HomeMy WebLinkAboutNYS Fertilizer, Herbicide & Pesticide Demo Site 1982 OPERATIONS PLAN'
SOUTHOLD D£MONSTRATION SIT£
Ne~ Yo~d~ St~ua~ Fe~e~, He~i~,
and P~ Omo~.n P~j~
MAY 1982
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
468 Hol~t~
¢orn~,t.~
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
OPERATIONS PLAN
Southokl Demo~,ai~ation Site
New York State Fertilizer, Herbicide, and
Pesticide Demonstration Project
Center for Environmental Research
~68 Holl~ster Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y. 1~853
Contact,'
Nancy M. Trautmann or Keith S. Porter
May 1982
l~eJng conducted under the auspices of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
STATESIDE OVERVIEW
The State Fertilizers Herbicides and Pesticide Demonstration Project
seeks, in parts to develop solutions to ground-water contamination problems
related to the use of these substances on the land. The Town of Southold, in
Suffolk Countys is one of four sites chosen [or this demonstration, the other
three being the Village of Clifton Springs in Ontario County, the Town of Big
Flats in Chemun§ County, and the Pine Barrens area of Eastern Long Island. [n
each of these areas, the work will ~ttempt to identify options to deal with
specified local current and future problems, lit also has a wider goal.' to
provide a basis for subsequent transfer of the procedure of problem dlagnosLs
and management to communi~ias and agencies elsewhere which are concerned
with ground-water quality problems.
Cornell University's Center for Environmental Research (CER) has been
engaged to provide technical services by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), the lead government agency for the
project. Within each communitys the county Cooper~tive Extension
Associations are assisting in organizing the educational efforts and community
interactions.
The Southold Project has three major goals-'
(1) to estimate the extent of current ~round-water contamination
so that management decisions can be assessed by the North
Fork communities,
(2) to consider future possible contamination resulting from
changes in land use activities specified by assumed future
scenarios, and
(3) to evaluate proposed ways of reducing the input of
contaminants to the aquifer.
2
Numerous other projects with objectives complementary to these are
currently underway. Efforts will be made to coordinate this project with other
ongoing studies related to Southold's ground-water problems. The project will
continue until spring~ 1983.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Southold study area consists of the Town of $outhold and a smaU
portion of the Town of Riverhead on the North Fork of eastern Long Island.
Bounded on three sides by salt water, the area is about 30 miles long and no
more than ~ miles wide. Its gentle terrain and well-drained fertile soils have
favored intensive agricultural development. Currently, about ~0 percent of the
land surface in Southold is devoted to farming, of which about 80 percent is
used for growing potatoes. Tourism is the other main source of income for the
area. For both residents and visitors alike, ground water is the sole supply of
drinking water. About #0 percent of the residences are served by small
community water supply companies, and the remainder depend on individual
home wells.
Because the North Fork is so narrow and flat, the volume of its fresh
water lens is quite limited. The aquifer is only about 50-100 feet deep, and
even less in some areas. Below the fresh water lens lies salt water. As a
result~ most wells in Southold are screened not very ~ar below the water table.
The depth from the land surface to the water table in Southold is also
quite shallow throughout most of the area. Since the soils are fairly coarse in
texture, precipitation which is not taken up by plants or evaporated generally
recharges the aquifer and does not run oil into surface waters. Soluble
FIGtJP, E !
HOVEHEIIT OF POLLUTANTS TO AND l'flRt)lJGH TI~ 6ROU#D HATER
~":".".':"i~ ~' '" """";: ''";' '':' ""'"
contaminants travel freely with this ground-water recharge water. After
reaching ground water there is little time for these contaminants to become
diluted before they reach wellheads screened near the surface. Unfortunately,
in most cases the well screens cannot be installed at greater depths because
they would then extend into salt water.
GROUND-WATER PROBLEMS
The coarie soiis~ shallow water table, intensive farming and other land
uses have led to ground-water contamination in Southold. A brief summary of
the existing problems follows:
o due to the use of 'aldicarb on potato farms from 1976-7!)~ there
are now many wells with aldlcarb concentrations higher than 7
ppb (the drinking water guideline),
o in severaJ areas, the nitrate concentrations are greater than 10
mg/l (the drinking water standard), and
o in some wells, signLficant amounts of carbofuran have been
found.
