NOYAC CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

                                       
Julie Penny – Chair
George Tucker – Vice-Chair
Carmine Martino - Secretary


________________________________________________________________________

POINTS OF NON-COMPLIANCE 3/9/02

SAMPLING SCHEDULE

  1. Did Not Conduct “Quarterly” Test Sampling (Violation of “Monitoring Agreement” in 1999 Planning Board Resolution # 15 ).
    1. This “Monitoring Agreement” along with the “1999 Recommendations” by the Independent Consultants, Petrovic & Cambarari in their 1/5/99 Report were incorporated into the Planning Board’s approving resolutions for Golf at the Bridge.

    2. Under the April 15, 1999 Planning Board Resolutions approving Golf at the Bridge, Resolution #15 says, a “Monitoring Agreement” was executed between the applicant, the Suffolk County Water Authority [SCWA] and the Town of Southampton on April 7, 1999. This Monitoring Agreement mandates that testing be done on a quarterly basis for the first 5 years, annually thereafter.

      Page 8 of the Monitoring Agreement, Schedule B, Section 1 states applicant:  
      ***“2. shall conduct sampling in accordance with schedule “C”***

      Schedule C of same, page 15, states:
      ***“Monitoring will begin no less than one week after the wells have been developed. Two baseline sampling rounds will be taken prior to golf course clearing”*** [Not Done—the land was cleared in summer of 1999, and some of the monitoring wells tested for a “baseline” were done in July 2000 and December 2000 & “Since pesticides & fertilizers were applied to the site prior to sampling, a baseline sample was not obtainable— Petrovic Report II, p 6] [According to the golf course Superintendent Tiska’s report of 2001 (attached to Petrovic’sReport ) “Grassing began in early July.”

      The purpose of “quarterly” test sampling as stated in A. Martin Petrovic’s Part II Report of November 15, 2001 is that:
      ***“Quarterly monitoring is done to hopefully detect a pollutant that is moving with ground water and to then take corrective measures if a pesticides or nutrient is detected at high levels. So far two sets of quarterly data has been submitted for review (sent me Oct 22, 2001 ). The applicant must make every effort to have quarterly reports done as soon as possible after sampling so that corrective actions could be taken if necessary so as to help protect the ground water quality.” ***

      Dr. Petrovic wrote this in response to the fact that the applicant had not done “quarterly” testing.

      In the November 15, 2001 , Report II, page 11 by A. Martin Petrovic , Dr Petrovic states:

      ***“It is recommended that quarterly ground water
      sampling results be made available on a more
      timely fashion if possible.”***


    3. “Clearing” for the golf course took place in July 1999. “Grassing” (planting and sodding ) in July 2000.

    4. This “Monitoring Agreement” along with the 1999 Recommendations by the Independent Consultants in their 1999 Report were incorporated into the Planning Board’s approving resolutions for Golf at the Bridge.

      Page 9 of the Monitoring Agreement also states:

      ***”Within thirty (30) days after execution of this agreement,
      Owner shall supply Town and the SCWA with copies of
      the baseline water quality data available to date.”***

      This was not done. The first two rounds of “baseline” data on the first nine (9) monitoring wells installed in 1998 was conducted in August/Sept and November 1998. The second round of baseline testing conducted on 14 more monitoring wells installed in 2000 was in July and December of 2000. These testing results were not given to SCWA for it to review until January 2001. This review was completed by SCWA’s Director of Laboratories, Karen Randazzo , in her Quality Control review, dated May 7, 2001 .

      Page 16 of the Monitoring Agreement shows a “Table” of the sampling schedule:



      ***“Table 1   Sampling Schedule for First Five Years

         
      Year Sampling Events
      0 2 (Baseline events prior to clearing)
      1 4
      2 4
      3 4
      4 4
      5 4
      - -
      Total 5 22”***


      In Actuality, this is what happened:
      1998 0 2    (baselines events prior to clearing)
      July 1999 1 0 (land cleared in July)
      2000 2 2    (baseline events long after clearing)
      (And, after application of fertilizers in July & Dec 2000)
      2001 3 3    (March, June, October 2001)
                                                                      

      According to the Monitoring Agreement, by the end of 3 years, 14 sampling events should have occurred. In actuality, at the end of 3 years, only 7 sampling events took place.

      Page 22, of the 1999 Petrovic and Cambarei “INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND REPORT ON THE INTEGRATED GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT PLAN ANF THE GOLF COURSE MONITORING PLAN AND GOILF COURSE MONITORING PROTOCOL FOR GOLF AT THE BRIDGE, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK” [“ Petrovic & Cambareri 1999 Report”], refers to the “Sampling Schedule” to be undertaken:

                    

                      ***”The sampling frequency consists of two background samples prior to construction and quarterly samples (6x4=12) each year for five years, then annually thereafter. If additional deep wells (5) and green underdrainage sites (2) are added to the program, then the number of quarterly sample sites increases from 6 to 13. this would translate to (13x4=52) 52 samples per year.”***



  2. “REPORTING”

    1.   Under the Monitoring Agreement in Planning Board Resolution # 15, the SCWA states that the results of an “ Interperative Report” be given to The Suffolk County Water Authority and the Town of Southampton. No reporting results have been given to the Town during 1998, 1999, 2000, until October/November 2001. Starting in August 2000, and ending in October 2001, repeated F.O.I.L. requests were filed by Southampton Town’s Noyac Citizen’s Advisory Committee, asking for such sampling results and the Town insisted that it did not have them. Starting in October 2001, the Town’s Board of Trustees asked for the results of testing, and the amounts of pesticides and fertilizers applied, and they too, were not able to get this information from the Department of Land Management. The Board of Trustees needed such information as it had hired consultants to conduct an environmental sampling/inventory of Trout Pond, located downgradient of Golf at the Bridge.   

