Dogs and birds — not humans — are responsible for most of the fecal bacteria measured in Georgica Pond, with road runoff the primary source, according to a report from Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.

The study, conducted by Christopher J. Gobler between May and November last year using DNA-based microbial tracking, quantified fecal bacteria at four tributary sites in the pond: Talmage Creek, Georgica Cove, Jones Creek, and Seabury Creek. Human-derived bacteria accounted for less than 5 percent of the total. Instead, results pointed to animal-derived bacteria — 67 percent from dogs, 24 percent from birds, and 6 percent from deer. The 67 percent attributed to dogs, according to the report, could include fecal bacteria from such species as cats and rodents.  

East Hampton Town and Village officials, the town trustees, and the Friends of Georgica Pond Foundation, a group of pondfront property owners, are working to improve the ecological health of the pond, which has had toxic algae blooms in the last several summers, causing the State Department of Environmental Conservation to prohibit shellfishing. The foundation financed the study.

“The low levels of human fecal bacteria within the pond are both reassuring and somewhat expected,” the report states. “Wastewater traveling 100 to 400 feet in sandy aquifers experience a 12-order-of-magnitude reduction in fecal bacteria,” and most septic systems in the watershed are a greater distance from the pond. “Hence, it would seem that fecal bacteria emanating from household wastewater is retained within the sands of aquifers before it discharges into the pond via groundwater flow.”

That finding will have no effect on the Friends of Georgica Pond Foundation’s push for property owners to upgrade their septic systems to reduce nitrogen seepage, which is a factor in the algal blooms that prompted the trustees to close the pond for harvesting crabs and other marine life for parts of the last several summers. 

“But we didn’t want to ignore stormwater runoff in the pond,” Sara Davison, the foundation’s executive director, said, “because there have been some very high readings.”

“Rather than emanating from household wastewater, there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate the main source of pathogenic bacteria to the major tributaries of Georgica Pond is runoff, especially from roads,” the report states. The highest levels of pathogenic bacteria were found in Talmage Creek, and the report suggests that runoff from Montauk Highway and surrounding roads drains directly into the creek via a low-lying rest area, taking animal waste with it. 

“While there are many wild and domesticated animals in this region,” the report reads, “this specific area is also the only public pull-off area” on a long stretch of Montauk Highway, “and may be used to walk dogs during long drives from New York City to points on the South Fork, particularly during summer months.” The hypothesis is supported, it reads, by peak measurements of both enterococcus and dog-derived fecal bacteria in the creek during summer months.

Levels of fecal contamination in Talmage Creek are often higher than most other areas, as well as above the water quality criteria recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency and used by Suffolk County to issue swim advisories. 

While not directly adjacent to Montauk Highway, Georgica Cove, in the southeastern section of the pond, receives drainage from a large section of Cove Hollow Road, which extends well north of the highway, the report states. “As is the case for Talmage Creek, this purposeful drainage of this large region likely leads to the collection and delivery of significant amounts of fecal bacteria to Georgica Cove.”

That road runoff is the primary source of fecal bacteria is further supported, the report states, by the lower level of dog-derived bacteria in Seabury and Jones Creeks, which are not directly adjacent to roads. Spikes in canine bacteria following rainfall further support the premise. 

Jones Creek was shown to be unique among the sample sites, having higher levels of both bird and deer-derived bacteria, little dog-derived bacteria, and almost no human bacteria. The three other sites had similar distributions of bacteria, according to the report. 

As Talmage Creek and Georgica Cove are the likely sources of bacteria in the rest of Georgica Pond, actions to divert runoff to these tributaries should lower fecal bacteria levels in the pond and its tributaries, the report states.

The report supports a push to redesign the rest area at Talmage Creek, Ms. Davison said, and members of the foundation have discussed the matter with town and State Department of Transportation officials. “The idea is to redesign the rest area so trucks could still pull off as needed, and perhaps create a better launching area, but re-pitch it and repave with pervious pavement so surface water runs through pavement instead of across it. Any opportunity to have stormwater percolate into the ground before it meets a water body is preferable to it washing right in,” she said.

Reducing direct discharge into the pond from a drainage pipe originating at Cove Hollow Road will also help, she said, and a plan to divert more water from the pipe along its course and install more filters to eliminate pathogens is underway.

Another result of the study, Ms. Davison said, is an education campaign aimed at pet owners. “People think if they walk their dog along the road they don’t have to pick it up, but you really should. Even if you’re a mile from the pond, a big, heavy rainfall can wash it in.”

Sampling will resume this summer, Ms. Davison said, including in the main body of the pond for comparison with its tributaries. But, she said, “the tributaries seem to be the main conduit for the runoff.”

In light of the fall 2017 detection of chemical contamination of more than 100 wells in Wainscott and the recent discovery of concentrations of lead and chemicals in the surface water and aquifer around the Sand Land mine on the Bridgehampton-Noyac border, the president of the advocacy group Amagansett-Springs Aquifer Protection and other residents implored the East Hampton Town Board to act quickly to preclude additional development atop the Stony Hill aquifer in Amagansett. 

At the board’s meeting last Thursday, Alexander Peters of Amagansett-Springs Aquifer Protection, who is also on the board of the New York League of Conservation Voters, asked that the board use the community preservation fund to solicit the purchase of some 50 lots atop the aquifer, which provides potable water to northern East Hampton, Amagansett, Springs, Napeague, and most of Montauk. “It’s just incredibly important for the vast majority of the people in our town,” he said.

