HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrown Tide Comp Assessment & Management Program Summary 11/1992I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
BROWN TIDE
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Robert J. Oaffney
Counvy Executive
Mary E. Hibberd, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner
SUFFOLK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF I-IEALTH SERVICES
November, 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
BROWN TIDE
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Robert J. Gaffney
Suffolk County Executive
Prepared by:
Suffolk County Depm Urgent of Health Services
Mary E. Hibberd, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner
Division of Environmental Quality
Joseph H. Baler, P.E., Acting Director
Office of Ecology
Vito Minei, P.E., Chief, Project Manager
Walter Dawydiak, Project Coordinator
With assistance from:
Dvirka & Bartilucci, Consulting Engineers,
Tetra-Tech, Inc., and
Creative Enterprises of Northern Virginia, Inc.
November, 1992
This document was prepared by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 205(j) of the
Clean Water Act of 1987 (PL 100-4). This project has been financed in part with Federal funds provided by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency and administered by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation under Contract C.002242. The contents do not necessari~ reflect the views and policies of the United
State Environmental Protection Agency or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
MESSAGE FROM T~E COUNTY EXECUTIVE
I am pleased to present the summary of the Brown Tide
Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP).
As you are aware, the Brown Tide crisis has dramatically
illustrated the need to take steps to ensure the permanent
protection of the Peconic Estuary system. The Brown Tide has
decimated the nationally significant scallop population and caused
numerous other adverse natural resource and aesthetic impacts,
threatening the livelihoods of the East End baymen and the local
tourism-based economy.
This study clearly demonstrates the commitment of Suffolk
County to the protection of the Peconic Estuary system resources.
Over four years of intensive efforts were dedicated to BTCAMP,
which was funded with $200,000 of federal grant monies and more
than $1.3 million of Suffolk County contributions. This funding,
although substantial, is a small price to pay for the preservation
of Peconic Estuary water quality and natural resources.
The program, which was conducted by Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, was supported by three consulting firms and
numerous researchers. In addition, the management of BTCAMP was a
cooperative effort among all levels of government and included
strong and active citizen participation. I have no doubt that
BTCAMP will serve as a model and forerunner for other marine
surface water quality protection programs. In fact, largely due to
BTCAMP efforts and a nomination document prepared by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, the Peconic Estuary has
recently been designated a nationally significant estuary by its
acceptance into the federal National Estuary Program. With this
acceptance, the Peconic Estuary joined only seventeen other
estuaries in this program, qualifying for additional funding for
further management, research, and demonstration projects.
I trust that, as you read the summary, you will share my
concerns regarding the threats to the Peconic Estuary resources.
The study has clearly demonstrated the need for management to
preserve this invaluable resource, which has recently been
designated by the Nature Conservancy as one of the "Last Great
Places" in the western hemisphere. With your support, we can
effectively proceed with implementation of the detailed program
recommendations, leaving our treasured legacy intact for
generations to come.
ROBERT J. GA'FFNEY
Suffolk County Executive
I
I
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
I
!
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
EXECUTIVE SU~4ARY .................. iii
INTRODUCTION ........ 1
A) Study Area .............. 1
B) Brown Tide Spacial and Temporal Occurrence .... 1
C) BTCAMP Approach ................ 4
.1. Research ....... 4
2. Monitoring, Land Use and Data Analysis. 4
3. Modelling ................ 4
GOALS ..................
RESOURCE OVERVIEW ......
PROJECT PAi~TICIPATION/ADMINISTRATION.
PROJECT COST ............
8
8
...... 10
10
11
11
11
REPORT STRUCTURE ..................
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND REC0~4ENDATIONS.
A) Summary of Findings and Conclusions.
1. Brown Tide and Natural Resources Impacts ..... 11
2. Conventional Water Quality. 12
a. Nutrients .................. 12
b. Coliforms ................ 20
c. Other Pollutants .............. 22
3. Other Natural Resources ...... 22
4. Implementation. 22
B) Summary of Recommendations .............. 25
1. Prevention of Degradation - Peconic River .... 25
and Flanders Bay
2. Nutrient Pollution Abatement - Peconic River. 26
and Flanders Bay
3. Pollution Control - Eastern Study Area ...... 26
4 Stormwater Runoff and Coliform Control ...... 27
5 Boating and Marina Controls ........... 27
6 Natural Resources ................ 27
7 Further Monitoring and Research ......... 28
8 Public Education ................ 29
9 Implementation ................. 30
Project Acceptance and Future Management 32
Concluding Statement .................. 33
ii
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
i
I
i
I
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SUmmARY
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 - Land Use in Peconic Estuary Study Area (1988) 7
Table 2 - Point Source Nutrient Concentrations and
Loadings, 1976 vs. 1988-1990 ...............
13
Table 3 - Summary of Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations ............................
34
Table 4 - Proposed Peconic Estuary System Research and
Investigation Projects ..................... 40
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1 - Location Map of Areas Affected by Brown
Tide ......................................
2
Figure 2 - Study Area-Peconic Estuary System ......... 3
Figure 3 - 1988 Land Use, ?econic River/Flanders Bay
Groundwater-Contributing Area .............
5
Figure 4 - 1988 Land Use, Peconic River/Flanders Bay
Stormwater Runoff-Contributing Area .......
6
Figure 5 - Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading,
Peconic River and Flanders Bay Areas ......
14
Figure 6 - Sewage Treatment Plants in the Peconic
Estuary System ............................
16
Figure 7 - Private Well Average Total Nitrogen
Concentrations ............................
18
Figure 8 -
Computer Modelling Management Alternatives
Analysis Cumulative Total Nitrogen
Improvements ..............................
21
Figure 9 - Private Well Pesticide Data, Peconic Estuary
System Groundwater-Contributing Area ...... 23
Figure 10- Active and Inactive Landfills in the Peconic
Area ...................................... 24
iii
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
!
I
i
I
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brown Tide is an algal bloom caused by a particularly small and previously unknown
species (.Aureococcus anopha~efferens). Adverse impacts caused by the Brown Tide include the
virtual eradication of the nationally significant bay scallop population and the decimation of
Peconic Estuary eelgrass beds. In response to the Brown Tide problem, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) initiated the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment
and Management Program (BTCAMP) in 1988.
BTCAMP was undertaken with two distinct objectives. The first objective was to research
the causes and impacts of the Brown Tide, identifying any appropriate remedial actions and
defining those areas which require further study. The second objective was to investigate tnore
conventional water quality problems affecting local bay areas so that corrective actions to
minimize any present or future water quality problems could be identified and evaluated.
The study has concentrated on the "Peconic Estuary System," including the groundwater-
contributing areas to the Peconic River and the entire Flanders/Peconic Bays system. Study
efforts have particularly focused on the western Peconics (i.e., Flanders Bay and its tributaries),
the most stressed portion of the system. There has also been a general examination of the other
marine waters where the Brown Tide has occurred, including Shinnecock Bay, Moriches Bay
and eastern Great South Bay.
The final management plan was supported by a comprehensive series of tasks including
monitoring of the bays, assessment of the sources of pollutant loading to the bays (e.g.,
stormwater runoff, sewage treatment plants, groundwater inflow), analysis of land use in the area
surrounding the bays, and computer modelling of water movement and quality in the bays. In
addition, input from County-funded research projects has been vital to the success of the
management program.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study are discussed in the
following extended summary and are distilled in Table 2. In brief, BTCAMP found that,
although all algal growth requires the macronutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, the Brown Tide is
apparently not triggered by these conventional macronutrients. However, the Brown Tide may
be caused by other factors which include meteorological patterns and specific chemicals
(chelators, specific organic nutrients, certain metals). The study recommends further laboratory
and field research regarding not only these chemicals, but also other factors related to Brown
Tide subsidence; areas of interest include viruses, and the relationship between zooplankton
grazing and dimethyl sulfide. Brown Tide impacts on shellfish (toxic, mechanical, and poor
nutritional aspects) also should be explored further.
iv
BTCAMP also addressed conventional water quality parameters. The L.I. 208 Study
marine surface water quality guideline was refined to 0.5 mgtl for the tidal portions of the
Peconic River and Flanders Bay. The nitrogen guideline is exceeded in the western, tidal
portions of the Peconic Estuary, and dissolved oxygen concentrations occasionally dip to
unacceptably low levels at discreet locations, such as in the tidal Peconic River and
Meetinghouse Creek. However, the system generally has not demonstrated characteristics of
advanced eutrophication in terms of conventional nutrients and D.O. depletion. This evidence
indicates that the system currently may be near the limits of the factors of safety incorporated in
the determination of the nitrogen guideline. Water quality in the freshwater portions of the
Peconic River and in the main bays system east of Flanders Bay is generally excellent with
respect to nitrogen.
Based on extensive monitor'mg and mathematical modelling of impacts of management
alternatives, BTCAMP recommends the general policies of "no net increase" of direct nitrogen
loading to surface waters and "no substantial degradation of groundwater" in the Peconic River
and Flanders Bay groundwater-contribnting areas. These areas are poorly flushed and have
demonstrated environmental sensitivity to increased pollutant loading. A "no degradation of
surface water quality" policy is recommended for the eastern Peconic system.
Specific recommendations include a minimum zoning of two acres per unit in the Peconic
River region to protect the excellent surface water quality in the river, which is dependent on
groundwater quality; the river directly impacts surface water quality in Flanders Bay. A long-
range recommendation of upgrading the Riverhead STP is designed to decrease future surface
water total nitrogen levels to concentrations near the m~ine surface water quality nitrogen
guideline. Also, further improvements in Meetinghouse Creek water quality, if effected in
conjunction with Riverhead STP upgrading, would provide additional system-wide water quality
benefits in terms of nitrogen guideline attainment.
Coliform sampling and modelling indicate that pollution control efforts should be focused
on prevention of additional coliform loading. Stonnwater runoff remediation should occur
primarily on a site-specific basis, where feasible, rather than on a system-wide scale.
Many other pollutant sources were also considered in BTCAMP, including duck farms,
hazardous material discharges, fertilizer and sanitary system pollution, landfills, marinas and
boating, and atmospheric deposition. Areas of concern were identified (e.g., pesticides in surface
waters and potential North Sea landfill contamination of Fish Cove) and areas for further study
were recommended.
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
!
I
I
i
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
SUMMARY
1) INTRODUCTION
The Peconic system is an interconnected series of shallow coastal embayments at the eastern end
of Long Island, New York (see Figure 1), that have been plagued with an unusual algal bloom which has
been popularly dubbed the "Brown Tide." Because of the devastating impacts of this bloom on the
estuarme resources of the Pecoulc system, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)
initiated the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP) in 1988.
A) Study Area
The study area for BTCAMP (see Figure 2) was delineated as the groundwater-contributing area to
the Flanders-Peconic Bays system and includes over 110,000 acres of land. In the westernmost portion
of the system, the study area boundary was defined as the area of influence in which a shallow flow
groundwater regime contributes groundwater to the Peconic River and its tributaries (the "Peconic River
groundwater-contributing area," west of Cross River Drive). East of the Peconic River, the North and
South Fork groundwater divides were utilized as study area boundaries. Although BTCAMP
comprehensively assessed the entire Peconic Estuary system, the primary study efforts (e.g., land use
analysis, sampling) were more heavily focused on the Pecohic River and Flanders Bay Regions
(approximately 30,000 acres of land) due to limited study resources, the environmental sensitivity and
poor flushing of these areas (56 day average flushing time for Flanders Bay), and the adverse
environmental impacts which they have sustained.
The surface waters of the Peconic Estuary system are comprised of over 100 distinct bays, harbors,
embayments and tributaries which span a total area of over 100,000 acres. Between the Peconic River at
the western end of the system and Gardiners Bay to the east, the marine surface waters (not including
Gardiners Bay) encompass an area of approximately 80 square miles (over 50,000 acres). The average
depth of the major bays in this area ranges from 5.0 feet in Flanders Bay to 21.0 feet in Little Peconic
Bay, with a maximum depth of 95 feet in Shelter Island Sound. Gardiners Bay, the easternmost body of
water in the study area, has a surface area of approximately 75 square miles.
B) Brown Tide Spacial and Temooral Occurrence
The Brown Tide bloom persisted in high concentrations in the Peconic system for extended
periods in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. It also occurred in eastern Great South Bay, Moriches Bay, and
Shinnecock Bay during this period. Peak Brown Tide cell counts in the Peconic system often exceeded
1 million cells per milliliter (mi), as compared with a normal, mixed phytoplankton assemblage
concentration which would typically range from 100 to 100,000 cells per ml. After virtually
disappearing, elevated Brown Tide cell counts were observed in July of 1990 in West Neck Bay, a
sheltered water body off Shelter Island, and in western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays. Brown
Tide also reappeared in high concentrations in Shinnecock and Moriches Bays in the fall of 1990 and
persisted into the winter. Another intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the Peconic Estuary system in
May, 1991 and persisted at high levels through July, 1991; a Moriches and Shinnecock Bays bloom of
Brown Tide also began in May, but persisted through December 1991. In the summer of 1992, brown
tide reappeared in high concentrations in West Neck Bay, Coecles Harbor, Great South Bay, Shinnecock
Bay, and Moriches Bay. Bloom conditions have been consistently most severe in Flanders and West
Neck Bays; bloom dynamics in the main Pecoulc Estuary system often have been radically different
from conditions in West Neck Bay and South Shore Bays. The devastating effects of the Brown Tide
are discussed below in the "Resource Overview" and in the "Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations."
