HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic Estuary Program Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study March 1999PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA STUDY
VOLUME I
Prepared For:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Department of Ecolo~
County Center, 2"d Floor
Riverhead, New York 11901-3397
Prepared By:
EEA, Inc.
55 Hilton Avenue
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 746-4400
eea~ent.net
MARCH 1999
$outhold Town
F~lanning Board
Although the information in thi~ document has been furlded whol].'v or L~I part h.~' the United State5
Protectiol~ .-~e~c~' ullcler C:ol~tt'nc:~Llal t~-eem~nt number 01-440~-4980-18-1633 to the Suffolk Cou~' Department
Health fierx~ces, it ma.',' not necessarily refiecl the ~e~s of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objectives
1.2 Geographic Description
1.3 Historical Distribution of Eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary.
REVIEW OF EXISTIiNG DATA AND LITERATURE
2.1 Biology of Eelgrass
2.2 Chesapeake Bay Study
2.3 Long Island Sound Study
SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
3.1 Flanders Bay (Station 170)
3.2 Great Pecanic Bay (Station 130)
3.3 Eastern Robins Island (Station 069)
3.4 Eastern Hog Neck Bay (Station 081)
3.5 West Neck Harbor (Station 124)
3.6 Coecles Harbor (Station 122)
3.7 Hallocka Bay (Station 112)
3.8 Cornelius Point (Station 144)
3.9 Majors Harbor (Station 143)
3.10 Three-Mile Harbor (Station 132)
3.11 Napeague Harbor (Station 134)
3.12 Lake Montauk (Station 135)
3.13 Accabonac Harbor (Station 133)
3.14 Northwest Creek (Station 131)
bLETHODOLOGIES
4.1 Water Quality. Monitoring
4.2 Sediment Quality. Monitoring
4.3 Hydrodynamic Monitoring
Euuinment
4.4 Data Reduction
ANALYSIS
5.1 Water Quality
5.2 Substrate Quality
5.3 Hydrodynamic Analysis
5.3.1 Westerm'Central
5.3.2 Eastern
5.4 Wind Trend
Eelgrass Transplantation and Monitoring Program
6.1 Napeague Harbor (1997)
6.2 Cutchogue Harbor and Cedar Beach (1997)
6.3 Napeague Harbor (1998)
PaTe
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
.10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
2O
26
27
27
29
32
32
32
33
33
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
7.0
8.0
9.0
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
6.4
Eetgrass Monitoring Program 34
6.4.1 Napeague Harbor (1997) 34
6.4.2 Cedar Beach & Cutchogue Harbor (1997) 35
6.4.3 Napeague Harbor (1998) 35
DISCUSSION 36
7.1 Water Quality 36
7.2 Substrate Quality. 41
7.3 Hydrodynamic Trends 42
7.4 Wind Treads 43
7.5 Eelgrass Transplantation Program 44
CONCLUSIONS
RECOM~MENDATIONS
9.1 Proposed Eelgrass Habitat Criteria for the Peconic Estuary
9.2 Proposed Additional Studies
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Water Quality Parameters (1997 & 1998)
Temperature Data
Light Extinction Data
Proposed Eelgrass Habitat Criteria for The Peconic Estuary
LIST OF FIGURES
'45
46
46
47
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Eelgrass Station Location Map
Grain Size Distribution Map
Eelgrass Harvest and Transplantation Location Map
Napeague Harbor 1998 Transplantation Index Map
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
EXECUTIVE SLFMIVIARY
The main objective of this study is to develop criteria for eelgrass habitat establishment and
persistence within the Peconic Estuary utilizing various environmental analyses.
The Program evaluated water and sediment quality data to cha[acterizE~::~'onditions within
the estuary where eelgrass (Zostera marina) density is highOi!i!!lowest~ii~i/i~, stressed, and
non-existent based on previous studies of eelgrass distfibuf{~:~ithin th~!~:~ii~ashin, 1996)~i:: :'
Also analyzed, were general hydrodynamic trends at sele~t eelgra~:i~ni~:~i!i~3s w~:'
the estuary. The collected data were then compared to i~eria fi-omi~e Conne:~i~g:.~iand
Sound Study (LISS) and the Chesapeake Bay Study (C~iiiiiilZi::i~::? .... :,::::~:,:::::::, .......
While not a primary study goal, eelgass test plots were ~i~il}~}~izing various methods for
harvesting and transplanting eelgrass to determine the m~l su ii hodology for tkis
EEA, Inc. m cooperauon vath the Suffolk Co~:.U~nt::of Healtli:'Serv~ces, East Hampton
Town Natural Resources Department, and!i~6rnell C~p~i~?smn chose 14 fixed
sampling locations (Figure 1) within the ~ary. T~l~ie la~re chosen in part, based upon
historical eelgrass bed density surro~_Og landware as w~i'as mformauon provided m the 199
SAV study by Cash,n Assocmtes. ::~}~i~i'~co~sance an~511~enal photography at 1:1,200 (1996)
were used to characterize the sta~il
Water qua~::~pmtormg:~g~ucted bgi~'as m-kind servxces for this project. Water
quahty catli~a~idata ha~een:~i~n~gotng throff~hout the estuary by the SCDHS since 19 6.
Collectioa~ifi~i~is assoai~t~gi~l~::this project was conducted one time per month at each
station for th~i~i~:.June, '~ , and September, 1997 and May 1998. All collections
General:~s~cal chemx~i~eters were measured each t~me water collections were
cond gd by SC ) S. a i ameters include salinity, temperature, conductivity, pi-I, secchi
d~sc~!ii~ssolved oxygen, d,:~tl~:'and li_~ht extmct~on coefficient. Water samples collected for
la~0~tory analysis inc!~.~ total suspended solids, chlorophyll-a, dissolved inorganic phosphorous
(~phosphate) anttii~§solved inor~,anic nitrogen 0qOX and NH~)
0iOig ~O~aiel ~tuality run conducted by SCDHS, E£& Inc. collected sediment samples.
Sed{ni~ ~01Ie'itions were conducted from t[ie boat utilizing a 0025 meter-square petite bottom
grab sampler. Often, multiple grabs were composited to acquire a suitable sample size
Additionally, weather data and global position (GPS) were recorded
Sediment was collected for total organic carbon (TOC) and grain size analysis Grain size
-1-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS E[ABITAT CRITERIA
collections were conducted one time during the Project Term to obtain general grain size
distribution data for each sampling location. Samples were sent to Chemtech, Inc. for analysis
within 30 days from collection.
A Falmouth Scientific 3D-ACM acoustical flow meter was deployed at s~:eral l~iions to get a
general picture of hydrodynamic conditions existing where eelgrass
transitional, stressed and lush. Vector, velocity and ternper~i::~of ne~i~.!tions were
(132) Northwest Creek (131) Cornelius Point (144), d~s~/;or (122) Fl~i~;'(170)
A Seapoint Turbidity Sensor was added to the flow me~#~:in ~i~}i!:.~fhree-Mile Harbor and
Napeague Harbor were monitored prior to the addit[~!!.ofthe tu~:~l~i~Br and therefore are
Usm~ water quality data provxded by SCD~g$; mont~]':~i~g~i!ianthrnetm means were
calculated nsmg Microsot~ Excel 97. TM:.:santhmetm::means:iiii~0[~?ased to generate tables and
graphs for analysis of data and are locaf~i:l tn the.::~ppendtce~:::of this report. The data were
organized by station and by seaso~:~i~g S~5::§ummer):f~ eelgrass (Zostera marina). For this
study the growing season is assu~::to be Iv~h throug~'~November and the summer season is
Flow mei~::~i~i~ere cc~ii~,SCII fd~i~ Excel 97 was used to generate graphs for
turbidity '~}~!:c~iicablei~:i~e, vector and velocity for analysis.
Analysis of th!::~!~ii~d represented data were conducted for water quality,
sediment ~:::~aii::~2~ics.:?~thmetic means were computated for all appropriate
water q~ data ass6~::!~::.this study. Sediment data were analyzed by the raw data
pro~'i~ from the labor~ii~ding TOC. Grain size has been ~raphically represented in pie
chef?and shown in FigU~ 2'::i'~illustrate percentage of particle siz~ distribution at the various
lofiiti0ns for this study,.?::~:yector velocity., temperature and turbidity (where applicable) have been
~cally presente4~;'Appendix D to illustrate cyclic ongoing events within the estuary.
E{!~[.:.:~i~ P[~ ~ere conducted by EHTNRD, CCE and EEA, Inc. as in-kind services for this
prbi~i:.::~lSHhg harvest and transplantation of eelgrass was conducted in Napeague Harbor for
both 1997 and 1998. Fall harvest and transplantation were conducted by CCE at Cedar Beach
Point and Cutchogue Harbor in 1997. Initially, monitoring consisted of tD'ing to locate the
transplanted bed and determine whether the eetgrass blades looked healthy, whether wasting
disease was suspected, whether grazing had occurred or whether the eelgrass was dying or had
-2-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
died off.
By 1998, the monitoring program had become better developed because the goals for
transplantation were defined more clearly. The objective was to observe each ofth~ ~ight
transplant locations to determine the general health of the plants using a [~!.~tive ~ of good,
poor or excellent. Additional observations regardin~ die back, wildlife U~ati~i' and epiphytic
growth were also noted. Each monitoring event incl~uded an~nderwat~::.~a~h and a
measurement of water temperature, i::i?? ~ii::iiii~:::iliiiiiiiiii~:ii~}ii?~i!?ii:,
There has never been any follow-up monitoring
location by CCE. The conditions of those
unknown. It is presumed that due t, transplanted and the'
observations made at Ced~ Beach Point, that the d is minimal.
Water quality data collected specifically for this stu(~2~:+~
measurements for the areas supporting thick bed~ii~!~s. The ............... ~orting the densest
beds, averaged 0.3 m4 Kd, 3.1/2g]l chloroph~iii~:!~i~!i~, 0.02~ DIN, and summer DO
of 7.1 m_W1. Except for chlorophyll-a, the i~rved p~~.out the Peconics fall on
average, lower than the estuary average~i~ornm~d f~?~ii~a Requirements for the
Chesapeake Bay and the Long Islan~ji~nd. ~:~ii?
The '97?98 water data collected:~njun~i~!'with ttfi~dy were compared to water quality
data analyzed by SCDHS s^v in general, water quality conditions are
suitable fo~::~mtablishrne~i~gass at ~' depth only in the eastern portion of the
estuary :~i~.£or 19'~}!~:~:<luite c~'~le to the data collected for 1997 and 1998 and
there are ~ii~:[al v~/i~!~)~.~en water years.
As described in.:8~{~f~i~:~L sand ~{13:h and scour are obvious from aerial photo~,raphy. In
general, santiii~'~:~F~6fiii~on the':;~iistern portions of land masses such as peninsulas and
islands.:~:~S~3ur occurs ~l~i~ ~he western portion of these same land masses. EEA, Inc.
eval~:~ the mapping p:~;:}ay Cashin Associates (1996), which clearly indicates that the
thirst eelgrass beds o~r ~:'the eastern portion of the estuary and on the eastern portions of
th~isame land masse~i~:~EA, Inc. has correlated our field observations during the Eel~ass
~lant IVlonitorigg Program, with the suspected importance that periodic burial may facilitate
f~-~516aization of.~l~rass to the regional picture of shifting sands and probable burial along the
~i~'~6~ ~P~hese esmarine land masses. This premise should be investigated further, as
thC ~'~ ~e of work for this study does not pro~Sde for further investigation and analysis of
this concept.
Additionally, substrate TOC is fairly low within the estuary Grain size analysis correlates with
previous studies conducted within the estuary and grain size trends already established
-3-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS I~kBITAT CRITERIA
The hydrodynamic data, although rated as baseline, indicates typical tidal and wind-influenced
occurrences for an estuary within the main bays, peripheral bays and tidal creeks. The larger bays
show si~maificant evidence of wind forces predominating with many diurnal pulses. The peripheral
bays and large tidal creeks, depending on size and location, fall between wind-dr/v~.ilmd tidally
influenced. Most of the small tidal creeks indicate predictable ebb/flood ~cles o,~eFa 24-hour
period.
As there are many variables considered when determining:~:~verall
eel~ass re-establishment is a primary goal, most variabl~i~easured
criteria established for other major estuaries along the eiiii~oast
many years of data, the Peconic Estuary is a very
from year to year.
As observed in the
of the eel~ass beds along the eastern coastline ofthe~:United
modest recovery was observed. Between 35
reached thick densities and had
be in a state of recovery now,
anticipated for another 25 to 30 years.
recurrences of brown tide which disbar'the
and measurements of water and sedm~ent ~
d d '°~'
eca es. · ..........
Inc.
dufins
and N~
EEA,
impacted nearly 90%
i years passed before
eel~ass had
c Estuary may, in fact,
' natural recolonization
to the periodic
ystem. Continued observations
invaluable data over the ne,ct several
locations within the estuary
local long-term residents and baymen
discovered that at certain areas, such as Cornelius Point
than one-meter was historically
are dominated by C. fragile and Grassilwria sp.
established baseline conditions within the Peconic
Estu~::for water and ~:~:, :**:,. . This study was not an exhaustive collection pro.am and
did.~ generate enough~:i~tg~{o conduct sound statistical and regression analyses, The
inf~iOation provided s~ld be considered carefuny and should not be used as a sole source for
~itl management d~isions within the estuary. Based on the studies conducted to date, we
~:~end the folVG ing Eelc, rass Habitat Criteria for the Peconic Estuary (Table 5) expressed as
m~i~q~:~; quality values. These values are expected to optimize conditions and ~ide
r~)~/'i ~ regulators in identifying potentially successful eelgrass restoration areas within the
Peconic Estuary. In the ne,ct section (9.2), we also recommend additional studies to be considered
in the near future.
-4-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
Proposed Eelgrass Habitat Requirements Within the Peconic Estuary
Parameter Peconic Estuary Chesapeake LISS LISS
(proposed) (2-meter (Draft) ~revised)
restoration)
Kd (m4) 0. 75 +/- 0.05 < 0.8
DIN (mg/I) O. 02 <0 .15
D][P (mg/l) O. 02 <0 03,::.:::::: ................i::~!32 <~::?::'
Chlorophyll -a 5.5 +)-0.$ <I0
TSS (mg/I) *None at this <15 ....
Substrate TOC * None at this N/~ ?:?'::~:'i¢iiii!ii::i ~::~i~ii:il i:::: < 3%
time ~:::}?::¢ ....
Additional data required
Statement ofDifficulties: ?i{ii::i¢~:.,
1. ~:i~¢!:}?.~d S~!i~h unable t;'::~';ordinate wet-weather sampling events in a timely
fas~iiii~!i!~ili~§:.not p~gi~!i~!{~pbilize boat crews and st~ ~om both groups to collect
first flu:~::~i~,
2. Pefio~g ~ ~i~ flo~g~r due to chp ~d batte, issues caused a loss of some
dat~?~i S{~i~}~:.data ~ere lost were re-measured during the pehod of study.
