We at Seatuck have initiateed a pilot program to collect waste Oyster shells from local restaurants and to use those shells to enhance the bottom sediment of the Great South Bayto allow for the reintroduction of native eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) populations.
In the mid-1890’s Long Islands South Shore was known as the “oyster capital” of the world. Blue Point Oysters were considered of the finest quality and were in the highest demand by consumers. However, by 1920’s they were decimated, mostly due to water pollution and over harvesting, efforts to restore the wild populations were dashed after the 1938 hurricane covered the living reefs with silt and sand and introduced the predatory, oyster drill. With historical oyster reefs silted over, juvenile oyster spat were left without a hard bottom or substrate, for settlement, so they perished. A resurgence of the oyster culture industry in the 1990’s was plagued with setbacks from disease (MSX). Today, the oyster industry is returning to the Bay. A number of oyster aquaculture businesses have recently opened. In towns such as Islip, the number of lease agreements, to small, local aquaculture operations, has been rising to include an increasingly larger portion of bay bottom.
Although the recent dramatic increase in oyster aquaculture has benefitted the oyster farmer it has not helped the lost native oyster populations. Unlike farmed oysters which are harvested at a young age, native oysters are allowed to grow to full maturity and may live as long as 30 years. In this way, wild populations develop disease resistance and create massive underwater reefs. Wild oysters are available for harvest through recreational fishing. They also contain a unique genetic makeup available for future restocking.
When supplied with the proper substrate, native, wild oysters will thrive. The best and most natural way to supply substrate is to return oyster shells, a natural resource, to the Bay. In this way we can restore the world famous oyster populations and the vital ecosystem we all depend on. The benefits and ecosystem services this project provides are listed below:
- Provide Enhanced Water Quality and Clarity– It is well know that Oysters consume microscopic algae called phytoplankton and thus have a clarifying effect on seawater. Improved water clarity promotes eelgrass growth. In addition, the removal of harmful phytoplankton decreases the likelihood of harmful algal blooms, such as Brown and Rust Tides.
- Provide Habitat for Wild Oyster Restoration– In the Great South Bay and other South Shore bays, wild oysters are limited by the existence of the available hard bottom substrate they require for attachment. Enhancing wild oyster stock is as basic as providing them with oyster shells, the hard substrate they would naturally find in theirWhen oysters are raised in aquaculture the shells are removed from the ecosystem at harvest. Wild oysters are important for the natural resistance to disease and genetic diversity they possess.
- Regulating Nitrogen Pollution – Oysters grow very well in nitrogen rich, eutrophicThey remove nitrogen from seawater by consuming phytoplankton that have the ability to incorporate nitrate. At harvest time, the farmed oysters are removed from the environment. The consumption of wild oysters by transient wildlife also serves to rid the local environment of excess nitrogen, albeit at a smaller scale than aquaculture.
- Reduce Landfill – Recycling oysters shells reduces the amount of costly waste delivered to the landfill.
- Shoreline Stabilization – Oyster shells may be used alone to stabilize eroding shorelines in salt marshes (such as Seatuck NWR) or in a reef building process in conjunction with a reintroduction of liveOyster reefs mitigate the damaging wave effects of severe storms and hurricanes. As sea level rises at an ever-accelerating rate, we must facilitate the survival of our shoreline.
- Mitigate Coastal Acidification – In addition to ocean acidification, Coastal acidification is occurring here in our bays and presents a significant threat to this environment. Ocean acidification, caused by a higher concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere becoming dissolved on to theThe addition of CO2 alters the water chemistry and decreases the pH of the ocean water. Coastal regions experience an additional decrease in pH, which occurs when bacteria in the sediments decompose excessive algae growth. The bacteria use oxygen and produce CO2 as they respire. This coastal increased CO2 lowers the pH further, exacerbating the problem. The calcium carbonate of dead, recycled oyster shells allows for a buffering effect of coastal acidification (Waldbusser et.al, 2013). Shells act like an antacid as they partially dissolve. If allowed to increase, coastal acidification will make an inhospitable environment for all shellfish. Young oysters are especially sensitive to slight pH changes. Coastal acidification is a serious problem that must be addressed.
- Provide Mesohabitat – Although oyster aquaculture structures provide habitat for small fish, shrimp and juvenile crustaceans, that habitat is ephemeral and is removed at harvest time. Wild oyster reefs, in contrast, provide a long time, mesohabitat for these creatures.
- Carbon sink – Shells are made of calcium carbonate and if burned in a landfill, emit carbon to the atmosphere however when bound together in an oyster reef serve as a carbon sink.
- Community Involvement and Education – This project relies heavily on active volunteers willing to pick up shell buckets from participatingIn the process it alsoeducates volunteers and the general public regarding the fragile nature of the ecosystem. Previously, other states have used the spat-on-shell rearing process as an education tool, allowing school groups , 4-H groups and Citizen Science to raise oysters in classroom tanks.
- Tourism and Cultural History – Tourism is vital to the economic growth of theFresh oysters are a delicacy and prized commodity that provide economic enrichment. The South Shore of Long Island is rich in maritime culture; an attribute that attracts tourists and increases our quality of life. As we experience a renaissance of the oyster industry we must be aware of the many ways these shellfish provide for us. This time, we get to give back to the Bays that provide us with so much
 Waldbusser, G.G., E.N. Powell, and R. Mann. 2013. Ecosystem effects of shell aggregations and cycling in coastal waters: An example of Chesapeake Bay oyster reefs. Ecology 94:895–903, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1179.1.
By: Maureen Dunn
Download -> 10 Reasons for Oyster Shell Recycling
One of the priority open space areas the Seatuck Environmental Association has been advocating protection of is “Hauppauge Springs”, a 42-acre area on the south side of Veterans Memorial Highway across from the Suffolk County Center.
The area gets its name because of the water which “springs” or bubbles up from the aquifer here, beginning a surface flow that becomes the Nissequogue River. Thus, the Hauppauge Springs forms part of one of the headwaters to the Nissequogue River (the other is in the Village of the Branch to the east). The area contains extensive freshwater wetlands including two small ponds, and a stream that flows under the highway into Blydenburgh County Park. A rare stand of Atlantic White Cedar, a rare tree that grows in wet areas, flanks the western side of the eastern pond.
The recent County acquisitions complete an open space preservation effort that began several decades ago with the Town of Smithtown purchasing the western most two parcels. The County then purchased the easternmost property and over the past two years the County acquired two road-front properties and a narrow north-south oriented parcel sandwiched in between the road front properties, consolidating public ownership in the area (see map). This last parcel was slated to be developed with eight homes which would have adversely affected water quality in the river. Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone and Suffolk County Legislator Leslie Kennedy played key roles in preserving the properties.