LOCATION MAP
LONG ISLAND
t I
I
NEW
YORK
~QUEENS ~ N~SS~U
cOUNTY
~ I
SUFFOLK
COUNTY
PECONIC
PECONIC--
RIVER
FLANDERS BAY
~ORICHES BAY
;REAT SOUTH BAY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
AREAS AFFECTED BY BROWN
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND
FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP OF AREAS AFFECTED
SOURCE' SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
MANAGEMENT
BY BROWN TIDE
PLUM IS~,
..,,GARD ] HERS BAY
TIDE
PROGRAM
TTLE
BAY
NNECOCK BAY
(BTCAMP)
NO SCALE
PBH- 9/91
LONG ISLAND
USGS GAUGE
k
SOUND OARUIN[RS BAY
#EEII#CHOUSE CREEK
LITTLE
l p EBCAOyN I C
1
~ BAY BAY \ EAS1 HAMPION
/ SOUTHAMPTON '~ L E G E N D
/
mm
6ROOKHAVEH
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
TOWN BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA
TERMINAL BOUNDARY
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BTCAMP)
FIGURE 2'. STUDY AREA - PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM
SOURCE' SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
NO SCALE
PBH - 9/91
BTCAMP Summary
C) BTCAMP Approach
BTCAMP is a multi-year study which provided for a comprehensive program of specialized
research activities, extensive bay monitoring, management and evaluation of data (e.g., land use, sources
of contamination, groundwater), and state-of-the-art mathematical computer modelling.
1. Research
BTCAMP benefitted from the research efforts of numerous individuals and organizations. The
State University of New York at Stony Brook, Marine Sciences Research Center (SUNY MSRC) has
contributed heavily to BTCAMP with extensive laboratory studies of Brown Tide characteristics and its
effects on the bay scallop population. MSRC research also has included eelgrass population study.
Other BTCAMP researchers include Dr. Jonathan Garber (sediment/water column flux studies); Dr.
Joseph Schubaner and Dr. Douglas Capone (nutrient inflow via groundwater discharge); the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute (immunofluoreseent procedures for the study of the Brown Tide); and
Pace University of New York City (satellite-based remote sensing of the brown tide phenomenon).
Institutions which were instrumental in BTCAMP monitoring efforts were Long Island University at
Southampton (historical bay water quality monitoring data), Suffolk County Community College
(laboratory and facility support), and Brookhaven National Laboratory (deployment of fluorometers to
collect continuous chlorophyll and temperature data).
2. Monitoring, Land Use and Data Ana(¥sis
SCDHS conducted an extensive surface water and point source monitoring program. Between
January, 1988 and June, 1990, over 4,400 marine water quality samples were collected and analyzed by
the SCDHS pursuant to Brown Tide study. Samples were examined for a broad spectrum of physical,
chemical, and biological data. The sampling program included frequent, periodic sampling at a number
of stations as well as occasional sampling runs immediately preceding and subsequent to wet weather
events at select stations and point sources. In addition, routine point source monitoring occurred for the
Riverhead sewage treatment plant (see infra Figure 6), Meetinghouse Creek (see supra Figure 2), and the
Peconic River (see supra Figure 2). Other sampling activities included two comprehensive wet-weather
runs to assess the impacts of stormwater runoff on the Peconic River.
Raw land use data were provided by the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) following
aerial photograph analysis and field surveys. The data were subsequently computer-digitized by LIRPB
and SCDHS staff. The products of these efforts for the groundwater-contributing and stormwater runoff-
contributing areas to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay system are contained in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively. The digitized maps facilitated tabulation of land use data (see Table 1), which was used
directly to generate estimates of pollution, such as on-lot sanitary waste disposal and fertilizer pollution
loading. The land use data was also evaluated in conjunction with other information such as
groundwater and surface water quality data to explore the relationship between land use and
environmental conditions in specific areas. A tremendous amount of information, including an
assessment of over 10,000 groundwater samples, was compiled and generated in analyzing pollutant
loading conditions in the study area. The results of this analysis are contained in the "Summary of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations."
3. Modelling
A state-of-the-art mathematical computer model of the Pecohic estuary system was developed by
the consultant, Tetra-Tech, which enhanced the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) "WASP4" model and renamed it "WASPS." This model is a system of coupled hydrodynamic
and water quality models which can be used to examine circulation, water quality, and eutrophication; in
BTCAMP, the calibrated model was verified with current data and was utilized to predict the impacts of
various management alternatives.
4
m m m ,-- -- ,m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
LONG
B~OOKHAVEN
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(BTCAMP)
FIG. 3:1988 La'nd Use
Peconic River/Flenders Bey
Groundwater Contributing Aree
ISLAND SOUND
VER~EA[
FLANDERS BAY
Legend for 1988 Lond Use
['~lLnw deneity resident nm m utilities
t (= I d.u./ucre
L-]Woete flofldling - Mnnegement
B#edi~m denaily renidefltinl
t> 1 d.n. to < B d.n./ecre) mSurfoce Waters
m High density residential
( >= 5 D.u./ncre)
~lCmmnnrciol
m lndnntrial NO SCALE
E'llnstitutlonnl
m0pen Space-Recreational
IRRAgriculture
i-IVncant
ma Trannportation & Recharge Benin
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Long Island ReDioeel Plenein9 Board
Pen 9/91
LONG
ISLAND SOUND
tOOKHAVEN
' ~ VERIlfEAD '~-
FLANDERS BAY
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(BTCAMP)
FIG. 4:1988 Lahd Use
Peconic River/Flonders Bay
Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area
Legend for 1988 Land Use
[]Lnn ~ennity resident al ·]Utilities
( <= I d.u./acre
I~11feste flandl inn - iianegement
mlUedivm density residential
~) 1 d.u, to < $ d.u./ocre) · Surface Waters
· High density residen~ia~
>= 5 ~l,u./acre)
lag Coammr ci al
· industrial HO $CAL[
[] Instltutionol
· OHen SHone-Recreational
[] Agricslture
[] Vacant
[] Trnnsportntlon d~ Recharge Basin
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Long Islnnd Regional Planning Board
PBH 9/91
NOTE:
TABLE 1
Land Uses in Peconic Estuary Study Area (1988)
LAND USE
WESTERN EASTERN
AREA * AREA **
Acres Acres
(%) (%)
Low Density Residential 1,383
(less than or equal to 1 unit/acre) (5)
Medium Density Residential
(greater than 1 to less than
5 units/acre)
High Density Residential
(greater than or equal to
5 units/acre)
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space - Recreational
Agriculture
Vacant
Transportation & Recharge Basin
Utilities
Waste Handling - Management
Surface Waters
ALL LAND USES
6,181
(7)
2,707 6,675
(9) (8)
302 2,788
(1) (3)
595 2,484
(2) (3)
1,533 1,365
(5) (2)
1,424 2,144
(5) (3)
8,286 18,936
(27) (23)
3,736 8,968
(i2) (ii)
8,613 30,925
(29) (37)
736 3,136
(2) (4)
165 ---
(i) ---
56 ---
(0) ---
678
(2)
30,214 83,602
(lOO) (lOO)
Includes Peconic River and Flanders Bay planning areas.
Includes Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic Bay, Shelter
Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, and Western Block Island Sound
areas.
Western study area estimates were generated by rigorous
aerial photograph study and field verifications. Eastern
study area projections are crude estimates which should be
refined by future study.
BTCAMP Summa~
The hydrodynamic program utilized in this study is a two-dimensional model which simulates
water movement due to tides, winds, and unsteady inflows. The eutrophication version, which can
simulate total biomass eutrophication conditions (i.e., phytoplankton growth/death, nutrient cycles,
sediment interaction, and dissolved oxygen), is being used for this study. The stmcture of the
mathematical model is based on a set of equations representing transport, biological, chemical, and
sediment/benthos submodels. The transport submodel is externally computed on a subtidal time scale
with a link-node hydrodynamic model. The sediment/benthos submodel is empirically represented as
temperature dependent biological and geochemical boundary forcing functions of nutrient and oxygen
mass fluxes across the sediment-water interface. The linear and nonlinear interactions between the
biological and chemical submodels are designed to represent the major dynamic processes that reflect
natural and anthropogenic loading of carbon and nutrients.
The BTCAMP "WASP5" computer model of the Peconic Bays system is an improvement over the
model applied in the 1976 LI 208 Study, with new parameters added and major flaws discovered and
rectified. The improvements in "WASPS" over "WASP4" include greater coverage, an atmosphetic
deposition source loading term, and a multi-species phytoplankton submodel. The "WASPS" model also
incorporates the impacts of zooplankton grazing on nutrient recycling and includes a multi-seasonal
simulation spanning an entire year.
2) GOALS
The general goals of BTCAMP are as follows:
A) To research the causes and impacts of the Brown Tide, identify any appropriate remedial actions,
and define those areas which require further study.
B)
To investigate more conventional water quality problems impacting local bay areas so that
corrective actions to minimize any present or future water quality problems could be identified and
evaluated. Primary parameters of concern are coliform bacteria, which is an indicator organism
that is used as the standard to certify shellfish areas and regulate beaches, and nitrogen, which, in
excessive concentrations, is often associated with cultural eutrophication (i.e., excessive algal
blooms, dissolved oxygen depletion, etc).
In achieving this goal, existing monitoring data was evaluated, extensive additional data was
obtained, point and non-point sources of pollution were identified and assessed, and land use data
was compiled by LIRPB and was analyzed in relation to pollution sources and groundwater and
surface water quality data. This information subsequently was used to refine the L.I. 208 Study
marine surface water quality nitrogen guideline and to formulate and evaluate management
alternatives so that appropriate mitigation measures could be recommended in a f'mal,
comprehensive management plan.
c)
To establish a mechanism for assessing the progress of implementation of BTCAMP
recommendations, addressing potential future environmental problems, identifying additional
applicable programs and funding sources, etc.
3) RESOURCEOVERVIEW
The Peconic Estuary system, designated by the Nature Conservancy as one of the "Last Great
Places" in the western hemisphere, consists of over 100 distinct bays, harbors, embayments and
tributaries and drains an area of approximately 110,000 acres. The drainage area to the Peconic Estuary
is rich with rolling farmland, scenic beaches, and lush woodlands and wetlands. The population of the
East End Towns of 115,000 persons, as estimated in 1989, swells to over 280,000 in the summertime.
8
I
BTCAMP Summary
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The study area has numerous locally and nationally significant resources which are at risk,
including its value as a fishery. In 1982, bay scallop catches from the Peconic System accounted for
approximately 28% of the United States landings of this species and commercial fishery dockside
landings were worth $7.3 million (1982 dollars). By 1987 and 1988, after the onset of the Brown Tide
bloom, the pre-Brown Tide scallop harvest of 150,000 to 500,000 pounds per year had dropped to only
about 300 pounds per year. Other important shellfish which were apparently adversely impacted by the
Brown Tide include clams and blue mussels. In addition, the oyster business was worth about $3.4
million annually in 1982 before its value plummeted to less than $I0,000 per year in 1987. Long-term
impacts of the bloom on shellfish habitats and reproduction are unknown.
There is also evidence that the Pecohic Bays estuary is very important as a nursery and spawning
ground for the coastal f~sheries, including weakfish and numerous other commercially valuable finfish.
The potential for devastating long-range effects of the Brown Tide on local f'mheries is illustrated by the
loss of eelgrass resulting from reduced light penetration in the water column; eelgrass is important
habitat for certain fmfish as well as shellfish. Although the dockside value of commercial fishery
landings is significant, it is much smaller than the actual revenues generated by other water-related
activities, including businesses, restaurants, marinas, and other institutions which cater to
sportfishermen, boaters, and bathers who utilize the Pecohic system. Annual direct boater revenues are
estimated to be over 200 million dollars (Association of Marine Industries).
From a natural resources standpoint, the Peconic area possesses a plethora of diverse and beautiful
habitats and species. Over 3,600 acres of tidal wetlands, as well as numerous important freshwater
wetlands, provide wildlife habitat, offer a buffer against pollutants, and afford recreational opportunities
and scenic open space. In addition to wetlands, 15 rare ecosystems as designated in the "Priority listings
of rare and natural commtmities with occurrences on Long Island" (New York Natural Heritage
Program, December 1986) occur within the study area. These ecosystems vary in degree of rarity from
rare in New York State to globally rare, such as the dwarf pine plains. In all, thirty-five natural and man-
influenced vegetative communities occur within an eighth of a mile from the banks of the Peconic River
alone.
In recognizing the importance of the habitats present in the Peconic estuary area, state and local
agencies have listed no fewer than thirty-seven geographic areas as critical environmental areas because
of the exceptional or unique characteristics that make the area environmentally important. In addition,
over forty areas in the region have been designated as significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats by the
Secretary of State pursuant to the recommendations of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under the New York State Coastal Management Program. The
Peconic Bay habitats are by far the largest and most diverse concentration of habitats when compared to
any other segment of New York State's 3,200 miles of coastal area which extends through 23 coastal
counties.
A number of nationally and locally threatened and endangered species use the important habitats
which exist in the Peconlc Estuary study area. These species include the federally endangered
loggerhead, leatherback, and green turtles as well as the federally endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle,
which reportedly uses the Pecunic system as a nursery. Other threatened and endangered species which
utilize the Peconic Estuary system include the piping plover and the roseate tem, which are also
federally listed species, and the least tern, common tern, northern harrier, red-shouldered hawk, osprey,
tiger salamander, buck moth, and mud turtle. "Special concern" species birds that axe probable nesters in
the Peconic system include the least bittern, barn owl, common nighthawk, eastern bluebird, vesper
sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. "Special concem" reptiles and amphibians include the spotted
salamander, blue spotted salamander, hognose snake, and diamondback terrapin. Numerous rare and
endangered insects, such as the coastal barrens buck moth, also occur in the Peconic Estuary study area.
I 9
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
BTCAMP Summary
Because of its extraordinary value, a significant amount of acreage in the Peconic system has been
set aside as parkland for a variety of reasons which include active and passive recreation, nature
preserve, and groundwater protection. Major State and County parks wholly or partially within the
Peconic drainage area encompass over 5,000 acres. In all, approximately one-fourth of the 110,000
acres in the drainage area of the Peconic system is currently in open space and recreational land use.