3. :i~diners isl~d:'~:i~;~imote for stapling, tr~spl~tation ~d moNtofing
4. i:.:. Due to idti~ tec~'~{~mblems with the unde~ater cmera ~d mrbidi~ in Napea~e
.... H~bor most pic{~res fo mo~tofi g oft ~spl ted beds ot h lp~l fo th
: r n r ~ were n e r e
~ic~ ponio~ ofths study
:
-5-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
1.0 ENTRODUCTION
The Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency through the Peconic Estuary Program and managed by the Suffolk County:~epartment of
Health Services. ~ i!::.i?:i::~
EE& Inc. would like to tbank the following Agency's and S~membe3~:~i~eir support and in-
kind services during the duration of this study. Without tl!~:i~sistanc~i~:i~t..would:~:~- not
have been possible. !ili? :~:.:.:? ....... ~::!!i!i!ii!i!i~i!iii~i!ili!!ii?~iii~!ii::::~ .... ~.~¢i!::::
United States Environmental :::?:?::::?:::::::
Protection Agency (USEPA,)
Suffolk County Department
of Health Services (SCDHS)
Natural Resources Department (E~'RD) ::ii~ii::::::i~ L~:enny
:::ii!i~i}ill:)~ :;¢?:::i?:ii: B~by Friedman
Comell Co0~rative Exte~i~::~E) :i:i:?~iiii~iii:,ii!?:iiii?:~hris Sm/th
:~i:: ;::i! iii:;?'::~'il}~iii:.:~:. ~::!i~:~:ili:~i?:iii:ii?!}ili!!iiii:iiii!~ii:i~:: :~::i:::ii?:?:i:.?:?'"' Sandy Dumais
Satural Resou, ai i tion Co=ell
D e p art m~i:'"0 f ?1. - - i,i'~!l~!~iO~g~i:~ii::::: Carl Undo
Univ~ of New Ham~fi¢~i::::?: :':' Dr. Frederick Short
Uni~'sity of Connecticti~? ':? Dr. Charles Yarish
University of Washin_m~' Mr. Sandy Weilly Echeverria
~i~hi University : !':" Dr. Jerry Churchill
S~v Objectives
The m~in o~jective of this study is to develop criteria for eelgrass habitat establishment and
persistence within the Peconic Estuary utilizing various environmental analyses
The Program evaluated water and sediment quality data to characterize eMsting conditions within
-6-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ltABITAT CRITERIA
the estuary where eelgrass (Zostera marina) density is highest, lowest, transitional, stressed, and
non-existent based on previous studies of eelgrass distribution within the estuary (Cashin, 1996).
Also analyzed, were general hydrodyvamlc trends at selected eelgrass monitoring stations within
the estuary. The collected data were then compared to criteria from the ConnecticU~SLong Island
Sound Study (LISS) and the Chesapeake Bay Study (CBS).
Whle not a primary study goal, eetgrass test plots were est~ed utiii~:..~i~.~?s.methods for
harvesting and transplanting eelgrass to determine the mo~!i~'~essful ~i:::.~::for this
The Peconic Estuary system is situated between the northe~i?~!~ern forks of Long Island
comprised of a series of connected bays and tidal creek~!i::i!i?he:'~ii~er empties into the
head of the estuary at Fla::ders Bay, the western mos~::~rtion of {~::~ ~?rom Flanders Bay,
the estum stretches eastward to Oreat ?econic Oardiners
( ardy, 1576). slands wit the estuary and ainers.
private agencies and organizations (~!~C~MP~i:ii~!5'98). T~:~g~-point source runoff and
groundwater seepage account for ~!t~gest freshwater inpfts to the system.
The bays which make up the:[:ge¢~mc Estu~:~:~a!~9~ly shallow. The deepest areas are at the
1.3 ,::~i~:~i~?:~s~Or~eal D~s~tm~on, of Eelgrass m the Pecomc Estuary
Eel~ass histonc~i~iis:.::i~ell-estati~li~:",anthin the Estuary. In the 1930 s an eptdermc of
wasting di§~:i~::~ i~gste~$) almost completely wiped out the eelgrass on the Atlantic
coast ot~'ope and N~!i~B~:a. According to Burdick, et. al. (1993), the actual cause &the
wastin~!:~tisease was nev~:~ined. However, L. zosterae has recently been identified as the
or,sins causing the pr~:e~i~form of wasting disease. Mueb_lstein (1989) has concluded in her
w¢~ that L. zosterae is::~e pathogen that was responsible for the 19~0 s wastm_ d~sease events.
~}~e late 1960i~ eetgrass made such a remarkable recovery that it was considered a nuisance
b~§~it foi. il~ ~0tor boat propellers, and it washed up large wrack lines along bathing beaches
Dut~ngih~/e:severe Brown Tide Years 1985 and 1986, eelgrass beds disappeared at alarming rates
due to the density of brown tide ( (Aureococcus anophagefferens) cells which inhibited light
penetration necessary for photosynthesis.
-7-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTENG DATA AND LITERATURE
2.1 Biology of Eelgrass
A technical description of Zostera marina is described alter Gleason's (1 ~ 1) tr~a)~raent of the
species as follows: Common. Stems freely branched, to 2.5 m lvs to l~i~,~: strong veins and
many minute ones on sterile stems to lcm wide; on fertile s~:.2-5 ~::i~ii:ii?:i::~.l¢adix 2-8 cm,
lacking retinacuta. The beak 1-2mm' seed strongly ribbed,:~:~bs visib!~:::::~ff...... ~ii~ pericarp.
2n=12. Shallow water in sheltered bays and coves usual~!!~hotly
the Atlantic coast from Greenland to Florida ('Z. Stenop[~a)
Botanists place Zostera mar. ina in the monocotyledon } im!?getonacea. rdari,a
produces roots, stems, flow~rs and seeds. The monoeciou~:~?.:~!eelgrass are pollinated
under water by the aid of water currents. The growth s~s ~;~i~?!clude vegetative and
sexual reproduction (Setchell, 1929). According to setchell, th~:~i~?.~f vegetative growth
and sexual reproduction are confined chiefly to lh{~iii~hen the ~re of water is rising
from 10 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsi~::::~¢E~growt~:.~ii~::¢arried on in the range
of 10 - 15 de~ees Celsius, while reprodu~'occurl~ii::~i~i~[~i~ihe:~r~e of 15-20 degrees
Celsius Therefore, according to Setche!!i~':'~fitefia~i?~;~ge~¢~.i~h occurs durin~ the months
of March through May, and sexual r uction:d g Maj!i a::: une for the Pecon~c Estuary.
Dependent on local meteorology xz~itive ~h may ~'e place slowly through some of the
winter months. ::::!iiiii::?" :~i?:i!ii
Heat figo?iaii~old rigor :~ impact ~ and physiology of eelgrass. It facilitates
disinte~!~e upp~!i~ii~!l~e leav;~::::~:";lder portions of the rhizomes. Fruiting stems
die rapidi~?!iii~ to D'~ii~i~.), the influence of temperature upon vegetative growth
and reproduc~a~::i~i::~cl appe~.~i~a:::::~:.~(~ important for the geographic distribution of Zostera
marina .... i;; :::~!}!!~i!!}~:~i~:i}!:?~i~ ?~::}:~!i~:~i~?:;::~}:~i:.?:~ .... :'~:':'ii!!i}:~}~i::iiiii:~i~:;~:i?
In the pg~ic Estuary?~ii~e depth that eelgrass is established for stations included in this
Stud i~:'?~pproximately t~2~rs The average depth of low density eelgrass beds is
apprO~mately three-meting ~d the average of dense eelgrass beds is approximately 2.7-meters.
Tl~!~eight to which it ~ grow above low tide is limited by the type of sea bottom and by the
[{~ce of the pl~i.~ng out. The max/mum depth to which eelgrass may grow depends
d~ ~he. transpare~,~ of the water (Ostenfield, 1905). In the Peconic Estuary, eelgrass has not
b~ ~ed ~::~row above the low tide line for all stations included in this study. Typical
sU¢~!}~ ~lgrass within the Pecon/c Estuary ranges from coarse sand-gravel to coarse
medium sand xvhere coarse sand~gravel is the predominant substrate. Eelgrass grows well in
estuaries where the salinity falls as Iow as 26 parts per thousand (ppt) Small variations in salinity
concentrations do not have an appreciable effect on eelgrass
-8-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS RABITAT CRITERIA
Tutin (1942) states that epiphytic diatoms, other small algae and hydroids, reduce the light
availabili~ for the plant to conduct photosynthesis. He concludes that light in general, if not
always, is the limiting factor for grovah of eelgrass, especially in deep water.
Generally healthy eelgrass rhizomes are thick with short internodes, cree.~:::::.'hag and ~anching
freely. In a mature plant, each section produces leaves and a [:~rminal l~{~:i~:hr, and a
flowering stem and leah2' branches in the following year. Ti~i~tion 6~Fhich bears the
inflorescence (flower) dies, while the dead rhizome persis~i!~:~a consic~i~:. ~;:.~;~tereai~er.
The branches show similar behavior to the rhizomes. Th~?~lvenfitiou~::~got~i::i~i~uced fi.om:::
the nodes and are bunched. They serve to anchor the r~me in ~,~able
can survive burial during storm events. ::??:!::i::i::?:~?:ii:?.ii!i::~i~,~ii~i~ ....
2.2 Chesapeake Bay Study
The description of this study has been adopted from t 83/92
Report. The primary objective of the CBS is to of relevant water
quality parameters necessary to support
aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Bay -...~ on establishing
re~onal SAV distribution, density, and ~ge'mes targets ~eake Bay and its tributaries.
Empirical data are used to develop r~nships :~een w~?'"~tuality characteristics and SAV
distributions within the Chesapeak~;Com~} SAV [~irements are defined as the minimal
water quality levels necessary
varying meteorolo~c
led to
parameters
Field da~ were collected over several years in
~eake Bay, with its wide salinity range,
requirements based on salinity re~dme. Water quality
and reproduction of SAV to water depths of
one and two Chesapeake SAV Habitat Requirements.
For po[~t~ne water (~:!~i~i~}~iii~AV Habitat Requirements for One-Meter and Two-Meter
Restot~atlons are as follom~,~,~:~:~:~
~[&atina :::::* Restoration
Sali~li~i[:::... :Ligh~Aitienuation TSS Chl-a DI~ : DIP Critical Light Attenuation Critical
~i~! ,: Co~fficient (m4) (rog/l) 0~jl) (regal) {rog/l) Life Coefficient (m4) Life
': ........ .... Period Period
Polyhaline <1.5 <15 <15 <015 <0.02 March- <08 March-
Nov Nov
-9-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
The Team determined that mid-channel water quality data can be used to characterize near
shore areas over seasonal time frames but do not imply a predictive relationship between near shore
and mid-cbannel observations. This habitat requirement approach provides testable hypotheses that
can be explored for other estuaries
L glsla dso dst dy
2.3 on n un u ...........................
The LISS ground-truthed the coastal zone from Little Na~;ett Bay ~:}~i:::~ove bet;veeni::i~
August and October 1993 for seagrass beds. Three site~re chos~si::~) ~:~!~} (2)
Bay; and (3) Clinton Harbor for monthly sampling durun3:::ihe ........... first t~6 hours
Parameters measured include temperature, salinity, secc~i!i~}i:~d light profile'::~4~!?iiiig~oratory
analysis include total and or. ganic suspended load, No,.', ~...NH[, orthophosphatej
chlorophyll, dissolved and particulate organic nitrogen. ~~?::::hn-ain size was determined via
sediment cores and organic content of sediment within fd'~
At the conclusion of the study, habitat requiremen't~ili~!i~stablishec[?'~ii~hpared
to
Chesapeake
Bay Habitat Requirements. The Lon~ Island.~ii~::. ~}?~bitat Re i ;ments are as follows:
REQ~MEN~i~i998) ;i}iii!?: (2 meter restoration)
< 0:~i!:::::~ ....... <0 8
Kd (m4) ..........
TSS (mM :[i~:. ::~ '''~
· ~::::.~3~. 0 ~;i~!~ili~i~i!~?~ili~i .... < 15.0
T!~ ~ore conservative:~ues recommended by LISS axe based on the finding that seagrasses of a
r~e)'ating bed of ZO~tera marina require "better" conditions than those needed for simply
~ng the bed (Ok~bo and Slater, 1989)
-10-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS I~BITAT CRITERIA
3.0 SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
EEA, Inc. in cooperation SCDHS, EHTNKD, and CCE chose 14 fixed sampling locations
(Figure 1 ) within the estuary. These locations were chosen in part, based upon his~E~cal eel~ass
bed density., surrounding land use, as well as information provided in the:~i1996 SAm'study by
Cashin Associates. Site reconnaissance and aerial photo~aphy at I 'were used to
characterize the stations listed below: ~:':
3.1 Flanders Bay (Station 170)
Flanders Bay was chosen for four primary reasons; (1) ...........
population; (2) lack of eelg~ass beds; (3) relatively low and (4) historical duck
farm nutrient loading into the estuary.
The mouth of the Peconic River empties into Flande[bl~g~y
(Southampton). Flanders Bay is approx/mately 2~ii~ The adjacent
and to the north of the Pecomc River, bound~i~th~::~.S. ... Indian County
Park is bounded to the south by Sawmill ~ and ~i :?:~:: north. Tidal creeks that
empty into Flanders Bay include Meetin~Use C~'
Meetm~daouse Creek ~s located m.Iliemonhwe~::comer o~landers Bay within the Town of
Riverhead. Meetinghouse Creek::t~:.ia med~u~..~ed cree!::~f approramately 30, acres, and ts the
most developed of t~dal creeks t~ttmnatmg ~fii~l~d~i'§ Bay. The Creek ~s approxamately 1.1
k/lometers.tgE.~::gorth to souffi~it 123-met~m~.~::east to west on average. The eastern boundary
of the ~ed, ~[~:+i~he western boundary supports a si~m~ficant area
~ecies include salt marsh cordgrass and groundsel tree.
The ' connected tidal wetland, drains through the
Corwin Duck 1~ periodically dredged for the marina. These
and/;~ording to SCDPW, the creek was last dredged in the spring
of 199~:~ :.~redge s include upland areas at Indian Island County Park. The
majq.~ of dredge :::~:~::[: of duck sludge. Other dredge material consists primarily of
sand:~d some mud (SCED,
Ree~,es Creek has a [~!~/iively low land use supporting low density residential housing and
ap~0x/mate!v six d6~ks.
A :§~if at s~m0ns Point is situated at the eastern-most portion of Flanders Bay. A review of recent
aerial photography (1996) indicate that a scour area ex. ists on the western portion of the spit, and
deposition on the eastern portion.
-11-
Eelgrass Station Location Map
44
N
112
069 = East of Robins Island
081 = East of Nassau Point
112 = Hallocks Bay
122 = Coecles Harbor
124 = West Neck Harbor
130 = Great Peconic Bay
131 = Northwest Creek
132 = Three Mile Harbor
133 = Acabonac Harbor
134 = Napeague Harbor
135 = Lake Montauk
143 = Majors Harbor
144 = Cornelius Point
170 = Flanders Bay
Figure: 1
Eelgrass Station Location Map
No Scale
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
3.2 Great Peconic Bay (Station 130)
Great Peconic Bay was chosen because there are no SAV beds established. Data collected here is
intended to provide negative baseline conditions to be compared with areas that support various
densities of eelgrass populations further to the east within the estuary.
Great eeconic Bay is approximately 26,693 acres. The north~ia porti6~ ~:?.y is situated in the
Town of Southold and the southern portion in the Town ~i~hampto~!i~}iiii~i!Island is locat~cl
at the eastern portion of the Bay in the Town of S outho[~ ~tween t~i~r~!~:~!~::.Soutll~ce.