Janice Bradt, the former owner of the two road-front properties grew up on the property. At that time much of the area was farmland, and her farm was known as Sweetwater Farm due to the purity of the water bubbling up from the ground. The purchase by the County honored Janice’s parents with a sign along Veterans Memorial Highway (see photo). Seasick assisted in this acquisition, in addition to advocating for the purchase at the Suffolk County Legislature hearings, by conducting a clean-up of the property along with Legislator Kennedy.
Seatuck is advocating for two more protection measures in the Hauppauge Springs area. There is a five acre parcel, part of the Suffolk County Center, that is adjacent to Blydenburgh County Park. It is entirely wooded and the eastern boundary is the stream that flows from Hauppauge Springs. We are advocating that this property be annexed from the County Center and added to the Park. We also want to see the forested swampland around the NY State Office Building be given permanent protective status.
We will keep you apprised of additional progress we make in preserving this special and environmentally important part of Suffolk County.
John Turner - Seatuck Conservation Policy Advocate
Seatuck sent a copy of the following letter to every New York Senate Member, urging each to support the proposed legislation (Bill S8170) banning household use of high nitrogen fertilizer.
Re: Letter Supporting Long Island Fertilizer Legislation A10276 and S8170
Seatuck Environmental Association, Inc. (“Seatuck”) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of Long Island wildlife and the natural environment on which they depend. Incorporated in 1989, the organization advocates for conservation policy across Long Island and operates two coastal, public nature centers: the Suffolk County Environmental Center in Islip, where Seatuck is based, and the South Shore Nature Center in East Islip.
We at Seatuck urge our New York Legislators to support bills A10276 and S8170 that serve to amend the New York State Environmental Conservation Law to reduce the use of water-soluble, high nitrogen fertilizers on Long Island. The laws exclusively allows for the sale of low-nitrogen fertilizer (at most 12% nitrogen, half of which must be, less soluble, “slow release”) and prohibits the sale of high nitrogen fertilizer effective December 31,2019.
We cannot wait any longer to fix this problem. Nitrogen in the form of water-soluble nitrate is known on Long Island as public water quality Enemy Number One. 1 The destructive cycle begins as nitrate enters our groundwater and waterways from untreated treated septic wastewater and fertilizer runoff; with fertilizer accounting for as much as 77% of the input in some eastern, agricultural Long Island areas 2. High levels of nitrogen have been measured in our groundwater, bays and drinking water. Efforts to decrease the concentration of fertilizer-derived nitrogen are in effect, however, thus far, compliance is low and enforcement difficult.
Both Nassau and Suffolk counties derive their drinking water from the sole-source glacial aquifer beneath the ground. Average nitrate levels in the deep Magothy Aquifer increased from 1.14 to 3.43 mg/L from 1987 to 2005 and continue to worsen.1 The EPA’s maximum contaminant level for nitrate in potable groundwater is set at 10 mg/L in an effort to protect against blue-baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia), a deadly side effect of babies consuming formula prepared with water high in nitrogen. In adults, consuming this water can lead to decreased thyroid function, spontaneous abortions brain damage and cancer.3 Generally Long island drinking water meets quality standards, however, a small percent of wells in Nassau and Suffolk Counties exceed the 10 mg per liter of nitrogen as nitrate and must be capped or treated when found.1
The problem is much worse when considering the environmental effects of elevated nitrate in our surface streams, ponds and coastal waters. The effects of nitrogen pollution are more harmful to wildlife than humans. At levels as low as 2.5mg/L nitrate impairs water quality for wildlife.4 This decrease in water quality is mostly created through the overgrowth of algae.Algae, similar to plants, thrive on high levels of dissolved nitrate in the water column. Most grow uncontrollably as a “bloom” whereby they shade all other plant life at depth. Eelgrass is particularly susceptible and perishes in diminished light. Coastal salt marsh grasses will reallocate resources under excess nitrate, diverting energy away from the stabilizing root mass and towards the leaf blades. The loss of eelgrass and marsh grass root mass is catastrophic because in addition to serving as vital habitat, these grasses dissipate ocean wave energy, thus shielding us from destructive storms. Some of the algae that bloom are toxic when consumed by marine life such as snails, terrapin and shellfish and lead to massive die-offs of these creatures.
As local water quality diminishes, animal such as fish, crustacean and invertebrates must leave the area or perish. Upon cessation of the algal bloom, bacteria begin to consume the dead algae in much the same way as animals use food and oxygen to create energy. Often times, the bacteria use up all of the oxygen in the water leaving the water anoxic. The loss of oxygen changes the chemical makeup of both water and sediment and is generally lethal to those animals unable to get away.From a global perspective, it has been shown that nitrogen-based fertilizer is largely responsible for the 20 percent increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide since the Industrial Revolution. 5 Nitrous oxide, third most powerful greenhouse gas, is produced when specialized bacteria convert nitrate in fertilizer to nitrous oxide in the atmosphere.
Beginning as early as 2007, efforts been taken by Long Islanders to reduce fertilizer-derived nitrate in our environment. For example, both Nassau and Suffolk counties have prohibited the application of fertilizer from November to April or within 20 feet of a wetland.
Most of the bays surrounding Long Island are designated as impaired; that is, they are in violation of water quality standards.6 This proposed ban on water soluble, high nitrogen fertilizer is an important step towards stopping the flow of nitrate to our groundwater and coastal waters.
We applaud Assemblyman Steve Englebright and Senator Kemp Hannon for introducing this legislation and urge you to support the ban on soluble high-nitrogen fertilizer by approving Bill S8170.
We cannot wait any longer to address the fertilizer component of nitrogen pollution on Long Island; the time to act is now. Thank you.
1. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources management Plan, Executive Summary, 1(2015). http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/Documents%20and%20Forms/Health%20Services/environmental%20quality/water%20resources/Comprehensive_Water_Resource_Management_Plan.pdf
2. Lloyd, S. (2014). Nitrogen load modeling to forty-three subwatersheds of the Peconic Estuary. The Nature Conservancy. Final Report.Rouse, J. D., Bishop, C. A., & Struger, J. (1999). Nitrogen pollution: an assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(10), 799–803..
3. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 10 May 2013. Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ace3_drinking_water.pdf
4. Rouse, J. D., Bishop, C. A., & Struger, J. (1999). Nitrogen pollution: an assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(10), 799– 803.
5. MacFarling-Meure C., Etheridge D., Trudinger C., Steele P., Langenfelds R., van Ommen T., Smith A., Eikins J., (2006). Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP. Geophys Res. Lett. 33, L14810.
August 14, 2017
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Crustacean Unit Leader
205 N Belle Mead Rd, STE 1
East Setauket, NY 11733
Dear Ms. McKown:
The Seatuck Environmental Association, ‘Seatuck’, is a Long Island-based not-for-profit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve native wildlife and the natural communities upon which they depend. To give focus to this effort Seatuck has developed a “Campaign for Wildlife” designed to safeguard, and in some cases restore, such iconic species as river herring, horseshoe crabs, diamondback terrapins, among others. I write to you in regard to this last species and the Department’s proposed rule, to take effect January 1, 2018, to require the installation of terrapin excluder devices (TED’s) on commercial crab traps/pots placed in certain waters in New York State (as detailed in a map produced by the Department). Seatuck strongly supports the adoption of this regulation and urges the Department to implement it in a timely fashion.