Recreational facilities within the Peconic/Flanders Bays system include 30 public bathing beaches
(i.e., beaches with permits which are routinely sampled). The Peconic region also includes six
campgrounds and 16 golf courses, 10 of which are open to the public. Thousands of boat berths are
contained in the 69 marinas in the Peconics, and fourteen public boat launches are also available for
boating enthusiasts. Hiking, biking, scuba diving, and numerous other active and passive activities are
enjoyed by the area's residents and visitors.
4) PROJECT PARTICIPATION/ADMINISTRATION
BTCAMP is headed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Assistance has been
provided by LIRPB, NTYSDEC, USEPA and the Comell Cooperative Extension Service. In addition, a
consulting team consisting of three fu'ms, Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, Tetra-Tech, Inc.
and Creative Enterprises of Northern Virginia, Inc., was retained to assist the County. The project has
been a cooperative effort among all levels of government, with an active management committee
comprised of state, federal, and local government officials as well as citizen representatives.
The universities which have contributed to BTCAMP include the State University of New York at
Stony Brook, Long Island University, Suffolk County Community College, and Pace University. Other
institutions which have participated in the study included the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.
The BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), a/k/a The Peconic Bay Task Force, a/k/a
Save the Bays~ Inc., is comprised of representatives from marine related industry, environmental and
civic organizations, baymen, boaters, sports fishermen and other interested citizens. The CAC has made
significant contributions to BTCAMP by assuring public involvement in the study, preparing educational
materials, and setting up the series of Save the Bays Conferences. Of special note are the booklet "Clear
Water - A Guide to Reducing Water Pollution" and the video entitled "Save Our Bays."
Several civic organizations and environmental groups have also been active in the protection of the
natural resource of the Peconic Bays system. These organizations include the Group for the South Fork,
the North Fork Environmental Council, the Nature Conservancy, the League of Women Voters of
Riverbead/Southold, and Sonthold 2000. Members of these groups serve on the Board of "Save the
Peconic Bays, Inc.," in addition to conducting their own environmental stewardship programs. In
addition, the Green Seal Program has conducted shellfish relay and transplant programs.
PROJECT COST
Commitment to the Peconic Estuary resource was well illustrated by the local funding for
BTCAMP, which greatly exceeded the requi~ed 25% local match for $200,000 of Federal 2050) funds.
Over one million dollars in SCDHS in-kind services and approximately $350,000 of Suffolk County
Capital funds were ultimately provided for the BTCAMP study. [205(j) refers to the federal '"Water
Quality Act of 1987" Sec. 205(j)--"Water Quality Management Planning." These are funds provided by
USEPA and administered by NYSDEC.]
The project was well worth the investment for a number of reasons. BTCAMP has contributed
substantially to the store of scientific knowledge regarding the Brown Tide organism, and has developed
a comprehensive characterization of Peconic Estuary water quality which will be useful in perpetuity. In
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
addition, the study has assessed the impacts of a wide variety of pollutant sources, evaluated numerous
management alternatives, and recommended a set of specific actions which should be taken to ensure the
permanent integrity of the Peconic system from a conventional nutrient perspective. The monitoring,
modelling, and land use evaluations performed in BTCAMP will undoubtedly serve as models for future
studies. Finally, and most practically, the cost of the study has been extremely small in relation to cost
of implementation of many management possibilities. For example, the cost of system-wide stormwater
runoff mitigation and sewage treatment plant upgradings would be on the order of tens of millions of
dollars. Therefore, the prioritization of resource allocation presented in BTCAMP is of the utmost
impmXance in maximizing environmental benefits from limited available resources.
6) REPORTSTRUCTURE
Sections 1 through 5 of BTCAMP essentially provide a comprehensive characterization of the
Peconic Estuary system and its groundwater-contributing area (collectively designated as the "study
area"). These sections of the report form the basis for subsequent sections which analyze environmental
conditions and pollutant contribution, evaluate management altematives, and recommend a management
plan. Section 1 of BTCAMP is an introduction which sets forth the purposes and priorities of the study,
defines and describes the study area, and discusses the BTCAMP planning approach, previous water
quality studies, and related planning efforts. The natural resources and processes which are highlighted
above in the "Resource Overview" are addressed in detail in Section 2. Section 3 explores surface water
quality in detail, presenting data and analysis regarding water quality conditions and trends and, in so
doing, reflecting the tremendous amount of site-specific sampling which has been performed for the
Peconic Estuary system. Brown Tide is discussed in Section 4, which treats the organism's spacial and
temporal appearances as well as its biology, impacts, and related research efforts. Section 5 undertakes
an extensive analysis of groundwater quality in the study area to be used to substantiate subsequent
qualitative and quantitative analyses of pollutant loading and to provide data for the computer model of
the system.
Section 6 of BTCAMP presents the extensive pollutant assessment efforts which were performed
to provide a basis for computer model inputs and the management alternatives evaluation. The resulting
findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented in Section 7; a summary of this section is
presented below. Section 7 also contains the alternatives evaluation, computer modelling results, and an
implementation plan for the recommendations. Finally, Section 8 is a summary of the invaluable efforts
of the BTCAMP CAC as a vehicle for public input, project guidance, and public education.
7) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a narrative summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
contained in Section 7. Following the narrative is a summary of the information in tabular format (Table
3); proposed additional research and investigation projects are subsequently summarized on Table 4.
A) Summary of Findings and Conclusions
1. Brown Tide and Natural Resources lmt~acts
The Brown Tide is an algal bloom which has appeared in the Peconic/Flanders and South Shore
bays systems. It is caused by a particularly small and previously unknown species (Aureococcus
anophagefferens) and can persist for unusually long periods of time over large areas. The bloom is
recurring in nature, and has to date been unpredictable in onset, duration, and cessation.
Although advances have been made regarding the identification and characterization of the Brown
Tide organism and its growth needs, the causal factors related to the Brown Tide bloom are not known.
The input of conventional macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus apparently do not trigger the
onset of the Brown Tide blooms. Chemicals which have been implicated by research as potential
11
I
I
!
!
I
!
!
I
I
i
!
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
contributors to Brown Tide's pervasiveness include specific organic nutrients, chelators such as citric
acid, and trace metals such as iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate and boron. Additionally, viruses are
suspected to be a critical agent in ending the growth cycle of the Brown Tide, while acrylic acid and
dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which may be produced by the Brown Tide, may be toxic to the zooplankton
population which would graze on Aureococcus. Preliminary SCDHS sampling results show a
correlation between elevated dimethyl sulfide (DMS) concentrations in surface waters and the Brown
Tide bloom. Finally, there may be a relationship between meteorological and climatological factors and
the Brown Tide.
The Brown Tide has had devastating effects on natural resources in the Peconic Estuary system.
The abundant Peconic Bay scallop population was virtually eradicated by the onset of the Brown Tide;
the causes of this impact may be related to toxic, mechanical, and/or poor nutritional aspects of the
Brown Tide organism. In addition, the eelgrass beds which are critical to the regional importance of the
Peconic Estuary as a shellfish and fmfish spawning and nursery area were decimated, probably due to
reduced light penetration caused by the Brown Tide bloom density. Other shellfish which declined
during Brown Tide blooms include oysters and possibly blue mussels. Hard clams also appear to have
been adversely affected during the bloom; long-term impacts on shellfish are unknown.
2. Conventional Water Quality
a. Nutrients
While total nitrogen inputs from point sources to Flanders Bay have decreased by 53% between
1976 and 1990 (see Table 2), significant improvements in Flanders Bay water quality with respect to
nitrogen concentrations have not been observed in this time period. In contrast to nitrogen, apparent
improvements in water quality with respect to phosphorus have been noted in conjunction with a 77%
decrease in total phosphorus loading to Flanders Bay in this time frame. This phenomenon may be
partially explained by the even higher degree of reduction of phosphorus input (77% reduction compared
with 53% nitrogen reduction). However, the reliability of an explanation of historical impacts is
hampered by the absence of a fundamental understanding of the temporal response of sediment flux (i.e.,
chemical exchange between sediments and water column) to variations in point sources. Nevertheless,
the analysis of current conditions for the purpose of assessing future management altematives is
considered to be reliable in that the analysis is based on a state-of-the-art model which has been
calibrated and verified utilizing a plethora of existing data. The existing nitrogen inputs into the Peconic
system are graphically summarized in Figure 5.
Actual historical decreases in nutrient loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay are certainly
much more dramatic than observed between 1976 and 1990, since most of the numerous duck farms
which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out of business by 1976.
Records indicate that Peconic Estuary duck farming began around 1900, and that 21 duck farms were in
business in the estuarine system in 1938. In addition to discharging heavy organic and nutrient loads,
these facilities undoubtedly did not utilize the waste treatment systems of settling and chlorination which
would be required to reduce pathogen discharge. In 1938, dissolved oxygen levels of 0 and 0.1 mg/1
were reported in the Peconic River headwaters and tidal areas, respectively. Other historic industries in
1938 included a laundry facility which discharged to the Peconic River. Earlier accounts from the
1800's identify several additional industries, including numerous fish-processing plants throughout the
estuarine system and several mills (grist mill, saw-mill, fulling mill, woolen mill, etc.) and an iron forge
on the Peconic River. Although historical water quality data prior to 1976 is scarce, it would appear that
conditions in the Peconic Estuary system, in terms of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and other
contaminants, have improved significantly since the cessation of industrial discharges to the estuary.
Based on an analysis of data specific to Flanders Bay which relates Flanders Bay diurnal dissolved
oxygen (D.O.) ranges to chlorophyll-a concentrations and then correlates chlorophyll-a concentrations to
nitrogen levels, the L.I. 208 Study marine water quality guideline of 0.4 mg/1 total nitrogen should be
modified to 0.5 rog/1 for Flanders Bay and the tidal portions of the Peconic River so that a water quality
standard of 5.0 mg/l dissolved oxygen may be maintained in these areas. Although this analysis is a
12
!
I
!
I
!
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
TABLE 2
Point Source Nutrient Concentrations
1976 vs. 1988-1990 *
and Loadings
TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
Number of
Samples
(5/88-3/90)
Average
Total Nitrogen
(mg/1)
1976 1988-90
Average
Total Phosphorus
(rog/l)
1976 1988-90
PECONIC RIVER GAUGE 68
1.0 0.5 0.16 0.11
MEETINGHOUSE CREEK** 127 53.0 15.0 13.0 1.2
RIIrEREEAD STP
68 19.0 23.0 5.1 3.0
Avg Flow
(mgd)
1976 1988-90
23.3 32.1
2.1 2.9
0.7 0.7
TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS
Number of
Samples
(5/88-3/90)
PECONIC RIV. GAUGE 68
MEETINGHOUSE CREEK** 127
RIVERHEAD STP 68
OTHER SOURCES *** 7
TOTA3~ LOA/)ING ****
Average
Total Nitrogen
(lb/day)
1976 1988-90
190 130 31
930 360 230 28
120 140 31 17
200 44 63 ~
1440 680 350 80
Average
Total Phosphorus Avg Flow
(lb/day) (mgd)
1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90
30 23.3 32.1
2.1 2.9
0.7 0.7
NOTES
* 1976 data limited to three sampling dates in July, August, and September
as noted in 1976 Tetra-Tech Water Quality Modeling Report.
** 4.5 cfs assumed for Meetinghouse Creek based on limited flow data.
0nly low tide samples used for Meetinghouse Creek; 1976 estimates of
930 pounds per day is higher than estimates of 600 pounds per day as
contained in LI 208 Section G., p. 61. Current Meetinghouse Creek
sampling as reflected in this table began on April, 1987.
*** Includes Terry's Creek, Sawmill Creek, Little River, White Brook,
Birch Creek, Mill Creek, Hubbard Creek, and Broad Cove Duck Farm.
**** Minor arithmetic deviations in total loadings as the sum of individual
loads are due to round-off of presented intermediate numbers.
13
m m m m m m m ,,~ m m m m m m mm m m m m
1500-
1400-
BTCAMP FIGURE 5 - Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading
Peconic River and Flander$ Bay Areas
--Stormwater Runoff (30)
1300.
1200-
1100-
1000-
0O0
N
/
T
R
O
G
E
N
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Nonpoint Sources
Other Creeks (40) ***
Point Source~
Note: Based on Peconic P~iver/Flanders Bay data [1987-1990]
* Includes groundwater contribution downstream of (east of) Peconic ~iver USGS gauge station.
** Year-round average. Su~nertime sediment flux is approx. 2,400 pounds per day.
*** Includes Terry's, Saw,till, Birch, Mill, and H~bbard Creeks; Little River; and White Brook.
**** Includes flow upstream of (west of) USGS gauge station.
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
!
!
!
!
i
I
I
I
i
!
I
BTCAMP Summary
technical refinement of the nitrogen guideline based on an extensive analysis of existing data, major
pollution abatement efforts still would be required to attain the guideline regardless of the refinement,
since actual surface water total nitrogen concentrations are well in excess of the guideline in the eastem
Peconic River and westem Flanders Bay during summer conditions. Typical non-creek total nitrogen
concentrations are as high as 0.8 mg/l (and occasionally slightly higher) as determined by both computer
modelling and sampling of Flanders Bay.