          “Interpretive Report”:

       

      The Petrovic & Cambarei Report 1999, page 24, states:

      ***Data from the green underdrainage sampling stations is not required to be submitted directly but, for internal management purposes. This data shall however be included in the interpretive annual report”***

      There has been no “annual interpretive report” sent either to SCWA or the Town. Attached is a letter, dated, September 13, 2001 , from Steve Jones, CEO of SCWA to Julie Penny, Co_Chair of the South Fork Groundwater Task Force. In it he states:

        ***”The first annual interpretive report has not been received by the SCWA. A full year of quarterly monitoring would have to be performed before an interpretive report could be issued. According to Stuart Cohen, the golf course consultant, the first annual interpretive report will be due after this December’s quarterly sampling.”***

      This is wrong. Sod was laid down and grass seed planted starting in July 2000. The first annual report was then due in July 2001. That time frame constitutes “annual”. Not July 2000 to December 2001.

      Comprehensive Report and “Comprehensive Baseline Report”   



      The Petrovic & Camaberi Report 1999, continues:

      *** In addition , the interpretive report shall include a list of the types and amounts of fertilizers and pesticides used on the course as well as information from the turf database and its use in implementing the Intrgrated Golf Course Management Plan. In addition, information including the amount of irrigation pumping per daily, weekly, monthly and annual periods correlated with observed weather measurements and its use in turf management shall also be reported annually.”***

       

      It’s the “Comprehensive Baseline Report” that lists they types and the amounts (but not total asmounts ) of fertilizers. There is no report—baseline or interpretive—that addresses a “database” and its “use in implementing the Integrasted Golf Course Management Plan, or the rest of the abovementioned.

       

      Page 32 of the Petrovic & Cambareri Report (1999) sates:

      “V. Reporting…

      “Interpretive reports of the results shall be submitted annually by the Study Director (Cohen) to the Town of Southampton’s Department of Land Management and the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA).” [NOT DONE—SEE: Petoivc & Cambarei Report 1999, page 24: “…The interpretive report shall include a list of the types and amounts of fertilizers and pesticides used on the course as well as information from the turf database and its use in implementing the Integrated Golf Course Mangrment Plan. In addition, information including the amount of irrigation pumping per daily, weekly, monthly and annual periods correlated with observed weather measurements and its use in turf management shall also be reported annually” Petrovi & Camabreri , 1999—There is no such integration of information for the “turf database” in the “ Comprehnsive Baseline Study”, and, there is no “Interpretive” Report as such.   The “Comprehensive Baseline Report’ is a misnomer because (a) it’s not a baseline, it contains baseline plus later testing (b) it’s a hybrid containing information that would be in the “interpretive” report, while lacking elements that are mandated to be in a “comprehensive” report. [And, it hasn’t been done “annually”—if it were, there’d be one for 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001] “In addition, a comprehensive report will be issued after both of the baseline sampling events have been analyzed.” [This was NOT DONE—No interpretive report.   And, also, no baseline report until Novemebr 2001—SEE:         ] “It will contain detailed information about monitoring system design, implementation, rationale, and result. The interpretive reports will include pesticides used and quantities.” Data has been omitted from the report that was mandated. Figures that should have been factored all the way through in order to “interpret” the overall picture of what is happening is missing.

      Pesticides and fertilizers were actually added to the soil, according to

      Petrovic in Report I, saying that a “Baseline” sample could not be accomplished because of this. Monitoring wells were installed in 1998 and another set in 2000. The wells installed in 2000 should have been installed in 1999 and sampling performed before any “clearing” took place.

       

      b)       Page 32 of the Monitoring Agreement states:

      ***”In addition, a comprehensive report will be issued after both of the baseline sampling events have been analyzed. It will contain detailed information about monitoring system design, implementation, rationale, and results.***

       

      Contrary to the agreement (a) There was no report given to SCWA or the Town after the baseline sampling events were analyzed in 1998 or 2000 (b) There is no information in this hybrid “Comprehensive Baseline Report of September 28, 2001 containing “detailed information   about monitoring system design, implementaion , rationale” culled from a “turf database” of parameters taken daily.[1]

       

       

       

       

      1. “PROTOCOL DEVIATION”


      Page 24 of Petrovic & Cambareri Report (1999) states:     

        ***“Protocol Deviation: Shall be reported to SCWA with notification to the Town of Southampton.”***

      Karen Randazzo , Director of SCWA’s Laboratory reviewing the golf course data complained about the deviations in testing protocols in her May 7, 2001 review that the applicant’s Environmental & Turf Services [“ETS”] did not ever explain why they deviated from protocol. Page 31 of the Monitoring agreement says any ***”deviations from protocol shall be documented in writing. Accidental deviations after the fact shall also be documented”*** Karen Randazzo’s May 7, 2001 “Review” appears as “Appendix M” in ETS’ “Comprehensive Baseline Report”. In it she complains of deviations from the protocol.