TED’s have proven to be a highly effective, relatively inexpensive means to reduce drownings of adult and young-adult diamondback terrapins in crab traps, a significant source of mortality to the species. Terrapins enter the trap, attracted to the bait situated there, and being unable to escape unfortunately drown. Seatuck has documented terrapins drowning in crab pots situated in more than a dozen locations throughout Long Island, in some cases traps in these locations containing several individuals each. It is expected that adoption of this important rule will significantly reduce the number of individual turtles that are able to enter traps, thereby preventing the deaths of countless terrapins, a species that due to its limited reproductive capability can be especially hard hit by the drowning deaths of adult female terrapins.
In an effort to defray the expense of complying with the proposed rule Seatuck (and the Long Island Chapter of The Nature Conservancy) purchased approximately 7,000 plastic and metal TED’s, and several thousand zip ties to attach the TED’s, which were provided to your agency for distribution. Seatuck may be able to provide an additional number of TED’s and ties to assist the agency in minimizing the financial impact of baymen compliance with the rule prior to and shortly after the regulation has been enacted.
With regard to the proposed regulation, we offer the following observations/ recommendations:
1. We recognize the rule doesn’t cover all of the state’s estuarine environments frequented by diamondback terrapins, such as the main sections of the Hudson River, Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay, and the south shore bays, focusing instead, on the shallower, in-shore areas of these estuaries where terrapins predominantly occur. This compromise (along with providing the above-mentioned TED’s), is designed to respond to the concerns of baymen who note that the deeper open water areas are used much less frequently by terrapins and by not requiring the use of TED’s will allow for the harvest of other commercially valuable species such as whelk.
2. We recommend that all of Jamaica Bay and not just the streams and creeks which flow into it be included under the rule. We recognize that virtually all of Jamaica Bay is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area, under the jurisdictional authority of the National Park Service, and that commercial crab harvest is not permitted in the area. Nevertheless, terrapins are more abundant here and we believe it makes sense to include the entire Bay area to provide easier enforcement for the DEC as it relates to potential enforcement cases in the many streams and creeks that flow into the Bay. Similarly, given the shallow nature of Flanders Bay and its productivity as a site for terrapins, we urge that all of this embayment be included within the rule.
3. Seatuck strongly supports the proposed dimensions of the TED’s. The 1 and 3/4-inch-high by 4 and 3/4-inch-wide opening has been proven, through several studies and common practice, to be highly effective at reducing terrapin deaths while having no adverse impact on crab catch. In fact, in some studies, involving TED’s with the same dimensions as proposed for New York, crab catch and CPUE has increased.
4. We support the provision that allows for the DEC to close additional areas upon a finding that mortality to terrapins is unacceptably high.
5. We urge that the map the Department has prepared, indicating the location of the affected streams, creeks, and embayments, be distributed to all crab license holders, and further recommend the map be of such scale so as to make it as easy and clear as possible for the permit holder and DEC Law Enforcement staff to be fully aware of the line that demarcates the boundary to the stream, creek, and embayment beyond which TED’s are not required and within which they are.
6. Seatuck strongly urges that the draft regulation be amended to require that all commercial crab traps sold in New York State after the effective date of the regulation be equipped with TED’s. This provision would ensure that the cost of regulation compliance shifts away from the conservation community and toward the manufacturers, and through their trap prices, to the individual users of the traps where it appropriately belongs.
On behalf of Seatuck I appreciate the opportunity to provide these observations and comments on this important rule and we hope the Department adopts it in a timely fashion so that it may take effect January 1, 2018 and terrapins can be afforded the additional protection the rule provides and the species deserves.
John L. Turner
Conservation Policy Advocate
Seatuck Environmental Association
On January 1, 2018, a new Suffolk County Law took effect that establishes a 5-cent fee on disposable bags used at stores in Suffolk County. The fee’s purpose is to provide a financial incentive to motivate customers to move away from single-use paper and plastic bags and towards sturdy multi-use bags. These durable bags, which are made from a variety of materials such as cloth, heavy plastic, canvas and netting, can be used hundreds of times before wearing out. The reduction of single-use bags will not only save energy and reduce pressure on landfills and incinerators, it will also significantly reduce adverse impacts to wildlife and help clean up waterways, roadsides and parklands.
Many other countries, states, and local municipalities have enacted identical or similar bans over the past decade. Those that have been in place for several years have met or exceed their goals of reducing plastic bag use and curbing the proliferation of plastic in the natural environment. On Long Island, the City of Long Beach and the Villages of Patchogue and Southampton have recently enacted measures designed to curtail single-use bags.
Seatuck Environmenal Association’s strong support for the laws stems from an awareness of the pernicious impact that plastics have on the natural world, and the need to alter the throwaway mindset that pervades our collective lifestyles. Plastic bags are, of course, only part of the problem. But they symbolize a society that, in too many ways, is simply unsustainable over the long-term and which does not reflect an understanding of the fragility of the earth’s natural systems on which we rely. The proliferation of plastic bags in the environment is one piece of the problem that we can solve.
The adverse effects of intact plastic bags to wildlife are well documented. We have all seen images of sea turtles and marine mammals that have ingested them (thinking they’re sea jellies), or fish and birds that have become entangled with plastic bags, often with fatal results. Arguably even more problematic, however, is the effect from the countless small plastic pieces that are produced as plastic bags break apart in the open environment.
Polyethylene, from which plastic bags are made, does not biodegrade in the natural environment. Bacteria and other microbes don’t consume plastic or break it down into its component parts. Instead, the sun breaks down polyethylene through a process called photodegradation. In this process, ultraviolet light causes the long polymer strands in polyethylene to become brittle and crack, breaking plastic bags down into smaller and smaller pieces. It doesn’t eliminate plastic; rather, it degrades it down into increasingly small pieces that “disappear” into the natural environment. These microplastics persist everywhere and can have a devastating impact on wildlife.
As they are ingested by wildlife they negatively affect physiology and health. Chemicals added to plastic during manufacturing or absorbed from the surrounding environment can be transferred to wildlife after ingestion and cause a host of additional problems. At the smallest size, these microplastics are capable of crossing cell membranes and causing direct tissue damage.
Scientists fear that the buildup of microplastics in marine and terrestrial environments—and in the stomachs and bodily tissues of wildlife—portends a bleak future in which plastic particles infiltrating every step of the food chain. A plastic bag might disappear in 10 to 100 years if exposed to the sun, but its damaging environmental legacy may last forever.