Possible future ground-water problems include the following:
o further contamination from pesticides other than aldicarb,
o increased nitr~te contamination from farming or residential
development, and
o saJt wate~- intrusion caused by 8t-eater w&tet demands.
TECHNICAL WORK OUTLINE
The technical work ~or th~s project wilt focus on three major Lssues: (1)
the present extent of ground water contamination in Southold, (2) the potential
for future contamination, and (3) the management options avaiJable for
protection of the region's ground water resources. The specific questions to be
addressed are listed in Table I.
Table t
QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BY TI/E SOUTHOLD DEMONSTRATION
PRO~ECT
L
Pre~nt Gro~d-wa~e~ Contamination
A. Aldicarb
1. To what extent does $outholdts ground water exceed the
7 ppb guideline for aldicarb?
B. Nitrate
I.
What are the current impacts on ground water of
existing sources of nitrate-nitrogen?
Potential Future Ground-~rater Contamination
A, Aldicarb
What processes are affecting the movement and
decomposition of aldicarb, and for how long can it be.
expected to remain a problem in 5outhoidts ground
water?
B. Nitrate
How will the ground-water nitrate levels be affected by
changes in land use patterns or in farm management
practices?
2. What fertilize application rates would ensure ground-
water protection?
C. Other Contaminants
What types of chemicals have the greatest potential for
migrating beyond the root zone and becoming ground-
water contaminants?
A. Land Use
What is the relitive importance of existing lind uses
and management practices on the quality and quantity
o! ground water?
e
What are the implications of conversion of farms to
residential areas for the quantity and quality of ground-
water recharge?
What patterns of recharge arid contaminant toeding are
consistent with the management and use of the aquifer
system?
I~. Farm Management
1. Would rotation with cover crops significantly increase
the soil's ability to restrict leaching of chemicals?
If organic matter were added to fields from other
sources~ would this increase the water and contaminant
holding capacities of the soil?
Could fertilization practices be changed to reduce
nitrate leaching?
C. Chemical Management
Can the chemicals which pose the greatest threat to
groundwater supplies be "screened" to provide improved
guidelines for their use?
Can a procedure be established to evaluate pesticides
more effectively prior to their general use? How could
this be incorporated into EPA's pesticide registration
procedure?
D. Underlying Questions for Pesticides and Nitrogen
1. How can existing data-bases be best used to extract the
most useful information?
2. Where there are gaps in data, or in understanding, how
can soundly based options be developed?
3, How should uncertainty and inherent variability be
properly allowed for in specifying options?
7
The means for analyzing these questions will be provided by the Water
and Land Resource Analysis System (WALRAS), a system of organizing data to
provide information about water and contaminant movement to and through the
ground water. Four b~sic steps are involved in using WALRAS:
(1) define boundaries of the geographic area and time period of
interestl
(2) define a model of water and contaminant flows and storages in
the area~ and express using mass b~lance equationsl
(3) assemble data to apply the model to the particular area and
time period; and
(~) construct water and contaminant budgets for the study area's
subdivLs[ons and time divisions.
A subarea of 5outhold will be chosen for detailed study, and the
~I/ALRAS procedure will be used to simulate the historical recbarge quantity
and quality for selected solutes such as nitrate-nitrogen~ aldicarb~ and
carbofuran. Estimates will also be made of the paths and speeds of water and
solute movement through the unsaturated and saturated zones. Together~ these
analyses will be used to estimate the distribution of particular contaminants
over space and time. Inherent in this analysis will be a consideration of the
effects of cl~nging land use practices~ such as increased efficiency of fertilizer
appllcations~ use of integrated pest management practices~ or conversion of
agricultural land to residential development. By considering the effects on
recharge of various practices such as these, the options for ground-water
protection will be identified. Understanding developed from the subarea
simulation will then be used to derive conclusions about ground water in
Southold as a whole.