Tidal Creeks entering the bay fi.om the Town of Southoi~i!ii~clud~:::~'Shs,
Hole, Downs and West. Tidal creeks and ponds enterk/~!~::i~i;~om Southamp'{~ii~:l~e Red
Creek Pond, Squire Pond, .Shinnecock Canal, Cold Spfin~.i~ii:;iSebonac, Little Seg:~:~c, North
Sea Harbor Complex, and Wooley Pond. ~?:?::'::~i!i~:iiiiiiiiii!i':~!i! ~ii~i?:i
The area examined under this study is located in the ~g~ of So~;:jUst northwest of the
Shinnecock Canal. Surrounding land use is ve~..:16~;i~iiSebonac iq~k:~t to Cow Neck. To
the west of Sebonac Neck, there exists a rela~!ii~}~ reside~::'land use. The
Shinnecock Indian Reservation is located tO::~I/e west: ~F{I~iS~¢d~k Canal, and Meschutt Park
.::::i:::i~f :: i:~ ======================================= .: :i:::::i::::
is located to the east. The National God,inks of~efic~::i~!i~'/:l to the west of Bullhead Bay
and east of Sebonack Neck. :~::..i:ii?: ::i::!i:? !:~ii!ii::~;i;?:~:~
Aerial photographs (1996) reveal:;i~i there i~$nsiderabi6' sand movement along the southeastern
shorelines of~::~3reat Peconic :}Sy~h manyi~ig:i~:'~xtending approximately 262-meters off
the shoretia~5](~::[he cente~:i6~i~ They al~i~s~!~and plume east of Cow Neck that radiates in
an easterl~ii~pn. Th'~.:~?*~&~comple:~?3"~i~s to be an area of accretion during the time
period th~i!~i;~;:photo~i~taken (April 1995) This coml~lex has extensive d~tchina
throughout C~!~i::i~iii:ii~i:::,::~::~ond'~!~]]]iiiil;]~rs to be an area of accretion
......... ~....~g ~:.. P~ ....
3.3:.:~ii::iiiiiii!:~!!~::~i~iii~[ias Isla~i~::iStation 069)
Easte~!:~obins Island is:~i~ devoid of eelgrass, but has been identified by Cashin (1996) as an
ar~:i~kely to support ee}~as~'based on physical characteristics. The area is supported by a sandy
sq~ate, salinity of app~Sximately 30 parts per thousand, and visibility to two-meters.
Priy~!y owned, ~ is a low density residence on the island. The main use orthe island is to
sfpp6~ a managed Ganae Preserve and private estate. Ring-necked pheasant are raised on the island
fo? ~diri6hM English fowl hunts held annually on the island.
A review of the aerial photographs indicate that the shoreline is an area of accretion with shoals and
bars emending approximately from 197-meters at the northeastern edge to 32S-meters at the
southeastern edge of the shoreline A spit exists at the southerly portion of the island radiating to
-12-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
the west. Therefore, most of the sand accreting is likely being transported from the east.
3.4 Eastern Hog Neck Bay (Station 081)
Hog Neck Bay is located in the Town of Southold and is part of Little P~c ~f It is bordered
on the west by Nassau Point and terminates in the east at Cedar Beach ~!P6int (Cedar Beach
Point). It is approximately 4,333 acres in size from Nassau ~tt to C~i~h Point. Two
Parks ex/st along the shoreline; Emerson Park to the east ~i~mond "
County Park at the eastern extent of the bay.
Shelter Island Sound. Tidal Creeks terminating
Creek. The area analyzed for this study is located
This is a very shallow area ,;vith a metro water depth of a 1.1-meters and a salinity of
30 ppt (C&qhin, 1996). This area supports a patchy (Codiumfrag~l0 and
lacks eet~ass entirely (Cashin, 1996).
Surrounding laud use supports a relatively high
indicate the eastern shoreline supports a
been periodically dredged since 1979. All
for beach nourishment to the west (SCP~?i985).
3.5 West Neck Flarboei!~ion
Shelter Islasi~!i~;ound
Neck Ba
exists at
of We
meters
greenfi~ (1%)
Aerial photo~aphs
r 328-m~ters w~de Cedar Beach has
or gravel and is used
Neck Complex composed of West
or to the south. A long peninsula
Shell Beach where mooring is available. The
' south of the southeastern shoreline
Cashin (1996) reports a mean water depth of 1.7-
at 31.5 ppt. Cashin (1996) observed widely scattered
We~:.::~eck Harbor is su~6ua~ed by low density residential housing. Menantic Yacht Club is
lod~t~d to the northeas~i~f the harbor. Twenty four docks exist in West Neck Creek and a ramp
~gi~at the end of D~l Lord Road
W~i~tC Hh~6?' has been period cally dredged since 1955 and was last dredged November 1998
A dr~ ghannet can be clearly observed from the aerial photography. The spoil material is
principally sand and includes some mud. All of the spoil is used for beach nourishment (SCPD,
1985).
-13-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
3.6 Coecles llarbor (Station 122)
Coecles Harbor is located along the northeastern shoreline of Shelter Island. It is approximately
1,485 acres in size. According to the Cashin study (1996), average depth within the harbor is
approximately 2.6-meters. Salinity within the harbor fluctuate between 3 !and 32 ~. Visibility
appears good to about 2.1-meters. Although historically eelgrass was p!~ ~ere are no beds
presently located within Coecles Harbor.
The southern portion of Coecles Harbor is bordered by ~i~omack..~i~i~i}~iii~r
New York State Conservation Area. Congdons and Fo~.Creel~.~i::~ the
entering the harbor. The northwestern shoreline of the ~tili~ii~0derately devel~8~i!~}bm the
north, a long peninsula runs in a southeasterly direction. 'q~i~:!~p.,rised of Little Ra~;'islana and
Ram Island. There is low density residential housing on ~i~i~i~d. Ram Island is well-
developed on the western shoreline supporting 27 dockg?~'~!~:~acht Club is located along
the southwestern tip of Ram Island near Reel Point. :i ndevelo aiii :. e supported by natural
vegetation. Both anchorage and moorings are p[~:::~g the
.... ~iii::ii~::~ ~:: iiiiiiii~i~i:~{i~ii~ili?~:::~i}i}::i :~ i::::~ ;i::.:::
A review of the aerial photography (1996):~icate s~i}gli~Mdg+mo~ng in the northern portion of
the harbor radiating from the south. In ~iower ~ion'~Ti~gbr, some shoaling is evident.
Coecles inlet has been periodically dr~d since i}1966. It ~i'liist dredged April 1996 primarily for
boat access to the Coecles Harbor ~a. ?hiii *poil m~tea~ is principally sand with some mud.
All spoil material is used for beac~ ~urishme~'(SCPD,
The 1996.[~g:. by Cas~::~i~tes indi~i!!i~ti:~oderately dense eelgrass beds are located
immedia~iiiaii~:.nonh"~::i~'~/te of the l~a::':~The salinity range in this area fluctuates between
31 and to (hi=her than in harbor) and water depth from 1.9-3.2-meters.
Hallocl~y is locate~i~G~.::::~ent Bay north of Orient Point State Park. It is approximately 444
acres ifi+:~ize. The weste~¢l~:~ne of Hallocks Bay supports low density eelgrass beds. Salinity is
app{~kimately 32 ppt, d~ih ~proximately 2.0-meters and visibility to 2.6-meters (Cashin, 1996).
St!~'ate is gravelly sani55j
Hali~i:ks Bay s surt0Unded predominantly by farmland (0,o) and natural ve=etation (28 %) north
tO Route 251 AtKing Street alonu the south west pomon of the bay, a few structures and docks
exSSt, j A~fiit photographs (1996) indicates that Peters Neck Point is an area of sand deposition.
3.8 Cornelius Point (Station 144)
Cornelius Point is located at the northeastern portion of Shelter Island Large, thick beds of
-14-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
eelgrass ex/st around Cornelius Point. The beds are stunted in height and have very narrow leaves.
Historically, eelgrass existed approximately 5-6.6-meters offthe shoreline (personal conversation
with local residents). This area is presently dominated by C. fragile and attached sargassum weed
(Sargassumfilipendula). Eelgrass beds are presently located approximately 20-meters from the
shoreline. :~;~:
Depth of ater in this area ranges fi-om a rox~mately 1 8-2:~¢meters'::*~:~uu :~s approximately 31
pp . .~: ~::.:::.:. · .,:..:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.=~
ppt and visibility is very good. There is an area with large,:~!~[~.l erratic,~ii~7 to the no~
of the established eelgrass beds. Surroundin~ land use is:~ry low d~{~ r~fi~}i?:~::The ~.::~iii:? ....
· . ' .!i~!~:~. !~?:': . :~i~i~i~ii !il;i~i~i!~i~i!~!:::.}ii~: :::~!~ !~::~{~::"
Gardmers Bay Country Club is located to the west of ~ers }~:-~Dnve.
photographs, the area immediately north of the point ap~i~:!~' an area of dept,:md the
shoreline immediately south of the point is an area of sc(~i}~!~/ ~qphotographs indi~e that sand
movement radiates fi-om the northwestern portion of the
MaJors Harbor is located at the southwestern,~i6'~i:=~homack ~r~gerve on Shelter Island and
is apprommately 83.2 acres in s~ze. The ~l~or ofM:~.~i]o~[}~l~:=~pports ee!~ass beds w~th s~gns
of extreme stress (Cashin, 1996). The ~n is 10~{:ed a~j~}i~;int just north of the harbor.
Surrounding land use is entirely pr6~¢~d as no development. It
is an open inlet, likely to have .... ~*~=~:: available within the harbor. Aerial
photo~aphy ~
Three-Mile
the no
is
1996.
The inlet opens to Gardiners Bay to
west and Maldstone Town Park to the east. This area
EHTNRD conducted an eel~ass transplant at Sammy's Beach in
as of the summer of 1997 only a few plugs could be found
, EI-ITNRD. The shoreline surrounding the harbor is
m0~htely developed housing. Anchorage and mooring exist within the harbor.
T~g~ are 10 marinas, ~:ii~wn commercial fishing dock. three town boat ramp sites, and slips at the
~County facility:?:?::'
A:~,~ ~pgrapIis mdtcate that lmmedmtely adjacent to the cut channel at the mouth e,-usts a large
sar~:.~[~?iiX~cording to Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) records,
dredging began at the mouth in 1958 for boat access to marinas. This area is scheduled to be
dredged in April 1999 The dredge spoil material is ail sand and is readily used for beach
nourishment on both sides of the inlet and at an upland area on Marina Lane
-15-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
3.11 Napeague Flarbor (Station 134)
Napeague Harbor is located in the Town of East Hampton between Napeague State Park (west)
and Heather Hills State Park (east). The railroad tracks run east/west mmediately [0;the south of
the harbor. Napeague Harbor is approximately 1,086 acres in size. Alth0~4gh mo~l~ surrounded by
parkland, a small section along the northwest portion of the h::~or sup~ ~::~lensity residential
Napeague Harbor supports thick beds of eelgrass on th~::~therly ~i~:::~f ~iiii~i~g the:
eastern shoreline. Although patchy fi-om clam rakers, appea[~!;:.~.~? ~ash/n
reported high salinity of 33 ppt, g6~ii~t~ility.
There are two inlets to Nap.eague Harbor. indicate a sand plume
immediately inside the western-most inner western edge of the
eastern irdet. Dredging ora modified inlet began in 196 entirely of sand and
historically was deposited on the Hicks property. Tl~o~:~a was 1989.
Napeague Harbor provides anchorage and has a b~i~h~ng (northwest of
3.12 Lake Montauk (Statio~i~:~)
Lake Montank is located m the To~r~i~fEast H~tlnpton an~!::ls approximately 1,102 acres in size. It
~s s~tuated at the eastern end ofth~}i~buth forl~:.~£Long Isled. It xs surrounded by moderately dense
residential housing to the we~.~?south ar~[!'i~:g¢~l~ residential housing and the Montauk
Al. on to tf/ : east. The inl ih iCbeen peri i i dged since 1949 and was last dredged in
1974. Tli~!~.spoil ~i~:ii:i~?:all sand ~ii~"~sed for beach nourishment. Immediately to the
south of ~!::~iiii~iii~e U.S'i'~!~ard Station and Montauk Yacht Club located on Star Island.
The sam ling s~!i~i:~ed at ~:.i~eastem onion of the Lake near the Airport Tkis area
supports a:~i 15~?::.~$.s mtl~::5 % C. fragile at a depth of 2.6-meters. This area zs known
for hi~at traffic whi~Eii~related to the moderate densxty of the eel~ass, and rmxed bed
condit:~:~s within the ha~?:i~:?::~i::??
' b n~c FI (St 133)
3.13 Acca o arbor ation
~bonac Harbor i~ iocared in the Town of East Hampton and is approximately 304 acres in size
It i~ situated t° ~he west of Gardiners Island There is relatively Iow density residential housing
aroUnd the harbor. There are thre~ sanctuary s; Kaplan IVleadows, Memll Lake and Edwards
Island within and/or surrounding the harbor. C. Gerard Town Park is located along the eastern
shoreline on Gerard Drive. Additionally, a New York State Conservation area is situated at the
lower portion of the harbor (East Harbor).
-16-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS I]ABITAT CRITERIA
Historically, eelgrass was abundant in Accabonac Harbor and even harvested as insulation for
houses before the turn of the century. Presently there are no eelgrass beds within the harbor. The
inlet has been periodically dredged since 1959 and was last dredged February 1996. All dredge
spoil consists of sand and some mud and is used for beach nourishment on both sic[~)f the inlet.
This is evident on the aerial photo~aphs (1996) where thick sand plumea:~st o~ l~:~th sides &the
inlet. There are two boat launchin~ ramps one on Shipyard Lane and o~iii~h:~din~ Lane.
.14 Northwest CreekfStatlon 131~
Northwest Creek ~s located wathm the Town of East Har~l~m:~:~orthwest Creek ~s~il~atately
adjacent to Northwest Harbor wh/ch drain~ into Gardine~!~i!i~ii~:is a relatively long
(approximately 2.3 kilometers) and narrow (an averaee 4t[~!i~stuary occupying
approximately 140 acres. The inlet connecting Northw~:'cre~i~!~vest Harbor is extremely
narrow (less than 33-meters across). Althou~?2a Northwest Creek ~st~!~::.$upported eel~ass
beds, none are present today ................................................ , ......................
The vast m jonty of the shoreline [~iboarded:~"~iig~g~ilmterudal marsh dormnated by
saltmarsh cordgrass. Beyond the marsh~i~ oak/p?& for~iiii~!i~hstern portion of the creek is
bordered by New York State Environmental Con~i-vafion ~::'~d the Northwest Harbor County
Park. The western shoreline is bord~ by thei~::~g Harb~:?{3olf Club at Barcelona Neck. A boat
launching ramp is located at the ~ty Do~d ancl~g~e exists within the creek. Salinity
within the creek system averageg::i~.5 ppt, ~.~: ~:~24. t to 28.8 ppt with little variation
' shallow, with an average depth of 1.0-meter. The
deepest corner where a mooring field is located. The substrate
and mooring area which is
mostl5 been dredged since 1961 to modify, the inlet and was
last dredg~'January spoil material is all sand and can readily be used for beach
nouris~ent. Presently, ~i~;~i~il is placed on the barrier spit at the entrance to Northwest Creek.
4.0 :.i}i METHODOLOGI]~S
1 Wati~¢r Qualitw Monitorin~
Wat~ ~U~i~:rnonitoring was conducted by SCDHS as in-ldnd services for this project. Water
quality collection data has been on-going throughout the estuary by the SCDHS since 1976.
Collection and analysis associated with tl-ds project was conducted one time per month at each
station for the months of June, July August. and September, 1997 and IVlay 1998 .MI collections
and analyses conform to AS/M Standards
-17-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
General physical chemistry parameters were measured each time water collections were conducted
by SCDHS. Those parameters include salinity, temperature, conductivity, pH, secchi disc,
dissolved oxygen, depth and light e,,rtinction coefficient. Water samples collected for laboratory
analysis include total suspended solids, chlorophyll-a, dissolved inorgardc phosphc~:[~s
(onhophosphate) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NOX and NH3).