We urge Suffolk County residents to “go green” in 2018 by embracing this new law and the important goals it seeks to promote. It may take some effort at first to break the plastic bag habit, but over time using reusable bags will become second nature – you’ll reflexively reach for them every time you head to the store. To get started, build up your reusable bag collection so they’re handy when you need them. Hang some by the front door. Keep a few in your car. Give bags out as gifts! Whatever it takes to reduce the use of single-use plastic bags and help turn the tide on plastics! Over time, our aquatic and terrestrial habitats will be safer for wildlife and our parks and roadsides will be cleaner!
Earlier this week, New York State Senator John Flanagan (R-Smithown, Current President and Majority Leader) introduced a bill (#6717) in the Senate Rules Committee that would void the 2016 Suffolk County legislation enacted to address the plastic bag problem. The Suffolk County law, which was crafted with broad stakeholder input and bipartisan support, imposed a 5-cent fee on plastic bags in an effort to curb their use and reduce the proliferation and negative impacts in the natural environment. Similar fees have produced well-documented bag use reductions in other parts of the country and around the world. Please call or write Senator Flanagan and urge him to withdraw his ill-conceived bill. Contact information below:
Senator John J. Flanagan
- Mail: 260 Middle Country Road, Suite 102, Smithtown, NY, 11787
- Phone: 631-361-2154
Seatuck's June 16, 2017 letter to Senator Flanagan is below.
* * * *
Re: Senate Bill #6717
Dear Senator Flanagan:
On behalf of the members of the Seatuck Environmenal Association, I am writing to express our dismay at the recent introduction of Senate Bill #6717, which seeks to block a Suffolk County law limiting the environmental damage caused by single-use plastic bags. We find the bill troubling and misguided on several levels, and strongly oppose this ill-conceived proposal.
First and foremost, the assertion in the bill that the Suffolk County law “fails to address any environmental concerns” is plainly wrong. The adverse environmental effects caused by plastic bags are well known. From the devastating impacts to turtles, mammals, fish and birds that inadvertently consume whole bags (thinking they’re sea jellies), to the countless species that take in the increasingly small, even microscopic, pieces of the bags (sunlight breaks down the polyethylene bags through photodegredation), scientists are only beginning to comprehend the full extent of the damage that these and other plastic products are causing to our wildlife and environment (see, “Sources, Fates and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment - A Global Assessment”, Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), 2015). Certainly this threat must be taken very seriously in Suffolk County where – from fishing to recreation to tourism – our economy and quality of life are heavily dependent on the health and vitality of our marine waters and coastal ecosystem.
The recently enacted Suffolk County law will reduce the use of the bags by as much as two-thirds. This estimate is based on well-documented results from similar laws enacted in the United States and in other countries. The direct result of reducing the input of bags into the stream of commerce is, simply, that fewer bags will find their way into the natural environment. Reducing the proliferation of plastic bags in Suffolk County’s forests, streams and bays produces a direct and tangible benefit to wildlife and the health of our coastal ecosystem. In this way, the law directly and effectively addresses a significant “environmental concern.”
Second, the Suffolk County law imposing a fee on the use of plastic bags was broadly supported by the people of the County. The legislation, which was carefully crafted with input from a wide range of stakeholders, enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in the Suffolk County Legislature and passed by a wide margin. It was signed into law by County Executive Steve Bellone without protest or controversy. It would be a brazen overreach of authority, in our opinion, for the state to now override the will of the people of Suffolk County, expressed through the local legislative process, by enacting the proposed bill.
Finally, the fact that New York State blocked the enactment of similar legislation in New York City and established a Statewide Task Force to consider measures to reduce the use of plastic bags should not undermine a validly established law in another jurisdiction. If the task force eventually develops and proposes a statewide measure that addresses the plastic bag problem (we understand only one meeting has been held to date) and such a proposal is successfully enacted into law, then the Suffolk County measure can be easily repealed and superseded. While the fact that a Statewide Task Force has been established highlights the importance of the plastic bag problem, it should not stop the important and meaningful progress that Suffolk County is poised to make towards a solution. Suffolk County has a long, proud history of leading on environmental issues – from DDT to bottle recycling, it has often acted first and paved the way for statewide legislation. Its effort now to once again lead New York State forward on an important conservation matter should be celebrated and embraced, not thwarted.
For these and other reasons, we strongly urge you to withdrawal Senate Bill #6717 and allow Suffolk County to implement the reasonable and effective measure it enacted to address the threat from plastic bags.
Very truly yours,
Enrico Nardone & John Turner
* * * *
Photo, Bags at Dawn, by Jonathan Kos-Read, 2015 All Rights Reserved
Earlier this year Seatuck sent the following letter to Governor Cuomo expressing outrage over the Port Authority's recent killing of coyotes at LaGuardia airport:
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
RE: Coyotes on Long Island
Dear Governor Cuomo:
On behalf of the membership of the Seatuck Environmental Association – a non-profit organization dedicated to conserving Long Island’s wildlife and environment – we are writing to voice our outrage over the recent governmental killing of coyotes in New York City and our alarm about the unwise precedent it sets.
As was widely reported, in late 2016, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”) determined that a group of pioneering coyotes that had settled into a wooded area near LaGuardia Airport were a threat to the safety of airport staff and visitors, as well as residents in surrounding neighborhoods. At the Port Authority’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) killed almost all of the coyotes (nearly a dozen in all), including both adults and pups.
As an avid outdoorsman and someone who appreciates the natural heritage of New York, we are sure you can understand our dismay at the actions taken by the Port Authority and USDA. Long Island has been missing terrestrial apex predators since colonial times, resulting in an ecosystem that is out of balance in many regards. Coyotes, ecologists expect, will eventually fill this empty niche and help restore equilibrium to Long Island’s natural communities. For example, Long Island’s deer herd is expanding well beyond the natural carrying capacity in many places, destroying the woodland understory and prevented natural forest regeneration. These impacts reduce the quality of forest habitat and harm countless species of birds and other wildlife. For these and other reasons, many Long Islanders have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of coyotes and anticipating the positive ecological impacts that will come with the reestablishment of an apex predator.
Coyotes have been expanding their range (which was historically limited to Midwestern prairies and Southwestern deserts) for more than 200 years, taking advantage of the extirpation of Gray Wolves and human landscape modification. They now exist in every state in the country. They first became firmly established in New York State in the 1940s; by the 1980s
they were settled into every corner of the state, except New York City and Long Island. Over the past two decades, they have expanded into New York City, taking up residence in parts of the Bronx. Long Island now remains one of the few places in the country that these adaptable canids have not conquered.
Despite their wide range and presence in most major cities and countless suburban neighborhoods, conflicts between coyotes and humans are extremely rare. While conflicts can certainly arise (generally in situations where coyotes are fed or simple precautions are not taken), the concern about risks to people and pets is grossly exaggerated. The simple fact is that coyotes coexist alongside humans throughout North America, from Canada down through Mexico; there is no reason why they cannot coexist on Long Island.