Mr. Peters, who is known as Sas, read a letter to the board from Assemblyman Steve Englebright, who is chairman of the State Assembly’s committee on environmental conservation. The Stony Hill aquifer recharge area is important to the portion of the upper glacial moraine aquifers that underlie this part of the South Fork, according to Mr. Englebright’s letter, and can provide potable drinking water to East Hampton residents “because it is relatively large, geographically centered within the town, and still lightly developed.” Relatively few potential sources of contamination, its present pristine state, its value as a source of drinking water, and the voter-approved use of a portion of community preservation fund money for water-quality improvement all point to the importance of implementing a plan to preserve the remaining open land atop this part of the glacial moraine, the letter said.

“Freshwater reserves are limited in East Hampton,” particularly east of Amagansett, Mr. Englebright wrote, due to the region’s geology and topography. Further, “Because sea level is rising, the fresh groundwater reserves of the entire town will be significantly diminished in the next 50 to 150 years,” while residential development “is likely to follow the trend of numerous other towns, by gradually transitioning from a mixture of partial and year-round occupancy to almost exclusively year-round use, and thereby create a higher demand for potable 

water.” 

Should a severe contamination crisis occur elsewhere in the town, the letter continued, the Stony Hill aquifer recharge area “will also be vitally needed” for short-term emergency water supply. “Considering East Hampton’s unique geological and hydrological limitations as well as threats to the future availability of pure drinking water, I believe it is critically important to act now upon the fact that protection of this groundwater catchment area should be a priority.” Additional development, he said, “should be considered to be just as inappropriate and unwelcome as would be any hypothetical houseboat development” atop the Ashokan, Roundout, or Croton reservoirs that supply New York City’s drinking water. 

New development at Stony Hill, Mr. Englebright’s letter said, “could be a tipping point,” and he urged “wise utilization of the C.P.F. tool that the State Legislature and the people of the town of East Hampton have provided to preserve and protect, both for now and all time, the clean recharge of rainwater into the Stony Hill aquifer recharge area.”

Richard Smolian of Amagansett also decried “the rapid pace of development that has endangered the aquifer” and lamented the fact that the town had purchased just two lots above it in the last four years. “This must be the year for change,” he said. “With the Democratic town board in command, a program to initiate the purchase of undeveloped land in order to conserve and protect our water supply must now commence.”

Mr. Peters and Mr. Smolian share an unusual bond, one that underscores their mutual aspiration. Mr. Peters bought the lots at 42 and 46 La Foret Lane in Amagansett from Mr. Smolian in 1992 and 1997. He has long sought to sell the 3.5 acres of undeveloped land to the town. The deed to each lot, however, gives Mr. Smolian, along with Randy Smolian, his former wife, Darielle Smolian, his daughter, and Jonathan Smolian, his son, a right to repurchase the land so long as the family retains ownership of an adjacent lot. In April 2015, Mr. Smolian signed an affidavit formally waiving his right of first refusal; while he supports preservation of the land, his family members do not. 

Mr. Peters told The Star in December 2014 that the right of first refusal was included in the deeds “for the very simple purpose of making sure that the land was always conserved. I promised Dick I would never develop the land and never have, and now am trying to nail that down forever.”

Mr. Peters said he had offered a settlement of $100,000 to Jonathan Smolian through an intermediary. He refused, and a suit filed in December 2014 claims that he told Mr. Peters “he had enlisted ‘partners’ who he intended to work with in order to develop the property and achieve a substantial profit.” Randy Smolian and Darielle Smolian, the suit alleges, will not waive their right of first refusal unless Jonathan Smolian also does.

Last Thursday, the elder Mr. Smolian told the board that his son “prevailed in his ability to exercise a right of first refusal” on the land he sold to Mr. Peters, preventing its sale to the town, “and that particular dispute is still in a holding pattern that’s going to go on forever. . . . I have thrown my lot in with Sas, and have incurred the wrath of my family to make good on a promise I made over 25 years ago to Sas, to keep the aquifer clean.”

Councilman Jeff Bragman told Mr. Peters and Mr. Smolian that Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, was “at work already for us” to identify the owners of parcels that the town could potentially acquire with C.P.F. money. 

“You’re not going to find anyone here on this side of the board arguing against the importance of our recharge areas within the town,” Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc told Mr. Peters and Mr. Smolian, “and I thank you for your efforts.” 

Mr. Peters said on Monday that he is hopeful that the board will act swiftly. “We’re really hoping the town board gets moving here, and frankly we have a dream team of conservationists on the board now,” he said. “There should be no disagreement. I hope to God they move ahead quickly.”

A Southampton lawyer is taking the Town of East Hampton and several chemical manufacturers to court over the contamination of drinking water in Wainscott. 

In a lawsuit filed yesterday in State Supreme Court in Riverhead, Daniel Osborn, the attorney, alleged the town had “negligently and carelessly allowed commercial businesses to operate” on leased land at the East Hampton Airport and on Industrial Road, which runs along the airport’s south boundary. He called the town responsible for allowing the harmful chemicals manufactured by the other defendants to reach the water supply. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kim Shipman, a part-time Wainscott resident. 

The Suffolk County Department of Health Services began a survey of water in private wells in the area of the airport in August. The survey was later expanded, and earlier this month, the East Hampton Town Board announced that 118 wells south of the airport had been found to be contaminated by the perfluorinated compounds known as perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. The chemicals are used in firefighting foam and degreasing applications. 

Those living near the airport “obtain their drinking water predominantly from groundwater pumped by either municipal or private wells,” Mr. Osborn said in the suit. “For years, these residents have been drinking water laced with dangerous chemicals,” which, when consumed, “can cause serious health issues.” The town, he alleged, had “breached the duties it has expressly undertaken, namely to protect the health and welfare of its residents, particularly those in the expanded affected area, by failing to ensure that their drinking water is free of contaminants.”

