March 15, 2002
BAIT AND SWITCH - PART TWO
While the Town of Southampton likes to brag that Golf at the Bridge is
the most heavily regulated golf course in the nation, what use is it if only some, and, not all, the regulations have been followed? A close look at what has actually transpired, and, what is transpiring, and what was revealed at the public informational meeting of December 4, 2001, regarding Golf at the Bridge, is that the golf course is partially in
compliance of all the resolutions set forth and passed by the Planning Board concerning Golf at the Bridge in April 1999. These resolutions also incorporated all the recommendations made by the town's independent consultants, A. Martin Petrovic and Thomas Cambareri made in their January 1999: "INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND REPORT ON THE INTEGRATED GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT PLAN AND GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND GOLF COURSE MONITORING PROTOCOL FOR GOLF AT THE BRIDGE" ["Petrovic & Cambareri Report"].
Furthermore, the rules were bent from the original 1999 resolutions and recommendations in order to rubber stamp a Certificate of Occupancy ["C.O."] for
the golf course on November 16, 2001, a few weeks before Dr. Petrovic's latest "Reports" reviewing some aspects of the golf course (most of it derivative) were made available to the public. A public that now refutes the Town's conclusion that a Certificate of Occupancy is warranted. It is not in compliance under the current circumstances. Plus, there is no "independent" oversight of what is happening up there, and, the Town, as revealed in all my nonstop Freedom of Information requests
since October 2000, just about rolled over and played dead until my Letters to the Editor and my FOIA requests, embarrassed them into at least re-hiring Dr. Petrovic to do a review that dragged on interminably. (As Dr. Petrovic is now testifying on behalf of "Donald Trump" to have a golf course built in Mt. Kisco uphill the village's public water
supply, one can only take his recent limited review / report with a grain of salt.) Dr. Petrovic also granted the developer's hirelings all kinds of allowances and apologies in this, his latest "Reports I and II"--much to the gratitude of the Town.
What's more, their sampling performance was dismal, those in the developer's employ making mistakes in "quality control." (There was no "independent testing" as was promised in a written statement by Councilwoman Martha Rogers when she voted in 1997 for the change of zone to allow the golf course.) Also, the developer's "Comprehensive Baseline Report" written by Stuart Cohen obfuscates the data. Here's an example. The "Table" listing the poundage of nitrates used (as well as other categories of chemicals) were given in so many pounds per square foot for the tees, the fairways and the roughs-all of various sizes. The Tables had columns like the following for each of the 18 holes and the practice greens:
| Hole |
Green/Tee |
Fairway |
Rough |
| 1 |
4lbsN/1000 |
3.25lbsN/1000 |
2lbsN/1000 |
| 2... etc. |
|
|
|
Yet, these columns--running up to 20 lines--was not factored and summed up for a grand total so one can see immediately how much nitrate was actually used.
First, having read myself (studied and notated) all present and past "Reports" (and the Town's approving resolution of 1999 ), and, measuring them against each other, prior to the "informational meeting" for the public on December 4, 2002, I had given the "Comprehensive Baseline Report" compiled by the developer's turf consultant, Stuart Cohen, and, Dr. Petrovic's October 2001 "Report I" and November's "Report II", to Peter Dermody, senior hydrogeologist at Enviroscience Consultants. Mr. Dermody had formerly reviewed the Cambareri & Petrovic Report of 1998-99 in previous years, (as I had myself) which encompassed far-reaching recommendations to be followed. It turns out that many of these recommendations were not followed. Studied all together, one can see how the former resolutions and recommendations have been remarkably dumbed down; or, totally disregarded altogether. Only a few of the recommendations made therein the 1998-99 Report were ever addressed in Petrovic's current 2001 reports. And, of these few, Dr. Petrovic has jumped through hoops to say that all the lapses and sloppiness demonstrated at the golf course is acceptable for a "Certificate of Occupancy ["C. O."]. (Mind you the town hired Dr. Petrovic merely to review the golf course, not make pronouncements about it being worthy of a C.O.) On the other hand, Mr. Dermody concluded that the "Comprehensive Baseline Report" that the developer's Stuart Cohen did-compared to all others Mr. Dermody has seen in his career-is inferior in quality.
I quote a passage from Mr. Dermody's letter dated December 11, 2001 to
the South Fork Groundwater Task Force that I forwarded to the Town Board. He states:
"The sampling conducted to date has contained a highly unusual number of sample, sample handling, and sample analysis errors. Therefore, the results cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the soil water and groundwater conditions. In addition, the Petrovic/Cambareri Report (dated January 1999) required the sampling to utilize low flow pumps [my emphasis]. The ETS report" [Stuart Cohen's Comprehensive Baseline Report] "dated 19 months later, states that low flow pumps were not used but are being evaluated to determine if they will be able to pump from the deep wells at the site. Enviroscience evaluated the pump curves for low flow pumps and found that they are easily capable of pumping from depths over 300 feet. Low flow sampling provides the most accurate sampling where regular submersible pumps (which were used to pump the wells) can destroy some of the compounds due to turbulent flow and heat. We recommend that the sampling be performed by an independent, qualified consultant as was requested by the Southampton Town Board."