      There have been protocol deviations in that quarterly testing was not followed and deviation from such protocol was not reported to SCWA with notification to the Town of Southampton as stipulated. This is just one instance. All the mistakes in “Quality Control” were not reported in writing to SCWA, nor was Southampton Town given notice of them. The 1999 recommendations by Petrovic & Cambaeri , page 19, state :

        ***”The standing Protocol indicates that a comprehensive report will be issued after the baseline sampling events are analyzed and that will include information about the monitoring system design, implementation, rational and results.”***

      The Monitoring Agreement, page 31 Section C states:

      *** Environmental and Turf Services (Rubin’s consultants) and Director of Laboratories at SCWA (Karen Randazzo ) will concurrently receive for their review identicqal summaries of all lab and QC data. “***

      This has not happened. It wasn’t “concurrent”, Environemental & Turf received the summaries first.

      The Monitoring Agreement, page 31, Section C states: ***Details on packaging and sent overnight to SCWA approved Lab.”***

      This did not happen. Some sample were not sent in a timely way; and, some of the Labs were not SCWA approved.

      The Monitoring Agreement, page 31, Section D, states: ***”Protocol Deviations- Approval for protocol deviations must be requested in advance from Study Director. In any case, protocol deviations shall be documented in writing. Accidental deviations after the fact shall be documented in writing--***

      (Karen Randazzo’s comments in her May 7, 2001 , proves that these deviations were not submitted to her in writing. She says they never explained “why’ they “deviated from protocol”)

      ***--accompanied by an analysis as to whether the deviations impacted groundwater monitoring results***

      It did!   A lot of the sample were rendered useless because of quality control (QC) mistakes.

            This did not happen.

      Monitoring Agreement, page 27: ***“5. Description of weather conditions”*** should occur in the “Field Log Book”—They were not in the in the “Comprehensive Baseline Report.”

      The following are “Quality Control” (“QC”) problems that Petrovic talks about in his Report II of November 2001:



      Monitoring Agreement, page 28, ***”B. Chain of Custody and Shipment”—They had problems (SEE: Petrovic Report II)

      Monitoring Agreement, page 31, ***”C. Laboratory Qualtiy Control”*** They had problems (SEE: Petrovic Report II)

      Monitoring Agreement, paqge 31: ***Protocol Dedviations ”*** They had problems (SEE: Petrovic Report II)



      Monitoring Agreement, page 9, Section 5, states ***”Wherever this agreement or the groundwater monitoring protocol requires any written submission to the Town or to the SCWA, said requirement shall be deemed to require submission to both the Town and the SCWA.***

      This has not been done. Results of testing sent to SCWA but not to Town.



      This has not been done. Also, page 23 of the Petrovic & Cambareri 1999 Report states:

      ***“ [However,] it is recommended that the Sampling Procedure make use of the EPA low flow method for sampling from groundwater monitoring wells. The requirements for purging should be evaluated for reasonableness for low flow techniques.”*** This recommendation has been wholly ignored. At the public information meeting of December 4, 2001 in which Dr. A. Martin Petrovic , went over the results of his [ Petrovic’s ] review of the golf course, Mr. Stuart Cohen, said he was still “evaluating” low flow techniques. This 19 MONTH wait is unconscionable.

          I quote a passage from a letter dated December 11, 2001 from Peter Dermody , Senior Hydrogeologist at EnviroScience to Julie Penny, Co-Chair, the South Fork Groundwater Task Force that was forwarded to the Town Board. Mr. Dermody 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.”***

      The amendments to the “Monitoring Agreement” SPECIFICALLY SAYS TO USE “LOW FLOW”—See December 2001 Letter to SFGTF by Hydrogeoloist Peter Dermody on why using “Low-Flow” IS SO IMPORTANT.

      GRASSES USED



      The Planning Board’s Resolution #15 C says to use those grass seeds recommendaed by Frank Rosssi of Cornell Cooperative Extension. These are the varieties A-4 and G-2.

      The applicant used others instead. In addition, the Petrovic and Cambarei report (1999) specifically said not to use “ Pencross creeping bentgrass ” as it was “developed in the 1950’s” and as “there’s been an explosion of new and better and improved bentgrasses ” However, Petrovic’s Report I of October 2001 says that they indeed did use “ Pencross creeping bentgrass .” Page 9 of the Petrovic & Cambareri Report (1999) ***“We recommend thatc the Planning Board require the applicant to use one of the new and improved varieties (such as a blend of best A-4, G-2) on all areas of this golf course as recommended by Dr. Frank Rossi Turfgrass Extension Specialist for golf courses in New York State, who is responsible for making variety recommendations for golf courses in New York.”***

      Also, ***We recommend that the Planning Board require the applicant to use

      endophytic grass varieties in the roughs.”***

      Petrovic Report I, page 1 states ***Without grasses with endophytes there is a potential for damage from surface feeding insects such as cinch bug and sod webworm in which case an insecticide may be needed or a biocontrol agent used.”***

      In an “addendum” letter, dated October 24, 2001, from Petrovic to Jeff Murphree of Southampton’s Department of Land Management, to his Report I, Dr. Petrovic lists the names of some of the grasses used and the amounts of the “Microscopic % of Endophytes these seeds contain as indicated in “Tables” provided by the grass seed supplier, Turfseed , Inc., for the years: “1996”, “1998”, “1999”

      (SEE: Petrovic’s letter )      “Tiffany chewings ” contains a blank in the year 1996, 88% in 1998, a blank in 1999; “Bighorn sheeps ” contained 42% in 1996, a blank in 1998, a blank in 1999; Discovery contained a blank in 1996, 87% in 1998, a blank in 1999; “ Seabreeze ” –which was used, according to Petrovic , but not highlighted in the “Table’ as were the others used, contained a blank in 1996, 0% in 1998, a blank in 1999. Also, as regards, “ endophytes ” they are not viable after a few months if not kept in the right conditions. These seeds were planted in the year 2000. As they were at least a year old, maybe two, (a) we do not know if the endophytes were viable (b) some of the seeds either contained no endophytes , the others “blank, through 42% to 87%. This is not compliance.

