Loading...
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.