Mr. Osborn seeks damages sufficient to fund and implement medical monitoring and blood tests to determine Ms. Shipman’s exposure to the chemicals; the connection of her house to the municipal water supply, or installation of filtration systems; compensatory damages for the loss of use of her property and the contamination’s negative impact on property values, and punitive damages. He also asked that water testing continue until it is determined that any risk of contamination to Ms. Shipman’s well has ended. 

Mr. Osborn said yesterday that he expects more Wainscott residents to join the lawsuit. “They wanted more time to absorb everything,” he said. A call to the East Hampton Town attorney’s office seeking comment had not been returned as of noon yesterday. 

The complaint lists the 3M Company, National Foam, and four other manufacturers that it says are or were manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam. The products, known as AFFFs, were sold to entities that used them at or near the airport, Mr. Osborn alleged. 

The Suffolk County Water Authority has cited the same manufacturers in a suit filed in Eastern District federal court, claiming they knew or should have known that the foam is dangerous o human health and causes extensive and persistent environmental contamination. 

“The situation has gone from one of mild concern to essentially a crisis if you own a home in Wainscott,” Mr. Osborn said this week. “Six months after residents were notified for the presence of these contaminants, we have no information about the source of contamination, and in fact the county has actually expanded the area it thinks may have been affected by these contaminants. Some residents have been using bottled water since October. Imagine having to drink, cook, and bathe with bottled water. It’s like camping.” 

The problem will only worsen as summer approaches, Mr. Osborn said. “Then there’s the issue of diminished property values. Imagine these people trying to rent or sell their property, given everything that’s going on.”

The town has offered bottled water to affected residents, and at a town board work session on March 6 discussed making point-of-entry treatment systems available to homeowners with contaminated wells, while also pursuing an inter-municipal water infrastructure grant to connect affected residential properties to public water. Given the expected timeline of the latter project, in which the Suffolk County Water Authority would act as lead agency, the board expressed a desire to pursue the former initiative as a short-term measure. 

Ms. Shipman, could not be reached for comment yesterday. Mr. Osborn said his client was referring questions to him. “I expect that more people will come forward and want to participate in the lawsuit,” he said yesterday. 

Ms. Shipman works as a project manager for the Osborn Law Group, Mr. Osborn’s firm. It was she, Mr. Osborn said, who alerted him to the discovery of contaminated wells after receiving notification from the county in October. 

Paul Giardina, a former official with the  Environmental Protection Agency who ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the East Hampton Town Board last year, said yesterday that the situation in Wainscott is very serious from multiple perspectives.

“This is a significant chemical that causes significant health concerns,” he said of perfluorinated compounds. “The fact that the lawsuit is calling for medical monitoring in the future . . . is important. I don’t think anybody in Wainscott who had a well test or is in this situation should overlook the importance of future health tests.” 

In addition, homeowners’ ability to rent or sell their property is now severely compromised, Mr. Giardina said. Most worrisome, though, is the prospect that Wainscott’s restaurants and takeout food stores may also have contaminated water, he said. “That widens the group of people who might sign up to this suit. Frankly, I have talked to several citizens who, my impression is, will join in the suit.”

Clearing has begun for an energy-storage facility on a site between Fort Pond and Fort Pond Bay in Montauk after a sharply divided East Hampton Town Planning Board voted to approve the project on March 14. The vote was 4-3. The board had held off on its final discussion and vote on the project since early January, to allow its newest member, Ed Krug, to “get up to speed” on the proposal, as the board’s chairman put it. Mr. Krug voted to approve the project.

In order for NextEra Energy to move forward with its proposal, named the Montauk Energy Storage Center, the company needed to obtain site plan approval from the board, as well as a special permit to operate at the location as a public utility. Both were granted on March 14. NextEra Energy had already obtained the needed variances from the town’s zoning board of appeals. 

The property in question, a triangular parcel less than a half-acre in size, is bordered to the north by the Long Island Rail Road tracks and to the west by North Shore Road, which connects Second House Road to Navy Road on the other side of the railroad tracks.

It is owned by Peter Joyce, who is leasing it to NextEra Energy. A 90-by-46-foot battery-storage building, along with accessory structures, will be built on the site. A public hearing on the proposal was held on Aug. 9. The area is zoned for commercial-industrial use.

The planning board approved a similar site last year for the Cove Hollow area of East Hampton, near Dune Alpin Farm and adjacent to the L.I.R.R. tracks. Ross D. Groffman, the head of NextEra Energy, said then that he hoped the site would be operational this summer.

  It does not appear that NextEnergy Era is wasting any time on the Montauk site, either: A front loader was observed moving earth there Tuesday.

The facilities work by drawing power from the grid during off-peak hours, storing it in racks of lithium-ion batteries, then releasing the electricity for use at peak hours, when demand is highest. 

Proximity to a Long Island Power Authority substation was critical to the choice of sites for both energy-storage facilities. There already is an adjacent substation on Cove Hollow Road, in the Dune Alpin area. In Montauk, there is a substation at the southern edge of Fort Pond, on Industrial Road; it is to be moved to a property adjacent to and just to the east of the storage unit. 

Opponents of the Montauk facility are numerous, and they have expressed their objections to the project both at the public hearing in August and in letters to the board. Noise was one concern, but even more urgent, in their eyes, was the question of what would happen in the event of a catastrophic flood. 

During the August hearing, Rameshwar Das, an author of the town’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and a member of the town’s coastal assessment and resiliency planning committee, had told the board that in the past the area where the storage facility is to be build had been impacted by hurricanes. He warned that, in the future, a breach could come not from the ocean side, “but from the backside, through Fort Pond Bay.”