      For reference sake, I’ve created my own ENDOPHYTE CONTENT TABLE based on the suppliers:

                                      1996           1998           1999

      Tiffany                                            88%

      Bighorn sheep               42%

      Discovery                                       87%      

      Seabreeze                                      0%



      ORGANIC MATTER AMENDMENTS TO SOIL

      P&C Report (1999) said to amend it to “at least15.8%”

      Petroiv Report I Oct 2001 said they only amended it to 14.8%

      SCOUTING AND MONITORING

       

      There is no evidence in the “Comprehensive Baseline Report” that Scouting, monitoring, and mapping” have taken place. The P&C Report (1999) says:
      ***”We recommend the applicant provide a detailed method of scouting/monitoring mapping they will operate under.”***

       

      The golf course Superintendent, Tiska’s Report, found in the Appendix to Petrovic’s Report I, dated October 2001, refers to it happening at a future time. He faxed this to Petrovic on August 28, 2001 :

      The golf course Superintendent says:

      ***”Scouting and Monitoring:

       

       

                  Scouting and monitoring have become important tools in the golf course business today. The management staff at The Bridge are completely in tune to this in order to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Not only is it important to cure the problem but also to have on record data of where the problem may occur on a yearly basis.

                  The scouting will be preformed by either the Golf Course Superintendent, or one of his assistants whom are educated turfgrass students. This task will be preformed on a daily basis during the golf course set up.

                  The Bridge greenstaff have made up forms which will be filled out completely during any type of scouting and will be kept on file in the office. This will assist the management staff in making decisions on how to treat the problem.

                  The tasks of the scout are fairly simple. The scout must first identify the insect, weed or disease. Next the scout will determine if the pest is close to its’ aesthetic thresholds. In other words, how many white grubs or dollar spots or crabgrass plants-are too many. These tolernace levels has been established in the Management plan for The Bridge. Secondly, we will look to see if there are any natural enemies present in the area to eliminate the problem. Taking note of certain environmental conditions such as air temperature, soil temperature, amount of rain recently, wind speed, along with if there might be be areas of poorly drained soil, sandy soil, poor air circulation, or not enough sun light to certain areas are critically important to the final decision. This is where the Certified Golf Course Superintendent can make certain decisions of maybe waiting for a weather pattern to break or eliminating some trees to add some sunlight or increase air movement.

                  Once all of these questions are answered then determining if any thresholds have been broken but some scouting techniques. The soapy flush, for thatch and soil born, rating grids, light traps and also pheromone traps to keep a count on certain threshold levels. Using the information gathered by the scout, the superintendent will make the final decision about how to handle the situations.”***

       

       

      The Petrovic & Cambareri Report (1999) states:

      ***The Superintendent will develop certain site specific planning tools with his staff. Baseline data will be developed for the first year of grow-in. The Planning Boasrd should require applicant to supply baseline data and site specific thresholds in the first year annual monitoring report with additional fine-tuning in subsequent yerars and submit to the Planning Board any changes made to thresholds.”***

       

      The Comprhensive Baseline Report of Sept 2001 makes no mention of these “site specific planning tools” they’ve generated from a database. They do have log sheets in the Comprehensive Baseline Report, but they are raw data that have not been analyzed to show the trends and to generate action plans based upon this data.

       

      Prior to Superintendent Tiska , there was an “interim” Superintendent, O’Conner whose resume shows that he was from Vermont. Letters to the Town asking if he was hands on in the development and oversight of the golf course remained unanswered. (P&C Repoert 1999) states that the;

      *** Superintendent should be picked with a strong background in compliance with regulations, monitoring***    It remains uncertain if this has been the case.

       

       

      THRESHOLDS

      Petrovic and Cambareri Report (1999) addressed the contradictions made by the applicant’s Environmental & Turf Services, Inc. The P&C Report (1999), page 7, states that

      ***the plan [IPM Plan] list 9 objectives for Best management Practices (page III-5), the last of which is to accept certain levels of turf loss and damage. Other parts of the Plan (Pest infestation Thresholds, page V-44-56) make it clear that no damage to greens/tees will be tolerated for any pests. Setting and adhering to thresholds is fundamental to reducing the amount of chemical application. Setting thresholds of no damage to greens and tees are the norm of many upscale golf courses. The authors of this plan should state this or if threy truly believe that some pest damage is acceptable, then raise the thresholds to allow for more pest damage before pesticides will be applied”***

      This has not been done.

      ****Much of the language surrounding development and implementation of the IPM [ Integrarted Pest Management] appears to be optional for the golf course superitnedent . IPM must be part of the operation. The plan indicvates that staff resources (number of tasks verses the number of staff) equipment and technical consultants with a planned calendar of work tasks are essential for a successful IGCPM. (III-6-9). The goals of Pest monitoring control systems (pages III-6-9) are the establishment of baseline data to determine if action will be necessary for pest control. This is to be accomplished by daily 2-hour assessments of turf conditions”***

      There is no mention of these dailyt 2-hour assessments (or evidence of these sheets) in the Comprehensive Baseline Report.

      There is no mention of the establishment of a “Threshold” in the Comprehensive Baseline Report,

      Now, while the Superitnedent says that there has been no pest infestations, there was a plant disease they wanted to eradicate. They did not say what “threshold” they used to decide when it was to be eradicated.

      The Comprehensive Baseline Reports gives no results of these assessment.