The nitrogen guideline is exceeded in the western portions of the Peconic Estuary, and dissolved
oxygen concentrations occasionally dip to unacceptably low levels (i.e., less than 5 mg/l) at discreet
locations, such as in the tidal Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek. However, the system generally
has not demonstrated characteristics of advanced eutrophication in terms of conventional nutrients and
D.O. depletion. This evidence indicates that the Flanders Bay system currently may be near the limits of
the factors of safety incorporated in the determination of the nitrogen guideline, indicating that the
system could experience serious eutrophication and_ water quality degradation problems if pollutant
loading were to increase. The most significant of all of the nitrogen loadings in terms of impact on the
estuarine system has thus far been found by mathematical and computer modelling techniques to be the
Peconic River and the Riverhead STP due to the concentrated nature of the discharge at a location near
the mouth of the Peconic River, a poorly-flushed area of the Peconic Estuary system. With respect to
the nitrogen guideline, water quality in surface waters east of Flanders Bay is generally excellent.
The location of sewage treatment plants in the Peconic system are presented in Figure 6. Based on
modelling and monitoring, the Riverhead sewage treatment plant is by far the most significant sewage
treatment plant (STP) in terms of nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary system (0.7 mgd and 140
pounds per day total nitrogen, of which 7 pounds per day are attributable to the scavenger waste
treatment facility; scavenger waste is the material pumped from septic systems and cesspools).
Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory, although discharging significantly less nutrients, are
also of concern because they discharge directly into the environmentally sensitive Peconic River.
Based on modelling and monitoring, the other major point source discharges to the Flanders
Peconic Bays system include the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek. Average total nitrogen
loading from the Peconic River, as measured at the USGS (United States Geologic Survey) gauge station
(see supra Figure 2 for locations), was 130 pounds per day, but the range of nitrogen loading for any
given day was between 20 pounds per day (4/24/89) and 500 pounds per day (10/4/89) between
December, 1988 and March, 1990. Peconic River surface water average total nitrogen loading appears
to have decreased by about 60 pounds per day between 1976 and 1988-1990; this decrease could be
attributable to the elimination of duck fanning activity along the River as well as a decrease in Gmmman
flows in this time period. However, such observations over a limited time period are not definitive,
since nitrogen loading from the river is variable and is heavily dependent on flow and, thus, temporal
climatological trends. Significant improvements were observed in Meetinghouse Creek, where, due to
the cessation of direct discharges from the Corwin Duck Farm, nitrogen loading decreased from 930 to
360 pounds per day between 1976 and 1988-1990.
Modelling indicates that at existing discharge rates, improvements in wastewater treatment and
disposal at the Riverhead STP would result in a reduction of summertime surface water total nitrogen
concentrations to near the 0.5 mg/l guideline throughout the tidal areas of the Peconic Estuary system
(with the exception of small creeks, tributaries, etc., which could have locally elevated nitrogen
concentxations). These operational improvements could be in the form of a groundwater discharge
containing 10 mg/1 total nitrogen, a surface water discharge relocated to central or eastern Flanders Bay,
or a surface water discharge at the existing location with an effluent nitrogen concentration of 4 mg/l.
In determining the most viable alternative to handle short-term and long-term sewage collection,
treatment, and disposal needs, cost concerns would have to be analyzed in conjunction with
environmental impacts including, but not limited to, benefits to surface water quality, disturbance and
15
~ SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
· GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE
LONG
ISLAND
SOUND GANBINERS NAY ~.~S
MEEIlNCHOUSE CREEK
LITTLE
PECONIC /
BAY
RIVERHEAB
BAY BAY
SOUTHAMPTON
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
EAST HAMPTON
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN BTCAMP STUDY AREA
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND
FIGURE 6: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE PECONIC
SCURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Brookhaven National Lab
Grumman Aeroepace
Hea~henwood · Calverton
RIverhead Town
Sag Harbor Village
Shelter Island Heights Aaaoclatlon
Eaat Hampton Scavenger Wastes
Plum Ia and Animal Disease Center
Manor · Montauk
Rough R dare · Montauk
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BTCAHP)
NO SCALE
PBH - 9/91
ESTUARY SYSTEM
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
!
I
!
I
i
i
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
destruction of natural resources, and impacts on open shellfish beds and bathing beaches, etc. From a
natural resources and surface water quality perspective, groundwater recharge would be the most
desirable alternative for the Riverhead STP due to the additional filtration of effluent through soft and
the elimination of the potential of surface water contamination during upset conditions. Modelling
indicates that groundwater recharge would also result in the opening of currently closed shellfish beds.
In 1990, the Town's consultant esthnated that accommodating significant expansion in the
Riverhead STP's service area to include new developments (e.g., western portion of Route 58 corridor)
could increase future flow to the facility to a level of 2 to 3 mgd. Currently, the Riverbead STP has
obtained a SPDES permit modification to allow for an increase in facility flow, subject to reevaluation
upon consideration of the fmdings of this study. However, modelling indicates that increases in STP
nitrogen contribution from an increase in discharge at existing treatment conditions would cause further
degradation of surface water in terms of elevated nitrogen concentrations. This degradation could result
in adverse impacts on a system which is apparently already near its safe nutrient assimilation capacity.
The potential for future, greater STP expansions further highlights the need for prudent, lung-range
pollution control strategies.
It should be noted that this summary, and the report in general, presents Riverhead STP discharge
conditions at 0.7 mgd and 23 mg/1 total nitrogen (140 pounds per day total nitrogen). Initially, when the
study began, the facility reported a discharge of 1.06 mgd and 23 mg/l total nitrogen. On discovering
faulty flow measurement, the facility revised the flow estimate to 0.7 mgd in the summer of 1991; the
model was re-verified, and the report was appropriately modified. At the fmal writing of the report, the
facility was discharging 0.64 mgd at 25 mg/l total nitrogen (134 pounds per day total nitrogen). Given
the variability in discharge rate, the negligible difference between 134 and 140 pounds per day total
nitrogen loading, and the difficulty in revising the entire report, 140 pounds per day of nitrogen loading
from the Riverhead STP is generally presented in the report unless otherwise noted. However, for the
sake of thoroughness, the modelling consultant did re-mn the verification and cumulative impact graphic
using latest available conditions (134 pounds per day nitrogen loading from Rivethead STP; see infra
Figure 7 for cumulative impact graphic). The current conditions indicate that the impacts of increasing
the facility's flow to its maximum current capacity of 1.3 mgd are that significant increases of up to 0.2
mg/1 total nitrogen will occur through several kilometers of the system (see Section 7.6 of the full
report). Section 7 contains more detailed information regarding modelling impacts and results.
The elimination of Corwin Duck Farm's direct discharge to Meetinghouse Creek substantially
improved water quality in the creek with respect to nutrients such as ~fitrogen, but nitrogen (15 mg/l total
nitrogen as compared with less than 2 mg/l in other local creeks) and coliform concentrations in the
creek remain elevated. Despite the quantitative significance of Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen loading,
modelling runs indicate that a substantial reduction of the creek's nitrogen concentrations (15 to 2 mg/1
total nitrogen) would result in only moderate improvements in system-wide water quality (about 0.05
mg/l maximum system-wide total nitrogen reduction as compared with 0.2 mg/1 improvement associated
with Riverhead STP upgrading) due to the creek's location in a better~flushed location than the Peconic
River and Riverhead STP. These improvements would be more significant on a system-wide scale if
they were effected in concert with other pollution abatement efforts, such as the elimination of the
Riverhead STP surface water discharge; such a combination of nitrogen source reductions would
improve total nitrogen to below 0.5 mg/1 throughout the open bays system.
In light of the low nitrogen concentrations (0.5 mg/l average) and the dubious feasibility of further
significant improvements in Peconic River water quality, mitigation of existing conditions west of the
USGS gauge station does not appear to be a priority. However, the substantial potential for future
development in the study area (34% of 15,900 acres in the Peconic River area are developable as of
1989) highlights the need for pollution prevention in the Peconic River region, despite the great amount
of open space and recreational land uses (26% of 15,900 acres in 1989) in this region. Since the land use
statistics were compiled, recent acquisitions have decreased the amount of developable land in the
17
mm m m m m m m m m m .m m m m m m m m mm
LONG ISLAND SOUND
/
BBOOKItAYEN /
RIVERHEAD
ANDERS BAY
GREAT
PECON~C
BAY
LITTLE
~P~,,c
SOUTHAMPTON
GARDINERS BAY
BLOCK
ISLANO SOUND
EAST HAWPTON
NITRATE LEGEND
IZ~ 1.0-1.5 ppi
[] 2.0-3.0 ppi
5.0-6,5 ppi
NOTE~ Montaub and Shelter Island
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BTCAMP)
FIGURE F: PRIVATE WELL AVERAGE TOTAL NITROGEN
PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS BAY GROUNDWATER CONTRIBUTING AREA
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
regions have leas /(hen 25 aemplee
CONCENTRATIONS
NO SCALE
PBH - 10/92
I
!
I
I
I
i
i
!
I
I
!
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
Peconic River groundwater-contributing area. These acquisitions have certainly been helpful in
safeguarding groundwater and surface water quality, but represent a relatively small portion of the
developable land and do not detract from the priority nature of the continuing need for management.
Other acquisitions have been proposed as part of the draft Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA)
plan.
The intensity of land usage in given areas is directly related to nitrogen loading, which in tm
correlates with the degradation of groundwater quality. Nitrogen loading rates from non-sewered
medium density residential land use (the most prevalent residential land use in the study area; as defined
by L.I.R.P.B., greater than 1 unit to less than five units per acre) and agricultural land use are roughly
equivalent; both residential and agricultural land uses are responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in
the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions, resulting in elevated groundwater nitrogen concentrations
in eastern Peconic River and North Flanders Bay areas (see Figure 7).
The high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed, which has not undergone drastic
land use changes between t976 and 1988, has undoubtedly spared the river system from the adverse
impacts of anthropogenic pollution in recent years. However, modelling analysis (Comell, 1983) and
field sampling (L.I. 208 Study, Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan) have indicated that
a development density of 1.0 unit per acre (less than or equal to 1 unit per acre is defmed as low density)
would result in an average groundwater nitrogen concentration of about 4.0 mg/1, which is well in excess
of the existing Peconic River surface water nitrogen concentration of 0.5 mg/1. A density of 0.5 units per
acre (i.e., two-acre zoning) would result in a nitrogen recharge concentration of approximately 2.6 mg/1;
additional benefits could be realized through the use of fertilizer controls or even lower densities.
Current modelling projects that Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations are quite sensitive to Peconic
River nitrogen loading increases (1.0 mg/l Peconic River average nitrogen concentration would elevate
Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations by approximately 0.2 mg/l). BTCAMP did not specifically utilize
a sophisticated model which interactively relates groundwater degradation to surface water quality on a
localized basis throughout the length of the Peconic River, since the river was treated as a point source
and groundwater underfiow was considered east of the Peconic River USGS gauge station. However,
the 1976 L.I. 208 study did utilize such modelling and determined that slight changes in groundwater
quality have significant impacts on Peconic River surface water nitrogen concentrations. Thus, more
stringent land use controls for the Peconic River area are warranted in light of the substantial amount of
vacant and developable land in this environmentally sensitive region. Land use controls would also
result in additional benefits in terms of natural resources protection.
From a purely quantitative perspective, groundwater nitrogen contribution (approximately 580
pounds per day east of [downstream of] Peconic River USGS gauge station) appears to be extremely
significant. However, evidence such as surface water quality data, computer modelling analysis, and
groundwater infiltration sampling indicate that groundwater nitrogen contribution is not having a
significant adverse impact on the Peconic River and Flanders Bay system. Additionally, the portions of
the study area east of Flanders Bay do not appear to be negatively impacted by groundwater nitrogen
contribution due to greatly increased flushing from the seaward boundary of the system as well as a
much lower rate of groundwater infiltration into the system. Although mitigation of existing
groundwater conditions does not appear to be an imperative priority with respect to water quality
improvement, the prevention of substantial future degradation to existing groundwater quality is an
important goal, especially in the Peconic River groundwater-contributing area.
Sediment flux is the chemical exchange between the sediment and the water column. Summertime
sediment flux nitrogen contribution, which is approximately 2,350 pounds per day, is greater than all
other point and non-point sources of nitrogen contribution combined; however, this estimate is based on
limited data and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from
sediment. Changes in point source loading resulting from the implementation of management
19
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
alternatives would eventually change the sediment flux rate of oxygen and nutrients, potentially resulting
in significant water quality improvements. More monitoring and study would be needed to better
characterize the dynamics of the relationship between pollution contribution and sediment flux and to
document actual short-term and long-term water quality benefits which would be associated with
pollutant abatement measures.
Relative to overall point and non-point source nitrogen loads to the Peconic River and Flanders
Bays system (estimated at 3,800 pounds per day total nitrogen during summertime conditions),
stormwater runoff, which contributes approximately 30 pounds per day of nitrogen, does not appear to
be a significant source with respect to nutrient loading.
A graphic illustration of the modelling results of cumulative pollution control alternative analysis
with respect to nitrogen concentrations is presented in Figure 8. The nitrogen profiles are plotted along a
system transect extending from the westernmost tidal reaches of the system (at the Peconic River)
eastward to Gardiners Bay. The base case is representative of existing average total nitrogen
concentrations in the system.
b. Colifortns
As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in the Peconic system; these areas me
generally situated in partially enclosed embayments and near shore locations or are located adjacent to
STP discharges. Stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant source of total and fecal coliform
loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Stormwater runoff coliform loading is correlated with
the intensity of land use, with land use and pollutant loading analysis indicating that the North and South
Forks, with substantial acreage in residential land use, each contribute a greater overall coliform load
than the less intensively developed Peconic River watershed. The Riverhead STP and duck farming
activity have also historically contributed substantial coliform loadings. Additional localized sources of
coliform pollution may include wildlife waste and improperly installed, or poorly functioning, sanitary
systems. There also exists concern regarding potential coliform pollution stemming from marinas and
boating activities, especially in constrained and poorly-flushed water bodies.