19 months have passed for Stuart Cohen's so-called "evaluation." The 1999 recommendations said to use "low-flow sampling" . Why so long to evaluate? It is only but another example of the numerous breaches and bad faith on the part of Stuart Cohen et al. that has been exhibited time after time. (Not to mention the big pipe that ran off the golf course that carried chemically laced water off the property creating a gully about 1/3 in length onto adjacent property-a blatant violation which was never cited by a code enforcement officer. It was discovered by neighbors. I reported it to the town and requested they take soil and water samples to be tested as smaller pipes connected to the big pipe vacuumed up the tee when wet. They never did this. (Is this lack of oversight and blind, deaf and dumb attitude what we want from the town?)
At the "informational" meeting of December 4, 2001, I was asked by Councilwoman Carolyn Zenk to come back before the Board to detail the discrepancies between the 1999 resolution and recommendations that show the golf course is not in compliance as there was no time for it that day. A member of the audience requested it be televised (as this
session was not. I had to insist that they even record it on audiotape) so that the public can be made fully aware and apprised of this situation.
As a service to the public, the Town ought put the 1999 Cambareri/Petrovic Report on-line at the Town's Website. Along with: the Planning Board's April 1999 approving resolutions for Golf at the Bridge, and Dr. Petrovic's current Reports I and II (and his "amendment" to Report I). This way, the public can view for themselves the egregious discrepancies that have been allowed. That the public had to wait from February 2001-when the Town Board hired Dr. Petrovic-until December 2001 for his latest review/report to find out if the golf course was complying with some of the 1999 recommendations is, in itself, egregious, as many of these things were to be performed before the golf course was constructed, not afterwards. And, it was only because I swamped them with pointed Freedom of Information Requests, wrote embarrassing letters to the editor that the town was goaded the into hiring someone (in this case, Dr. Petrovic) to find out what was going on up there. It is also interesting to note that Dr. Petrovic hardly made any visits to the golf course and that his information is derivative, based upon information and figures provided him by the developer's emissaries. There'd been no oversight, or independent investigation as to what'd been going on at the golf course since 1999, and then, not until I started to yell bloody blue murder did they attempt some band-aid action. The Town has never answered a February 2001 Resolution made by the Noyac Citizens Advisory Committee asking the Town to appoint an "Oversight Committee" including a member of the CAC, along with Dr. Petrovic, Town staff, and Town Board member.
What we do know, is that the degradent, Triadimenol, of the fungicide Triadimefon has shown up in a lysimeter on the golf course. (And, they only used 8 gallons of the stuff--used it to kill plant disease).
That, as of December 4, 2001 the developer had still not turned over a copy of a "complete" and "acceptable" Natural Resources Management Plan ["NRMP"] given to
Audubon International and Audubon's "written review" of same to the Town as was recommended in the Petrovic/Cambareri Report of 1999. This is yet another example of what the public is forced to tolerate. (A draft NRMP was turned down by Audubon as "incomplete" and "unacceptable" in March 1999-When last I spoke to Audubon's Director of the "Signature Golf Program," Nancy Richardson, in 2000, she was backtracking from, and, dumbing down the criteria for the NRMP too. Audubon Internationals is not the real Audubon Society and not to be confused with it. )
Also, left out of the developer's "Comprehensive Baseline Report" are figures on how
they arrived at certain conclusions.
We should be discomfited by the Petrovic Reports of 2001. It left out, neglected to address, many important recommendations mandated in 1999. Also, it left many issues still unresolved, such as "the saturated flow problem" that Dr. Cambareri brought up in 1998. Also, there is no resolution of the protocol changing from quarterly sampling to annual sampling after five years, something that Audubon is against, and that the 1999 Petrovic & Cambareri Report was against also. They didn't add quite the percentage of organic matter to the soil as had been stipulated (which helps prevent leaching of chemicals into the groundwater.). It shows movement of the chemical, Triadimenol. The grand totals (of pounds or gallons) for each category of chemical applied has not been given. Also, "nitrates" are showing a rising trend. As it stands, there is less than 0.02ppm nitrates in the Suffolk County Water Authority's public wells in the Noyac area. That's pure-that is, "non-detectable." The Town will be allowing contamination up to 10ppm. The ambient amount of nitrates found in water on the South Fork is only 1.5ppm! To allow 10ppm is a wanton degradation of this critical resource. Against Town Code. Time to put all this data on the Town's Website. Expose the big Bait and Switch for what it is.
Julie Penny, Co-Chair
South Fork Groundwater Task Force
 South Fork Groundwater Task Force
PO BOX 2360 Sag Harbor, NY 11963
Phone/Fax: 631 - 725 - 6200
Site By: Hamptons Online
|
|
|