      Furthermore, on page 8 of the P&C Report (1999 ), page 8,

      ***requires applicant to specify what the pesticide approach is for the interim period.”***

      None was ever given.

      The P&C Report, Page 15 states:

      ***“We recommend the Planning Board require applicant specify the exact nature of pest monitoring and “action thresholds” the golf course will operate under and submit to the Town annually showing compliance with plan.”***

      This has not been done.



      Petrovic’s October 2001 Report I refers to a degradent , Triadimenol , of the fungicide Tiradimefon , showing up in one of the lysimeters . Eight gallons, of Triadimenol were used to stem a plant disease. Under the recommendation of Petrovic and Cambareri Report (1999), thresholds were to be set beforehand, pasge 15 of the P&C Report (1999) says, ***We recommend the Planning Board require applicant specify exact nature of pest monitoring and action thresholds the golf course will operate under and submit to Toown annually showing compliance with plan.”***

      This has not happened.

      :

      ***”We recommend that applicant provide a detailed

      The thresholds

       

      ALLOWED PEOPLE TO PLAY GOLF WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:



      1. Allowed people to play golf before C.O. issued on November 16, 2001 (including Councilman Skip Heaney in Septmeber 2001! Interesting, since membership costs $300,000 and Skip Heaney voted for the change-of-zone to allow the golf course.) Violation of 1999 Planning Board Resolution #26.


      Resolution # 26 states:

      *** “The golf course may not be occupied or used unless and until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.”***

      VIOLATIONS BY COMMISSION AND OMISSION

      1. The things they’ve done (and didn’t do constitutes a violation under 1999 Planning Board Resolution # 16:


      ***“Failure by the applicant or the golf course operator to comply with any of the requirements, conditions, or recommendations of the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan (ICCMP), the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM), the Water Quality Risk Assessment (WQRA) and Golf Course Monitoring Agreement (GCMA), as same are amended herein, as may be determined by the Natural Resource Director and/or Planning Board, shall be considered violation of these conditions.”***

       

       

      VIOLATION TO TOWN CODE (Drain pipe)

      1. Having the drainpipe bring water off the property and onto an adjacent property (where it formed a gully) was an actual violation of Town Code.
       

      1. Planning Board 1999 Resolution, 11 I. They may have already given the Town an as-built survey, yet this pipe was in violation (We found it in February 2001). The Town’s Engineer Consultants had done their “final report in July of 2000” and made no mention of this pipe.


      SCOUTING AND MONITORING

      1. I made a F.O.I.A. request for the “detailed method of scouting/monitoring mapping they will operate under” that was suppsed to be operating undfer , and they didn’t provide one. It would then violate Planning Board 1999 Resolution #”15, .B”


      7         Appears he didn’t use correct grass seeds under “#15, B”; # “15 D” “ Seabreeze ” one of the grasses used was supposed to contain endophytes , but the certificate table does not show that Seabreeze contains the endophytes . Petrovic was coy about this when I brought it up to him, and evasive. And, the endophytes are short-lived and need to be planted within a few months and the table shows they weren’t planted until a year after purchase. The grasses themselves weren’t the one suggested in “#15 C”

      1. “15 L” “ With respect to Integrated Pest Management Pan, the applicant shall be required to provide pesticide use (including biocontrol agents) and fertilzer application annual records to the Town of Southampton..” In VIOLATION. I made F.O.I.A. requests continuously from October 2000 and they kept saying that  they didn’t have such records—t6hat the applicant hadn’t turned in such records yet.  (They should have been “annual.”)   Why didn’t the Town demasnd the applicant for such records, they were supposed to by law to have received them?


          10. “15 S” “With respect to Integrated Golf Course management Plan, the applicant shall supply baseline data and site specific thresholds in the firs year annual monitoring report with additional fine-tuning in subsequent years and submit to Planning Board any changes made to thresholds. DIDN’T state “site-specific thresholds”/ Didn’t supply baseline data” VIOLATION



      ADDENDUM TO NON-COMPLAINCE*         MARCH 20, 2002

      *As re. non-compliance, it is to be noted that the 1999 Planning Board Resolutions (a) had resolutions that needed to be fulfilled which were not tied to a C. of O. (And, which were violated.) (b) while some other of the resolutions of the requirements to be fulfilled were tied to a C.of O.

      Non-compliance with following 1999 Planning Board Resolutions:

      # 8 - ***“Any structural features needed for slope stabilzation shall require submission of a plan for review and approval by the Town Engineer.”***

       

      VIOLATION. (See police complaint re. pipe going off property. SEE: photos; Town Engineer Talmadge memo, okaying situation AFTER it had been installed without authorization. See Town’s Consulting Engineer’s [McLean’s] final report, July 2000—they needed haybales and silt filters, which were not in place when pipe ran water off property {which is also a violation of Town Code).

      #11 – ***“G.       Prior to final grading and installation of any new plant material, including the planting of turf grass, the applicant shall submit a Final Grading and Re-vegetation Plan to the Director of Natural Resources and the Town Engineer for their review and approval. Among other things, said plan shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the site plan approval and recommendations in the Director of Natural Resource’s February 1, 1999 and April 12, 1999 Advisory reports.”***

          NOT DONE, if so, how come they used the wrong variety of grass seeds? Penncross was not to be used according to Petrovic & Camabreri Recommendations; and, they used other seeds other than what was mandated in #15 C

      #11 – ***“I    Once the re-vegetation and final grading has been completed, the applicant shall submit an as-built survey depicting the location of all tees, greens, fairways, intermediate and perimeter roughs, and all other man-made features, to the Director of Natural Resources and Chief Building Inspector to verify compliance with the conditions of this approval.”***

           NOT DONE. (See McLean’s final report (July 2000) re pipe, haybales , etc.)