FIGURE )
ROOT ZONE, UNSATURATED AND SATURATED ZONES
CONT~INANT
. . APPL I~AT ION~¥~? ~ ~.~ EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
NATER INFLUX, INCLUDING.
RnflT 7gMC I~'~] /~ndy Io~ to ~(It7 Ioffi eo[I.
O plantm.
UN~TUR~ ZO~ ~ Uwually comr*er mte~(ml thmn
LEACHTNG~ PERCOLATION
~TURAT~ ZONE ~ ~r~rl.l ~(mtl.r to
Another focus for the technical work wil! be to evaluate what types of
chemicals have the greatest potential for migrating beyond the root zone and
becoming ground-water contaminants. If such a "screening" procedure were
used as part of the pesticide registration process, it would be feasible to adopt
a multiple tracking procedure with a quicker release for use of those pesticides
deemed to pose no or very little risk to ground water.
9
FIGURE
BIOLOGICAL BREN~DOWN OF PESTICIDES IN THE ROOT ZONE
The project components are outlined in more detail in Figure .5. As can be
seeh from this figure, an Integral part of the project is the work of the Citizen's
Advisory Committee, as discussed below.
10
JUEE/JUL~ Z952
FIGURE 5
OUTLINE O~ THE SOUTHOLD DEHONSTRATION PROJECT
CITIZENS ADVISORY CO~ITTEE:
REVIEH ALL ASPECTS OF THE TECHNICAL NORK,'EVALUATE GROUND-HATER i'SANAGEHENT OPTIONS, ASSIST iN EDUCATION AND COMHUNICATION
PROGRAHS FOR COP*qUNITY INVOLVEHENT, AND CONSIDER RELEVANT ISSUES NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY THE PROJECT, BUT RELATED TO IT,
INITIAL PROJECT
ADHINISTRAT[ON:
Determine
loading
crlterI~ for
DOCUMENTS, MEETINGS, INFORHATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES~
INITIAL IHPLEMENTATION,
leading to
lground-water
Ic°ntamlnatt°n'
DEVELOPHENT OF INFORHATION
Apply and demon-
~f strate method
P'lfor screening ~f
]ne. pesticides.
FINAL
OUTPUTSL
Site selectlun
Operations planning
Initial coordination
and liaison with
federal, state and
local agencies
Identification of
key Issues
Establlsreent of
project goals
Determination of
technical work needed
Identification of
program delivery
IMPLEHEHTATIDN OF PROJECT RESULTS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY,
t
JvL
Create town-wide
data base for
extra~latton of
area
results.
J Select area
for deta11~
Conduct ~/~1 stmlatlon.
stmlatI°ns' I ~ Assemble dataneeded for
budget calcula-
tlons and for
flow mpptng.
~ ISlmulate histor-
ical aldlcarb andI
~ll~nttrogen budgets I
~near the surface I
,landextract re-
charqe estimates.I
o'1 I.tI.te the dur.tIo,,
Fated zen -re ' " / /and extent of ground-
d a Southold under vartous
|.ti.re f.t.. |
distribution of
~1 eld carb tn r~ /
Estl~to flow L I ~' I aautfe~. I ~ IEst~ate the dur-I
leaths end travel I lassess uncertaln-i / I I ~ latlon and extent !
~1,~ fn- '-~,' [ ~-Ittes in budget [~ ~ ~ ~Jof ground-water
a d a and flow system contamination in
ur te ed
saturated zones, stlmates, stlmate nitrate the detailed
oflcentratlon of studv area,
rider various mn
gment options.
l!
AGENCY AND PUBliC ~IVOLV~MENT
The overall goal o! the $outhold Demonstration Project is to aid :he
Southoid community in planning for the protection of its ground-water supplies.
The success of this venture relies on the CitL~en's Advisory Committee since it
is the~r task to take the techn!cai findings and develop means of implementing
them in their community. Specific responsibilities of the committee are as
foUows:
o to review the technical work, monitor its progress, ensure that
existing data are made available to the research team, and
assess the realism of simulation results~
o to evaluate the ground-water mana&ement options and devise a
means of implementing a plan for protection of $outhold's
ground water,
o to assist in education and communication programs to build
public awareness of Southold's ground-water problems and
potential solutions~ and
o to address ground-water and related issues of importance to the
$outhold community but not specifically covered by this project
(see Table 2).