Given this reality, as well as the positive ecological impacts they will bring, we find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars were used to thwart the welcomed expansion of coyotes to Long Island. The USDA and the Port Authority should not be unilaterally acting against the interests of the people of New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
We request that New York State conduct an investigation of the coyote killings at LaGuardia Airport, especially regarding the process through which the decision was reached and the applicability of federal and state wildlife laws. The incident may prove to have a silver lining if it helps to confirm and clarify the State’s support for coyote expansion, and establish a clear protocol for the next time coyotes move on to Long Island (which experts say will be soon).
Again, we strongly support the expansion of coyotes to Long Island and urge you to intervene to ensure that the misguided actions of the Port Authority and USDA are not repeated.
ENRICO NARDONE, Esq.
The river herring run at Parsonage Creek in Baldwin has been elusive in recent years. While we had anectodal evidence that it existed, we weren't able to document it until 2016. As the following video shows, our difficulty may have been the result of the run's preference for nocturnal migration. While river herring certainly migrate during the day in many instances, we have found that in some cases they prefer to move under the cover of darkness. There's little research on this question, but biologists think it may occur in situations with large concentrations of light-dependant predators, such as comorants or herring gulls.
This video also shows the even a relatively short barrier can be a complete barrier to river herring. While certainly very capable swimmers, they are not jumpers and simply cannot manage a barrier of more than a few inches.
Seatuck sent the following letter to Long Island's Congressional delegation today urging them to defend the important work of the EPA. It featured a list of 10 ways Long Island benefits from the agency's work.
* * * * *
February 16, 2017
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Schumer:
On behalf of the members of the Seatuck Environmenal Association, we write to urge you, for the sake of all Long Islanders (and indeed people throughout New York State and across the Country), to defend the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its important work of protecting human health and the environment.
Seatuck is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that works to conserve Long Island wildlife and the environment. The organization, which is based in Islip, advocates for wildlife and habitat protection across Long Island and offers a diverse outdoor education program, including the operation of two public nature centers.
We are alarmed by the President’s nomination of E. Scott Pruitt (a long-time critic of the EPA and climate change denier) to head the agency, by the anti-EPA rhetoric from the new Administration, from Congressional efforts to limit the agency’s effectiveness (H.R. 637 “Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017”), and, most recently, by the bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 861) to eliminate the agency entirely!
Long Islanders, like all New Yorkers, rely significantly on the EPA to protect our air, water and natural resources. There are countless ways the work of the agency protects the environment, safeguards human health and enhances our quality of life. In an effort to underscore the agency’s important work, we have compiled the following list of some of the direct and tangible ways Long Islanders benefit from the EPA:
10 Ways Long Island Needs the EPA
1. Clean Water – All Long Islanders get their drinking water from the aquifers that underlie the island. In 1978, this underground water source became the first in the nation recognized by the EPA’s “Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program”. Under the program EPA reviews all proposed projects on the island that receive federal financial assistance to ensure they do not endanger our precious groundwater.
2. Clean Air – EPA oversees a range of programs under the Clean Air Act that exist to safeguard the very air we breathe. Importantly, unlike state agencies, EPA has the ability to address air pollution issues that cross state borders. Long Islanders suffer from both homegrown air pollution (power plants, truck traffic) and “upwind” pollution from out-of-state sources. Despite decades of improvement, Long Island still fails to meet annual air quality standards. However, tough new EPA limits on power plant emissions give us hope for cleaner air in our future.
3. Long Island Sound – Through the establishment of the bi-state Long Island Sound Study, EPA has led the effort to improve Long Island Sound, the nationally-significant estuary that lies between Long Island and Connecticut. Funding and agency-led efforts through EPA’s National Estuary Program have protected coastal habitat, expanded eelgrass beds, reduced nitrogen loading, restricted dumping and achieved a long list of other restoration goals for what was a degraded waterbody. It’s no coincidence that whales have returned to the Sound in recent years for the first time in decades.
4. Peconic Estuary – The Peconic Estuary is another estuary of national significance that is protected through EPA’s National Estuary Program. The EPA-led Peconic Estuary Program directs a multi-jurisdictional effort to protect and improve the quality of the Peconic Bays, which are a key component of the ecologically and economically rich East End of Long Island.
5. Ocean Dumping – Long Island is surrounded by ecologically valuable estuaries and bordered by the Atlantic Ocean. The health of our coastal ecosystem and the quality of our lives along the shore depend on the cleanliness and quality of these waterbodies. EPA protects these waters by restricting and monitoring direct (often out-of-state) pollution through the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (also known as the Ocean Dumping Act).
6. Disaster Response – Long Islanders know all to well the human tragedy that resulted from Superstorm Sandy, but storms such as Sandy also produce dangerous environmental conditions and threats to the natural world. EPA works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to protect public health and the environment in the wake of major storm events. From collecting hazardous waste to offering mold remediation assistance to providing more than $340 million in funding for repairs to drinking water and sewage treatment facilities, EPA played a significant role in the island’s recovery from Superstorm Sandy.
7. Climate Change – Long Island is on the front line of threats from sea-level rise, increasing storm intensity and other impacts of global climate change. EPA is an international leader in efforts to address these threats, contributing world-class research and providing sustainable solutions for adapting to and reducing the impacts from a changing climate.
8. Pesticide Control – Pesticides are widely used on Long Island: in homes & gardens, in agriculture (Suffolk County is one of the leading agricultural producers in New York State) and in efforts to protect the public from vector-borne diseases. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA regulates the production and use of these chemicals to ensure they don’t present unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. EPA’s ban of the mosquito-control pesticide DDT in 1972 is credited with the recovery of osprey, one of Long Island’s iconic wildlife species.
9. Toxic Waste – In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which authorized EPA to identify hazardous waste sites across the country and prioritize the worst (not to mention most complex and most expensive) for long-term monitoring and remediation. A special fund – known as Superfund – was established (with penalties recovered from the responsible polluters) to cover the clean up costs. There are nearly three-dozen Superfund sites on Long Island where EPA works to limit impacts to human health and the environment.
10. Waste Management – The infamous 1987 barge incident made Long Island synonymous with waste management problems. With the island’s population now at 7.5 million and growing, the challenges haven’t gone away. Through RCRA, the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, EPA helps Long Island municipalities deal with the many issues related to household garbage and non-hazardous industrial solid waste, including everything from source reduction to efficient recycling to safe transport and storage.
This is, of course, only a partial list; it’s a highlight reel from EPA’s vast body of vitally important work. It emphasizes the many ways in which the agency benefits the lives of Long Islanders every day. We urge you to stand up against the assault on EPA to protect this and other important work of the agency. While we understand that there are always ways to improve the agencies’ effectiveness and efficiency, we urge you defend EPA from efforts to shrink its role, gut its staff and limit its ability to protect the environment and the health and well being of people across Long Island.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
ENRICO G. NARDONE, Esq.
January 18, 2017
President-elect Trump has repeatedly said that he intends to be a President for all Americans. His appointment of E. Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency is a troubling sign that perhaps he didn’t have Long Islanders in mind.