The site is, itself, not in a major flood zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, it is surrounded by major FEMA flood zones, and is only about 100 yards in either direction from Fort Pond and Fort Pond Bay.

In response to the flooding worries raised last summer, NextEra Energy agreed to raise the facility 10 feet above sea level. It also agreed to add more sound buffering to the project.

NextEra’s site plan was received by the planning board in late 2016, and board members, with the exception of Mr. Krug, had been mulling it over for more than a year. 

A week before the March 14 vote, the board had a discussion about it, to determine how the final vote might pan out and, thus, establish the wording of the Planning Department’s final determination. That discussion, on March 7, began with comments from Nancy Keeshan, the board’s vice-chairwoman, who was enthusiastic about voting‚ “yes.”

  “I have been a supporter of this from the beginning,” Ms. Keeshan said. 

Mr. Krug, who was named to the board on Jan. 2 as a replacement for Diana Weir, spoke next on March 7. His vote would be key, as two other board members, Kathleen Cunningham and Patti Leber, along with Mr. Potter, had previously expressed their disapproval and were potential “no” votes. 

“This is a hard one,” Mr. Krug said, “but I have to say I am generally supportive.” He continued, “It is a tricky situation. There are no great locations in Montauk for such a thing.” However, he said, the facility was desperately needed. “Some of the flooding concerns some people have I don’t share, exactly.”

Ms. Cunningham was not so sanguine. “I just don’t like the location,” she said. “The applicant has met every request we have made, but I am just not sure this is the right spot.” 

She told the board she was on the fence. “You will have to vote next week,” Mr. Potter reminded her. “I will,” she responded. 

Ian Calder-Piedmonte said that the company’s responses to the board’s various points of unease had tipped his vote toward “yes.”

“At the end of the day, we have expressed a lot of concerns. The community at large did. And I think they have been met,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said. “Like probably every other board member, if I were to design the town and pick a spot, this wouldn’t be it.” However, he concluded, the company had met the requests of the board, and the project should be approved. 

Ms. Leber called the site “an impractical location on an unsuitable piece of property. It is surrounded by flood zones.” 

“Our hamlet studies are discussing the rise of sea level, and the ability of people in Montauk to move away from the water,” Ms. Leber said. And, because the facility is to be raised off the ground, she warned, it would “loom over” the area. 

“We should do this,” Randall Parsons said. “Montauk needs a better energy facility.” He said that this was one of the few areas in Montauk zoned for industrial use.

Mr. Potter wrapped up March 7’s pre-vote discussion by saying he had supported the approval of the facility in East Hampton, but that the Montauk proposal was another matter. “This is being raised to 10 feet above sea level, but it is between Fort Pond and the bay. We have not really been let in on the discussion of moving the substation, which is now almost in Fort Pond. It is a good thing to move it, but I feel that it is a mistake to bring it next door to this project, and I think the two projects are linked.” 

In the end, despite Mr. Potter’s opposition, it was clear that there were at least four votes to approve, and Mr. Potter instructed the Planning Department to word its determination accordingly.

In the end, on March 14, Ms. Cunningham joined Ms. Leber and Mr. Potter in voting no.

Multiple references were made to Joni Mitchell’s 1970 song “Big Yellow Taxi” at Tuesday’s meeting of the East Hampton Town Board, as residents applied its popular refrain — “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” — to a plan to pave “Dirt Lot,” the easternmost of three parking lots serving the popular Ditch Plain Beach in Montauk, and reconfigure the others. 

Plans that were developed to address a scarcity of parking, dangerous conditions created by overcrowding, emergency vehicle access, and drainage issues clashed on Tuesday with residents’ collective frustration that Montauk’s rural character is already endangered by a flood of arrivistes, manifested at Ditch Plain in the form of the luxury sports cars occupying the aforementioned scant parking. Paving Dirt Lot, many residents told the board, will not only harm that character, but an impervious surface would force stormwater to the ocean, harming land and sea alike. 

Several iterations of reconfigured parking schemes in the three lots were displayed on a video monitor, with Councilman David Lys walking those in attendance through the proposed changes. Before the illustrations were displayed, however, several residents spoke out against any changes to Dirt Lot. 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” said Randall Rosenthal, who said he has been surfing at Ditch Plain for more than 50 years. While the westernmost lot can be very difficult to circumnavigate, that is not the case in the eastermost lot, he said. “I have waited a few seconds, but have never seen it where you couldn’t drive around Dirt Lot. People have been pretty ingenious about parking patterns. . . . Any paved, marked lot is going to diminish that greatly.” 

Lou Cortese, representing the Ditch Plains Association, noted the irony of adhering to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan’s call for greater access to public property by clearing vegetation and covering the earth with asphalt to achieve it. “We want to maintain the rural quality that Montauk has,” he said. “That’s what attracts people to Montauk. We don’t want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” 

Thomas Muse, environmental coordinator of the Surfrider Foundation’s eastern Long Island chapter, said that the need for additional spaces has neither been fully established nor communicated to the public, while prioritizing parking at the expense of vegetation that naturally mitigates storm surge is unwise. “Many questions remain about the conveyance of stormwater on the site, which will change radically with paving,” he said. Two inches of rain, he said, would generate 55,000 gallons of stormwater to be managed. “Can the public see an engineering overlay to better understand the current thinking, and a site plan with existing and proposed elevation?” he asked. 

The cost of paving Dirt Lot to the area’s rural character, Mr. Muse said, would be difficult to quantify. 

“I can understand the board’s desire to tame the chaos . . . at Dirt Lot,” said Stephen Mahoney, also of the Surfrider Foundation, “but this plan seems hastily prepared” and lacking “real thought given to the environmental qualities of such a large-scale oceanfront project.” He asked that the board rethink its proposals and “come up with a better plan.”