Modelling indicates that the system-wide benefits from decreased stormwater runoff coliform
loading (movement of open shellfish area boundary approximately an additional 0.5 km westward with a
50% loading decrease) are relatively insubstantial with respect to the massive efforts that would be
required to reduce existing coliform loading. Therefore, management efforts should be focused on
prohibiting any action which would result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff coliform loading
to the Peconic Estuary system. There may, however, be local areas that would benefit by decreasing
runoff; these areas should be subject to more detailed analysis.
The Riverhead STP total coliform contribution was estimated to approach that of the stormwater
runoff contribution in the 1988-1990 period. Riverhead has instituted STP chlorination improvements in
the spring of 1991 which the Town of Riverhead consultant reports have resulted in marked reductions
in the amount of coliform discharged. Modelling indicates that the elimination of the Riverhead STP
surface water coliform loading could move the open shellfish area boundary on the order of an
additional 1 km westward. If the Riverhead STP were to convert to a groundwater discharge, the
potential for dJxect surface water pollution during upset conditions would be eliminated, and, thus,
additional shellfish beds might be opened.
Meetinghouse Creek continues to contribute substantial coliform loading in wet and dry weather
despite the cessation of direct duck farm discharge to the creek. A modelling assessment of
Meetinghouse Creek coliform loading impacts shows that improvements in Meetinghouse Creek
coliform concentrations would result in localized water quality benefits but would be of little system-
wide water quality significance. It must be emphasized that, at one time, duck fanning discharges to the
Peconic River and Flanders Bay undoubtedly contributed a much greater coliform load due to the nature
20
1000
8OO
600
z 400
200
Summer Averoge Jul 1 - Sep .30)
RUN(141 throug~ RUN047
Bose Run (Existing ;onditions, RUNO00c)
Riverheo, STP Rem wed
/ Pecom; River TN improved to 0.3 mc./L
~;etinghous( Creek TN improved to 0..3 mg/L .......
Other Streoms TN improved o 0.3 mg,
/ Sedim.;nt TN Flu: Reduced by 50%
~ Grcundwater Jnderflow 1N improve( to 0.3 ng/L
0
40 35 50 25 20 15 10 5 0
Distonce from Block Islond Sound (km)
FIGURE 8: COMPUTER MODELLING MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: CUMULATIVE TOTAL NITROGEN IMPROVEMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
and extent of the historical.duck farming activity, which had substantially subsided by the 1970's and,
with the exception of the Corwin Duck Farm, totally ceased in the 1980's.
c. Other Pollutants
In general, there is no evidence of extensive surface water organic chemical contamination
problems or surface water impacts in the Peconic Estuary system. However, there has been enough
evidence of organic chemical, pesticide, and landfill-related pollution in the study area to warrant
monitoring, study, and, in some cases, remedial investigations (e.g., North Sea Landfill and Rowe
Industries sites). Organic chemicals have been sporadically detected in groundwater; pesticide
contamination of groundwater throughout the North Fork resulting from agricultural practices is
common (see Figure 9), and pesticides have been detected in low concentrations in surface waters of
East Creek. In addition, the North Sea landfill (see location on Figure 10) has generated a plume of
contaminants which reportedly includes ammonia, iron, manganese, volatile organic compounds,
cadmium, and lead. This plume has reached the surface waters of the Peconic system. In terms of
industrial discharges, waste disposal practices at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) have resulted
in significant contamination of groundwater; numerous hazardous materials leaks and spills have also
been reported throughout the study area and at Gmmman and BNL. However, potential pollution of
surface waters from these industrial sources of pollution has not been documented, except at the Rowe
Industries site in Sag Harbor, where a significant plume of organic chemical contamination has reached
its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor Cove. The impacts of this plume are currently unknown. Finally,
oil and gasoline, marine paints, floatables, and other debris are boating-related pollution sources which
may warrant future evaluation in the Peconic Estuary system.
Acid rain has traditionally been a concem with respect to depressing the pH of freshwater
ecosystems. In the context of the BTCAMP study of a marine environment, acid rain is not a pr'unary
concern with respect to direct impact on surface water pH due to the buffering capacity of the marine
system. However, acid rain may directly impact the fresh waters in the study area and may have indirect
impacts on marine waters related to the solubility and transport of contaminants through the sediments.
In addition, due to increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere on a national level over the
last three decades, the amount of nitrogen reaching waters from precipitation has been recognized as a
significant contributor of contaminants to surface waters. The modelling consultant has estimated that
the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay surface water system is
160 pounds per day (wetfall and dry deposition); this estimate is approximately 5% of the overall non-
point source loading to the system.
3. Other Natural Resources
Although BTCAMP focuses primarily on the causes and effects of the Brown Tide as well as other
conventional water quality parameters, the wealth of other natural resources which are present in the
groundwater-contributing area to the Peconic Estuary must be acknowledged. The ecological
significance of the area is manifested in its extensive, high-quality wetlands, its New York Natural
Heritage Program rare ecosystems, its significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, and its nationally and
locally threatened and endangered species.
The protection of these resources is, of course, of paramount concern. While some resources, such
as wetlands, serve to protect surface water quality, other resources may be impacted by water quality
management and land use decisions and structural and non-structural control. Thus, natural resources
should be protected and, where feasible, enhanced when major water quality-related management
decisions are contemplated. In addition, a Peconic Estuary-specific natural resource inventory and
management plan should be pursued for the Peconic Estuary system.
4. Implementation
The implementation of the recommendations would best proceed as a cooperative effort between
all levels of government with the support and guidance of the private citizenry. The agencies and
22
LONG ISLAND SOUND
'%~ ~ LITTLE
~ PECONIC
BAY
J RIVERHEAD GREAT q
PECONIC
IDERS BAY BAY
BROOKHA~EN
/
/
/
SOUTHAMPTON
GARDINERS 8AY
BLOCK ISLANO SOUND
EAST HAMPTON
PESTICIDE LEGEND
~] INSUFFICIENT
DATA
~ < 1 ppb
(3C~.k% R >= 1 end < 7' ppb
kl L k~l \ C
~ >: 7 and < 15 ppb
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BTCAMP)I~I
15
d
n
FIGURE 9" PRIVATE WELL PESTICIDE DATA
PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS BAY GROUNDWATER CONTRIBUTING AREA
> 30 pp6
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
30 ppb
NO SCALE
PBH - 10/92
LONG
TOWN BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA
BROOKHAVEN
ISLAND SOUND
~[E11#~HOUSE ~REEK
USGS GAUGE STATION
LITTLE
PECONIC
BAY
PECONIC
:LANDERS BAY BAY
/
/
/
SOUTHAMPTON
GARDINERS BAY
EAST HAWPTON
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BTCAMP)
FIGURE 10: ACTIVE AND INACTIVE LANDFILLS IN THE PECONIC
SOUROE' SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BLOCK ISLAND SOUNO
LANDFILLS
1. EAST HAMPTON (ACCABONAC SITE)
2. EAST HAMPTON (BULL PATH SITE)
3. EAST HAMPTON (MONTAUK SITE)
4. GREENPORT
5. HAMPTON BAYS
6. NORTH SEA
7. NORTH SEA
8. SAG HARBOR
9. SHELTER ISLAND
· ACTIVE
· INACTIVE
No'kew Data compiled In 1989,
prloe to scheduled Implemefl~a~lofl
of Long Island Landfill
AREA NO SCALE
PSH - 10/92
I
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
organizations which are charged with the implementation program are already well established. The
immediate goals of implementation are effecting specific recommendations related to mitigation,
remediation, public education, and further study. The implementation program also would be most
effective with mechanisms to re-convene the BTCAMP management committee to periodically assess
the progress of the implementation of BTCAMP recommendations as well as to address future
environmental problems and potential additional programs and funding sources.
B) Summary of Recommendations
1. Prevention of Degradation - Peconic River and Flanders Bay
Incremental point and non-point source pollution of surface waters and substantial groundwater
degradation should be prohibited in the poorly flushed and environmentally stressed tidal
portions of the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay areas.
a) In relation to STP expansion, no net increase in quantities of nitrogen discharge should be
allowed to the surface waters of the Peconic River from Gmmman, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, and the Riverhead sewage treatment plants (STP's); other new or
incremental discharges resulting in additional nitrogen loading should also be prohibited.
In the case of Riverhead STP flow increases, "no net increase" may be achieved by a
groundwater discharge of incremental process flow which has been deditrified (optimally
to 4 mg/l) to ensure that no significant groundwater degradation and subsequent surface
water impacts occur. In the altemative, the facility could denitrify the incremental flow
plus a portion of the existing flow and discharge the entire effluent stream at the current
outfall, provided that the total quantity (i.e., pounds per day) of nitrogen discharged does
not exceed current nitrogen discharge levels. Of the two "no net increase" alternatives,
the groundwater recharge of incremental flow is preferable from a nitrogen and/or other
contaminant (e.g., coliform) standpoint due to the additional filtration of effluent through
soil as well as the reduced potential of surface water contamination from upset
conditions.
b)
To prevent future, substantial degradation of groundwater and, subsequently, Peconic
River surface water, developable residential land in the Peconic River groundwater-
contributing area should be upzoned to a minimum of two acres. Developable
commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses should be controlled such that the
nitrogen impacts on groundwater are comparable to that of two-acre residential zoning.
Additional natural resource protection could be attained by even more stringent land use
controls, such as three to five acre zoning. It should be noted that the Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational River (WSRR) act administered by NYSDEC limits residential
development to 4 acres per unit in "scenic" areas and 2 acres per unit in "recreational"
areas. Much of the Peconic River groundwater-contributing area is regulated under the
WSRR program, with the "scenic" area extending from the headwaters of the raver to the
railroad bridge west of Edwards Avenue and the "recreational" designation applying to
the remainder of the freshwater river area.
c) Zoning controls should be implemented in conjunction with other land use management
techniques, including cluster development, transfer of development rights, and programs
related to preservation, acquisition, and enhancement of land. The highest possible
standards should be utilized in the review of development plans in the fiver region,
including requiring open space dedications, maximum practicable setbacks from the
river, and natural landscaping techniques to minimize tuff areas and fertilizer use.
25
I
I
I
i
!
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
d) In general, the construction of additional groundwater-discharging sewage treatment
plants in the groundwater-contributing area to the Peconic River is contrary to the
recommended large-lot zoning policy, which is designed to prevent substantial
groundwater degradation for surface water protection purposes. No new groundwater-
discharging treatment facility should be considered unless it replaces and upgrades an
older facility. However, in special circumstances, groundwater-discharging sewage
treatment plants may be considered, subject to the following conditions:
i) Best available technology is utilized (e.g., denitrification to 4 mg/1);
ii) The proposed project is associated with significant groundwater, natural
resources, md/or surface water quality benefits; and
iii) Additional environmental analysis and/or modelling indicate that the adverse
impacts on the Peconic River system will be negligible.
e)Best management practices, such as low-maintenance lawns, slow-release nitrogen
fertilizers, modification of fertilizer application rates, and fertilizer use restrictions should
be promoted, especially in the Peconic River watershed.
2. Nutrient Pollution Abatement - Peconic River and Flanders Bay
To attain the recommended marine surface water quality total nitrogen guideline of 0.5 mg/l for
Flanders Bay, prudent pollution abatement strategies for the Peconic River and Flanders Bay
me warranted where feasible, and should be pursued.
a) Although adverse impacts of pollution are apparent in certain localized surface water
segments, there appears to be no imminent, critical threat of nutrient over-enrichment to
the system-wide surface water quality of the Peconic Estuary system. However, as a
long-range management goal, the Riverbead STP should be upgraded so that the nitrogen
guideline can be attained and adequate system-wide surface water quality could be
assured. Such an approach affords the Town the ability to study economic, social, and
environmental impacts associated with long-term growth and sewering needs, and to
fairly appo~don upgrading costs among developments which connect to the system and
expand the service area.
The long-range facility upgrade could incorporate a groundwater discharge containing 10
mg/l total nitrogen, a surface water discharge relocated to central or eastern Flanders Bay
at current nitrogen discharge levels (approximately 23 mg/1 total nitrogen), or a surface
water discharge at the existing location with an effluent nitrogen concentration of 4 mg/1.
Further study would be required to adequately weigh the costs and impacts associated
with each treatment altemative. For example, there may be significant adverse
environmental impacts associated with the relocation of the outfall discharge to central or
eastern Flanders Bay. From BTCAMP's pollution control and natural resources
perspective, groundwater recharge is the most desirable altemative.
b) Monitoring of pollution at Meetinghouse Creek should be continued and remediation
should be effected when technologically, economically, and environmentally feasible.
3. Pollution Control - Eastern Study Area
Pollution to the eastem portions of the Peconic Estuary system should be controlled such that
existing water quality in the bays east of Flanders Bay is maintained. In tributaries and small
26
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
!
I
I
I
i
I
BTCAMP Summary
embayments, pollution sources and facilities such as Sag Harbor Village STP require additional
evaluation to determine localized impacts and potential remedial measures.
4. Stormwater Runoff and Coliform Control
a) Stormwater runoff remcdiation efforts should be evaluated and undertaken on a site-
specific basis pursuant to localized studies which demonstrate technological, economic,
and environmental feasibility.
b) On a system-wide basis, any action which would result in a substantial increase in
stormwater runoff coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary system should be strictly
prohibited. Proposals for new development within the stormwater nmoff-contributing
area to the Peconic Estuary system should be reviewed under the strictest scrutiny. In
addition to on-site stormwater runoff.containment requirements, vegetative buffers and
sediment and erosion control plans should be considered as part of the approval process,
with enforcement through the issuance and revocation of permits.