4 2 Sediment Qualit~ Monitoring
During each water quality mn conducted by SCDHS, E~'Inc. col!~ S~:'~ii~les:~.:~
Sediment collections were conducted fi.om the boat u~g a
grab sampler. Of'~en, multiple grabs were composited t~i~iz~ii~i~:~uitable
Observations of biotic and abiofic material were recorde~:.!~:~[i~ilog sheets for eact~"~ation
(Appendix A). These obse/vations included the presenc~:~¢iii~?~i?~getation, nematodes,
cmstacea, sediment size and color. Additionally weatla/~'*dati3~:?:~:..~:position (GPS) were
Sediment was collected for total organic carh~jiiii~.ii~n s~ze ~ys~s. Grmn s~ze
collections were conducted one time dufi~g!!~ Proje~!i!i~!ob~ general grain size
distribution data for each sampling locat~i' Sam~!~"we~.!~i~[~:~'hemtech, Inc~ for analysis
within 30 days from collection. All an~cal she~ provid~*~::i~EA, Inc. from Chemtech are
located in Appendix B. Grain Size ~f~OC ~i~ocols for~i~aboratory Analysis are located
following the analytical sheets in ~:'33~¢~ndix B~iiii!ili!:
A Falmodi iiSei c. 3D-A~i~ical flow meter was deployed at several locations to get a
general pictu~::~: ami'~:::~:~ existing where eelgrass beds are non-e,,dsting,
transitional stre~!~!~:~hick. V~i!::!~iocity and temperature of near-bed conditions were
recorded for ~!~ii~ii:~i~atio ns:'?
Lake ~bntauk (135) N~:Flarbor (134), Accabonac Harbor (133), Three-~Mile Harbor ( 132),
NorthWest Creek (131), ~b~lius Point (144), Coecles Harbor (122), Flanders Bay (170), and
Gi~i P econic Bay (13 0)
A.S~oi9t Turb[di~Sensor was added to the flow meter in May, 1998 Three-Mile Harbor and
Ni ~ Harb~i'~ere monitored prior to the addition of the turbidity sensor and therefore, are
laCldrig ~ibidity data:
Equipment
The 3D-ACM flow meter offers the ability to interface optional sensors such as temperature and
-18-
PECONIC 'ESTUARY EELGRASS [[ABITAT CRITERIA
four g
Turbidity
Sp
turbidity as adopted for this study. The basic instrument measures velocity along four acoustic
paths, three orthogonal magnetic vectors and two orthogonal gravity vectors (tilt) from which it
calculates velocity relative to the earth. The velocity interface uses a single transmitter and receiver,
which are multiplex to the eight acoustic transducers mounted on the sensor head..,:i~ing the
acoustic transmission of sound from one transducer to another, the 3D-A~M c~culate water
flow along each of the four acoustical paths. The computaio~::!s based::~i:~::.~ustic phase shift
of the sound, which occurs due to the advance of sound tra~[~g in th~!~:~:~::~qction as the water
flow and the corresponding retardation of sound traveling i~st the w~i~ii~he compass U~s
a fixed (no gimbals) three-ams magnetometer along wtth:i~e two-ams:.~It sen~t)~i~6i::i~eternnne.:~t~e
instrument orientation relative to the earth's magnetic ~:. ravity~ ~:i~iillli~i~i~im~iii~!~:,
For this study, recordm=s were generally made w~th an o~i~!:ii~me collecung data dunng each
interval) of15 seconds, an "interval time" (time stored) O~7¢:!~{:..and an "AVGI"(length of
time) every 15 minutes. Detailed Specifications are locaf~ in"~ai~:~:,
The Seapoint Turbidity Sensor was added for thoiiiti~!}~er sam~ii~son. The Seapoint
Meter is a sensor that measures turbidity by .d,~4~i~,light fr3~' suspended panicles in
water. The sensor is insensitive to ambient:!i~ whert::i~::?:~:~,x~::has a very low temperature
coefficient. ??' :~i!;?: :"~:i!ii!i~:ii?: iii: i!i!i???
The Nleter senses scattered hght fr¢~'!~?small Y6IUme withi~'5 centimeters of the sensor windows.
Confining the sensing volume all~:"the send,it:to be c~lSi:ated in relatively small water containers
sensitivity of the Meter by choosing one of
set the sensitivity to provide the range and resolution
10, 40 and 200 mV/FTU (Formazin
The'~::~as fixed at 10 (100X) for this study. Detailed
J.!~:i~.4Data
.......... ?i::?.?:~
::::::?i?ii::
U~ water quality dat~::~rovided by SCDHS, monthly and seasonal arithmetic means were
¢~ated usinu Micr6~f~ Excel 97. The arithmetic means were used to generate tables and
~:for analxSsis ~:~lata. The data were omanized by station and by season (growing vs,
s6:~gi}::~'6r'~a marina For this study the growine season is assumed to be March through
N6Vembei ~d the summer season is assumed to be June throuo, qh Aueust.
Laboratory data for sediment analyses including grain size and TOC were transferred to Excel
format and tables and graphs were generated for analysis. Grain size data were graphed in pie chart
format. The grain size classification for substrates was adopted from the Wentworth Scale based on
-19-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
the U.S. Standard Sieves.
Flow meter data were converted to ASCII format. Excel 97 was used to generate graphs for
turbidity, (where applicable), temperature, vector and velocity for analysis.
5.0 ANALYSIS
Analysis of the synthesized and graphically represented da~i~e condU~.~ter quality,
sediment quality and hydrodynamics. Arithmetic means ~:~e compu~l
quality data associated with this study. Sediment data ~ ....... ' the ra~:'::~i~ from
the laboratory regarding TOC. Grain size ha: pie '~!i~i shown
in Figure 2 to illustrate percentage of particle size various locations for this study.
Vector, velocity, temperature and turbidity )hically presented in
Appendix D to illustrate cyclic ongoing events within
The water quality analysis is intended to p~ae prel~::~Ii~a/~e baseline data for guidance
on the establishment ofEelgrass Habitat~tefia. ~fls an'""al~!i::i~?B8'i intended to be an exhaustive
statistical study as limited new data wef~!:'~ollecte~n associ~:~:'::with this study.
Water quality parameters coilect~:~i6'} this s~ includeii~inity, temperature, DO, chlorophyll-a,
secchi disk, dissolved inorganig ~0=en, di~:::iffd~mic phosphate, total suspended solids, and
light exting~i~::.. Additiox~::i~!~}~ii~tUality i ~:has been provided by SCDHS and has been
inclu d e d:~}~iii~p ~c ab f~}::~}~!ii~tu dy. ::::::~:~;~ ......
A transect dgi $ i ii oter and S^V (western/central and eastern) f,o, llows the
delineation out!i~ii~:i~S' di;'~¢~'~rt "Peconic Estuary Surface Water Quality' (October,
1998). Wat~:.i~:'~?~:i~::}educed:~d analyzed for water sampling years 1997 and 1998. These
data are:+i~pared wit~i:~l~¢r quality reports produced for the Peconic Estuary Program in
the Di~Sssion Section
F63;~s analysis areas N~kin= eelgrass have been labeled "NO SAV" in the tables and represent
d~om stations 06~,:~24, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 170. "Thick beds" represent areas supporting
thi~k'~el~rass or mi~id beds and represent data from stations 1~4, 135 and 144
overview-!
The Pecomc Estuary is classified as a polyhaline environment, where salinity is typically greater than
18 ppt Table 1 below summarizes water quality data collected and analyzed for 1997-1998 All
synthesized data and associated graphs related to Table 1 are located in Appendix D
- 20 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Table 1 SummarY'of Water Quality Parameters (1997 & 1998)
Location Temp DO Salinity DIN DIP Chl-a TSS Kd = Kd =
(C) (mg/I) (ppt) (mg/l) (mg/I) (,ugfl) (m~l) 1.45/ -In (I~
secehi Z
............ 6.08 O'.~:~i~~.
'97 S$ 20.25 6.82 28.36 0.01~:~ .......... .:.:~.:~ ........................ 0.6 0.8
No SAV =====================~:::.:~
SS = S~xaer Season
W¢~t~Ceatral = Statiorm 069;~)81 ~24 130, 170
Ea~f~ Stations-- 112 12_ 13~¢~2, 133, 134, 135, 143, 144
i'4~i!~/(no eel~ass)= Stat/~: 170, 130,069 124, 132, 133, 131 Thick Beds (eel~ass)= Stataon$134, 135,144
TIi~iit~a analysis lo, No SAV and Thick Bed stations is extremelv limited and should be considered
a~ ~::~abt~il~cking. statistical representation· In some cases only one or two data sets were
av~i~ ~0~ ~alyses.
-21 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Salinity measurements averaged for ail stations exam/ned under this program are 27.4 (ppt). The
western/central portion of the estuary averages 27.0 ppt and the eastern portion a~gges 27.9.
Water becomes less saline at the inner portion of the estuary near the mo~l?_ of th~¥econic Pdver.
Salinity measurements from Flanders Bay support this and have been obliged ~::24.0 ppt near the
river's mouth.
Temperature(C)
Water temperature within the estuary increases from th~[.~j~!i~:¢¢~,~ west. There
differences between geographic locations during any parti~i~i}}~i~,[on. Table 2 below, indicates the
arithmetic mean for 1997 md 1998 for all stations evaluat~:i~:~s study.
.... ~i:?" ":":.::::*~: :::~:::
Table 2 Temperature Data ....................
LOCATION SEASON .~:~*~:~ ~*:~:~¢:~::::~::.T TURE (C)
Western/Central growing.~ason
Western/Central sunm~ season:?:::!?:: ....
Eastern g~wmg season .:~il 15.6
:.i:::.ii?...........................
Eastern :::~. r::*~mrner s~P,::.:.:.:~:::::~?:~??:~ 21.7
::i:~?i~ii}~5}~::iii~ ............. ' .....................
· ~ii!;: ::::;::::s:::~::, ~iIi?:i::i::i::i~: ....
No ::~ .... ':~i~i~ :?:summer season 20.0
Thick beds'::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::~ ~: ::.::.:.::.:.:.::.: ~ ~ ~::.: :.: ::.: ............................ gr~!tlg season 14 .4
.... ~:i~?:::::~:::::;::::: i :i:: iiii!iiiiiiiiiii:.iii::ii::i ::?:i:. :.iiiii~ii~ .... ,:i
Thick b~d§+~[ ....... '%ii~?~{i?~{i?~{i?:{::?~iii?~i!~: summer season 21.4
Diss~ed Oxygen (mM~:~:i::i}~. '::(i:~?:
water, the solu~0~!ity of oxygen decreases as water temperature and salinity increase. DO
t~ io be slightly :~her in the eastern portion of the estuaw when compared to the western
P~ii ~;~nimum values were lowest in the western/central portion and highes~ in the
e~::~5.~h::~here Zostera marina beds are thickest. The same trend follows for the ~,rowing
sea~:~::~ehout the estuary.
Summer DO for the western/central region averaged 6 5 m~/l, while the eastern region averaged 6 8
m~l. There were relatively no differences in averaged summer DO levels when areas lacking
- 22 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
eelgrass beds (7.0 mgA) were iompared to areas supporting thick beds of eelgrass (7.1 mg/1).
Based on the long-term mean (1988-1996) for chiorophyll-a (SCDHS, October, 1998) for summer
conditions of 6.6 ugA for Great Pecoaic Bay and 8.7 ug/l for Flanders Bay, all stati:~s observed
under this study fall well below this range for optimal water quality agalng't, violat[6~'i of the DO
standard. ~i~il!ii:.. ?.
Chlorophyll-a levels ranged from a maximum of 27.80 ~ at 1low
of 1.2 ~g/l at Stauon 143 (Majors Harbor). The anthm~gor cNorophyll-a~i~eiitrauons
for water sampling years 1997 and 1998 at stations asso~i~.this study were 3.85 ,gA. All
stauons reported peak concentraUons during January v~t~i~,::~i~!me unul all stauons
bottomed out during the April throuv_.h May efiod Chl~fo h~}~!~i~i~[~::only rose sliuhfly
throughout the summer before increasing again in D~,b. er. FoF:~'~mmer and growing
seasons the western portion of the estuary m~~,mean c~il-a concentrations than
the eastern portmn. Mean values are presentediiii~::~T~i[ii~ii~xv: .~:?'
Table 3 Chlorophyll-a Data ~'
W stendC al iii~m ...... 0
No SAV
~k beds :.? ~o~ 3.1
Additional(vi the ~as that do not support eelgrass (No SAV), when averaged, indicate higher
for both the summer and grow/ng seasons than the stations that support thick
beds'6~ ~elgrass.
- 23 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS I~.BITAT CRITERIA
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) (mg/1)
Data prov/ded by SCDHS was synthesized for the computation and determination of arithmetic
means for DIN by combining NOX and NH3'. The arithmetic mean for all stations regarding DIN is
0.02 m~Wl. There are no lateral changes in concentration from east to we~.?vithin:lhe estuary nor
are there any differences between the growing season and the summer s~n fo~:'DIN.
Orthonhosohate CD[P/(mg/l)
·
Orthophosphate levels ranged from a maxanum of 0.07~ii~ at ~¢tlon 12_ (Co~IiSmi~i~B~}~) to a
low of 0.005 rog/1 which occurred at all stations with of 135 143
(Majors Harbor), and 144 (Cornelius Point). In general,~'~t~hate levels averaged 0.016 rog. il
for all study stations combined over the sampling season,::~:~!~?tion of a single spike of
0 065 mM at Station 135 (Lake Montauk durin Febrti?:::::' of:::i:~¢~::ii~he data for ortho hos hate
· . ) g ..au :!:::~i~!:.:i!::!!!ii~!:.::::::;:.,~ .... P P
indicate that the levels begin to rise in June and pea~>e..ptemb~i:':~i~:.!l~s declining by October.
In January orthophosphate levels return to the~j~?:~es. The~ii~ii~ significant lateral
..a:u i[:::? =====================================================================================
Total Suspended Solids (TSS~
The only TSS data analyzed for thi~i~rt is fo~:.i~ater ye~?"1998. Data collections were minimal
for 1998 and are presented here, ~ili little ~ht in th~;~erall analysis for generating Habitat
Criteria associated with this smd~ii:: TSS va~?~}lig~l!~:~:etween the western/central portion of the
estuary at at 5.58 (mg/1) for the su~nmer season.
L:'ght Ext'"":~':'¢~,,'':,:°'': 'm~ oa:~:m
coefficient of 1.45/secchi depth = Kd for
3ht requirements for SAV can be determined
where:::.:: coefficients are simultaneously measured.
lncid~i:'light that :.:.:: maximum depth penetration for marine SAV was calculated using
the:~ation kd=-ln(l_~__ot~bert's Law]. Table 4 presents these values.
- 24 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Table 4 Light Extinction Data
LOCATION SEASON Kd = tn(I~ Kd = 1,45
Z ~h/depth
WesterrgCentral growing season 1.0 ::: .:~::~::~:~:::: ........................
Western/Central summer season 1.3 ~iiigl!ili~ili~i~i:~ ..... ~ :::. ~:-:::: ::~.. ·
Eastern growing season ,0.6 .:ii.!}i? ?" : .......................
~:::~: 0 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Eastern summer season 0.6 .................. .~o...o~ ...... .~ 0.7 ":':':" .......................
Arithmetic Mean 0.9 ~"; .................
Kd values varied slightly between the Chesapeake Bay ~oefficieri~l~th and Lambert's Law.
Overall, the western/central portion of the estu~ii .higher ~§ than the eastern
portion_ The lower the Kd value, the deeper ~g~i!il~ii~i{~. A Kc[i*~e of0.Sm4 will support
SAV to a two-meter depth, while a Kd valuei,.o~ 1.5m:::,.-.~II:au~ort. SAV to a depth of 1.1 meters
This analys~s ~ndtcates that the westem/c~g~al por[lgn of~:~:.~ could not support eelgrass to a
depth s reater than one-meter <..:~ :~{i{!i~ .... ~,~ ......