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, the town board’s liaison to the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee, compared plans to improve the parking lots serving Ditch Plain to changes made to the lot at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett while she served as liaison to that hamlet’s citizens advisory committee. There, “a real chaos” caused by buses, taxis, and nonresident vehicles has been calmed by an attended booth that turns those vehicles back before they reach the residents-only lot, rendering it safer for pedestrians and restoring a family-friendly atmosphere to the beach. The lot was also enlarged to accommodate more parking spaces. 

Given the Montauk citizens committee’s suggestion that the westernmost lot be designated for residents only, it was natural to consider improvements to the other two lots, Ms. Overby said. 

And, said Chief Michael Sarlo of the town’s Police Department, the westernmost lot and middle lot, at the end of Otis Road, “really need to be improved to make them have better flow.” If the westernmost lot is designated resident-only, “we have to look at improving other areas, because the overflow will go there,” he said. What has worked at Indian Wells Beach can work at Ditch Plain, he said, “but it’s going to push people to the other lots.” 

Later in the meeting, the board authorized a bond issue of up to $250,000 to finance parking lot improvements at Ditch Plain, with Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc pointing out that the move does not represent a commitment to pay for or carry out the project. Councilman Jeffrey Bragman, who appeared the most skeptical of the project and proposed that the board rescind a declaration that it posed no detrimental environmental impact, abstained from the vote.

The discussion, the supervisor said, “has really just begun about potential paving of Dirt Lot. This is obviously a topic which has a great deal of interest in the community.” He and his colleagues will “go back to the drawing board,” he said, and publicize any plans before adoption.

“Nothing is set in stone,” said Mr. Lys. “Or asphalt.” Multiple references were made to Joni Mitchell’s 1970 song “Big Yellow Taxi” at Tuesday’s meeting of the East Hampton Town Board, as residents applied its popular refrain — “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” — to a plan to pave “Dirt Lot,” the easternmost of three parking lots serving the popular Ditch Plain Beach in Montauk, and reconfigure the others. 

Plans that were developed to address a scarcity of parking, dangerous conditions created by overcrowding, emergency vehicle access, and drainage issues clashed on Tuesday with residents’ collective frustration that Montauk’s rural character is already endangered by a flood of arrivistes, manifested at Ditch Plain in the form of the luxury sports cars occupying the aforementioned scant parking. Paving Dirt Lot, many residents told the board, will not only harm that character, but an impervious surface would force stormwater to the ocean, harming land and sea alike. 

Several iterations of reconfigured parking schemes in the three lots were displayed on a video monitor, with Councilman David Lys walking those in attendance through the proposed changes. Before the illustrations were displayed, however, several residents spoke out against any changes to Dirt Lot. 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” said Randall Rosenthal, who said he has been surfing at Ditch Plain for more than 50 years. While the westernmost lot can be very difficult to circumnavigate, that is not the case in the eastermost lot, he said. “I have waited a few seconds, but have never seen it where you couldn’t drive around Dirt Lot. People have been pretty ingenious about parking patterns. . . . Any paved, marked lot is going to diminish that greatly.” 

Lou Cortese, representing the Ditch Plains Association, noted the irony of adhering to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan’s call for greater access to public property by clearing vegetation and covering the earth with asphalt to achieve it. “We want to maintain the rural quality that Montauk has,” he said. “That’s what attracts people to Montauk. We don’t want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” 

Thomas Muse, environmental coordinator of the Surfrider Foundation’s eastern Long Island chapter, said that the need for additional spaces has neither been fully established nor communicated to the public, while prioritizing parking at the expense of vegetation that naturally mitigates storm surge is unwise. “Many questions remain about the conveyance of stormwater on the site, which will change radically with paving,” he said. Two inches of rain, he said, would generate 55,000 gallons of stormwater to be managed. “Can the public see an engineering overlay to better understand the current thinking, and a site plan with existing and proposed elevation?” he asked. 

The cost of paving Dirt Lot to the area’s rural character, Mr. Muse said, would be difficult to quantify. 

“I can understand the board’s desire to tame the chaos . . . at Dirt Lot,” said Stephen Mahoney, also of the Surfrider Foundation, “but this plan seems hastily prepared” and lacking “real thought given to the environmental qualities of such a large-scale oceanfront project.” He asked that the board rethink its proposals and “come up with a better plan.”

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, the town board’s liaison to the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee, compared plans to improve the parking lots serving Ditch Plain to changes made to the lot at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett while she served as liaison to that hamlet’s citizens advisory committee. There, “a real chaos” caused by buses, taxis, and nonresident vehicles has been calmed by an attended booth that turns those vehicles back before they reach the residents-only lot, rendering it safer for pedestrians and restoring a family-friendly atmosphere to the beach. The lot was also enlarged to accommodate more parking spaces. 

Given the Montauk citizens committee’s suggestion that the westernmost lot be designated for residents only, it was natural to consider improvements to the other two lots, Ms. Overby said. 

And, said Chief Michael Sarlo of the town’s Police Department, the westernmost lot and middle lot, at the end of Otis Road, “really need to be improved to make them have better flow.” If the westernmost lot is designated resident-only, “we have to look at improving other areas, because the overflow will go there,” he said. What has worked at Indian Wells Beach can work at Ditch Plain, he said, “but it’s going to push people to the other lots.” 

Later in the meeting, the board authorized a bond issue of up to $250,000 to finance parking lot improvements at Ditch Plain, with Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc pointing out that the move does not represent a commitment to pay for or carry out the project. Councilman Jeffrey Bragman, who appeared the most skeptical of the project and proposed that the board rescind a declaration that it posed no detrimental environmental impact, abstained from the vote.