5. Boating and Marina Controls
a) The Suffolk County law (Resolution #946-88) which mandates the SCDHS to undertake
investigation of potential nuisances at marinas should be implemented in the Peconic
Estuary system so that marine pollution data could be obtained; to date, this law has not
been implemented due to SCDHS staffing limitations. These data could be utilized to
specifically identify boating and marina problems and management needs and to conduct
an informed evaluation of the feasibility of potential control alternatives. Until such an
evaluation occurs, the highest possible standard of review for marina projects should be
employed to assure minimal adverse environmental impacts from marina construction
and operation.
b) Greater use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on boats, and existing and additional
pump-out stations should be promoted, especially in areas with heavy boat traffic or in
environmentally sensitive areas. The implementation of other measures, such as
designation of "no discharge zones" and enforcement for non-compliance with discharge
regulations, may also increase usage of pump-ont facilities.
6. Natural Resources
a) Restoration and monitoring of natural resources which have been adversely impacted by
the Brown Tide should occur in conjunction with other pollution control measures
outlined in this section. Examples of potential priority restoration and monitoring targets
should be scallop reseeding and eelgrass replanting.
b) Water quality management decisions should be accompanied by the maximum practicable
level of protection and enhancement of affected natural resources, based on a
comprehensive analysis of available data and the selection of the most protective
resource management alternative which is feasible from social, economic, and
technological perspectives.
c) A Peconic Estuary-specific natural resource inventory and management plan should be
pursued for the Peconic Estuary system. Several suggestions regarding management
were made in the Workshop for the Development of a Research Program for the Peconic
Bay Responsive to Management Needs report (MSRC et al, November, 1991) which
points out that, from a natural resources perspective, management information for the
27
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
Peconic Estuary appears to be relatively limited. Selected areas of concern are outlined
as follows:
-Characterization of shellfish resources and other related components of the Peconic
system (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, sediment type, etc.), further evaluation of
brown tide impacts on various shellfish species, and assessment of success of prior
shellfish reseeding and vegetation restoration programs.
-Determination of the abundance and distribution of trmfishery resources through trawl
and plankton surveys, followed by mapping of habitats, quantification of nursery
value, and analysis of interaction of fmfisheries with brown tide.
-Management of critical habitat for rare and endangered species, placing priority on
existing knowledge of habitat to_ maximize species protection. Issues requir'mg
investigation include, but are not limited to, the feeding habits and boat-related
mortality of the Kemp's Ridley turtle in east end waters, the forage fish food sources
to rare and endangered birds, and the habitat requirements of the eastem mud turtle in
the Peconic Estuary system.
7. Further Monitoring and Research
a) Monitoring of water quality and Brown Tide in the Peconic Estuary and South Shore bays
systems should be continued. The refinement of the marine surface water nitrogen
guideline of 0.5 mg/1 for Flanders Bay and tidal portions of the Peconic River also should
be pursued.
b) Theories relating to the onset and persistence of the Brown Tide should be researched
further; this research should have greater emphasis on field studies. Chemicals which
should be further investigated include specific organic nutrients, which may be required
for rapid growth of the Brown Tide and might even serve as additional energy sources;
chelators (chemicals that combine with metals making them nontoxic to organisms and/or
available for growth) such as citric acid; and trace metals such as iron, selenium,
vanadate, arsenate and boron. In addition, theories that physical factors such as
meteorological and climatological patterns (e.g., wind, rainfall) may be responsible for
the onset and/or persistence of the Brown Tide should be further evaluated. Finally,
research concerning the organism's physiology should be continued.
c) Research on the impacts of the Brown Tide on shellfish should be continued. This
research would focus on the potential for the Brown Tide's toxic, poor nutritional, and/or
mechanical inhibition of scallop growth and reproduction. The potential toxicity of
acrylic acid and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which may be produced by the Brown Tide, to
shellfish larvae should also be examined. In addition, other mechanisms which may be
responsible for the adverse impacts on shellfish should be examined, including the poor
retention of small particles by shellfish feeding apparatus, structural features of
Aureococcus which impair digestion by filter fee&rs, inefficient feeding and low
absorption at high algal concentrations, and insufficient nutritive quality of Aureococcus
to shellfish.
d) Factors related to the control and subsidence of the Brown Tide bloom have been
theorized and should be researched. One such theory is that acrylic acid produced by the
Brown Tide adversely affects the viability of a zooplankton population which would
graze on and limit the Brown Tide. The role of viruses in the subsidence of the Brown
Tide has also been hypothesized and should be investigated.
28
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
BTCAMP Summary
e) Sediment flux sampling should be continued and expanded, and the dynamics of the
relationship between pollution contribution and sediment flux should be studied. One
goal of future sediment flux study is to document ultimate water quality benefits which
would be associated with pollutant abatement measures such as Riverhead STP
upgrading and Meetinghouse Creek remediation. Changes in point source loading
resulting from the implementation of management alternatives would eventually change
the sediment flux rate of oxygen and nutrients; allowing additional pollution into the
Peconic River, rFlanders Bay system would further exacedaate the potential for system-
wide cultural eutrophication. Conversely, the benefits of recommended pollution control
measures, when considered independently of sediment flux, generally bring water quality
to levels near (but not necessar'fly below) the nitrogen guideline. Thus, additional
benefits realized from sediment flux pollution abatement might result in additional water
quality improvements, which could ensure eventual nitrogen guideline attainment.
Therefore, the general need to obtain additional sediment flux information does not affect
other management recommendations made in this report.
f) The computer model of the estuarine system should be improved to include a sediment
submodel which predicts benthic fluxes as a function of sedimentary particulate organic
matter decay along with the mass transport and kinetics of dissolved nutrients. Other
recommendations include adding model parameters (when available) to run a Brown
Tide model, improving understanding of zooplankton distribution and grazing rates,
coupling WASP5 with a more sophisticated model to account for gyms, incorporating
hourly model simulations to improve diurnal dissolved oxygen prediction, and
considering the addition of multiple vertical layers in the Peconic River to account for
known vertical gradients of salinity.
g) Surveys of shellfish and fmfish resources in the Peconic system should be continued, and
Brown Tide impacts on shellfish should be monitored.
h) Groundwater monitor'mg programs and the study of potential surface water impacts of
groundwater should be continued, especially in areas with known contamination such as
the North Sea Landfill, the Rowe Industries site, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Gmmman and East Creek. More study regarding the extent and potential impacts of
hazardous materials contamination should be conducted. These programs should
incorporate surface water and sediment monitoring, where appropriate, and should
consider potential surface water impacts as important factors in future management
decisions.
Just prior to BTCAMP report publication, USEPA announced that no further federal action
at the North Sea landfill site is necessary. Under a consent decree with USEPA, the
Town of Southampton is addressing the source of contamination. A USEPA press
release (October 6, 1992) notes that the Noah Sea Landfill does not pose a significant
threat to public health and environment via groundwater contamination, based on a
program of remedial action. This program also calls for further monitoring of
groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish Cove, and hard clam recruitment
i) Monitoring of the direct and indirect impacts of acid rain should be conducted.
8. Public Education
Preservation and enhancement of Peconic River water quality should be promoted through
information and public participation programs, such as the workshops which have been
sponsored by the BTCAMP Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding pollution sources
29
i
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
i
BTCAMP Summary
such as fertilizers, animal wastes, and sanitary systems. Boater education efforts should also be
expanded, and public awareness of stormwater runoff and groundwater pollution problems
should be heightened. Additionally, "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" programs should be
continued and, where possible, enhanced as a means to foster public education and to help to
reduce the amount of household hazardous materials which pollute the environment.
9. Implementation
A few of the more important implementation roles, priorities, and responsibilities are noted as
follows.
a) Research activities may be conducted by a wide array of institutions, many of which have
already participated in BTCAMP. Funding for further research activities should be
provided by all levels of government, including federal, state, county, and town
government.
b) Monitoring of groundwater and surface waters should continue as it was conducted dur'mg
BTCAMP, with SCDHS providing most BTCAMP-related monitoring and laboratory
services and NYSDEC contribut'mg with sampling pursuant to programs such as shellfish
area testing and fmfish management. In addition, NYSDEC and EPA are responsible for
conducting and/or overseeing many related sampling programs, such as Supeffund and
landfill remedial investigation programs. Outside consultants and laboratories may be
retained for site-specific sampling programs (e.g., sediment sampling).
c) Point source and sewage treatment plant recommendations should be implemented by
NYSDEC and SCDHS through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit process. It would be the responsibility of Riverhead Town to weigh
economic, social, and enviromnental impacts related to various alternatives in
formulating a long-range sewage treatment plant expansion and upgrading program
which is acceptable to the State. Recently, Riverhead Town has announced that it will
voluntarily impose a "no net increase of nitrogen discharge" policy on its sewage
treatuaent plant (STP) in order to be consistent with BTCAMP recommendations. The
cost for the required denitrification will be borne by the projects which result in new
connections. In committing to this policy, the Town has taken an important step toward
ensuring non-degradation of Peconic Estuary surface water quality.
d) Meetinghouse Creek pollution should be addressed by NYSDEC and the Corwin Duck
Farm with the assistance and guidance of SCDHS and the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) regarding guidelines for future pollution abatement.
e) Peconic River land use regulations fall within the province of the Towns' regulatory
authority, and should be implemented by the Towns of Riverhead, Brookhaven, and
Southampton. In addition, all towns in the study area should consider land use studies
and reforms to protect localized surface water quality conditions and natural resources.
Stormwater runoff should be addressed at the Town level at the subdivision review stage
and by State, County, and Town govemments when concerning roadways in their
respective jurisdictions. Local investigations and pilot remediation projects should be
cooperative efforts between all levels of govemment.
g) Local government master plans, zoning codes and land use regulatory policies should be
reviewed to determine the extent to which they are consistent with BTCAMP
30
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
recommendations. Appropriate changes in land use programs should be proposed in
those instances where inconsistencies and conflicts are found.
h) Public education should be continued by the Citizens' Advisory Conunittee (a.k.a. "Save
the Bays"), which has been an invaluable resource in terms of disseminating information
by way of newsletters, a video and an accompanying booklet. The CAC should also
continue conducting public information conferences such as the two "State of the Bays"
conferences conducted in 1988 and 1990 as well as the four successful "Save the Bays"
workshops co-produced with Comell Cooperative Extension Marine Program, which has
been, and should continue to be, instrumental in educating the public in a broad range of
environmental issues.
i) In terms of program responsibilities, the agencies and organizations charged with the
recommended implementation program, are already well established. A general summary
of priorities which have been set in BTCAMP is as follows:
-Many of the priorities identified in BTCAMP should be implemented immediately,
especially those in the sensitive Peconic River corridor (e.g., "no net increase" policy
for STP's in the Peconic River area).
-The report also has attempted to define those activities which are important
management concerns because of potential for long-term water quality enhancement,
but which are not immediate priorities due to current cost of mitigation and the lack
of an hnmediate threat to system-wide water quality. Exmnples of this class of "long-
range" management concerns include Meetinghouse Creek pollution abatement and
mitigation of existing pollution from the Riverhcad STP.
-Land use controls in the Peconic River area are a relatively short-term goal which
cannot be implemented instantaneously due to the need for new land use regulations
at the local level. Two-acre zoning is of paramount importance, while more
restrictive zoning will result in additional natural resource benefits. An assessment
of development review procedures by Towns should occur immediately to ensure
consistency with BTCAMP recommendations.
-System-wide stormwater runoff mitigation is not a pressing priority, and should
proceed in the future on a site-specific basis as resources allow.
-The monitoring efforts and public education are existing, continuing programs.
j) In terms of project costs, BTCAMP did not present highly detailed, site-specific economic
information regarding the various alternatives; such evaluation is beyond the scope of
BTCAMP and is better left to subsequent studies. However, a consideration of economic
factors has been an integral part of the management process of weighing costs of
management measures with projected benefits. Economic aspects of some of the major
study components are summarized as follows:
-In some areas, such as maintaining existing monitoring programs, no significant,
incremental operating costs will be needed.
-Riverhead Town is in the process of generating preliminary estimates for the cost of
STP upgrades. Preliminary reports indicate that the cost of the entire plant upgrade
will be on the order of millions of dollars. With this cost factor in mind, the
immediate "no net increase" Riverhead STP recommendation was made based on the
31
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
BTCAMP Summary
pressing environmental need to prevent any further degradation to the system. The
long-range upgrade recommendation was carefully crafted to allow managed growth
in the Town, with incoming developments bearing the cost of a phased denitrification
program.
-USEPA has performed preliminary analyses regarding the cost of sediment
remediation at Meetinghouse Creek which indicate that as much as 250,000 cubic
yards would require removal at $3 to $9 per cubic yard (assuming a convenient
disposal site), based on conversations with NYSDEC regarding historical dredging
experience. In light of the high cost of remediation and the relatively small system-
wide water quality benefits associated with creek remediation, Meetinghouse Creek
is not a pressing management priority. However, monitoring and potential mitigation
should be pursued based on continuing evaluation of alternative management
technologies (e.g., plantings, covering of sediments, etc.).
-BTCAMP has essentially affu'med the findings of the Long Island Segment of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program CL.I. NURP") which asserted that "on an
areawide basis, the opportunities for preserving the quality of currently certified or
certifiable waters far exceed those for irnprnving the quality of conditionally certified
or uncertified waters." BTCAMP found that, on a system-wide basis, major
reductions of stormwater runoff would result in marginal benefits in terms of open
shellfishing areas. NURP found that annual costs associated with a 50% overland
mnoff control to the Great South Bay system were over I million dollars a year
(1982 dollars; capital amortized at 10% over 20 years plus operation and
maintenance costs). Although the economics of remediation for the Flanders/Peconic
Bay system were not specifically treated in NURP, the difficulty and expense in
system-wide remediation, coupled with the uncertainty of effectiveness due to a
number of variables, make system-wide remediation inadvisable at this time.
However, further site-specific investigations should be pursued to assess value of
localized remediatinn.