TKN
and:
In
August, and Se
showed
at Station 133 (Accabonac Harbor)
ppm at Station 081 CNassau Point).
all stations associated with this study combined. Peak
with spikes occurring during January, July,
(Three Mile Harbor) and 133, respectively. Trends
April and May, with only a slight increase to
2.:.::i:,~.::i::i:.
T~i coliform levels ra~ed from a maximum of 1,600 (mpn/100ml) at Stations 170 and 122
tT~eJTs Bay and:ga~cles Harbor)to a low of less than 20 (mpn/100ml) at Stations 069, 081,
tl:2i:lg2 124~ I3:1; 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 143, and 144, in general, with the exceptions of
Sti~!6n~ i3!i i22 240 and 170, which had elevated spikes primarily from June through September
Total 161iform levels remained low at all the other stations throughout the year. The mean for total
coliform levels for all stations associated with this study for 1997 and 1998 is 20 65 (mpn]100ml).
The total coliform data averaged for all study stations was 160 (mpn/100ml) for 1997 and 25 3
(mpn/100 mi) for 1998.
- 25 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Urea (mg/h
Urea levels ranged from a max/mum of 0.4380 mgJl at Station 122 (Coecles Harbor) to a low of
0.005 mg/1 which occurred at most stations, except for Stations 069, 122, 144, 17~::~d 240. The
average concentration for urea at all stations was 0.014 mg/l for the sam~!~g ye~!i~'~997. The spike
at Station 122 occurred during July (1997) and during June (1~97) at ~i~:~::~:5 although
remaining low urea levels were highest during the summer (J~,/~e throu~ii~ s~pling period).
NO,., NO: CNOXq (m_~q) i:;::. ..................
NOX levels ranged from a maximum of 0.552 mg/l at S~E~:t3~$:?':::: (Lake Montaulr~i~!~!~i~l~imum. :.::..:: of
less than 0.005 mM which occurred at all stations samlfl~iiii~[levels of 0.50 mg/l iust below
· , . - ':?k~i:i'i3[i[i"~i~i?'~!~!:i:~i::::~ ...... -- - .
the maxamum, were reportea from Stauon 170 (Flanders ~a~iii~?:g~,dmonal spikes occumng at
Station 130 (Great Peconic Bay) and Station O69 ~ of the spikes
occurred during February of 1997. In general, the ~g~[~ge Nox ]~i~:¢x'tremely low at
0 012 m~/1 for the entire sa.m~lin~ season.
Silicate (mg/h
..... .:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Silicate levels ranged from a maxim~i~i~20.7 ~at Stati~ 1'22 (Coecles Harbor) to a minimum
of 0.028 rog4 at all stations, with ~i[~eptio~i~t 13 l, 14~i~i~144 170, and 240. In general, the
average silicate levels for all statt~ combm~ ~as 0.3.~i~o~1. The only three occurrences of
silicates over 1 0 m~l was the ~ at Stati~ ~t~.~bnd s ike of 11 83 mgJl at Station 240
(Peconic Ri~}~ and two ~ioas of siii~i~i:i39 and 1.08 at Station 170 (Flanders Bay).
The occ~[~iig~:~flxcate~i::::~ii::~lons wa~::gi~atest dunng July and lowest dunng the v~nter and
spring m6~ ~.ary t~S~i~!
Total Orgardc ca~136~:.~Toc) (mql¥.?iii~:i?
Tota~ carbon from a maximum of 3.97 mgA at Station 170 (Flanders Bay) to a
minimu~ of 1.15 m~-/1 a~ ~[~:~i 35 (Lake Montauk). The average TOC level for all stations
comlJ~fled.:: over the s'~udy~:~d was 1.92 mgJl. TOC levels dropped during March and April, then
s!o%'!y rose to peak in JUly.
5.2 SubS~ate Qualit~
T6t~t O~;~C Carbon (m~kg)
The results of the substrate TOC analysis ranged from a maximum of 41,975 mg/kg at Station 133
(Accabonac Harbor) to a minimum of 52.6 reg./kg at Station 112 (Hallocks Bay). Peak levels at
Station 133 occurred during June, while average TOC levels for all stations combined occurred
- 26 -
PECOMC ESTUARY EELGRASS [IABITAT CRITERIA
during July. The single lowest level of 52.6 mg/kg at Station 112 occurred during October (1997).
The arithmetic mean for TOC is l~gher in the eastern portion of the estuary (10,132.02 rog/kg)
when compared to the western portion (7,673.2 mgm'kg). The average TOC levels for all stations
combined was 8,902.61 rog/kg for the entire sampling season.
The presence of eelgrass is not encountered until TOC levels drop~:~: belo~:i!~i~f:~::~g:::::::::::::::::::::,::,::: ~ It is possible
that embayments that historically supported eelgrass may bav~ had TOCi?i~:i~ excess of 1.75
Of the 14 stauons evaluated for gram s~ze, stx stauons (43~e~: contained mostly gravel
(F~mare 2). These included Statmns 112, 124, 130, 133, t~ii~.. Three stations, 112, 131,
and 170, were mostly coarse sand to ~avel (21 perce~§t~i~iliD81, and 132 (21 percent)
were comprised mostly of medium to coarse sands..:~Q~ one s~l~i~ii~ 134) consisted
mostly of coarse to medium sand; one station (13~ostly med'~i~i~e grain. Overall, the
sediments at the samphng statmns consist pn~'o~o~se::~o gravel!~:matenal w~th very few
fines. :,?"
s.3 ...... .:.z" ....
region
Study has
170 130 and 124. Within this
Peconic Estuar Tidal Creek
additional information
112, 121, 132, 131,133, 134, 135, 143,
as additional in:formation as it is so close
associated w~th this analysis are located in
and 144.
to the
Appendi~:::.E.
........ 531
FI~kfers Bay (170) .:
'rh~h~'i~figi'aphi~ §:arvey was conducted from August 11-17, 1998 The flow meter was deployed
eaS~ ~!ii~:~errrfinus of Bay Harbor Road. Neap tide conditions occurred August 13 through 15
from the third quarter moon appearing on the 14~. A general ebb/flood current pattern exists within
the harbor ~vith minor pulsing suspected as wind-derived Average velocity within the Bay is 23
cra/sec with a maximum velocity, ofg.55cm/sec during the period of measurement. The average
vector for the harbor is 154 degrees northwest. Turbidity noticeably increased during the weekend
-27-
Grain Size Percentage Map
144
Legend
· Gravel
· Very Coarse San(
· Coarse Sand
[] Medium Sand
· Fine Sand
· Very Fine Sand
[]Silt
069 = East of Robins Island
081 = East of Nassau Point
112 = Hallocks Bay
122 = Coecles Harbor
124 = West Neck Harbor
130 = Great Peconic Bay
131 = Northwest Creek
132 = Three Mile Harbor
133 = Acabonac Harbor
134 = Napeague Harbor
135 = Lake Montauk
143 = Majors Harbor
144 = Cornelius Point
~170 = Flanders Bay
N
Figure: 2
Grain Size Percentage Map
No Scale
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
recreational period. The max/mum turbidity reading was approximately 14 FTU. This reading rose
steadily form less than 5 FTU with a spike mid-week to approximately 10 FTU until it reached its
peak at a little over 14 FTu and then declined to approximately 3 FTU by Monday.
Meetinghouse Creek
Data for Meetinghouse Creek was collected during the Tidal Oreek stU~ifi~ ~as measured
between August 17-18, 1998. The current meter was depi~::at the t~:~:~I~arbor Road~ i
along Beach Avenue, northward in the creek. Based upo~!!~e results,~:~E~:'ii:.~!i~!~..,meter::
deployment and hydrological studies conducted by the [~olk Co~:
Serv/ces, it becomes apparent that Meetinghouse Creek ~!~ fresh water i~'a large
drainage area. This was confirmed by low salinity read~hgd during various '~'~eyi. Given
the larger size and narrow ~brddor associated with Meefih~i~;k, the likelihood of wind
influences is lessened within the creek. Based on the da~*~oli~!!ii~ii~ypical tidal regime
consists of two floods and two ebbs over a twenty-fo~::hour velocity was
recorded as 4.34 cra/sec, with a maximum of 12,2::i~i~i~The avei~i~)r of the current was
determined to be 90.8 degrees, east southeast~!i~i~::i:~:}~hic~ surv~?:;:~'nded 3 days prior to the
Qreat Peconic B ay (130)
The hydrogra hic surve was con~d fro~i~U st 18~:°4 1998 The current meter was
p y ...................... !.... gu ...::.:.:.!:: , .
deployed west of the terminus o~am ton~g~.,.~!i~i~w moon a eared on August 21" causin
· p ............ ~ ................. PP g
throug : ig ?× general ebb/flood current pattern exists
mspe~i'li~:~nd-derived. The average velocity for P~conic
Bay of 21.9 cra/sec. The average vector was 172 degrees
northwest Turbidity data indicate a moderate increase during
the weekend .y. Turbidity measurements rose from, a
low of 0.0
West ~ck Harbor (124
T~ydrographic surv0y}::was conducted from August 4-10, 1998. The flow meter was deployed
a ::: roxlmatelypp halfwgY!~own the Peninsula of Shell Beach. There was a full moon event (Spring
Tide) ~n:Augu~: ~ ::.!098. This was responsible for spring tide conditions to exist within the harbor
froffi ~:6;8; 1998. A general ebb/flood current pattern exists within the harbor with minor
pulsing:~figp~ied as wind-derived. Average velocity within the harbor is 64 crn/sec with a
maximum velocity of 12 cm/sec during the period of measurement. The average vector for the
harbor is 35 degrees northeast Turbidity noticeably increased during the weekend recreational
period The maximum turbidity reading was approximately 25 FTU This reading rose steadily
form less than 5 FTU with a spike mid-week to approximately 18 FTU until it reached its peak at
-28-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
25 FTU and then declined to approximately 7 FTU by Monday. Average velocity within the harbor
was 6.4 cngsec with a maximum velocity of 12 cngsec during the period of measurement. The
average vector for the harbor was 35 degrees northeast. Turbidity noticeably increased during the
weekend recreational period.
West Neck Creek
The current meter was deployed at the terminu:
hydrographic survey conducted by EEA show that a cle~!!~gb/flood
mouth &West Creek. The average velocity c
7.4 cra/sec. The average direction was 305.5 degrees,
August 3 was considerably(higher and peaked at a
0.0 FTU by Monday mornin$.
5.3.2 Eastern
Halloc~
and decreased steadily to
The hydrographic survey was conducted,.., m , 1998. The current
was deployed at the mouth of Little
meter
~i~"'State Park. The typical tidal
reg-ime consists oftwo~ floods and
during the period of March 27 -
occurred on April 2na due
19.7
Bay
hour period. Spring tides occurred
27a~. Neap tide conditions
the 3~. The average velocity was
velocity of 50.1 cra/sec., Hallocks
stations measured under this Program. The
turbidity measurements were taken.
The hy~aphic from July 28 - August 3, 1998. The flow meter was
deplgg~ at the northward along the shoreline near the southern tip
of ffi~point...... Neap tides ~cri~ed.::::::: during the period of July 30-August 1, 1998 due to the
a~i~.~.~ance ......... of the first g~arter moon on the 31". The data reveal that a clear ebb/flood current
p~¢,.~ exists. The a~:b. ge velocity, was 6.72 cra/sec for the period of measurement with a
~ veloci~ ~:~4 cm/sec. The average vector was 82 degrees northeast. Turbidity
rn~ht~::~ased by pulsing from approximately 3 FTU to a high of 25 FTU until the
week~aii?:i:~ turbidity then slowly rose from approximately 3 FTU to a high of 25 FTU with
slower pulsing events (from high and low peaks) until it declined to 0.0 FTU.
- 29 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Coecles Harbor (122'}
The hydrographic survey was conducted from July 21 - July 27, 1998. The flow meter was
deployed at the terminus of Hudson Avenue. Spring tides occurred during the period of July 22-24,
1998 due to the appearance of the new moon on the 23rd. A general ebb[~od ~ffent pattern
existed within the harbor with minor pulsing suspected as win~-defived~i:~[~ gym?age velocity was
3.88 cngsec, for the period of measurement with a maximumi~0[ocity 0~i~sec. The average
vector was 304 degrees southeast. Turbidity measuremen~!.::~:~'eased b~i~i~f~ ~gadily from
approximately 4 FTU to a high of 16 FTU as the new m~ approach~!
Bass Creek
The hydrographic survey wfi. s conducted from July 27
deployed at the mouth
tidal re,me consisted of two floods and two ebbs
velocity was 22.2 cra/sec, for the p
The average vector was 123 donees
The flow meter was
Preserve. The typical
The average
~ of 51.9 cm/sec.
on average at
approximately 5 FTU with a few spikes ~::~. t~"near 20 FTU over the 24-
hour period of measurement. Given the ~ular shape of the main body of
...... ~:~: . :a :::::::::.:: ...... ob bly both
the creek, ~t is hkely that current partes might got be as c!¢arly defined, and are pr a
wind and tidally derived.
Three-Mile Harbor (132~ ~i~::..
'the fr~'~ust 29- September 30, 1997. The flow meter
was depl0~i~om tlS~h~ion of Three-Mile Harbor Road and Discovery Lane. Spring
ttdes occurred'-'~ }~g penods~g~! 3 l-September 2, September 15-17, and agtun on
September 30~:~:~i~ons occurr~:::~n September 1 and 30 . Full moon occurred on
September::t~!'"~!~ecurre~"!~nng the penods of September 8th-10th due to the first
quarte[~oon appearan¢~!i~ii~ and again dunng the period of the 22 - 24 due to the
appea~ce of the third c~!i~oon on the 23'a. A general ebb/flood current pattern existed
witCh'the harbor with ~0r ~ulsing suspected as wind-derived. The average velocity, was 2.09
c~:..~c, for the period q![~easurement with a maximum velocity of 10.2 cra/sec. The average
v~r was 123 degr~ northeast. No turbidity measurements were taken.
The hydrographic survey was conducted from September 2 - 9, 1998 The flow meter was
deployed at the terminus of Gerard Avenue. Spring tides occurred during the period of September
5a - 7a, 1998 due to the appearance of the full moon on the 6th. A general ebb/flood current pattern
existed within the harbor with minor pulsing suspected as wind-derived The average velocity was
- 30-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
16.1 cm/sec, for the period of measurement with a maximum velocity of 59 cngsec. Accabonac
Harbor ranked as yd highest for average velocity readings during this study (when Bass Creek is
included). Turbidity measurements indicated daily pulsing from lows of 0.0 FTU to highs of 25
FTU.
Northwest Creek
========================== ::: ~.~:~:ii.:.::<}?:~!??:::~::!:e~i;~. ....
The flow meter was deployed at the terminus ofNorthwe~i!H~ding Roaiti~i~i!on the results:~i'
the hydro~aphic survey, as well as regular observatmns :~nducted
studies conducted by the East Hampton Town Natural K~ources ~epanment, ~i~'was
relauvely normal w~th two ebb udes.and two flood udes:m~,a~uty-four hour peno~i~i~tle t~dal
height in North West Creeli on average was This
is reported by the computer pro.am "Tides and 1995" and cordirmed by
field sampling conducted by EHTNRD. :~.-':~
The current pattern within the creek apg
dkection than a predictable ebb
was recorded as 130 de,ecs, .~,~,:.
maximum velocity of 9.9 cra/sec. The ag~(ag .....
dropped out to near zero on the slac~i~ter. Tt!~::itiydrograg~c survey
quarter moon to a full moon ~iiiii::~i~
Northwest Harbor :,: i~iilli~i~s ::ss:::::~:::~::~ ....... ~:::::~:~:~
di~:'l~ obtain baseline data for an area immediately
EEA
16t~ throu~
const~tata
Harbor
........... ~..~. by the wind
avem~::~irection of the current
fairly weak with a
As expected, velocities
was studied from a first
beds. Thls station was monitored from September
deployed at the terminus of Mile Hill Road,
current pattern existed within the harbor
average velocity was 2.3 cm/sec, for the period
of 5.1 cmJsec. Turbidity measurements remained fairly
to 24.8 FTU.