In countless ways, Long Island depends on the EPA to safeguard our quality of life by protecting our natural environment. EPA works to clean the air we breathe, which has consistently failed to meet air quality standards over the past decade. Future improvements are dependent on EPA’s ability to address pollution from power plants, automobiles and other sources – some of the very rules that Mr. Pruitt has long sought to undermine. Similarly, EPA helps to safeguard our drinking water – our aquifer was the first in the nation to be recognized by the agency’s Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. Long Island also benefits significantly from EPA’s National Estuaries Program, as three of the nation’s 28 national estuaries are in our region: Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay and the NY/NJ Harbor.
Perhaps of greatest long-term concern is sea level rise. Long Island is on the front-line of climate change, with hundreds of thousands living on the ocean’s edge. Superstorm Sandy made troublingly clear how many of our communities are at significant risk, even at current sea levels. The long-term future of Long Island’s coastal communities depends on immediate, aggressive efforts to minimize sea level rise by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, while Long Islanders deal with the sea level rise that’s already here, Mr. Pruitt is still debating the facts of climate change.
EPA has always had its critics. And calls for rollback of the agency’s rules have been often repeated. However, Mr. Pruitt has taken this stance to another level. In his role as Oklahoma’s Attorney General he filed suit after suit in an attempt to undermine water and air protections and dismantle EPA’s authority. His own website brags that he’s a “leading advocate against EPA’s activist agenda.” Making him the agency’s Administrator is literally like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. For the sake of Long Island’s air and water - and the very quality of our life along our shore - we urge New York’s Congressional delegation to oppose Mr. Pruitt’s nomination.
Fire Island - Randy Levine, 2013 - All Rights Reserved
In late November 2016, Seatuck submitted the following comments on the National Park Services's Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Wilderness Breach (Bellport Inlet?) on Fire Island. We applauch the NPS decision to let the breach alone!
* * * * *
Mr. Chris Soller , Superintendent
Fire Island National Seashore
120 Laurel Street
Patchogue, NY 11772
RE: Comments on the Wilderness Breach Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Dear Superintendent Soller:
These comments on the Wilderness Breach Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (Breach Plan/EIS) are provided on behalf of the Seatuck Environmental Association, which has had a longstanding interest in the ecological health and restoration of the Great South and Moriches Bay ecosystems. We have followed with interest the public discourse regarding the formation of the Wilderness Breach and the decision-making process the National Park Service (NPS) has undertaken regarding its management, culminating in the preparation of the Breach Management Plan and EIS.
We support the breach remaining open due to the numerous, scientifically documented, ecological and water quality benefits, many of which are explained in detail in the EIS. Therefore, we support Option 3, NPS’s preferred option to allow for the breach to remain open unless certain dimensional criteria are exceeded, at which point NPS would move to close it.
While supportive of NPS’s preferred option, we nevertheless note the fundamental difference in approach that exists between Option 3 and the breach management strategy outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed Fire Island to Montauk Point plan (FIMP). The FIMP creates three categories of breach management: one for areas where it seeks to prevent breaches from forming (Proactive Breach Response), one for areas where breaches that do form must be closed immediately (Reactive Breach Response), and a third for those areas where breaches can be permitted to exist temporarily, but only if a breach closure team decides the breach is “closing naturally” (Conditional Breach Response). NPS Option 3, on the other hand, allows a breach to remain open and act naturally, unless certain criteria are met that mandate closure.
This difference in approach between NPS and the Army Corps, while hypothetical with regard to the Wilderness Breach (since the FIMP is still in draft form and not controlling), is a divergence that should be addressed. The NPS Wilderness Breach Management Plan is, on its face, limited to the existing breach (and only necessary because of the lack of guidance provided by the current Breach Contingency Plan), but it is reasonable to expect that the well-supported document will be influential with regard to future Fire Island breaches, especially in the Wilderness Area. However, to the extent the FIMP is in place in its current form, the approach of the Wilderness Breach Management Plan will be superseded by the Army Corps’ approach.
We urge that this difference be resolved in favor of the NPS approach. We encourage NPS to push for its more reasoned breach management approach to be integrated into the FIMP during final negotiation over the plan in the coming year. In fact, in our comments on the FIMP, we urged the adoption of a genuinely nuance, science-based decision making process similar to what took place with the Wilderness Breach in 2012. There, NPS led an effort to convene a team of scientific experts to assess the situation, monitor the breach, gathered data (about impacts to tides, storm risks and ecological conditions), and offer advice on both storm risks and ecological benefits. We urge that a similar process be followed for all future breaches on Fire Island.
In addition, we have the following specific comments on the Breach Plan/EIS:
• To mitigate against the adverse effects of mechanical closure on Piping Plover breeding, the Breach Plan/EIS wisely stipulates that mechanical construction activities occur outside of the breeding season. We note that the Wilderness Breach also provides important stopover habitat for the Federally listed Red Knot (Calidris canutus). These birds refuel at the inlet, feasting on small mussels and invertebrates during bimodal migrations that peak in May and again in late October. We urge that efforts be included to limit construction activities from these migration seasons to avoid adverse affects on the Red Knot.
• The final sentence of the Executive Summary (p. xii) the authors use the word anthropomorphic; this should be replaced with anthropogenic.
Seatuck appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Breach Plan/EIS for the Otis Pike High Dune Fire Island Wilderness Area Breach. Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
As anyone fishing or boating (or paying attenton to local news) in 2016 knew, it was a big year for Atlantic Menhaden (aka Bunker) in Long Island's estuaries. In fact, the past few years have seen increasing numbers of the ecologically important fish throughout their range. The Bunker boon, experts say, is largely the result of harvest limits put in place several years ago. In 2017, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will be finalizing plans for their future management. After particpating in hearings and a range of discussions and meetings about the issue, Seatuck submitted the following comments on the Commission's proposed amendments:
* * * * *
January 4, 2017
Ms. Megan Ware
Fishery Management Plan Coordinator
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
1050 North Highland Street, Suite 200A-N
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Re: Comments on Amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden – Seatuck Environmental Association
Dear Ms. Ware:
The Seatuck Environmental Association is a not-for-profit wildlife conservation organization whose mission is the protection of wildlife species on Long Island and the natural communities, habitats, and landscapes upon which they depend. One particular emphasis of Seatuck is the restoration of several species of anadromous river herring, most notably alewives, which spawn in the Island’s freshwater streams, through the removal of obstacles that block their path to spawning habitat. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced document and thank you for forwarding the power point presentation that was shown at the Freeport, NY public meeting.
Menhaden comprise one of the more important forage fish found along the Atlantic Coast as the species sustains many other species including humpback whales, dolphins, seals, numerous bird species, ranging from ospreys to gannets, and commercially and recreationally important fish such as Striped Bass and Bluefish. It clearly plays a critically important role in marine and estuarine food webs.
Before commenting on specific elements proposed in the Plan to manage Menhaden we’d like to offer specific comments on two aspects of menhaden management not presented in the Plan - the mandatory use of bait bags in other ASMFC regulated fisheries that utilize menhaden as bait and the creation of Menhaden spawning sanctuaries.