           NOT DONE – Fence not taken down as per # 22

      #11 - *** “Prior to the final inspection, the aforementionbed schedule may be conducted in sections or phases (i.e. series of holes), provided all joint inspections are conducted and applicant has paid all inspection fees…” ***

           F.O.I.A Requests show contradictory information. Southampton Town Comptroller has no record of “contract” or cancelled checks paid to the consultant “McLean Associates” that was hired for this task. There is only one cancelled check from BRRC to the Town for $1024.29, (based on one McLean invoice). McLean proposal said the work would cost $12,000.



      #11 -     *** “The applicant shall be responsible for the reasonable costs of the site inspection required herein. Such inspection fee may include the costs of the Town to hire and independent consultant to perform such inspections at a set hourly rate Unless the Naturla Resources Director determines otherwise, all inspection fees shall be paid at the time the joint inspection is made. Failure to pay the required inspection fee shall be grounds for issuance of a Stop-Work Order”  

      NOT DONE: No proof of payment beyond $1024 from Town Comptroller, and F.O.I.A. requests (SEE: supporting documentation). [And, if inspection had been done, how could they not have found the pipe bringing the chemically laced water off the property?]

      #13. - ***As offered by the applicant and to further minimize the amount of fertilized vegetation on the property consistent with the recommendatioins of the Comprehensive Plan Udpdate , the provisions of the Aquifer Protection Overlay District and the recommendations of the independent consultants, the amount of fertilized vegetation on the entire 512 acre tract shall not exceed 76.8 acres (15%), unless the amount of fertilized vegetation on the golf course is reduced or other on-site mitigation is accepted by the Planning Board. This condition shall preclude any further expansion of the golf course or subdivision property without reducing the amount of fertilized vegetation of the golf course or providing other on-site or off-site mitigation approved by the Planning Board. To guarantee compliance with this condition, the applicant shall submit a Declaration of Covenants, in a form approved by the own Attorney, and record such Declaration of Covenenats in the Office of Suffolk County Clerk prior to the issuance of a Cerificate of Occupancy .”***

       

       

      SIDESTEPPED:

      Instead, the Planning Board circumvented this by going against its own consultant and voting in March 2001 to allow “chemical swapping” for the subdivision as the golf course had used up all of the allotted “15%”.

      (By doing this, Planning Board violated what Town’s own Consultant—Chris Voorhis —said:

      “The golf course had used up the 15% for fertilized vegetation and could not therefore allow fertilized vegetation on the subdivision.” Against, Town Code, the Planning Board voted in March 2001 to allow chemical swapping from other properties that Rubin owns (without even knowing which properties he intends to swap!)

      #15 ***”As recommended by the Planning Staff and the independent consultants, the applicant shall comply with all of the recommendations outlined in the Independent Review and Report on the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, Water Quality Risk Assessemtn and Golf Course Monitoring Protocol for Golf at the Bridge, Southampton, New York, prepared by A. Martin Petrovic , Ph.D and and Thomas C. Cambaeri , CGWP, LP, dated January 5, 1999, except those recommendations which have already been incorporated into the Golf Course Moniroting Agreement executed by the Town Board or those that apply to the future subdivision of the 512 acre tract to permit residential home sites. Unless otherwise specified or addressed in this resolution, the recommendations of the independent consultants shall be treated as specific amendments to the various plans or studies that the recommendations apply to, including the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the Integrated Pest Management Plan, the Golf Course Monitoring Protocol and the Water Quality Risk Assessment. Many of the conditions require attention during the construction phase, while others survive the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Among the various recommendations the specific recommendations of the independent consultants shall be addressed as stated:"

      NOT DONE:   Many of Petrovic & Cambareri 1999 recommendations in their report not followed.

      NOT DONE: Did not follow parts of “Monitoring Agreement” executed April 7,1999 between applicant, Southampton Town and the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA)

      *** ”#15 A    With respect to the Integrated Pest Mangement Plan, the applicant shall specify in writing to the Natural Resources Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, as to who will be responsible for these tasks and the qualifications of this individual. We suggest that it be the assistant golf course superintendent, who has at least a 2-yer turfgrass management degree with 4 yrs. of experience or a BS in turfgrass managemet with two years experioence , each with extensive pest identification skills (page 7).” ***

           NOT DONE: No mention is given by Petrovic in his Report II of the first Superintendet , Michael O’Conner. The first golf course Superintendent was “Interim” His residence on his resume is given as “Vermont.” Mr. O’Conner’s resume wasn’t even provided to the Town until Feb 12, 2001 although the golf course laid down its turf in July 2000. There are no reports issued by him. The only report is by George Tiska , the current Superintendent, released in November 12, 2001 for the year ending December 2000.

      The “Assistant Golf Superintendent”, not hired until 2001, does not have the above-mentioned qualifications/experience.

        Overseeing the golf course’s construction, establishment of grasses, “Scouting/Monitoring”, doing the “daily 2-hour assessments of turf conditions” are pivotal tasks required to establish a turf database ( Petrovic & Cambarei , 1999, page 7). Page 7 gives great detail as to the requirements. It says, in part, ***“The person should be a Golf Course Superintendent Association of America certified golf course superintendent with a strong background in compliance with regulations, monitoring, and a strong appreciation for stewardship of the environment and public safety.”*** While Mr. O’Conner may have had those qualities (was certified in Vermont, but not “America”), there is no evidence of his hands-on participation of all the phases of this golf-course as stated in the resolutions and recommendations, and monitoring protocols.