Ti5~ !iy~0graphic sfi:~ey was conducted once in 1997 from August 12m through August 29m and
ai~ iii ~998 fri~:September 18m through September 29~' The flow meter was deployed on the
ea~{~::~i'd~h of the harbor at the 1997 eelgrass harvest location and the 1998 eelgrass transplant
location. A general ebb/flood current pattern existed within the harbor with minor pulsing
suspected as wind-derived. The average velocity was 4.4 crrdsec for the two periods of
measurement with a maximum velocity of 47 crrdsec reached in 1997 The average vector was 162
degrees northwest. Turbidity measurements averaged 44 FTU w/th a maximum of 25 FTU
-31 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Lake Montauk (135)
The hydrographic survey was conducted August 26~ through September 2nd , 1998. The flow
meter was deployed from East Lake Drive, south of Montauk Airport and north o[:~!ttle Reed
Pond. A general ebb/flood current pattern existed within the harbor with ~nor E~lglng suspected
as wind-derived. The average velocity was 3.57 cra/sec, for tho period .E~ment with a
max/mum velocity of 17.7 cra/sec. The average vector was:g~:degre~.i ~st. Turbidity
measurements progressively increased as both neap tide an~:i~'~kend re~i~!i~onditions
approached. They steadily rose from less than 5 FTU to~::~!~aximum:0~::~5 ~i~i~den~:::3:~'
5.4 Wind Tren.d
The main hypothesis for conducting a wind analysis wa~ii~6
have changed significantly over the past ~ i
be expected to elevate the total suspended
available for eelgrass growth.
..........~i~'
W'md velocity and vector ~
03NL) from 1960 through 1993,
provide twice-dali>
exposed towers and monitored
and historical assessments
, and/or vector
turbulence could
of light
provided from BNL. BNL
measurements are maintained on
i~ measurements are suitable for accurate real-time
and dispersion. Although this
lata from 1949 to provide a
6.0 E elgr~ii!~ta~s@lan t ai~o~ii::g~ii~o mt o rmg Program
Eelgrass tes¢~i~§::;~i~:~,~ed b~:~HTNRD, CCE ~d EE& ~c. as ~-~nd se~ces for t~s
. ?:~?~ ":~:¢~':~::~:~:~:~ .....
projec[,~s~:~:~$p~g h~est,;~~ta~on of eelgrass was conducted m Napea~e H~bor for both
1997 ~ 1998. Fill h~}*~;~:~:~spl~tation were conducted by CCE at Ced~ Beach Point ~d
Cut~b~e Hmbor in 19~.
6 1 Nape~gfie Harbor (1997)
Tfi~ ~r~:~:~est was conducted on June 26, 1997 tong the eastern shoreline of Napeague
H~fb6f~ EH~ ~d CCE selected the donor bed location. Ha~esting and transpl~tation
tec~ques were modeled afler Fonseca, (1982). Eelgrass was h~ested as sods using a rounded,
long-h~dled spade. Sods were removed at appro~mately one-meter and 16 meter on center from
the centrfl potion of the e~sting bed Physic~ che~st~ measurements for xvater qu~iw were
collected ~d two sediment staples were collected for grin size ~d tort orgmc c~bon content.
-32-
PECONIC I~STUARY EELGRASS I~A. BITAT CRITERIA
Eel~ass plugs were washed and bundled, containing three to four eelgrass shoots per bundle and
then wrapped with paper and biodegradable twist ties to 15-centimeter (cra) metal staples to create
a planting unit. Planting units and sods were separated and set one-meter below the water surface
(mean low water) in fruit baskets, polypropylene trays, and bread trays until transp.~ed to the
transplantation location. Sods remained covered in wet burlap and were ...... OUt of.~:~ater for no
longer than ten minute intervals. Harvested planting units we~ placed.,i~ii~:.i~i~ter coolers to
prevent them fi.om shock and dessication during transpona~ i~Pfior~!i~!~tation, the new
locauon was delineated by four fla~ged steel posts marke~!:.~h buoys....~ii~E~tauon sne~as
approxamatety 3.3 square meters.
Transplantation occurred during the first two hours ......... "EHTNRD ~J~iiii~'rovided
a diving team. Each diver ~tas aided by an assistant.
comers of the new bed. Fifty planting units were
planting units were placed in a southeasterly position.
on center. Eelgrass sods ranged fi.om 10 to 15-cra
diagonal corners of the test plot area. Smaller
placed in the diagonal
position and 43
were installed 30-cm
at the remaining
6.2 Cutchogue ttarbor
CCE harvested sods in November 19~om a dfi~or site Bay. These sods were
quickly transplanted in an area of C~gue H~or ~d a¢~ed~ Beach Point ne~ the CCE
M~e Laborato~. ~rs at the o~et of a northeaster store.
Tbs attempt~as made m 1997.
Prior to the
were held
EHTNRD
thal~i~ar and future'
many discussions between CCE, EHTNRD and EEA
to transplant eelgrass in Napea_wae Harbor.
proposed to plant within a fairly healthy
to clamrr, ing activities or storm erosion. A new way of
location was devised to enhance the monitoring program for
and transp!~tation took place on two dates, May 19 and June 4, 1998 The eelgrass
~:.~:::~ed 'along~:eastern portion of Napeague Harbor was used as both a donor and a
~h af~:~i:~ure 3 This bed was chosen because it was n ~ood health and it had random
pa~l~i~!~:~oughout the bed.
Eight plots were marked for restoration; four within these patchy holes inside the main eelgrass bed
and four immediately adjoining the e~sting eelgrass bed along the outer edge. These areas were all
marked with 30-cra PVC and buoys held in place by cement blocks
-33 -
Eelgrass Harvest & Transplantation
Location Map
1997 Fall Transplants
Point
1997 Fall Transplants
Cutchogue Harbor
1997 Spring
Na[ ue
1997 Spring Transplant
Napeague Harbor
& Transplant
3eague Harbor
KEY:
N
· = Transplant
· Harvest
· Harvest & Transplant
Figure: 3
Harvest & Transplant Location Map
No Scale
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
6.4 . Eelgrass Mo
This
to locat~
wasting
had died off.
By
A .25 meter square quadrat was constructed from PVC piping. This was used to guide the
placement of transplants at each of the eight locations. A 30-cm PVC pipe was placed in the center
of the square and labeled P-I through P-8 (Figure 4). Each square would be planted with four
planting units at each of the four comers of the square while aligned along a north-SOuth axis. Each
square would contain 1/2 of the eelgrass harvested from within the bed and 1/2 of~;/~e eelgrass
harvested from the outer edge. The planting units from within.the bed ~planted on the
landward side of each square and the leading edge planting ufi~S:were'is!~ ~g the seaward
edge. This was designed so that we could compare wheth~:/~splanta~i~?~:~a is limited
transplanting outer edge plants or inner bed plants. ~iiiil ?
Eelgrass was harvested using a 20-cm coring device to digi::~a~!~:~0d the same
identified where the coring tool should be placed. An as~i~led the coring tool into the
substrate while the diver gtlided the tool so that each soc[¢~'i~ii!~y through rhizomes and
substrate. The diver worked his/her hands under the s~!~are~/l~i~::~:~?:~ot to damage the rhizomes
and pull the sod free. Sods were then placed into a ~!l~g tray ti~i~aud carded to the
transplant location. The same coring tool was use~::::~e ...................... the hoi:~.i.~.i~d transplantation
Four of the eight sites were completed on M~g~iiI:~!~!'¥~iii~i~e remfi~ four were completed on
June 4, 1998.
The harvest locations were staked wi!;ki~C pipi~:'buoyed~::::~::::~ement block for future monitoring
Pro mm
an in-kind service. Monitoring consisted of trying
whether the eelgrass blades looked healthy, whether
had occurred or whether the eelgrass was dying or
better developed because the goals for
The objective was to observe each of the eight
locations to d the general health of the plants using a relative scale of good, poor
o~.~ellent. Additiona~ii~:bservations regarding die back, wildlife utilization, and epiphytic growth
noted. E~:~i~onitoring event included an underwater photograph and a measurement of
~!~:~peraturgi:~::~Ue to initial technical problems with the underwater camera and turbidity in
~~!ii;~nost pictures were not helpful for the analytical portion of this study.
6.4.1 Napeague Harbor (1997)
Monitoring began within two week of the initial transplant. On July 29, 1997, EHTNRD noticed
that some of the blades on both sods and planting units were turning black. Coincidentally, within
- 34 -
786
Napeague Harbor
* - Map not to scale
Figure 4
Napeague Harbor
1998 Transplantation
Index Map
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS I~ABITAT CRITERIA
the time frame from transplantation to this monitoring event, the water temperature rose above the
20 degree Celsius mark in Napeague Harbor. By the following week, all transplants had died of[
6.4.2 Cedar Beach & Cutchogue It[arbor (1997)
CCE monitored the Cedar Beach transplant location for eight months. Al~hough::lnitially the
transplants remained viable through the winter and sprin~, b Iul of 19~!~ ail sods had died
of[ No further monitoring was conducted by CCE
There has never been any follow-up monitoring conduct~t the G~hogue
location by CCE. The conditions of those transplants ~!~Bi!~gue Harbor
unknown. It is presumed t}tat due to the conditions in W~ii~sere transplanted ~1 th&
observations made at Cedm: Beach Point, that the likeliho~!~ii!~al is minimal.
On June 4, 1998, the four transplant location}i~!!!~gd on M~::'i 9~h were observed. All
planting units appeared extremely healthy, :~a: were ~i~iii~¢0g.e...~",except for two outer units
within plot 4. The stressed units appear~:'~{o be d~ ba~i:~::'ihere were not as many shoots
present as when it had been planted. ~::g[~{er tem~:~ture w~ii~{':'measured.
All eight plots were monitored ~ 1998...J?lbts 1,2,5,6,7, and 8 were all rated as
"excellent". "good" on our scale. Plot 3 was
there were signs of scallop rakes within
not appear stressed or
18.7 de~ees Celsius.
On July 4, 7, ~ ~ ~re rated as "excellent" with thick growth continuing.
Plot I event. Plots 5 and 6 appeared to show some
brown anil::yellow sh
::ili::i? ~eramre was not recorded.
Or~agust 20, and October J},1998 Plots 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 were still rated as "excellent".
Not~ble.. was the north'~6~t planting unit in Plot 3, which was a little thin, but still appeared healthy
T~i'~fore, the Plot r,ecewed a ranng of 'exce ent" . Plot 5 was rated as "good" because the
nOrttiwest planting'~t appeared severely stressed There was an abundance of epiph~ic, growth
coverifig all PlotSl as well as the natural eelgrass beds The presence of epiph~es did not appear to
have hifi~gative impact to the transplanted bed or natural bed Water temperature was recorded at
24.8 degrees Celsius on August 20, 1998
-35-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ltABITAT CRITERIA
7.0 DISCUSSION
7.1 Water Quality
Salinity
average by approximately 3 ppt. The Peconic River emp~i~:s;~ into
portion of the estuary creating the lateral salinity gradie~!~bserve~tiiiiii?
Temperature
Temperature increases only marginally from east v
derived m~inly from solar radiation, these waters are
estuary basin. The temperature of the
entering tidal creeks and the ocean water
analysis by Tetra TectL Inc (1998)
mouth of the Peconlc
Dissolved Oxygen
As the heat content is
they occupy the
~erature &the
~es. As seen in the
; Bay where the
ore dense salt water.
In salt water,~.the solubility,
water '
be
EEA
quality with:
nature
)erature and salinky increases where
Less oxygen can
by both SCDHS and
and monitored embayments generally have excellent water
~ varies diurnally and seasonally as
of such variations differ, depending upon the
' &the estuary, and effects from tides.
Surfa¢~:~ater DO ......... -2stuary tends to be slightly lower in the western portion of the
es~ when compared {~'t~':eastern portion. Tetra Tech, Inc. (1998) reported periods of low DO
ar!~i!i~gh chlorophyll-a.s~ucentrat oas m Pecomc River and Flanders Bay during summer periods.
Tt~i~oted that the[~:i~::a recurring phenomenon of summer phytoplanlcton algal blooms
¢6~cin~ in Jun~!i!~d ending in August. These algal blooms and ch/orophyll-a concentrations
h~:-~:O-b§~::to occur in especially large ma~nitudes during brown tide years. As the algae in
th~ ~ ~6~ settles to the bottom it is deposited as organic ~natter and decays within the
bottom sediments. During the natural processes of sediment flux, oxygen demand increases in the
western portion of the estuary resulting in lowered DO concentrations. The oxygen-depleted
bottom water layer enhances sediment nutrient release, especially ammonia. This nutrient release
facilitates the cycle of benthic release, algal production, and oxygen consumption until water
-36-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
temperature decreases enough to halt this cycle.
For all stations monitored, DO standards are higher than those set for the CBS, 2-meter Restoration
Criteria value of<10, and the LISS Restoration Criteria value of<5.5. Worst case:~pmmer average
for all stations was 7.05 mg_Jl. (97/98).
In general, the average chlorophyll-a level for all stafiomS~:~}~Smbined .~'the:3 ~.2~:.~
which falls below the standard of 5.5/~g/l established fo~i~ong Isla~8~Sound, ~i~ii~ii~[~ the
15.0tz~l standard estabhshed for Chesapeake Bay. ' of the mclden~rkvated
chlorophyll-a levels (> 5.5 t~g/l) occurred during the
presumably did not impact the eel~ass during the
threshold for chlorophyll-a of approximately
Brown-Tide years.
chlorophyll-a concentrations fell well I
Comparatively, EEA, Inc. conducted
and
(1998) ~stablished a
and 12.5 ~tW1 in
The mean for
.y, New York
during 1995-96 as part [ress) conducted by the
New York City Department ofEnviro~ental Prd~ction ~CDEP) Chlorophyll-a levels in
Jamaica Bay, a nutrient rich ed ~t~199/~g/1 ~?'the study period. Chlorophyll-a levels
peaked in March and
of the spring .,runoff which
be noted th~/{~he amount
It spring bloom is the result
primarily NO~ (Gilbert, 1995). It should
addition of growth limiting
trends in chlorophyll-a abundances, provided by
(1977-97), show a decreasing trend in
N~trogen occurs m the bto.~ m a vartety of forms ran~mng m ox~dataon state from 5 to -3.
Ino[~c introvert is pr~ni':~i-imadly as highly oxidized n/trite and nitrate, as reduced ammonia,
a~:~i}~ molecular nitrogen. In the nitrogen cycle, except for the ammonia exchange with sediments,
allii~tions are biolo~fially mediated. By far the greatest influx of inorganic nitrogen into
~ms results from ammonia and nitrate assimilation. These reactions predominate in surface
Organisms using nitrite as their nitrogen source must reduce it to ammonia before incorporating it
into orgamc forms, and this process requires a reduction system including the enzyme nitrate
reductase. This inducible enzyme is present in algal cells only when nitrate is being used as the
nitrogen source, which suggests a mechanism for deterrmning the form of nitrogen an algal
-37-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
population is using. Th~ reverse of assimilation is ammonification, whereby organic nitrogen is
returned to the inorganic nitrogen pool as ammonia.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (1998) found that in the peripheral embayments of the estuary an~:::~.the six main
bays, nitrogen is more of a limiting factor than phosphorous, typical for e~ade§~ coastal
waters. Tetra Tech Inc., relates seasonal factors where nitrogen-rich rg~'.~}~itS~hed downstream
from the Peconic River headwaters and comprise a large fi.acti6n of th~ii:.~::~'ater.