The discussion, the supervisor said, “has really just begun about potential paving of Dirt Lot. This is obviously a topic which has a great deal of interest in the community.” He and his colleagues will “go back to the drawing board,” he said, and publicize any plans before adoption.

“Nothing is set in stone,” said Mr. Lys. “Or asphalt.”

East Hampton Town

Seasonal Housing for Montauk Harbor

The East Hampton Town Board plans to issue a request for proposals for a 30-bed seasonal housing structure to be situated on town-owned property at Montauk Harbor. 

Tom Ruhle, the town’s director of housing, told the board at its March 20 work session that the pilot program, which would begin next year, would see one entity serving as a licensee and manager of the housing, providing a single point of contact for the town. Housing would be erected on or after April 1 and removed by Oct. 31. 

The housing would be on a 25,650-square-foot parcel that is partially occupied by a comfort station, which will remain. The lot is served by public water, Mr. Ruhle said, and the licensee would be prohibited from using the comfort station’s septic system in its proposal. 

All businesses in the area would be eligible to seek housing for employees, he said, citing smaller businesses with few employees. Larger businesses, such as Gosman’s Dock, long ago acquired older motels in the area to house employees of its seasonal restaurant and wholesale and retail seafood businesses. 

Mr. Ruhle proposed a three-year license, with the board reserving the right to terminate the program if it became problematic. He recommended a July 31 deadline for responses to the R.F.P. 

Management of the structure would be important, Mr. Ruhle said, so that “this didn’t become a party camp” at the dock area, which has an active nightlife in the summer season. The licensee would be responsible for any and all improvements to the site, he said. “The town is, importantly, providing the land and asking the private sector what they would consider doing,” he told the board. 

Board members proposed an addition requiring video surveillance of the site to the R.F.P., and stipulated that it be operational no later than the Thursday before Memorial Day. Mr. Ruhle said he would add those provisions prior to the R.F.P.’s issue. C.W. 

Outdoor Dining in Montauk

The East Hampton Town Board will hold a public hearing next Thursday on a proposed amendment to a pilot program that would permit takeout food stores in downtown Montauk to offer outdoor dining. The amendment would add takeout stores such as delicatessens to the pilot program under which restaurants are allowed up to 16 outdoor seats within right-of-way areas. 

Businesses would be eligible to participate provided they possess a certificate of occupancy that includes the permitted use as a takeout food store, Beth Baldwin, an assistant town attorney, told the board at its March 20 meeting. The town’s fire marshal would ensure that access and egress to the site comply with code. 

Seats would have to be removed daily and stored on the businesses’ property. 

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby said that she hoped the program would be in place in time for the summer season, “so that any tables out there are out there legitimately and comply with the fire marshal.” 

Next Thursday’s meeting is at Town Hall at 6:30 p.m. 

Ronald S. Baron, the billionaire founder of Baron Capital who owns a string of beachfront properties on Further Lane that straddle the boundary between East Hampton Town and the Village, had two bad days in a row last week. 

On March 20, the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals rejected his application to build a walkway to the ocean beach over and through the fragile double dunes. The wooden walkway was to be used jointly by the properties at 258 and 264 Further Lane. Then, the next day, the New York State Appellate Court in Brooklyn released an opinion rejecting an appeal by Mr. Baron of a prior Z.B.A. decision regarding two walls he had built through the dunes a decade ago without obtaining the required building permits. Joining the town in arguing against the appeal, which was heard by the court on Nov. 2, 2017, was a neighbor, Taya Thurman. 

In 2007, Mr. Baron bought two lots off Further Lane in East Hampton Town, containing a little over 40 acres of oceanfront land, from Adelaide de Menil and Ted Carpenter, who were then in the news for their donation of several Early American buildings that had been preserved on the property but were destined to become the new Pantigo Road offices of East Hampton Town. The land has been described as some of the most valuable in the United States. Mr. Baron also purchased from them a lot that falls within the village, paying a total of $103 million, reportedly a record price at the time. He then took the two properties in East Hampton Town jurisdiction and combined them into one lot, which he then subdivided into three buildable lots, on which law allows him to build up to seven houses, total, according to the Planning Department. Also included in that subdivision was the creation of an agriculturally reserved parcel, as well as a scenic reserve.

In 2008, Mr. Baron built a double wall — parallel walls about four feet apart — in an area of beach vegetation on the dunes, which are protected by town code, according to the findings of the court. “These walls ran from east to west along the southerly portion of the property, and extended north along the easterly portion of the property, at a total length of approximately 762 linear feet,” the new State Supreme Court decision said.

The court found that the Z.B.A. “had a rational basis, and was not arbitrary and capricious” when, in late December of 2012, it rejected Mr. Baron’s appeal, which questioned a determination by East Hampton Town’s head building inspector at the time, Tom Preiato, that the walls required a special permit before being built. “Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of that determination,” the court wrote. 

At the same time, in 2012, having been told he was lacking the special permit that would have legalized the walls, Mr. Baron applied for that permit, although the walls had been built years before. The Planning Department argued against its being issued, citing town code and the rarity of the double dune ecosystem. Brian Frank, chief environmentalist for the town, told the board then, as he did again recently regarding the proposed walkway, that the double dune was one of the last of its kind, and that it contained important animal and plant species. The Z.B.A. rejected that special-permit application from Mr. Baron.

The State Supreme Court agreed that the town has the right, through its zoning code, to protect its natural resources.