Mandatory Use of Bait Bags – Menhaden are used as bait in other commercial fisheries regulated by the ASMFC, such as American lobster and Blue Claw crab. Indeed, harvest of menhaden for bait in both commercial and recreational fisheries is a primary and growing component of the Menhaden Fishery. For those commercial fisheries which utilize menhaden as bait such, we urge that ASMFC mandate the use of bait bags, which can ensure a more efficient use of fish by using less menhaden per effort compared to not using bags.
Juvenile Development Sanctuaries – Juvenile Menhaden are known to develop in geographically limited, specific ranges within the overall area inhabited by the species; the Chesapeake Bay is one such area. Allowing for juvenile to develop into adults without the threat of harvest and therefore precluding their ability to contribute to the overall population, would provide benefits to the population at large.
COMMENTS ON PLAN ELEMENTS
Ecological Reference Points – The Plan discusses various options for establishing reference points to help manage the Menhaden stock. Seatuck strongly supports Option D - Use existing guidelines for forage fish species until ERPs are developed by the BERP working group, as we believe this will allow for the greatest amount of menhaden to be available to numerous species which utilize or depend upon them, as mentioned above, while also accommodating human demands for the fish.
Quota Allocation – Seatuck has no general comments regarding quota allocation except that it seems equitable to provide a fixed minimum quota to each state with a menhaden fishery.
Allocation Timeframe – we have no comment regarding this issue.
Quota Transfers and Overage Payback – We understand that Menhaden segregate by swimming in large schools of generally uniform size and age. One concern we have is that if a state wanted to transfer a certain poundage of unused quota to another state it could, depending on the states involved, result in many more fish being harvested due to the segregation of age classes mentioned above. If ASMFC believes this concern has validity, we would encourage any quota transfer system to be structured either geographically (i.e. involving nearby or adjacent states where the same age class of menhaden cohabitate) or some other way to prevent more fish, and potentially significantly more fish, from being harvested.
Quota Rollovers – the Plan contemplates allowing for unused quota allocations to be rolled over into subsequent years. Seatuck opposes this concept as it doesn’t seem fair and there is no analog in the recreational fishery. For example, if a recreational fisherman doesn’t meet his daily limit for Summer flounder of Striped Bass he cannot take twice the number the next day; the same should hold for commercial fishing. If for whatever reasons commercial fishers do not collectively take their quota in their prescribed time period, these fish should be kept in the ocean for the benefit of other species.
Incidental Catch and Small Fishery Allowance – According to current policy (page 16 of Amendment 3) menhaden captured after a state’s quota has been reached do not count toward the quota for that directed fishery but are considered by-catch, totaling from 1-2% of the total landings of fish or approximately 5.7 million pounds. In our view there is no reason to exclude bycatch fish from a state’s quota and we, therefore, strongly support the adoption of Option 3.
We will note, as was discussed at the ASMFC informational presentation in Freeport, NY it is illogical to contend that menhaden captured using either beach seines or cast nets can be considered by-catch as these fishing techniques are directed specifically at menhaden. At the very least Amendment 3 should contain a clear explanation as to why fish caught using these techniques should be considered bycatch.
Episodic Events Set Aside Program - We note that one unfortunate episodic event that occurred earlier this year in New York was the death of many millions of menhaden in the locks at the Shinnecock Canal on Long Island, due to an ill-advised closure of the canal locks while a vast school of menhaden was moving through. Entrapped in the locks the school of fish soon depleted oxygen levels, resulting in a large scale die–off. In the recent past there have been similar die-offs of menhaden in the mouth of the Peconic River. Seatuck strongly supports the harvesting and utilization of these fish for the bait industry so they are not wasted and should encourage states/companies/individuals to invest in this activity. One incentive might be to not count fish from these die-offs toward a state’s quota or make it some reduced fraction, so, for example, if 500,000 pounds of fish die from such an event it would only count for 250,000 pounds toward the state’s quota.
Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap – we support the continuation of the cap.
Research Programs and Priorities – as mentioned in the section on Quota Transfers and Overage Payback menhaden are well known to segregate into age classes. Better understanding the geographic distribution and movement of the age classes would provide the ASMFC with information useful in their management.
It would also be worthwhile to assess how Menhaden spawning areas may change or be affected by global climate change and warming ocean temperatures.
John L. Turner
Conservation Policy Advocate
* * * * * *
NYS DEC - Office of Climate Change
Albany, NY 12233-1030
Re: Comments on Proposed Part 490
Dear Mr. Lowery,
We submit these comments on behalf of Seatuck Environmental Association, Inc. (“Seatuck”), a nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving Long Island wildlife and the environment. The organization advocates for conservation policy across Long Island and operates two coastal, public nature centers: the Suffolk County Environmental Center in Islip, where Seatuck is based, and the South Shore Nature Center in East Islip.
On a global scale, tide gauges and satellite altimetry measurements have shown that over the last 100 years (1901-2010), global mean sea level has risen by about 7.5 inches (0.19 meters), with a mean rate of global sea level rise of 0.07 inches (1.7 mm) per year (IPCC 2015).
At the same time, since 1990, New York has experience a sea level rise of 12.1 inches (0.31meters) or a rate of 0.12 inches per year, which is nearly, doubled that of the global rate. The higher rates of sea level rise observed the New York region are attributed to the added local effects of subsidence, a sinking of the land.
In order to protect public and private structures, historic places, vital infrastructure facilities, and critical natural resources, the rate of sea-level rise observed along New York coastlines in the past, as well as the rate projected into the future must be considered.
The Part 490 projections, specific for New York State, are based on the scientific predictions for Montauk Point given in Horton et al. (2014) also called the ClimAID Report. The updated ClimAID Report is based on 24 detailed global climate model predictions for the region under varying greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (RPC 4.5, 8.5). ClimAID based projections compare well with those from the RISE Report (Zhang et al. 2015). Both agree for the lower projections but differ slightly for higher projection rates. RISE projections are based on more conservative, IPCC process-based models and slightly different conditions when considering accelerated melting of glacial ice and so, they yield slightly lower projected sea level rise predictions (NPCC 2015). This is a sound scientific method that facilitates inter-county cooperation, recognizing that New York City has already adopted the NPCC/ClimAID projections for planning purposes.
Barrier Islands naturally protect the south shore of Long Island, New York from storm surge flooding and are particularly susceptible to inundation from sea-level rise. The vast coastal, salt marsh ecosystems found all around the Island, act to filter seawater and to provide habitat for many marine animals, including juvenile fish, horseshoe crabs, and shore birds. These vital natural resources are in danger of disappearing as sea levels rise. It is imperative that we take steps to protect them.