The group may wish to consider its own educational program at the local
community level to improve the information available to local~ county~ and
regional water decision-makers. Techniques for community involvement and
education could include a newsletter, educational forums, production of a video
or slide show, or press releases.
12
Table 2
EXAMPLES OF R~-IATED QUESTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY ADD~ED BY THE
SOUTHOLD DEMONSTRATION PRO3ECT
A. Farm Management
Can adequate pest control be obtained through proper timing of
a reduced number of pesticide applications?
How effective are rotation practices in reducing pest pressures
and the need for pesticides? Do the benefits of rotation
practices outweigh the costs?
How long will it take before alternative methods of biological
control of potato pests are available and how effective will
they be?
Would it be economically feasible to change irrigation practices
to conserve water and reduce leaching?
Health Risks of Water Contamination
Can the health risks posed by low levels of drinking water
contamination be measured?
What level of risk is the general public willing to accept in lieu
of expensive water supply alternatives?
C. Water Treatment
What are the most cost-effective water treatment options to
remove contaminants?
RELATED PRO3ECTS
A variety of other studies are also addressing $outhold's water supply and
farm management lssues~ and the interactions among these studies are depicted
in Table 3. One of these is the North Fork Water Supply Study, being conducted
under the auspices of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. This
study will complement the Fertilizers Herbicide, and Pesticide Demonstration
13
Project, as discussed in the appendix to this report. Together, the two studies
will develop information needed in choosing the best water supply and ground-
water management options for the region.
Table 3
SUMMARY OF PRO3ECTS RELATED TO TI-IE SOUTHOLD
DEMONSTRATION PROgECT
Proiect Results
o assessment of water
supply alternatives
for the North
Fork
o analysis of toxicity
of aldicarb
o development of
technique for de-
toxification of
aldicarb
o monitoring for
aldicarb in well
water
o sampling of home
filter units
o development of an
integrated pest
management system
for potatoes
recommendation of
the best alternatives
for providing
quality water
evaluation of the
hazard involved in
drinking or bathing
in contaminated
water
analysis of the
potential for
providing filters
to detoxify aldicarb
estimation of the
extent and duration
of aldlcarb con-
tamination
assessment of the
useful life of
filters
evaluation of the
effectiveness of
crop rotation and
basing pesticide
applications on
beetle populations
Agency Responsible
Suffolk County Dept.
of Health Services
Comeil University,
Inst. of Comparative
and Environmental
Toxicology
Cornell University,
Dept. of Design and
Environmental Analysis
Suffolk County Dept.
of Health Services
Suffolk County Dept.
of Health Services
Comell University,
Long Island
Horticultural Research
Lab
Other related projects include analysis of the health effects of aldicarb,
development of a technique for detoxification of aldicarb~ and research on
integrated pest management possibilities. To whatever extent is appropriate
and possible within the schedule for this project, results from other studies such
as these will be considered and incorporated into our results.
TECHNICAL STAFF
C. Thomas Male, iii, is the Project Manager for the DEC, and Robert
Scheck Ls DECks regional representative. Keith Porter, Senior Extension
Associate and Coordinator of the Water Resources Program, directs CER~s
participation in the project. Nancy Trautmann, Project Officer, and Mary 3ane
Heather, Water Specialist, will be the technical staff people assigned to this
study area for CER.
The project is administratively
Development Program Committee of
[inked to the Community Resource
the county Cooperative Extension
Association. Dale Moyer is the Suffolk County Cooperative Extension agent
responsible for the community involvement aspects of- this project.