      ***” #15 B         With respect to the Integrated Pest Management Plan, the applicant shall specify in writing to the Natural Resources Director a detailed method of scoutng /monitoring mapping that they will operate under, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupany (page 8).” ***

      NOT DONE: While prior to the 11/1/01 C. O. , didn’t do it until July 2001—According to Petrovic & Cambareri 1999 should have been operating under this since golf course created (as it was in July 2000) as it’s a matter of great importance. And, no protcol or records whatsoever were produced by the first golf course Superintendent, O’Conner that this was being done. The current Superintendent is Tiska .

      **** “#15 C      With respect to the Golf Course Managemen Plan, the applicant shall be required to use one of the new and improved varieties (such as a blend of A-4 and G—2) on all areas of this golf course as recommended by Dr. Frank Rossi, Turfgrass Extension Specialist for NewYork State, which is responsible for making variety recommendations for golf courses in New York (page 9).    This recommendation shall be depicted on the Final Grading and Re-vegetation Plan required herein.” ***

      NOT DONE Re. grass seed. They were to use A-4 and G-2 (They didn’t, they used others—some of which had no “ endophytes ” whatsoever.)   And, they were specifically told in 1999 Petrovic & Cambarer Report NOT TO USE Pencross (page 9), which they went ahead and did anyway.





      ***”#15 D       With respect to the Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to use endophytic grass varieties in the roughs (page 9). This recommendation shall be depicted on the Final Grading and Re-vegetation Plan required herein.”***

      NOT DONE “ Seabreeze ” one of the varieties they used contained no “ endophytes ”. Bighorn sheeps only had only 48% endophytes in their seeds in 1996, none in seeds for years 1998, 1999.   [ Endophytes lose their “viability” in a matter of months]. The seeds weren’t planted until July 2000.

      ***#15 H – With respect to the Integrated Gold Course Managemen Plan, the applicant shall be required to specify in writing to the Natrual Resource Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact nature of the pest monitoring and action thresholds the golf course will operate under and submit to the Town of Southampton annually documentation showing compliance with the plan (page 12).”***

      NOT DONE prior to building permit, and not done annually thereafter (only in Ocotber 2001. (And, gave contradictory thresholds SEE: 1999 Pertovic & Camabaeri Report, pages 7, 8, 15).

      ***”15I- With respect to the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to use BioTrec for disease control on the diseases it is registered for, such as brown patch, Pythium root rot and Pythium blight (page 12).”***

      Petrovic doesn’t write the preceding in his Ocotber Report II, intsead , he uses the “contract’s wording. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE USED BIO TREC FOR THE BROWN PATCH, NOT THE PROPAMOCARB AND TRIADIMEFON [He says, the breakdown product—“ Triadimenol ”—has shown up in a lysimeter . (This month, March 2001, I found out it’s also in a Monitoring Well 4 as per latest testing.)]



      ***”#15 J With respect to the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall advise the Natural Resources Director in writing prior to the issuace of a Building Permit that it agrees to add two policies to this list to make it a truly IPM-low pesticide use program:

      1.       Environmental conditions (temperature and humidity especially important in disease development) are predicted to still favor further pest damage before a pesticide application will be made.

       

      2.       Biocontrols (for pests that have a biocontrol identified in this Plan or become available) will be tried first and if and only they fail will a pesticide be made (pages 12-13)” ****

                    DIDN’T DO

      ***”15 K   With respect to the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to follow the handling and mixing recommendations outlined on pages V-93-94 for safe use and handling of pesticides (page 13).”***   

      REMAINS UNCERTAIN   Never addressed by Petrovic if they followed what was said on V-93-94. Just gives it a blanket okay.

      Also, See Petrovic’s Report II wants better protocol of pesticide handling outside of building.

      ***#15 L    With respect to the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to provide pesticide use (including biocontrol agents) and fertilizer application annual records to the Town of Southampton for review as outlined for other other agencies in section 5 on page V-102 (page 13).”***



      NOT DONE   This was not done annually as directed. Didn’t provide whch bio-control agents would be used (as for instance, Bio- Trec which was supposed to be used on the brown patch and wasn’t).

      ***#15 M     With respect to the Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to specify which version of handling and storage will be used. Stand-alone buildings with storage and handling areas separated fom other work environments are best (page 13). ***

      CONTRADICTION: Planning Board is now allowing a temporary storage building.

      ***#15    With respect to Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the appicant shall be required to make any below ground storage tank that may contain corrosive materials to be a double wall tank in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Suffolk County Code (page 13).

      NOT DONE   (a) There is no permanent facitlity yet, (b) Petrovic neglects to say if any of the storage tanks are “double-walled” tanks.

         NOTE: As for his review in Report II of the design, location of fertigation facility, delivery of chemicals to the facility and spill response plan, he says:

                       *** “It is recommended that a containment system be

                              put in place outside the fertigation -irrigation pump

                              house to capture any liquid fertilizer spilled during

                              delivery and filling of fertilzer storage tanks.” ***

      ***#15 O***With respect to Integrated Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall be required to follow the operating procedures outlined on pages V-116-117 (page 13)

      REMAINS UNCERTAIN Petrovic did not address this in his Report II

      ***#15 R*** Re pesticide thresholds

      NOT DONE. They have never stated “identified”

      what the “thresholds” will operate under. (SEE: 1999 Petrovic & Cambareri Report, pages 7,8,15)

      ***#15 S….shall supply baseline data and site specific thresholds in the first year annual monitoring report with additional fine-tuning in subsequent years and submit to the Planning Board any changes made to the thresholds.”***

      NOT DONE    Gave no specific thresholds. Wasn’t done annually.