-Regarding land use controls, no initial capital costs are incurred; however, economic
implications certainly are associated with upzonings. From BTCAMP's perspective,
reasonable recommendations have been set furth which balance pressing
environmental needs with socio-economic factors. Although a "no development"
policy would virtually guarantee excellent Peconic River surface water quality, such
a plan would be unduly onerous; thus, two-acre zoning (or its equivalent based on
nitrogen loading) was selected as a minimum upzoning recommendation because of
its groundwater benefits which would ensure the integrity of groundwater and
Peconic River surface water quality. Additional natural resources protection could
be obtained by even larger-lot zoning. Of course, the ultimate decisions regarding
land use have been left to the Towns.
8) Project Acceptance and Future Management
Response to drafts of the BTCAMP report has generally been positive. Revisions to the report
have been made to conform to comments, where practicable.
Public participation also was an integral component of the management process. Several
presentations were provided to the Citizens' Advisory Committee to apprise citizens of project progress
as well as to solicit input. The study's findings, conclusions, and recommendations were finalized in
draft tabular form and were presented publicly in October, 1991. After distribution of the full Summary
32
I
i
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
BTCAMP Summary
document, an open public hearing was advertised and held in April, 1992 to once again present the major
aspects of the study and solicit further input.
SCDHS has convened numerous Management Committee meetings throughout the project. The
final Management Committee meeting was held in April, 1992, at which time attendees all approved of
the substance of the report's contents as presented in this Summary. The BTCAMP Managemeut
Committee believes that this summary accurately reflects the management and research efforts that have
been performed pursuant to BTCAMP. Through extensive participation from numerous governmental
and private organizations and individuals, the study has effectively pursued the research of the Brown
Tide organism while independently exploring and evaluating an expansive array of management
techniques for conventional water quality concerns. All who have worked on this project feel privileged
to have contributed in some small measure to the management of such an invaluable resource, and are
grateful for the general level of support received in the process from both the public and private sectors.
Future Brown Tide Management Committee meetings should be held periodically to identify and
address environmental problems, additional programs and funding sources, and progress of
implementation of BTCAMP recommendations. The recently announced inclusion of the Peconic
Estuary in the National Estuary Program represents a vehicle for further management of the Peconic
Estuary system.
9) Concluding Statement
Although BTCAMP's management focus primarily has been on conventional surface water quality
issues, the comprehensive nature of the study hopefully has imparted a broader sense of the natural
resources, recreational opportunities, and commercial value associated with the system. Through
remarkably good fortune, the resources in the study area seem to have survived the onslaught of boman-
related degradation which has plagued so much of the Northeast. Fortunately, many of the estuarine
system's exceptional resources remain intact, and may be preserved through prudent planning.
Despite the general optimism regarding quality of the Peconics, the data indicate that localized
water quality problems exist and significant portions of the western main bays system is at the threshold
of significant degradation. Thus, the estuarine system is at a crossroads. Careless exploitation will lead
to increasingly irreversible degradation, contributing to the demise of a once-pristine ecosystem. Thus,
although mitigation is an important factor in BTCAMP, the preservation of resources must also be of
partunount concern to ensure the preservation of our legacy for future generations.
33
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assess~nt and b~anagement Program
TABLE 3 - SU~A~Y OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND P~COb~ENDATIONS
I DE
1. The Brown Tide is an algal bloom of a particularly small
and previously ~nknown species (Aureococcus
anoDhaaefferensl which has appeared in the Flanders/
Peconic and South Shore bays systems.
2. The Brown Tide bloom is recurring in nature, and has to
date been unpredictable in onset, duration, and
cessation, often persisting for unusually long periods
of time over large areas.
3. Advances have been made regarding the identification
and characterization of the Brown Tide and its growth
needs. Although all algal growth requires macro-
nutrients, conventional macronutrients such as nitrogen
apparently do not trigger the onset of the Brown
Tide blooms. Chemicals which have been implicated by
research as potential contributors to Brown Tide's
pervasiveness include specific organic nutrients,
chelators such as citric acid, and trace metals such
as iron, seleni~, vanadate, arsenate a~d boron.
4. Viruses are suspected to be an agent in ending the gro~h
cycle of the Brown Tide. Acrylic acid and dimethyl
sulfids, which may be produced by the Brown Tide
organism, may be toxic to zooplankton which would graze
on the Brown Tide. Meteorological and climatological
factors may also affect the Brown Tide.
5. The abundant Peconic Bay scallop population was virtually
eradicated by the toxic, mechanical, and/or poor
nutritional aspects of the Brown Tide. In addition, the
eelgrass beds, which are a critical shellfish and finfish
spawning and nursery area, were decimated, probably due
to reduced light penetration caused by the Brown Tide.
Other shellfish apparently affected during Brown Tide
blooms include oysters, clams, and blue mussels.
1, NA-~-'h*E SDP~ACE
~TER OU~LITY
1. Based on analysis of Flanders Bay data which relates total
nitrogen (TN) concentrations to chlorophyll-a and chloro-
phyll-a to diurnal dissolved oxygen (D.C.) variations,
a surface water total nitrogen concentration limit of 0.5
mg/1 will ensure a minimum dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/1.
2. Portions of the western Peconic system contravene the TN
guideline (typical TN levels as high as 0.8 mg/1), and
occasionally experience depressed D.C., but apparently
not exhibit advanced eutrophication in terms of conven-
tional nutrients. The system may be near the limits of
the factor of safety incorporated in the TN guideline.
3. Water quality in the eastern Peconics is excellent with
respect to nitrogen concentration.
4. Data indicate that nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay
have not changed significantly between 1976 and 1988.
Prior to 1976, numerous industries (extensive duck farms, I
milling, fish processing, iron forge, etc.) probably
1. Monitoring of water quality and Brown Tide
concentrations in the Peconic Estuary and South
Shore bays systems should be continued.
2. Theories relating to the onset and persistence
of the Brown Tide should be further researched;
this research should have greater emphasis
on field studies. ~-reas of research should
include specific organic nutrients; chelators
such as citric acid; trace metals such as
irony selenium, vanadate, arsenate, and boron;
a~d meteorological and climatological factors.
Laboratory research regarding the organism's
physiology also should be continued.
3. Surveys and research on the toxic, mechanical,
and/or poor nutritional impacts of the Brown Tide
on shellfish should be continued.
4. Factors related to the control and subsidence of the
Brown Tide, such as viruses and dj-methyl sulfide/
acrylic acid production, should be researched.
5. Restoration and monitoring should occur for Brown
Tide-impacted natural resources; potential priority
targets are scallops and eelgrass.
1. The general L.I. 208 Study marine surface water quality
nitrogen guideline of 0.4 mg/1 should be modified
to 0.5 mg/1 total nitrogen for Flanders Bay
and the tidal portions of the Peconic ~iver.
2. A~I new or incremental nitrogen loading should be
prohibited if it discharges to surface waters, or
results in substantial groundwater degradation,
in the environmentally stressed region of the tidal
Peconic River and western Flanders Bay.
3. As a long range goal, pollution abatement should occur
so that the nitrogen guideline can be attained in the
tidal portions of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay.
4. Pollution to the eastern portions of the Peconic Estuary
system should be controlled so that existing water qual-
ity in the bays east of Flanders Bay is maintained. In
small embayments, pollution sources require evaluation
to assess localized impacts and potential remediation.
contributed to degraded conditions as compared with 1976.1 5. Surface water modelling and monitoring should continue.
m m m m m mm mm m m m m m m, m,m i m m m ,m
TOPIC
A. Sewage
Treatment
Plants
("STP's")
1. Because of the quantity and location of its discharge at
the poorly-flushed mouth of the Peconic P~ver, the
~verhead sewage treatment plant (0.7 mgd, 140 pounds
per day total nitrogen discharge, of which 7 pounds
per day are attributable to the scavenger waste facility)
is by far the most significant sewage treatment plant
in terms of nitrogen loading.
2. Improvements in wastewater treatment and disposal at the
Riverhead STP would result in a reduction of summertime
surface water total nitrogen concentrations to near the
0.5 mg/1 guideline in the western Peconic system.
3. Elimination of the Riverhead STP surface water coliform
loading could move the open shellfish area boundary
on the order of an additional i ~ westward.
4. Previous efforts at sampling and modelling impacts of the
Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory STP's have
been limited. However, both of these facilities are
environmental concerns because they discharge directly
into the environmentally sensitive Peconic River.
5. Other STP's discharging to surface waters are not a threat
to system-wide water quality k~cause of their remote
locations with respect to the western Peconics and their
iow nitrogen loading rates. However, localized impacts
(e.g., Sag Harbor) may require further investigation.
1. In relation to sewage treatment plant expansion,
no net increase in q~antities of nitrogen discharged
to surface waters should be allowed from Grumman,
Brookhaven National Lab, and ~/verhead STP's.
2. Pollution from other sewage treatment plants in
the study area should be controlled such that
existing water quality in the surface waters
east of Flanders Bay is maintained.
3. ~ a long-range management goal, the P~verhead STP
should be upgraded so that the surface water quality
nitrogen guideline can be attained.
4. The long-range Riverhead STP upgrade may be in the form
of a groundwater discharge (10 mg/1 total N), a relo-
cated surface water discharge at central or eastern
Flanders Bay (approx. 23 mg/1 total N), or a surface
water discharge at the existing location (4 mg/1
total N); environmental impacts of alternatives would
require assessment before selection. From BTC~'s
pollution control and natural resources perspective,
groundwater recharge is the most desirable alternative.
5. SPDES permits should be modified to require monthly
repoz~ing of effluent nitrogen concentrations for
Peconic River-discharging STP's and quarterly report-
ing for all other surface water-discharging STP's.
1. Water quality in the Peconic River is excellent with
respect to nitrogen concentration (approximately 0.5
mg/1 at USGS gauge upstream of Riverhead STP).
2. Despite excellent water quality, as a result of its b/gh
flow, the Peconic ~ver contributes substantial nitrogen
(avg.of 130 pounds per day, range of 20 to 500 pounds
per day) to an environmentally stressed area.
3. The high degree of open space in the Peconic R/vet water-
shed (26% of 15,900 acres in 1989) has spared the river
from excessive pollution in recent years; the area's land
use did not change drastically between 1976 and 1988.
4. Substantial potential exists for future d~velopment in the
Peconic River area (34% of acreage developable in 1989).
5. ~thematical modelling and sampling have established that
increased development intensity adversely impacts ground-I
water quality. L.I. 208 Study modelling indicates that
slight changes in groundwater quality have significant
impacts on Peconic River nitrogen concentrations; as per
current modeling, Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations
are very sensitive to Peconic River loadings.
6. The relationship between land use and surface water
quality, coupled with the amount of developable land in
the study area, highlights the need for stringent
development controls to prevent degradation of Peconic
River and Flanders Bay. ~ additional benefit of land
use controls would be the added protection of invaluable
natural resources of the study area.
1. Throughout the entire Peconic River groundwater-
contributing area, new or incremental nitrogen loading
should be prohibited if it discharges to surface waters
or results in substantial groundwater degradation.
2. New groundwater-discharging sewage treatment plants in the
Peconic River area generally should be avoided. New
groundwater-discharging plants should be considered only
if best available denitrification technology is used;
the proposed project is associated with significant
groundwater, natural resources, and/or surface water
quality benefits; and additional analysis shows that
impacts on the Peconic River system will be negligible.
3. Developable residential land in the Peconic P~ver ground-
water-contributing area should be upzoned to a minimum
of two acres per unit. Additional natural resource
protection could be attained by even more stringent
land use controls, such as three to five acre zoning.
4. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses
should be controlled so that the impact on gro%hndwater
with respect to nitrogen contribution is comparable to
that of two-acre residential zoning.
5. Zoning controls should be implemented in conjunction
with other land use management techniques, including
cluster development, transfer of development rights,
and programs related to land preservation,
acquisition, and enhancement.
6. In addition to the land use controls noted above,
m m. .m m m m m mm m m m {mm m mm i m m mm m
C. Meetinghouse
Creek
BTCAMP TABLE 3 - SU~L~RY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, ~ P~COb~4ENDATIONS (cont.)
1. The elimination of Corwin Duck Farm's d/rect discharge to
Meetinghouse Creek substantially improved water quality
in the creek with respect to nutrients such as
nitrogen, but nitrogen (15 mg/1 as compared with less
than 2 mg/1 in other local creeks) and coliform
concentrations in the creek remain elevated.
2. Current total nitrogen loading from Meetinghouse Creek is
approximately 360 pounds per day.
3. Substantial reduction of Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen
contribution (15 to 2 mg/1 total N) would result in only
moderate improvements in system-wide water quality (due
to the creek's location in a better-flushed area, only
about 0.05 mg/1 total nitrogen reduction as compared with
0.2 mg/1 improvement associated with Riverhead STP
upgrading).
4. Meetinghouse Creek improvements would have more system-
wide significance if they were effected in concert
with other pollution abatement efforts.
5. Improvements in Meetinghouse Creek coliform
concentrations would result in only localized benefits.
3. M~JOR NON-POINT SOURCES
A. Sediment Flux 1. Summertime sediment flux nitrogen contribution, estimated
to be 2,400 pounds per day, is greater than all other
(i.e., chemical sources of nitrogen contribution combined.
exchange between 2. Changes in point source loading resulting from the
sed-~ment and implementation of management alternatives would
water column) eventually change the sediment flux rate, potentially
resulting in significant water quality improvements.
3. More monitoring and study is needed to better
characterize the dynamics of the relationship between
pollution contribution and sediment flux.
B. Stozmwater
Runoff
Peconic River development plans should be reviewed
utilizing the strictest practicable stanc~rds, which
would include the requiring of open space dedications,
maximum practicable setbacks from the river, and
natural landscaping to minimize fertilizer use.