APPENDIX
Comparison Of The North Fork Water Suppt~
And The
Pesticide Demonstration Project
Two concurrent projects are underway to address aspects of ground-water
issues on the North Fork of Long Island: the North Fork Water Supply Study
under the auspices of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services~ and
the Southold Fertilizer, Herbicide, and Pesticide Project being carried out by
the Cornell University Center for Envh'onmental Research under contract to
DEC. These two studies will complement each other by covering different
aspects of the region's water problems: the first addresses primarily the
mechanisms of providing potable water, and the second focuses on protection of
ground-water supplies. Together they can be used in choosing the best water
supply and ground-water management options for the region. Table 1-A
presents the objectives of each study and compares the questions that they will
address.
Table l-A. Comparison of the North Fork Water Supply Study and the Sonthold Fertilizer, Harblclde, and Pesticide
Demonstration Project
lqORTH FORK WATER SUPPLY STUDY
~3~JTtlOLD DEMONSTRATION PRO3ECT
identify and evaluate alternative water supply plans
to supply sufficient water o! satisfactory quality
to the North Fork.
Evaluate the Impact of various land use alternatives
and agricultural practices en grcued-water quality
V/here are the areas of ground-water contamination?
What are the current patterns o! water supply
demands~ public and private?
Location of fresh/salt water interface?
What can be concluded from existing data about the
current extent o! ground-water ccutamination in
5outhoM?
What are the sources of the grmmd-watar
contaminants, and how can they be controlled?
Where are existing water supplies Jns~fflciont
or of ton Iow quality to meet needs?
Future Settin8
What are the projected water supply needs In
Rlvarhemd and Southold for Irrl~atian,
residentlel ~nd commercial uses?
Where is exlstin~ ccutemlsmtlon expected to become
worse, and for how long will it last? In what areas are
Improvements expected?
What are ~e sa~e yields of ground-water aquifers
In Rlverhead and Scuthold?
How wtli the extent of centamiaatk~ be affected by
various management strate$ies?
Wate~ SupplylMana~ement Options
Wlmt alternative plans are viable for meetin8
current and future water supply needs?
What land use management practices would best
protect SouthokFs ground-water?
What specific facilities will be required to
meet the needs? Whare should they be located?
What are the custs and onv~onmenta] consequences
of the plans?
How can the chemicals which pose the greatest threat
to 8roond=water be "screened" to provide Improved
8uldelines for their use?
When should the facilities be constructed?
What administrative structures should be adopted
to impiement the recommended plan?
II.
SOUTHOLD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Preventive Water Management Plan for Citizen's Advisory Committee
Information Gathering
a. Pinpoint major sources of groundwater pollution using existing data
and WALRAS.
b. Determine the extend of the pollution problems
1. what, where, how much, contamination is present?
c. Determine future extent of the pollution problems
1. WALRAS
d. Determine seriousness of health effects as they relate to sources of
contamination.
Toxicology - review of health services
Exploring Alternatives
Examine various methods which could be used to prevent groundwater pollution
as identified in phase I.
a. Better management practices - Ag and homeowners. Joe Sieczka, L.I.
Hort. Research Lab; Cooperative Extension personnel.
b. IPM- (Dr. Rose Loria, L.I. Hort. Research Lab)
c. Water conservation - homeowner and Ag. (improved irrigation practices -
Joe Sieczka, L~I. Hort. Research Lab)
d. Zoning - examine best method for minimum impact to groundwater (Cluster
zoning, large lot zoning etc.) This work should be coordinated with the
Master Plan for Southold. David Newton, Cooperative Extension.
e. Chemical registration - Dr. James Dewey, Cornell University.
f. Farmland Preservation (County and town level), Dave Newton, Cooperative
Extension.
g. Education and research - Cooperative Extension and other agency role with
agriculture and homeowners. (pamphlets, workshops, etc.}
h. Town support measure
i. County and State support measures
III. Selection and best alternatives
a. Review of WALRAS study - the WALRAS procedure will allow the committee to
obtain estimates of groundwater quantitY a~d quality under various management
schemes.
b. Review of alternatives offered by the North Fork Water Supply Study.
1. Determine the impact of these alternatives to agriculture, development,
and social and economic ways of life on the North Fork.
c. Cost-benefit analysis - cost of "water supply alternatives" and the long
term Preventive Water Management Plan.
d. Develop a preventive water management plan for Southold.