      [ Petrovic & Cambari 1999 Report, page 7 – says: ”The Monitoring & Scouting Summary Report (page III-9) is not adequate to record the specification, location, and extent of pest populations necessary for developing a sound baseline data”. They used the same Field Report sheet, rather than create a new one. And, it was supposed to have been done 2-hours per day—Field History Sheets only started in April 2001: 1 for April, 2 for May, 6 for June, 4 for July, 5 for Aug, 3 for Sept, a few for Oct/Nov/Dec—this is not daily! Where is the proof that these sheets were done daily?]

      *** ”#15 T      With respect to the Golf Course Management Plan, the applicant shall identify who (a NYS cetified aborist /landscape professional) will be responsible for implementing the IPM plan and that the applicant shall provide yearly summaries of pesticide and fertilizer applications made to the golf course to insure the applicant is following IPM plan (page 28) ***  

      NOT ADDRESSED – An arborist (as opposed to a golf superintendent) has not been chosen as far as we know.

      NOT DONE: / Yearly summaries have not been made re the golf course.

       

            

      ***”#15 U      With respect top the Water Quality Risk Assessment, the applicant shall amend the area of managed turf on this site with the addition of two inches of organic matter to raise the organic matter content to 15.8% in the surface four inches of the soil, i.e., 2 inches of organic matter and 2 inches of soil (page 31).” ***

      NOT DONE   Did not amend the soil with “15.8% organic matter”; only amended it with 14.8%

      ***”#15 Z.    Unless otherwise stated herein, the applicant shall advise in writing the Natural Resources Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit that it agrees to comply with all of the recommendations of the independent consultant set forth in their January 5, 1999 report.”***

      NOT DONE, I see no evidence that this was done. (See Jeff Murphree’s Nov 2000 list of what needs to be verified. This is one of them.)



      #16 - ***Failure by the applicant or the golf course operator to comply with any of the requirements, conditions or recommendations of the Integrated Gold Course Management Plan (ICCMP), the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM), the Water Quality Risk Assessment (WQRA) and Gold Course Moniroring Agreement (GCMA), as same are amended herein, as may be determined by the Natural Resources Director and/or Planning Board, shall be considered violations of these conditions”***

           THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS, they were never cited.

       

      # 17   ***”To guarantee full implementation…applicant shall submit a bond agreement for a minimum of five (5) years in the amount of $100,000…”***

      Not done until late 2001, after it had violated so many of the recommendations.

      #18 ***”The golf course shall obtain Certified Signature Sanctuary Status from Audubon International and a copy of such certification shall be submitted to the Natural Reources Director within one (1) year of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.”***

      #19 ***”Certified Signature Sanctuary Status from Audubon International shall be maintained so long as the property is operated a a golf course and Audubon International issues such certificates. The golf course operator shall annually deliver to the Natural Resources Director a copy of all Environmental Audits o Reports and then current certifications issued by Audubon International.    To guarantee compliance with conditions 18 and 19 herein, the applicant shall submit a Declaration of Covenenants in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.”***

       

      NOT DONE    They have not delivered Audubon’s “annual” “Environmental Audits” to

                               the Town (there should be 2 of them so far: July 1999- June 2000; July                              

                              2000-June 2001)

      NOT DONE      As per my FOIL the Town hasn’t gotten Audubon’s “written review” as per Petrovic (1999 Report, page     ) of this latest (not accepted by Audubon till Sept 2001) “Natural Resources Management Plan” [Their review of the first NRMP Rubin handed in was given a scathing written review by Audubon’s Dr. Miles Smart” in March 1999 –in spite of the bad review the Planning Board gave the approval for the golf course in April 1999! And,   Stuartt Cohen & Raynor misled the Planning Board regards the NRMP in the worksession of 1998 and would not give it to Nancy Graboski , the chair, when she asked for it. They mightily mislead Audubon in their September 2001 NRMP (I have a written transcript of that worksession where they mislead the Planning Board). ALSO, I HAVE NOTATED ALL THEIR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THEIR SEPTEMBER 2001 NRMP.

      Jeff Murphree and some members of the Town and Planning Board have made a whole sham of the NRMP. What they have done is utterly reprehensible and morally and ethically repugnant.  



      # 22 - ***”No approval is granted to the fence shown on the site plan along the golf course boundaries. The site plans submitted for signature shall delete this fence from the plans. No fence or man-made physical barrier shall be erected on the premises without further review and approval of the Planning Board.***

      DIDN’T REMOVE FENCE -    SEE:   Photo of fence as of March 15, 2002

      #26 - ***”The golf course may not be occupied or used unless and until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.”***

      NOT DONE -- People were playing up at the golf course since summer of 2001—one of them was Councilan Patrick “Skip” Heany who played there in September 2001, two months before the C.O. was issued on November 16, 2001.



      THE ABOVE DO NOT INCLUDE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PETROVIC & CAMBARERI IN THEIR 1999 REPORT.





      [1] I made a FOIL request to the SCWA in July 2002 to see if they ever received any “annual” Interpretive Report. A phone call to them indicvated that they thought they hadn’t. They still hae to answer this FOIL request, one way or the other.





    < Back   |   Top ^

    South Fork Groundwater Task Force
    PO BOX 2360    Sag Harbor, NY 11963
    Phone/Fax: 631 - 725 - 6200

    Site By: Hamptons Online