1. Monitoring and remedial investigation of pollution
at Meetinghouse Creek should be continued and
remediation should be effected when technologically,
economically, and environmentally feasible.
2. The evaluation of the effectiveness of on-site duck
waste containment and treatment processes at the
Corwin Duck Farm should be continued.
3. Sediment flux study should be conducted in
Meetinghouse Creek to quantify actual impacts of
sediment flux on water quality and to evaluate
effectiveness of potential remedial measures.
1. Sediment flux sampling should be continued and expanded.
2. The dynamics of the relationship between pollution
contribution and sediment flux should be studied
so that ultimate short and long-term benefits
associated with pollution abatement could be
better documented.
3. The computer model of the estuarine system should
be upgraded to include an improved sediment
submodel.
1. Stormwater runoff, which contributes approx. 30 pounds per
day of nitrogen, does not appear to be a significant
input with respect to nutrient loading.
2. As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in
the Peconic system; these areas are generally situated
in semi-enclosed embayments and near shore locations or
are located adjacent to STP discharges.
3. Stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant
1. On a system-wide basis, any action which would
result in a substantial increase in stormwater
runoff coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary
system should be strictly prohibited.
2. Stormwater runoff remediation efforts should be
undertaken on a site-specific basis pursuant to
localized studies which demonstrate technological,
economic, and environmental feasibility.
m m mm m m m m --- m .m m --, m mm .m ,mm mm
BTCAMP TABLE 3 - SU~W~t~y OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND R~CO~NDATIONS (cont.)
3. MAJOR NON-POINT SOURCES (cont.)
B. Stormwater
Runoff
(cont.)
C. Groundwater
Underflow
source of total and fecal coliform loading to the
Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Other localized sources
may include wildlife waste and sanitary systems.
4. Based on pollutant loading analysis and land use data,
stormwater runoff coliform loading is correlated with
land use intensity, with the North and South Flanders Bay)
areas, due to substantial residential acreage, each
contributing a much greater coliform load than the less
intensively developed PeconicRiver watershed
5. Modelling indicates that the benefits from decreased storm-
water runoff coliform loading do not justify the costs
of system-wide remediation. However, localized benefits
might be realized from site-specific remediation.
i 3. Proposals for new development within the stormwater
runoff-contributing area to the Peconic Estuary
system should be reviewed under the strictest
scrutiny. In addition to on-site stormwater
runoff containment requirements, vegetative
buffers and sediment and erosion control plans
should be considered as part of the approval
process, with enforcement through the issuance
and revocation of permits.
4. With respect to sources such as domestic animal waste
and fertilizers, best management practices and
public awareness should be promoted.
1. North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastern Peconic River
regions have groundwater nitrogen concentrations which
are substantially elevated (5 to 7 mg/1) .
2. Western and central Peconic River, with their vast
expanses of open space, have relatively low total
nitrogen concentrations (1 to 1.5 mg/1) indicating
excellent groundwater quality.
3. Pesticide contamination of private water supply wells is
common in the eastern Peconic River, North Flanders Bay
and North Fork regions (6.4 to 14.4 ppb avg.), where
agricultural chemical usage was historically prevalent.
Detectable pesticide levels in East Creek (up to 8 ppb)
indicate that pesticide contamination has, to son
degree, reached surface waters of the study areas.
4. The intensity of land usage in given areas is directly
related to nitrogen loading and groundwater quality
degradation. Both residential and agricultural land
uses are responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in
the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions; medium-
density residential and agricultural land uses have
similar nitrogen loading rates.
5. The apparent significance of groundwater nitrogen contri-
bution (approx. 580 pounds per day east of USGS gauge)
is tempered by surface water quality data, computer
modelling, and groundwater infiltration sampling which
ind/cate that groundwater nitrogen contribution is not
having a significant impact on study area surface waters. ~
6. A/though mitigation of existing groundwater conditions
does not appear to be a priority with respect to surface
water quality improvement, the prevention of substantial
future degradation to existing groundwater quality is an
important goal, especially in the Peconic River area.
A. Landfills
1. Substantial degradation of existing groundwater
quality should be prevented, especially in the
Peconic River area (see II.2.B., "Peconic River").
2. Groundwater monitoring programs and the study of
surface water impacts of groundwater should be
continued, especially with respect to areas with
known contamination (see II.4.A., "Landfills," and
II.4.B., "Hazardous ~terials"); estimation of
groundwatem inflow and its pollutant contribution
to surface waters should be performed for the areas
east of Flanders Bay and further refined in the
western study area. Pesticide contamination related
to agricultural practices is an area of special
concern which warrants further monitoring and
evaluation.
3. Best management practices, such as low-maintenance
lawns, slow-release nitrogen fertilizers,
modification of fertilizer application rates, and
sanitary system maintenance should be promoted
through public education.
4. Additional controls, such as fertilizer use
restrictions, should be promoted in the Peconic
River watershed.
1. The plume of contaminants which emanates from the North
Sea landfill reportedly includes ~mmonia, iron,
manganese, volatile organic compounds, lead, and
1. Investigations, remedial actions, and monitoring at
the North Sea Landfill should be conducted with
full consideration of surface water impacts.
BTCAMP TABLE 3 - SU~AqA~Y OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND R~CO~4ENDATIONS (cont.)
FRYINGS / CONCLUSIONS
4. OT~ER SOURCES OF POLLUTION (cont.)
A. Landfills
(cont.)
Materials
C. Marinas and
Boating
cadnu~m. 2. Monitoring of the surface waters and sediments of
2. With the exception of Shelter Island, the other eight Fish Cove should be continued.
landfills in the study area are classified as potential 3. Monitoring of other landfills in the study area
environmental hazards, should consider potential surface water impacts.
1. Activities at Brookhaven National Lab and Grumman have
resulted in groundwater contamination and subsequent
remediation efforts.
2. Surface water impacts from existing industrial discharges
have not been documented.
3. The inactive Rowe Industries facility is the source of a
significant plume of organic chemical contamination
which has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor
Cove, with unknown impacts.
4. There are no reports of surface water impacts resulting
from accidental spills and leaks in the study area.
5. Household hazardous materials are a potential and largely
undocumented source of pollution.
1. Sanitary waste discharges from boating activities are
site-specific and not well documented, but are
suspected of contributing to surface water coliform
loading, especially in environmentally sensitive
waterways with poor flushing.
2. The implementation of the Suffolk County law (Res. 946-88)
to investigate potential nuisances at marinas would
be a useful first step in addressing the need to better
understand and manage the contribution of marinas and
boating to surface water pollution.
3. Oil and gasoline, marine paints, and debris are marine
pollution sources which may warrant future evaluation.
1. Groundwater monitoring programs at Rowe Industries,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Gr%u~man, and other
sites of present and historical discharges should
be continued. In general, the relatively small
store of data regarding hazardous materials impacts
on surface waters should be expanded.
2. Where appropriate, monitoring and remedial
investigations of hazardous material-contaminated
sites should incorporate surface water and sediment
monitoring with full consideration of surface
water impacts incorporated in management decisions.
3. "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" programs should be
continued and enhanced to foster public education
and reduce household hazardous material pollution.
1. The Suffolk Cmunty law mandating the investigation
of potential nuisances at marinas should be
implemented.
2. Greater use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on
boats, and existing and additional pump-out stations
should be promoted, especially in areas with heavy
boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive areas.
3. Implementation of other measures, such as designation
of "no discharge zones" and enforcement for non-
compliance with discharge regulations, may also in-
crease usage of pump-out facilities and should be con-
sidered, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.
4. Marina projects should be scrutinized under the most
environmentally sensitive standards of review.
5. Public education should be an integral component of
boater-related surface water protection programs.
6. The impacts of oil and gasoline, marine paints, and
floatables and other debris should be investigated.
D. Atmospheric
Deposition
1. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface water systemsl 1. Monitoring of the direct and indirect impacts of acid
is approximately 160 pounds per day (wetfall and dry rain on the surface waters of the study area should
deposition); this estimate is approximately 5% of the be conducted and studied, where appropriate.
system's overall (summertime) non-point source loading.
2. Modelling indicates that changes in regional air quality
would have limited impact on the system's marine waters.
3. Although acid rain is not a primary concern with respect
to direct impact on marine surface water pH due to the
BTCAMP TA~L~ 3 - SU~R¥ OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND P~CO~NDATIONS (cont.)
TOPIC
FI~IN~S ! CONCLUSIONS
OTHER SOURCES OF POLLUTION (o~nt.)
D. Atmospheric
Deposition
(cont.)
buffering capacity of the marine system, acid rain may
directly impact the fresh waters in the study area and
may indirectly impact marine waters by affecting the
solubility/transpor~ of material through sediments.
1. The ecological significance of the Peconic Estuary is
manifested in its rare ecosystems, nationally and
locally threatened and endangered species, species
diversity, and extensive wetlamds and wildlife habitats.
2. Natural resources may be impacted by water quality
management decisions.
3. From a natural resources persepective, management
information for the Peconic Estuary appears to be
relatively limited.
1. The implementation of BTCAMP recommendations would best
proceed as a cooperative effort between all levels of
government with the support and guidance of the
private citizenry.
2. The implementation program would be most effective with
mechanisms to re-convene the BTCAMP ~anagement Committee
to periodically assess the progress of implementation of
BTCAMP recommendations, to address potential future
environmental concerns, and to identify funding sources
for additional monitoring, research, and remediation.
I1. Ail water quality management decisions should be
~ accompanied by the maximum practicable level of
~ protection and enhancement of natural resources.
12. A comprehensive, Peconic Estuary-specific natural te-
sources inventory/management plan should be pursued.
I1. Implementation of regulatory and/or remediation
recommendations should be conducted by
parties that have current responsibilities
and should be enacted/enforced by the agencies
with current Jurisdiction over the subject matter of
given recommendations. For example, the STP
recommendations should be enforced by NYSDEC and
SCDHS through the SPDES permit process, with STP
owners responsible for compliance. Meetinghouse Creek
pollution should be addressed by NYSDEC and the Corwin
Duck Farm with the assistance and guidance of SCDHS
and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Land use
regulations fall within the province of the Towns'
regulatory authority, and stormwater runoff should be
addressed at the appropriate governmental level.
12. To ensure consistency with this study's recommendations,
all local regulations, plans, policies, and practices
should be reviewed and, where necessary, amended.
~3. In the case of non-regulatory issues, implementation
should be conducted by organizations which are
qualified in given areas of concern. Funding for
research should be provided by all levels of
goverrm~nt, and public education should be continued
by the citizens' Advisory Committee (a.k.a. "Save the
Bays") and groups such as the Cornell Cooperative
Extension. Future Brown Tide Management Committee
meetings should be held periodically to assess the
progress of implementation, address potential future
environmental problems, and identify and pursue funding
sources for further monitoring, study, remediation, etc.
~4. Monitoring of groundwater and surface waters should be
continued by SCDHS with respect to ETCAMP-type monitor-
ing and NYSDEC and USEPA, where appropriate (e.g.,
shellfish program and finfish, superfund sites, etc.).
Local investigations and pilot remediation projects
should be cooperative intergovernmental efforts.
I
!
Table 4
BTCAMP - Proposed Peconic Estuary System Research and Investigation Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following outline is a summary of the additional major research and investigation projects
recommended by the draft .Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Pro,ram report.
$100,000 of Suffolk County capital funds have recently been appropriated for Brown Tide-related research.
BROWN TIDE
* ONSET AND PERSISTENCE
-Chemicals such as specific organic nutrients, chelators (e.g., citric acid), and trace metals (e.g., iron,
selenium, vanadate, arsenate and boron).
-Physical factors such as meteorological and climatological patterns.
-Research concerning the organism's physiology.
-Greater emphasis on field studies.
* IMPACTS ON SHELLFISH
-Toxic impacts (e.g, potential toxicity of acrylic acid and dimethyl sulfide, which may be produced by the
Brown Tide, to shellfish larvae).
-Mechanical inhibition of scallop growth and reproduction (e.g., poor retention of small particles by
shellfish feeding apparatus, structural features of Aureococcus which impair digestion by filter feeders).
-Nutritive quality of Aureococcus to shellfish.
* CONTROL AND SUBSIDENCE
-Investigation of zooplankton which would graze on and limit the Brown Tide (e.g., impacts of dimethyl
sulfide and acrylic acid produced by the Brown Tide on the viability of a zooplankton population).
-Role of vimses in the subsidence of the Brown Tide.
SEDIMENT FLUX
-Continuation and expansion of sampling.
-Study of dynamics of the relationship between pollution contribution and sediment flux.
-hnprovement of computer model of the estuarine system to include a sediment submodel which predicts
benthic fluxes as a function of sedimentary particulate organic matter decay along with the mass
transport and kinetics of dissolved nutrients.
I
I
I
NATURAL RESOURCES
-Surveys of shellfish and finfish resources.
-Restoration and monitoring of Brown Tide-impacted natural resources (e.g., eelgrass and scallops).
-Preparation of a Peconic Estuary-specific natural resources inventory and management plan.
STORMWATER RUNOFF
-Investigation of the efficacy of localized stormwater runoff control measures.
-Refinement of assessments of stormwater mnoffpollution contribution and impacts on surface waters,
especially in areas east of Flanders Bay.
I
I
I
I
GROUNDWATER INFLOW
-Site-specific investigation of surface water impacts of groundwater inflow, especially in areas with
known contamination such as the North Sea Landfill, the Rowe Industries site, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, and East Creek.
-Continuation of monitoring programs.
-Refinement of assessments of groundwater inflow and impacts on surface waters, especially in areas east
of FIm~ders Bay.
-Study of the extent and potential impacts of hazardous materials.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
-Continuation of water quality monitoring.
-Further refinement of nitrogen guideline.
I 40