The arithmetic mean for all stations observed in 1997 andii~:ili998, regarc~g D~iii~i~i~g;:mg/1..~:~re
are no lateral changes in concentration observed form e~!i~[9 wes~::i~kin the e~ii~:~!~ere
any differences between the growing season and the su~:.~e~:n. When coml~i~{~.i{~e CBS
and LISS recommended value of<0.15 the Peconic Es~::~ntrations fall well below'the
recommended criteria. These low values likely indicate t~i:::.~i!~[.of inorganic nitrogen is
...... ~:~ .... ~:~:~:~:~:~,:~:~:~,~:~::...? ..: ....
probably contributed by atmospheric cond~tmns and tha~::~:~ffa~i~[: groundwater ~ntrusion
are playing a minor role. Nitrogen levels fi.om ralnfall~g highly' ~:..typically nitrate and
ammonia occur in significant amounts in areas m i i york climates
(Hutchinson, 1957).
Orthophosphate levels were unffo~!iibw tl~e~}hout th~;~conic Estuary. The four stations with
the highest average orthophospha~i::i~vels ~i143 ~:~.~¢~s Harbor), 144 (Cornelius Point), 112
(Hallocks Bay), an~!::$~tioriii135 (Lake Montauk). All had eelgrass beds
as re Harbor) with one of the lowest
elgrass community.
Ortho by elements such as aluminum and iron.
Additionally, may react with calcium carbonate to form a relatively
insoluble
Base.~i~h observations it would appear that at least some of the sediment in Napeague
H~¢ contains a fair am~uri~:::0f iron, based on rusty-staining observed. No samples were analyzed
tq ~h~port this assump~h. If true, this may, in part, explain the slightly lower levels of
o~h~Phosphate from th/it station.
T~g no~ ~ar to be a clear link between orrhophosphate levels and eelgrass establishment .
in %h~i~onic Estuary, but it is clear from the literature review that relatively elevated levels do not
hinder the development of eelgrass.
-38-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ltABITAT CRITERIA
Total Suspended Solids
Due to the limited available data provided, the analysis for TSS should be conside~d?ith caution.
From the data analyzed, levels generally fall below 15 mgA established fo~ ~hes~e Bay and
below the 30 mg/1 level established for Long Island Sound and Connecti~iii:~i~htensive TSS
sampling program should be coupled with a light attenuafio~i~pling!~:.i~gr both the
eelgrass growing and summer seasons. This will allow fo~ii~:::~stablishn~!}:~eline data wh~
Table 1 (Section 5.1) indicates the variability throughout ~:~:i~garding light extinction for
the eel~ass growang season vs. summer season when ~gs fi.O~!l~}i~onmental factors ~s
greatest. In general, the coefficient for calculating K~:t!l~y need S~i~n based on the
differences obtmned when compared to calculat[~i~iig!3 Lambeffi::~!!~. In general, the
western/central portion of the estuary exceed~?:i~:::~i~.value ~B'~8 for Kd and LIS S
cntena value of 0.7. The eastern pomon o£~ esma~ii::i~:~tk~;'~ange of 0.6 and 0.7 for both
the growing and summer seasons for twoJ~eter Ha~at ~::~-equirements.
This analysis is intended to promde:il~e cofi~ifions for:i~rther studies to refine Habitat Criteria
for light attenuation within the es~ and sh~d not b~ii~onsldered an e,,rhaustive statistical
analysis. Alt?ugh for eel~ass
establishme~iit'o portion of the estuary is
literature. It should be noted that water quality
and that water quality criteria for the Peconic Estuary
may
TKN
Totak:.~ldahl
separately fi.om ammonia nitrogen in order to determine the
coE~htration of organic:~tr/5:gen within the system. Organic nitrogen is determined by calculating
th~ ~ifference between a~monia nitro~,en and TKN.
~!~i~els' ofTKN ~:~erved in the Peconic Estuary are lower than those described earlier that EEA,
I~ :.~ ~b~r;¢~:~ the East River system. A study conducted by EEA, Inc during 1989-90 field
s~~:~ an average TKN value of l.6 ppm in the East River, nearly three times higher than
those obse,wed throughout the Peconics Additionally, the occurrence of elevated levels of
chlorophyll coincided with peaks of TICN This is expected as orgamc nitrogen is a primary nutrient
source for photosynthetic plants. As expected, eelgrass is absent from the East River system
-39-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS RABITAT CRITERIA
In general, the levels of TKN in the Peconic Estuary were very consistent, ranging from a maximum
of 0.63 ppm at Station 240 (Peconic River) to a minimum of 0.40 ppm at Station 144 (Cornelius
Point). These observations indicate a spatial decrease in TIGN concentrations progressing from
west to east in the Peconic Estuary
Total Coliform :?:i!i!!ii!ii!ii~:...~:::i=.iiii7 ....
In general the levels ofcoliforms are extremely Iow throu~a~i':'ihe Pei'~i~ Incidencegi~f
spikes and elevated levels are chiefly due to localized im~is and
Estuary. The high levels of coliforms fi'om Northwest (~}ok were~B:kfirmed
(1998). The Bureau of Marine Resources Shell Fishefi~!~g~:ievels as high ~g/1 in
Northwest Creek. This, in part, was attributed to severa~i~ ~eptic systems kn;~ to be
situated in the water table adjacent to creek waters :~:~¢ii~ii::i~:!!}ii~:i~ii~iiiii!?}!i~:~iiii~
The somewhat elevated coliform levels at
expected as the Town of Rivethead Sewage
River. Additionally, the Peconic River
reaching Flanders Bay bringing su
drop to 16.7 mgA at the Flanders Bay st~n
Peconic Bay. These observations lead.~: to
localized events that are not ~
appear that coliforms contribute
~ are
r into the Pec0nic
country before
immediate
to 2.3 m~l in Great
Peconic Kiver produce
estuary. Overall, it does not
: of the Peconic Estuary.
Urea is
and feed
observed
fishing ¥~§iels.
generally associated with animals, in particular cattle
Elevated concentrations of urea were
this type of land use does not exist within the
r utilized by private and recreational commercial
' exists that illegal discharge of sanitary holding tanks may
be ca,3~in~ According to observations made by both EEA, Inc. and Cashin
AssOCiate'S, the persistent: ;~el,2rass beds within Lake Montauk does not appear t6 be impacted.
T~ ~ashin (1996) SA~ 3eport documents the presence of dense eelgrass beds in the vicinity, of
S[a~fion::: ::::::: 135 in Lake ~htauk. During the deployment of the 3D-ACM flow meter, EEA, Inc. staff
6b~'ed dense eel~ss beds in the same area. Conversely, Cashin Associates (1996) documented
th~ absence ofeelgrass beds within Coecles Harbor, and more specifically at Station 122. The
presenc~ 0lured is uniformly low throughout the rest of the Peconic Estuary.
NO:. +NO: 0%0
Levels of NOX throughout the Peconic Estuary are e,'ctremely Iow, falling well below the standard
- 40 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
of one ppm for nitrite and 10 l~pm for nitrate established by NYSDEC for Class SA waters.
No discernable pattern is evident in the 1997-1998 data between NOX levels at each of the 14
stations. Additionally, the presence or absence of eel~ass does not correlate with ~)X levels.
The highest level of NOX was 0.078 ppm at Lake Montauk which has a ~!1 es[~bliShed population
of eelgrass. Additionally, Station 112 (Hallocks Bay) and Sta!ion 144 (~fi'~:'Point) exhibit
some of the lowest measured levels of NOX, and support eel, s pop~i:~iiii~:~2onversely, Station
132 (Three-Mile Harbor) has high concentrations ofNOX ~!~Stationii::~!~:[i h~est Creek):~s
low concentrations of NOX, yet neither support aa?__ :~¥: :~.:.::~eel~ populafi~:i ~:~}!~.OX::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::al°~
does not appear to have any beariag on whether eelgras~:~g:~presenti::~'iabsent
Silicate ................... "~
Silicon ranks next to oxygen m abtmdaace m the earth i~mst. $ili~e:~::~.~ be found tn natural
water bodies at levels fi.om 1 to 30 ppm and caa be....~!~{~in con~ ? high as 100 ppm.
Although it is subject for debate, some proof exist~i~sate con~!i~i:~agnitude of diatom
production during the spring bloom and caus~!::l~'~:.:::~.~ell (C~nely and Mahne, 1992). It
is a constituent of the diatom cell wall, some sponge spicules.
With the exception of a few elevated: is ., repo ia fi.om S i;ia: S n2, 170, aad 240 that well
within the naturally occurrins rang~i~ilicat~i~e silicate:.i~ncentrations throuc, hout the Peconic
Estuary are extremely low. Alth~"no eel,s is pres~ at the stations with the relatively high
eelgrass ~s alsamot?:present a[?.~l~wtth relatively low s~hcate levels.
, be a COl-r~lauon between elevated sdmate readings and
ilicate and chlorophyll-a levels are both
consistent[ of the Peconic River, it does not carry over
throu
~;~".
~i~ the substrate :~:./5isears to be extremely variable, fluctuating greatly between stations and
~!~onth to month~: with no discernable pattern.
Ir~!~:.~:[~ levels were lowest during the May and October sampling periods. The highest
occurrences were observed at Accabonac Harbor (June'97). Northwest Creek (July '97), Great
Peconic Bay (July '97) and West Neck Harbor (July '97) The trend observed for the months of
data collection allows us to infer that between October and May, TOC levels in the substrate remain
relatively low (below 5,000 mg/kg). For the sampling period of 1997 and 1998, the TOC
-41 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
concentrations began to rise in June, considerably in East Hampton and noticeably around Shelter
Island. By July, TOC levels continued to rise specifically within Northwest Creek, Great Peconlc
Bay, West Neck Harbor, Cornelius Point and Coecles Harbor. By August and September, most
stations revealed a decreasing trend in TOC's with minor localized events of increase
Prior to this study, it was anticipated that substrate with high TOClues::~td e~sist primarily of
silts or fine sands that would function to trap and hold org~::~tter.,i~i~!ations with the
hiahest TOC levels are corn rised of substrate made u ofi;.'7~::::§0 erce~?;~.~¢~;:ii:.} ~ closer look ~:
this relataonship reveals that not all stat,OhS with high pe~iitages o~q, el fi~ii~ii~pC !~1s.
The presence or absence of eel~ass did not correlate wi~;~ levels. Of th~:::~here
eelgrass is present. TOC lev. els ranaed from 3 277 to 8 0~i~?~ell below and abc;'~'the average.
Stations w~th smnlar TOC levels and substrate cornpos~ta~i::~pt?ort eelgrass populatmns.
On average, the total organic carbon in the substrate ~lla below ~?;~i~6elat criteria established
by the LISS. The result for TOC was 1.25 per~i::~*~?trnns di~¢~ed this level.
Therefore. xt ts concluded that substrate TOC::tl~es'"~i:i~di~::~ontnbu~ ~ the Habitat Criteria
necessary, to support or estabhsh eelgrass g~pulauo~i!~i~rnc Estuary.
Grain Size ..... ;a:~- .;~;!;? : ii::!?:~ ............
The substrates of the Peconic very coarse, and coarse sands.
Only four of[he stations are donit¢iated by; and little or no fine sand and silts. These
data indicat~i~at in high energy system with swift currents
sized subs*rates. Interestingly, this applies to
both the the smaller harbors.
, substra~{~:lh~t vary fi'om 70 percent gravel to 50 percent coarse sand
with a
~onent. Not all stations with similar grain size structure
support$~.rass based on this preliminary data, we can propose that
eelgr~::rnay establish ir with a varied range of panicle sizes, mostly of coarse sand and
~(~!! .And, that substra~ P~icle size is unlikely to be the limiting factor for establishment,
perSiStence and abund~e of eel~ass
7.3 Hydrodynamic Trends
The;~icaltidal regirne consisting of two flood tides and two ebb tides over a twenty-four hour
period was clearly defined in the data reviewed for Meetinghouse Creek, West Neck Creek,
Hallocks Bay, and Cornelius Point
Not as clearly defined as the stations above, a general ebb/flood current pattern exists with minor to
- 42 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
moderate pulsing suspeCted as Wind-derived for Flanders Bay, Great Peconic Bay, West Neck
Harbor, Three-Mile Harbor, Accabonac Harbor, Northwest Creek, Northwest Harbor, Napeague
Harbor, and Lake Montauk.
A turbidity sensor was added to the 3D-ACM flow meter in May 1998. S$i~tions ~6intored prior to
that date include Three-Mile Harbor, Hallocks Bay, and Northwest Cre~i~iiiii!~'ore, no turbidity
data was collected at these stations .... ??:i?.iii~: :~?~i~i}i?~ii?~!i!~i!~!!i!:::~
Turbidity trends fall between noticeable increases dufing:~day and.:~'k~'~ii~/~:fi-om
increased recreational water use and noticeable increase~i~e to mo~ events. :':i!!i~!i!iiii~i?:ii?~ii!!iiii~sii~:iiiiii?:i~i?
Areas wth clearly defined turb~&ty increases resulting fi-o~d weekend recreauonal water
use include Flanders Bay, Meetin~ouse Creek, West N~!~i!~~ Lake Montauk. Areas with
clearly defined turbidity spikes as neap or spring tide co~tio~i~ include Cornelius
?oint, Coecles Harbor, Accabonac Harbor and Napea Har o;7!i i!ii: ii
7.4 Wind Trends :~i~i!:i:i-:;:' ' ': ::i~ii:~ ii~i ~i!~i~ii~!~!~ :; ~i!ii::iii~ ...........................................
In general, the average wind speed for tt!~?~ntire st~ pe~ ~:~:~31 meters/second. The
maximum occurred in 1964 at 3.04 m~seco~::md the ~m wind velocity occurred during
1989 at 1.79 meters/second. The ~age vector for the enure study period was 210.31° and was
very consistent from year to year~i~ng froliC01.18%~tihng 1989 to 22~.77° m 1976.
The wind ~¢~r during li~i~a~lcallv d~ff~§~J:::other years (151.13). Only four months of
· -~ :~ ~ it"'"' :~ ~:~:~ '"& ::~: ~-':~ ?,~:: ~s ~ '" '::::.::. ::::::::::::::::::::::: .
wind ve~i~ July;titbit:and Septe~l~er) were recorded for 1971 vath all bmng
Peak v~nd vet~l~9.rted to~ from November through May w~th the January through
April pefi~:.~:~i!~!~:~erce~ef all peaks. March had the single greatest concentration of
peak wind:i~elocity. ":~::~iiii~!!::~!::ii::iiii!iiii::i::~i::~:::. -
Th¢::~fiod representing ~ ~nimum wind velocity was fi-om May through December, with most
oq~ng (70 percent)f~m June through September. The month of September had the highest
o~ence of minimum:wind velocity events.
: :: : ·
The ~hyp~he~is for conducting a wind analysis xvas that wind velocity may have increased
si~l~ ~:~i that the vector may have changed in such a manner that increased turbulence
would elevate the total suspended solids, thus decreasing the amount of light penetration available
for photosynthesis of SAV
The opposite of what was originaily expected occurred Although the wind vector is e,-ctremely
- 43 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
constant over the 33-year period, the overall wind velocity appears to have decreased. When
broken down by decade, wind velocity between the 1960s and 1970s was nearly identical, averaging
2.50 meters/second and 2.47 meters/second, respectively. The most noticeable change occurred
between the 1970s and 1980s, when average wind velocity dropped 0.39 meters/s~:~gnd or 15.8
percent. Wind velocity between the 1980s and 1990s were again nearly i~gntica[gt 2 08 and 2.10
meters/second, respectively. It should be noted that data fi.om the 199~'d of only four
years (1990 to 1993).
