. Harry Brenowitz Institute of Marine Science, Adelphi University
Mrs. Ann Carl Public Representative
Mr. Charles Durfor Environmental Protection Agency, New York
Mr. Albert Jensen N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Mr. L. Ruggles Porter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. Edith Tanenbaum Nassau Co. Planning Commission

C-2

COMMITTEE ON INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER
("Waste Water Committeelf)

Name Affiliation

Mr. Leo Geyer, Chairman Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Prof. Edward R. Baylor Marine Science Research Center
SUNY, Stony Brook
Mr. Philip Cohen* U.S. Geological Survey
Mr. John Flynn Suffolk Co. Dept. of Enviromnental Control
Mr. Stanley Juczak Nassau Co. Deptof Health
Mr. Joseph Shapiro Commander Oil Co.
Mr.. Randolph Steel N.Y. State Deptof Envirom-nental Conservation
Comdr. James Waskieciez U.S. Coast Guard
Mr. Roy H. White* N.Y. Ocean Science Laboratory

*Addresses of committee mem bers appear in Appendix B of this report, except for:

Dr. John Winslow Mr. Roy H@ White, Assoc. Director
Hydrologist in Charge New York Ocean Science Laboratory
U.S. Geological Survey c/o Long Island University
1505 Kellum Place Administration Center
Mineola, New York 11501 Greenvale, New York 11548

Technical Consultant
Advanced Waste Treatment Systems Corp.
Subsidiary of Hurcules, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware

C-3

APPENDIX D
AGENDAS OF PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL
BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, 1972-73

D-1

APPENDIX D

AGENDAS OF PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL
BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, 1972-73

1. WETLANDS SEMINAR-September 15,1972

Principal Participants: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Speaker Topic

Hon. John V. N. Klein
Suffolk County Executive Setting the Stage
Hauppauge, L. I., New York 11787

Mr. John R. Clark
The Conservation Foundation The Value of Wetlands in their Natural State
1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dr. Durbin Tabb
Marine Biology Department
University of Miami Marine Institute
Miami, Florida The Value of Wetlands in their Developed
Robert Troutman, Jr. State
c/o James D. Newton Co.
2800 Estero Blvd.
Fort Myers, Florida

Dr. Robert Aron
Director, Ecological/Biological Aspects of Wetlands
Office of Ecology & Environmental Management
Conservation
NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dr. Robert Bish
Associate Professor of Economics Legal/Economic Aspects of Wetlands
University of Southern California Management
Los Angeles, California 90007

Dr. Robert Abel
Director, Office of Sea Grant Introductory Remarks
NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 20852
Mr. Tom Olds Guidelines for Wetlands Management at
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife the Federal Level
Boston, Massachusetts 02109

D-2

WETLANDS SEMINAR (Continued)

Speaker Topic

Mr. Arthur W. Brownell
Department of Natural Resources Guidelines for Wetlands Management at the
State of Massachusetts State Level
Boston, Massachusetts 02202

Ms. Sandra Slade, Attorney
Crawford and Diamond Guidelines for Wetlands Management at the
123 West Lancaster Avenue Local Level
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
Dr. Robert Bish Socio-economic Research Needs for
University of Southern California Wetlands Planning and Management
Los Angeles, California 90007
Dr. Bostwick H. Ketchum Biological Research Needs for Wetlands
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Planning and Management
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

Col. Robert R. Werner
Office of the Chief of Engineers Engineering/Physical Research Needs
U.S. Army for Wetlands Management
Washington, D.C. 20134
Mr. Joel L. Fisher Pollution Associated Research Needs in
EPA Wetlands Management
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Mr. David H. Wallace
Associate Administrator for Marine
Resources Summary
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
Rockville, Maryland 20852

D-3

2. COAST STABILIZATION AND DREDGING SEMINAR-February 15, 1973

Principal Participants: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

Speaker Topic

Mr. Buxton Boyd Waterways Experiment Station
Waterways Experiment Station, COE Research Activities
Mr. Leo Tobias Dredging Technology
Office of the Chief of Engineers, COE

Mr. Curtis L. Clark Legislation, Permits and
Office of the Chief of Engineers, COE Regulatory Procedures

Mr. Louis Pinata Dredging and Spoil Disposal
New York District, COE Activities on Long Island
Mr. M. E. Lemmerhirt Dredging Industry -Viewpoint
Office of the Chief of Engineers, COE

Mr. George M. Watts Coastal Engineering Research
Office of the Chief of Engineers, COE State-of-the-Art

Mr. John G. McAlear Findings of the National Shoreline
Office of the Chief of Engineers, COE Study

Mr. Gilbert Nersesian Federal Beach Erosion Control
New York District, COE Activities on Long Island
Mr. William V. McGuinness, Jr. Summary
Consultant

D-4

I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
N
ji @
OMW I
. CENTER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111101111111100
@ 3 6668 00002 6643 1