The town made many of the same arguments in the matter of Mr. Baron’s proposed wooden walkway. On March 20, Roy Dalene, a member of the Z.B.A., told the rest of the board that he would recommend denial of a permit for the walkway’s construction. Although he did not mention the 2012 case, he echoed it as he cited specific laws governing the protection of the dunes and wild habitat; he also told his fellow board members that the boardwalk was not necessary, particularly as there is already a footpath from the living areas to the beach. Theresa Berger, Samuel Kramer, and John Whelan, the chairman, all agreed with Mr. Dalene’s reasoning, which will form the basis for Beth Baldwin to write an official determination that the board can sign off on. 

Michael Sendlenski, lead attorney for the town,  would not comment yesterday on what the next steps would be regarding Mr. Baron’s walls, though he did say that the town expects that the properties will be brought into compliance with town code, at some point. “The town is very happy that the court recognized the reasoning, evaluation, and analysis by the zoning board of appeals,” Mr. Sendlenski said. He complimented the board’s attorney, Ms. Baldwin, for having guided the board through the legal thicket.

As Deepwater Wind begins a two-year process of applying for permits to construct and operate a 15-turbine wind farm approximately 36 miles off Montauk, the Town of East Hampton’s fisheries advisory committee has chosen Julie Evans, the captain of a charter boat based in Montauk, as its liaison to the Rhode Island company. 

Ms. Evans is to be the fishing industry’s primary person for communicating with Deepwater Wind. The company will fund her work, but she will not be directly employed by it and instead will work on behalf of the local fishing fleet. The company anticipates the position will involve approximately 5 to 10 hours a week. 

An unsuccessful candidate for town trustee last fall, Ms. Evans has been an outspoken advocate for fishing interests. She and her late husband ran the Daybreaker, fishing for striped bass, from the mid-1970s until the state prohibited striped bass fishing in 1986. She holds a Coast Guard license to carry passengers for hire and has a degree in journalism and environmental science from New York University. A member of the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee, she headed a technical advisory committee for a state-mandated Lake Montauk watershed report. 

According to the advisory committee, Ms. Evans will work with Deepwater Wind to develop communication and mitigation plans for the proposed South Fork Wind Farm. The work is to include methods of communication between Deepwater Wind and the commercial fishing industry, the frequency and duration of that communication, and mitigation strategies for all stages of the wind farm’s construction and operation. “We look forward to the town board supporting the selection of Capt. Evans in this role,” a letter from the committee reads.

Deepwater Wind has struggled to find a fisheries representative, as sentiment among those in the town’s commercial fishing fleet has been that it would be disloyal for one of their own to work on behalf of a project they believe threatens their livelihood. 

“We appreciate that the Montauk fishing community has identified someone for this important role, and we’re confident that having a fishing rep on-board will deepen our outreach with the local fishing community,” Jennifer Garvey, Deepwater Wind’s Long Island development manager, said in a statement by email yesterday. “We look forward to working with Captain Evans.”

At the East Hampton Town Board’s work session on Tuesday, Robert Valenti, the fisheries committee’s vice chairman, introduced Ms. Evans and asked for a $30,000 stipend to employ an assistant to do research. “Who’s fishing what areas, how much they’ve been catching, how long they’ve been out there, and assorted information which is going to be necessary to put this mitigation and outreach plan into effect,” is how he described the research. “I don’t think we can expect Julie to do all of that alone.” 

“My job is to facilitate good communication between Deepwater Wind and our committee and protect fishing grounds for fishermen,” Ms. Evans told the town board. “Fishermen are under the gun in many different ways.” The proposed wind farm, she said, “is an added burden at this time. We’re behind at this point, so we do need the money so we can move forward quickly.”

The board was supportive of Ms. Evans’s selection. “I’m very pleased we now have a liaison, and a very appropriate one,” Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said, describing a town fisheries representative as having been missing as Deepwater Wind had multiple meetings with the town trustees and its harbor management committee. With respect to the stipend, the board “agrees that’s something we could fund. We’re going to give you the support you need to be successful,” the supervisor said. 

The company had offered the town and the trustees a community benefits package last year; the trustees countered with a considerably larger request for financial assistance and other commitments last month. 

The fishery is a renewable resource, the supervisor said. “We also have renewable energy, which we are promoting. Sustainability is really important for our species at this time. Balancing those two to make sure they’re in alignment with our overall goals is really important.”

With 118 residential wells south of the East Hampton Airport in Wainscott now found to be contaminated by perfluorinated compounds, the East Hampton Town Board is considering how best to safeguard drinking water. 

While the board seems inclined to pursue an inter-municipal water infrastructure grant, with the Suffolk County Water Authority as the lead agency in the partnership, to connect residential properties in the area of concern to public water, the timeline for that process will be long. In the meantime, Councilman Jeffrey Bragman, the board’s liaison to the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee, said at a work session on Tuesday that the town should make point-of-entry treatment systems available to homeowners with contaminated wells as soon as possible. 

Suffolk County Health Department officials began a survey of water from private wells in the area of the East Hampton Airport in August. In October, the Health Department announced discovery of levels of two perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, in excess of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable levels for lifetime exposure. Since then, the test area has expanded to an area containing nearly 400 wells, of which around 244 have been tested, Mr. Bragman said. 

Perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, have been detected at varying levels in the wells. Though PFCs are currently unregulated, the E.P.A. has identified both PFOS and PFOA as contaminants of emerging concern. The agency issued the lifetime health advisory level of 0.07 parts per billion to protect the most sensitive populations, including fetuses during pregnancy and breastfed babies, against potential adverse health effects.

According to the E.P.A., studies on animals indicate that exposure to the two compounds over certain levels may also negatively affect the thyroid, liver, and immune systems, and cause cancer, among other effects. 

Upon discovery of the PFCs, the town offered free bottled drinking water to all those in the test area who are not connected to public water supplies. On Tuesday, they pondered long-term solutions. 