Seatuck applauds the NYSDEC effort to develop science-based determinations of present and projected rise in sea-level in the State of New York and supports the Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA). We recognizes Part 490 as a single piece of the larger CRRA and we understand that as such does not impose any requirements on any entity, however, the development of an accepted set of sea-level rise estimates is fundamental to the implementation of the CRRA.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the new proposed 6 NYCRR Part 490 and fully support its implementation in within the CRRA.
Water Quality Scientist
Horton, R., D. Bader, C. Rosenzweig, A. DeGaetano, and W.Solecki. 2014. Climate Change in New York State: Updating the 2011 ClimAID Climate Risk Information. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany,
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010, New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force Report to the Legislature., New York pp. 1-93. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf
NPCC 2015: Appendix IIB. Sea level observations and projections: Methods and Analyses. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1336(1):116-150. doi:10.1111/nyas.12593 http://nysrise.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NY-SLR-Projection-by-RISE-May-2015-updated.pdf
Zhang, Minghua, Henry Bokuniewicz, Wuyin Lin, Sung‐Gheel Jang, and Ping Liu, 2014: Climate Risk Report for Nassau and Suffolk, New York State Resilience Institute for Storms and Emergencies (NYS RISE), NYS RISE Technical Report TR‐0‐14‐01, 49 pp. http://nysrise.org/docs/NYSRISE-SBU-ClimateRiskReportforNassauandSuffolk-August2014.pdf
The 2017 Work Plan for Suffolk County DPW's Vector Control Division is currently before the Suffolk County Legislature for Approval. The plan includes the controvrersial spaying of methoprene to control larval stage mosquitos. While Seatuck supports Vector Control's efforts to educate the public and to restore coastal marshes, we submitted the following comments in opposition to the methoprene component of the plan. The Legislature's Public Works, Transportation & Energy Committee approved the plan on Monday, December 12. The matter will be before the full Legislature on Tuesday, December 20. Written or in-person comments from the public are urged!
* * * * *
December 12, 2016
The Honorable Al Krupski
Public Works, Transportation & Energy Committee
Suffolk County Legislature
William J. Lindsey County Complex
Dear Legislator Krupski :
On behalf of the members of the Seatuck Environmental Association – a nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving Long Island wildlife – I am writing to urge your support for efforts to eliminate the use of the pesticide methoprene for mosquito control.
Suffolk County’s estuarine marshes – where methoprene is applied by airplane and helicopter – are, as you well know, a vital part of our coastal ecosystem and an invaluable resource to county’s residents. Once thought of as insignificant swamps, these coastal marshes are now recognized as one of the most ecologically productive habitats on the planet, even surpassing tropical rain forests. They provide habitat for countless marine and avian species, including both year-round residents and species stopping to rest and refuel during migration. They are especially important for many species’ juvenile stages. The sanctuary they provide for young blue crabs, fluke, and countless other species has earned them the moniker as the “nurseries of the sea.”
Salt marshes also provide important protection from storms, with their dense vegetation and soft substrate helping to dissipate energy from storm surges. This was a lesson many Long Islanders learned during Superstorm Sandy, when communities with intact marshes were spared some of the storm’s worst damage.
Public officials on Long Island have few more important obligations in maintaining the quality of life in our region than safeguarding –and, indeed, restoring– the health of our estuaries. At the same time, we also recognize the primary imperative to protect the health of the citizenry. To this end, we commend the work of the Suffolk County Department of Vector Control in protecting the health of Suffolk County residents from mosquito borne diseases, particularly West Nile Virus (WNV).
However, we are always cognizant of the fact that the mosquitos that inhabit salt marsh, particularly the Eastern Salt Marsh Mosquito (aedes sollicitans) are not primary WNV vectors. While capable of carrying the WNV virus, positive WNV tests for aedes sollicitans in the wild are rare. The salt marsh mosquito is a more effective vector of Eastern Equine Encephalitis, a rare disease that poses a limited threat (only five cases have ever been reported in New York). The more common carriers of WNV are mosquitos from the genus Culex, which are exclusively freshwater mosquitos (and cannot breed in the brackish water of the salt marsh). In fact, of the positive WNV mosquitos confirmed in Suffolk County this past year, all were from the Culex genus. The point is that the most serious WNV threat comes from Culex and other freshwater mosquitos, not the mosquitos of the salt marsh.
In the public’s mind, however, this is a distinction without a difference. Most people simply know that mosquitos can carry diseases and need to be controlled. To the extent they are even aware that different species of mosquitos exist, they perceive the disease risk as universal. In this regard, there is a conflation between public health and nuisance control. The fact that Vector Control is controlling mosquitos is good enough for most people, never mind why they are doing it. That salt marsh spraying is not generally advancing public health is not apparent to most citizens. And it is a distinction that is too often ignored, or not made clear, by public officials.
In the end, the issue of spraying methoprene comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. On one hand, as just discussed, the benefits to public health are limited. While the spraying may reduce the impacts of nuisance mosquitoes, especially for homeowners near the marsh, there is little evidence that the spraying of methoprene provides a significant public health benefit.
On the other hand, the costs may be significant. While some studies suggest that the low concentrations of vector control spraying have limited direct impacts on marine species, there are others that create concerns that even low concentrations of methoprene can have subtle impacts to everything from dragonflies to crabs to lobsters. There are also concerns about the cumulative impacts to the salt marsh ecosystem from multiple stressors. In an era of rising sea levels and increasing nitrogen pollution, our marshes and the species that rely on them are already under assault. In these conditions, it is wise to limit any and all additional stressors where possible. Other public officials, as you know, have already recognized this wisdom: The states of Connecticut and Rhode Island have been sufficiently convinced of methoprene’s risks that they’ve taken proactive steps to reduce use of the chemical in their vector control programs.
In the face of limited public health benefits and potentially significant (and still unknown) costs, we think it is prudent to cease the use of methoprene at this time.
Despite this position, we remain supportive of Vector Control’s other efforts to control mosquito populations, especially where they can have significant impacts to broad public enjoyment and beneficial economic activity. We are especially supportive of the department’s focus on educating the public about threats from freshwater mosquitos, including those that can be reduced by the prudent elimination of standing water around our homes and neighborhoods. We also support efforts to restore marsh health and reduce mosquitos through Integrated Marsh Management. The work conducted at the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge has produced impressive results, both in mosquito control and wildlife benefits. Importantly, the results of the pilot project have been subject to careful scientific analysis and detailed in peer-reviewed journals, which goes a long way in boosting public confidence. We support efforts to steer funding away from costly methoprene spraying to these other efforts, which have permanent, long-term impacts.
Suffolk County has lost countless acres of invaluable salt marsh habitat. In some embayments the losses exceed 90%. The harm that the loss of this acreage has done to our coastal ecosystem is hard to overstate. The 17,000 acres of marsh that remain in Suffolk County are all the more valuable because of this historic loss. We urge the Committee to safeguard this precious remaining habitat in any and all ways possible, including by eliminating the direct application of chemical pesticides such as methoprene.
Very truly yours,
ENRICO G. NARDONE, Esq.