Nicole Ficeto, the town’s grants coordinator, briefed the board on the State Environmental Facilities Corporation’s Intermunicipal Water Infrastructure Grants Program, detailing how the town and the water authority could partner to apply for a grant for drinking-water infrastructure improvement, in this case to extend water mains to residential properties serviced at present  by private wells. 

The town would have to form a water district, she told the board. The project would require a review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and a resolution authorizing the application. An executed engineering agreement for design services, proof of any required easements, and a debt approval letter from the state comptroller would encourage an application’s approval, she said, as would a detailed project schedule, itemized plans, specifications, and other relevant documents. 

“We will do our homework” and work with the county, Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said, and execute an inter-municipal agreement with the water authority. “I think it’s really important to move forward and try to have the ability to receive these grants.” However, he said, the board does not have the luxury of time, given the urgency of protecting public health. 

“We are certainly going to look for every potential source of grant money that we can to lower the costs,” the supervisor said after the meeting. “It makes sense to start the process of developing the plans, which we’ve already done with the Suffolk County Water Authority in terms of locating, having the physical maps drawn up. We need to create a water supply district. Engineering needs to take place.” Regardless of the grant timeline, “we’re still going to be moving,” he said. “I certainly don’t want to sit around and wait to get the grant. That’s valuable time we’re going to use to work to alleviate this concern.”

Mr. Bragman underscored that concern, explaining that the chemicals in question are endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors, found in a range of man-made and natural substances, interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects. “They’ve determined that very minute quantities can cause harm,” he said. At one time, New Jersey had set an acceptable limit of exposure at 40 parts per trillion, he said, but it has since lowered that threshold to 13 parts per trillion. 

“I strongly believe we can’t just wait for public water,” he said. “There is effective filtration available.” Point-of-entry treatment systems cost about $3,000, he said, but a public bid would likely lower that cost. The systems require an additional annual cost of $1,000 to replace filters. 

“If we took the initiative and installed water filtration, we’re looking at about $350,000,” Mr. Bragman said, comparing the potential expenditure to the approximately $330,000 allocated to combat the southern pine beetle infestation in Northwest Woods in East Hampton. “This problem is more serious than the southern pine beetle,” he said. “This affects human health. I think it requires us to think about the role of government. . . . We have a responsibility to act decisively and protect human health. . . . We all care, everybody cares about this. But we can’t care slowly. I would favor getting bids to get these systems, and favor making them available to all contaminated wells we have.” 

“Point-of-entry treatment systems are very effective,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, and are installed quickly relative to water mains. “We find, right to this very moment, everything we do on the land does have a direct impact on our groundwater. With that in mind, I do support the councilman’s suggestion that we take immediate action, making available point-of-entry well treatment.” A state of emergency would likely be declared, he said, in order to allocate public money to private property, allowing homeowners to install the point-of-entry treatment systems. “I don’t think we can wait for slower moving agencies and bureaucracies to address this problem,” he said. 

Downtown Montauk’s ocean beach and bay beaches in the Town of East Hampton “took a beating” in the northeaster that hit the South Fork on Friday and Saturday, Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said at the town board’s work session on Tuesday, though the town was spared the greater damage and higher winds experienced to the north. 

The storm exposed much of the 3,100-foot revetment formed by sand-filled geotextile tubes at the ocean beach in downtown Montauk, constructed as a short-term measure to protect shoreline businesses from flooding while the town awaits the Army Corps of Engineers’ long-term coastal plan, the Fire Island to Montauk Point reformulation study, or FIMP. 

“We did lose a great deal of sand,” the supervisor said. “Where it’s most noticeable, I would say, is along the downtown stretch in Montauk. Most of the bags there are exposed.” But, he said, “I think it’s safe to say we’d be looking at hotel foundations and exposed cesspools and swimming pools tilting over the edge” had the revetment not been constructed. “That was an emergency interim project while we wait for FIMP to come with a sand-only major replenishment.”

The town and Suffolk County are responsible for replenishing sand to cover the revetment and must do so by May 15, Mr. Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday. Yesterday, he said that the cost of the replenishment was yet to be determined, pending a post-storm assessment. Pre-storm measurements had pointed to a cost in the range of $300,000, he said, “but clearly things have changed.” 

“That is an added expense to the town,” the supervisor said on Tuesday. The town board had budgeted $1.5 million for such projects, “but it also has sparked some conversation about erosion control districts within the town,” he said, “where we would have some of those costs, if not all, offset by specific districts. Those who benefit most from those projects and that sand would be asked to contribute a commensurate amount. That’s something that’s going to be ongoing in terms of discussion that I think we should be focusing on while we wait for the Fire Island-to-Montauk reformulation to be completed and receive that federal project.”

The sand replenishment will happen as close to the summer season as is practicable, Mr. Van Scoyoc said. “We want to be outside of the storm season, and we don’t want to put sand up there that’s going to be immediately at risk” of being washed away, he said. Wave action will tend to push sand back on to the beach, promoting a natural recovery, he added. 

Bay beaches at Barnes Landing and along Cranberry Hole Road in Amagansett also suffered erosion, Mr. Van Scoyoc said at the work session, and Gerard Drive, in Springs, was breached. 

Falling trees killed eight people throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions during the storm, and 2.7 million people lost electricity. Another northeaster was projected to arrive yesterday, and yet another storm is forecast for Monday. 

“We’ll be moving forward to make sure that everything’s in place, that that beach gets restored to its normal conditions prior to the beginning of the season,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said of downtown Montauk’s ocean beach. But, he added, “It’s going to be an ongoing issue that we as a coastal community will have to deal with.”