This observation was collaborated (W'dson & Beltrami) ~' corretate~:~:~i~.data
blooms of brown fide (Aureococcus anophagefferens)
spring created favorable growth conditions for the broW~:,~!i!?''
Although some researchers at the time hypothesized that ~?~i~!g~i~as responsible for the decline
of eelgrass during the 1980s (e g, Cosper, et al, 1987i:~nni]~i~ii~ii~::t9891 by block/nc, lioht
penetration, no definiuve conclns~on has been draw!L~,~s:? ::~a?:?a~?:::~ii:[::~::,?.~,::~::::.~ ....
A further rewew of the historical data by Cas~s~}[~:~996) allows us to conclude that a
multitude of facto s are more likely to exp[~m the de~tme~::i~ffi~l~a single event
7.5 Eelgrass Transplan~i~ Prog~ :i?:~*~:' ......
The Napeague
future progr~...m~ within
harvested
0rmation for
~gram for sod harvest and sod
proven to be a more successful
within a stressed bed as opposed to areas
only in the "gap" areas, but in the
One made during the Monitoring Progran~ is the natural re-
areas that left small gaps between adjacent healthy
by natural enviro,'unental events, appears to be fundamental for
re-c~i:~nizafion.::::::: Of the ~aS:~onitored, ail holes created by harvesting re-colonized with healthy
P!~ by mid to late su~er.
[~]~g:outer edge:~ds within the stressed eel~,rass beds appears to have an overall better success
r~i~:.~iantiU~ ~er bed sods within the stressed bed. This inference is supported by the die off
aha ~oess~ C0ndition of the northwest planting units in plots 3 and 5 by late September 1998. This
technique should be further monitored and implemented at different harbors within the estuary.
Lastly, the technique used to mark the site and each of the plots to be monitored had much greater
success than the technique employed in 1997 whereby stakes and buoys were used The cement
- 44 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
blocks and PVC pipes are much more easily recognized, and when measured with a GPS in the field
are quite easily navigated. Conversely, stakes with buoys can easily be removed by vandalists
and/or strong current conditions.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Water quality data collected specifically for this study was ~[Sd,
measurements for the areas supporting thick beds of eelgr~?: The
beds, averaged 0.3 m4 Kd, 3.1 s~g/1 chlorophyll-a, 0.01~'Dn>, 0.t
ofT.1 mgdl. Except for chlorophyll-a, the observed [
average,
Chesapeake Bay and the Lbng Island Sound.
extinction
the densest.?
The '97/'98 water data collected in conjunction ~ared to water quality
data analyzed by SCDHS (1998) for SAV habitat cfi~i~ ' conditions are
suitable for re-establishment of eelgrass at a two~d~!!~ mrtion of the
.... ~:~,~:~'~i~iiiii~... .:...:o.
estuary. The data for 1994-1996 ~s qmte co~l~ii~ata colleetea for 1997 and 1998 and
there are no monumental variations between, water
As described in Sectmn 3.0, sand accreti6n ......... and s~ur are o~i~is from aerial photography. In
general, sand accretion occurs on tli~i~atern ~ot~mns of 1~t masses such as pemnsulas and tslands.
Scour occurs mostly on the weste~!~';rfion ~ese sam~iiiand masses. EEA, Inc. evaluated the
mapping pro¢..uced by Cashia~iates , indicates that the thickest eelgrass
beds occun:~i~e eastern portions of these same land
masses, has field 015§:~ations during the Eel~ass Transplant Monitoring
Program, periodic burial may facilitate re-colonization of
eelgrass and probable burial along the eastern sections of
further, as the original scope of
further investigatio~ and analysis of this concept.
Addi[j~fially, t low within the estuary. Grain size analysis correlates with
....... tudi d ~hi th mary dgrai iz d al dy bli h d
pre~tmss es con uc n ecs an ns etren s rea esta s e .
T~ii~y~drodynamic ~.~' although rated as baseline, indicates typical tidal and wind-influenced
occurrences for an ~arv within the ma/n bays, peripheral bays and tidal creeks. The larger bays
~i~:~:~dence'ofwind forces predominating with many diurnal pulses. The peripheral
b~;.i~ ~i~idal creeks, depending on size and location, fall between wind-driven and tidally
influenced. Most of the small tidal creeks indicate predictable ebb/flood cycles over a 24-hour
period.
As there are many variables considered when determining the overall health of a system where
- 45 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS EIABITAT CRITERIA
dominant algal
~:~?'
eelgrass re-establishment is a primary goal, most variables measured fall within the recommended
criteria established for other major estuaries along the east coast. As observed from reviewing
many years &data, the Peconic Estuary is a very dynamic system and shows variation and pulsing
from year to year.
As observed in the catastrophic events of the 193 O's when wasting dise~ ~p,~i':ed near ,,, 90% of
the eel~ass beds alon the eastern coastline of the United St~/i~ nearF:~:~i:~*:- ~s assed b'et~ re
modest recovery was observed. Between 35 and 40 years ~ the
reached thick densities and had become a nuisance to boa{~s. The Pe~:'~i~, in £a~i be
in a state of recovery now, and we may not see the desitin:results :b~:~atural
anticipated for another 25 to 30 years. Recovery may b~?.~!~a due to the pe a{ trrences
of brown tide which disrupts the balance of the ecosyste~ii~{~t~ed observations and
measurements of water and sediment quality will provide over the next several
decades.
EEA, Inc. also conducted a brief overview of kisto~ii~g[ass bed i~E~S within the estuary
through both a literature review and by spe.klg~}~ihn,e-term ~i~aents and barmen during
the sampling program. EEA, Inc discove~;g~:~ii~t-at at
Napeague Harbor, the near shore shallo~i:~ater z0~'of li~i~i?:~:i~e-meter was historically
dom hated by eelgrass. Presently, thesd!~:~eas are a0minate~:.~:~, fragile and Grassilaria sp.
In other areas such as Northwest:~{g~ and N~eague H~bor where dredging of inlets has
recontiuured the entrance and::.al~gd the i~iog~/i{~i historical eelgrass beds have disappeared.
Zonation :i~a:to nng programs should be investigated further. By
studying the ':~=~:: environment, productivity and functionality of
These data should be compared with the historical
eelg~ss where enough information already exists.
9.0
........ 9 1 P opose~i:Eelg ass ltabitat Cite ia fo th Pe i Est ry
E~ lnc., in conjunction with SCDHS has established baseline conditions within the Peconic
E~ for water and sediment quality. This study was not an ex. hanstive collection program and
did:not generate enough data to conduct sound statistical and regression analyses. The information
provided should be considered carefully and should not be used as a sole source for overall
management decisions within the estuary Based on the studies conducted to date, we recommend
the folloxving Eelgrass Habitat Criteria for the Peconic Estuary (Table 5) expressed as mean
summer water quality values These values are expected to optimize conditions and guide
- 46 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
researchers and regulators in identifying potentially successful eelgrass restoration areas within the
Peconic Estuary. In the next section (9.2), we also recommend additional studies to be considered
in the near future.
Table 5 Proposed Eelgrass Habitat Requirements Within the Pec0~
restoration) :ii~i::*:::::
Kd (m't) O. 75 +/- O. 05 < 0.8 :~ ............ ~:~:~t3
DIN (mgtl) 0.02 <0.15 i:~i iigi!~t~:>. < 0.15
DIP (mg/l) 0.02 0.0~ :+::::; ?~?:?:~ ....[ <0.02
~--- r--~--Chloronhvli =a $.$ +/-0.5 <10 ..~¢?:~:~gi~?.,:<.~...~:. i~: <15
..........:i:i¢iii::: ':'~ iii~iii~:~!i}}iii}ii?:?, <30
TSS (rog/l) *None at this ?75.
Substrate TOC * None at th~:~g? N/A::~ :: N/A <
%~. ~ ....... ~:~ .-~ ~: ~m .......
EE& ~c has:.~::..~rous d~ps ~d addition~ studies that would pro,de inv~uable
imi~ht ~to::~'"~ond~~or ~lgrass establis~ent ~d persistence withn the esm~.
Those :~d~es ~e
1. :.}: P~red h~bor/ti~creek study where eelgrass e~sts in h~bor ~d is tossing ~om tid~
creek, i.e. Nog~est H~bor~onhwest Creek; Coecles H~bor/outside of i~et. Intensive
; =~:.:.:~:~}}::~:: mo~tofin~ ~tefia p~meters;
2: ; ?:~}}?:~::~Eontinued:.~ter qu~i, collections for established eelgrass stations;
~d e~ly ~ c~orophyll - a stapling;
4 substrate TOC stapling;
5 continued hydrod~c measurements at key locations wit~n the estu~ such as those
listed fro the p~red h~bor/creek study in item 1;
6 Laborato~ modeling ofbufi~ d~cs for seed b~ restoration vs. sod restoration under
- 47 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
various manipulated hydrodynamic conditions;
7. New transplantations within ex/sting stressed beds incorporating and possibly modifying
established techniques from this study (Hog Creek, Bullhead Bay, Napeague Harbor);
8. Continued monitoring of 1998 transplant at Napeague Harbor;
9. Continued evaluation of historical freshwater input vs. present day,freshwa{~r input to the
Peconic Estuary system;
10. Intensive sampling/monltorin~restoration program at ~utlhead ~!:~i~e only eel~rass bed
known west of Shelter Island; :::
11. Comparative study of Hog Creek vs. Lake Mont~ - study ~te~:~g~-s, l~::~se
and nitrogen cycling in these areas; ?ii:: ~ :~:i!:::? .....
12. If/when results from studies become available fo~:~i~at:~:S~h Bay, comp~?:~ii~? both
13. Regression analysis bnce statistical data sets exist :~gi~i~;~ha parameters. Concentrate on
relationship between nitrogen and chlorophyl
14. Monitor summer season, bottom bed water [~P{ratures ~}~!~¢~re eelgrass exists in
the two-meter zone, macroalgae dornina~!{~~ ~:meter Z~t'~:~eas where eelgrass
15. Sedimentary transport and burial ~i~iis to ~i~::iit~ ~g~and shining within the
estuary and its association with thi?iuccess:~"fail~?!!~::~i~:ted eelgrass locations.
These are important consideration[::~i~ture aies withl '::::Ne estuary and ir designed well, should
all reveal important information ~::~ture ~ement,:~lvifies. They should provide relative and
essential info~ation to reas:~ii~ ~ctical ~i~i:.'~pproach for the re-establishment of
- 48 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
BI~LIOGRAPKY
Andrle, R.E. & J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Ithaca, NY:
Comell University Press.
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Chemical Contaminant Distributions i~?econic:~i~diments",
December, 1996.
Asmus, P.M., Asmus, H., Reise K. Willie A. Zubilla~?~.F. 199~iii!!~i~ .Oxyge~!i~nd
Nutrient Fluxes in Seagrass Beds and Mussel Banks?
Department. P. 227-237. ~:?:~::[??.:?.!~?i:~,~::~ .... :,~:~i~::~i~i~i~:?:~i~
Barnett Iq Russell Barton, Howard 3 . 1986: The Use ~E~::g~ a Tool for Predator Control.
Town of Smthtown Department ofEn'aronmental Pro0~e'uon.
Barren, J.M. 1987 Stormwater RunoffTreatme~ttands Filte~ff/~cts on the Water
Qualaty of Clear Lake, Lake and Reservotr I~g~tge~i~!~me 3..?~'
Benyus, J.M. 1989. The Field Guide tq~ildlife ~]tat~'~!~iern United States. Simon &
Schuster, Inc. New York: 336 pp. x~ ~ii!~'' :~::? .~?:::~::~"'
Bodner, P.J. Jr., 1985: A F~eld ~!~y on Se~i?roduc~' and Sedtment Seed Reserves m a Long
Island Popul~fion of Zosterq~:~a~a. Mas[~,e.....~!i~elphi University.
Bog=s, S~¢~i~:}~Fmc~ple,aii~i~ntolo~ and Straugraphy , Memll Pubhshing Company, 1987.
Bortman, Ivl~:i~$~!~ii~!~:~4ancy ~6~g~ "Characterization Report of the Livine Resources of the
Bfitton,:~!~:i and Hon':)::'i~il}~:. 1970. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and
i-in. r)o,! ii ahons, York, NY.
Br0~n R.G 1985 "Eff~s of Wetlands on Quality of RunoffEntering Lakes in the Twin Cities
M~fffpolitan Area, IVL!~esota," US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 85-
BU:~}~ P,. & S. Padsio 1982. A Comparative Flora of Staten Island: 1879-1981 The Staten
Island Institute of Arts and Sciences. Staten Island, NY
Bull, J. 1985 Birds of Ne~v York State Comell University. Press. Ithaca, NY
- 49 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS EIABITAT CRITERIA
Bull, John & J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Burdick, David M., Frederick T. Short, and Jaimie Wolf, An Index to Assess:.and Monitor the
Progression of Wasting Disease in Eetgrass Zostera marina, Marine Ecolq~ Pro~e~ Series, 94: 83-
90, 1993.
Cashin Associates, P.C., Peconic Estuary Program Final Sub~d Aquat~ii~0n Study, Ja~
1996.
Chart, E., P.E. Hantzche and Y.J. Litwin, 1982 (Sep), "~lig!~:~f:~veflands for
control, U.S. Env~ronmen .ml Protectmn Agency Office 6~iR~ch and Development Cincinam,
Cheap, K.M, Fonseca, M.S., He,er, DY., Kenwe.~gi~,~.J., T~i!~(~i~i:::::1985: Transplanting of
Seagrasses (Zostera Marina) and Halodule Wrigh~i~;~nt Stab~:~d Habitat Development
on the East Coast of The United States. Natio~i~!~i!~es Serv~::i*'Beaufort, North Carolina.
Technical Report EL-85-9. '::'* ........ ~:~:: :'~
Chesapeake Bay TRS 83. (December: i. Subm¢~ed Aqu~:~getation Habitat Requirements and
Churchill, A.C. 1983: Field
marina.
Conditions.
Churchill .......
Gas Bub~f~. A,
Seedling Development in Zostera
(1983) 21-29.
of Zostera marina Seedlings Under Anaerobic
A.H. 1985: Flotation and Dispersal of Eelgrass Seeds by
:1985) 83-93.
Chu/~hill, A_C., Riner, M.~! 1978: Anthesis and Seed Production in Zostera marina from Great South
Bayi~.New York, U.S A::ii:.~quatic Botany 4 (1978) 83-93.
Ci~:.0f/New YorkP~,?ks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1993. Native Species Planting
~i~ f0~ ~eW:;¥6'~k City and Vicinity.
Clewell, A.F. 1990. Creation and Restoration of Forested Wetland Vegetation in the Southeastern
United States In: Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science (J.A Kusler &
ME Kentula. eds.) Island Press, Washin~on, D C
-50-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS IIA. BITAT CRITERIA
Conam, 1L & J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central
North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cosper, Elizabeth M., Edward J. Carpenter, and Matthew Cottrell, Primary Producti~y and Growth
Dymmics of the 'Brown Tide' in Long Island Embayments. In: "Novel Phy!~tankl~::!~looms Causes
and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and Other Unusual Blooms". Cos!¢~iiii~!~i!~::E.J Carpenter and
V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coaxial and Esmarine S~ies. S~4i~r!a~, Berlin, pp. 139-
Costa, J.E., 1988: "Eel~ass in Buzzards Bay: DistribUte,
Abundance ,Umted States Enmronmenta/Protection A~:~..
Cottarn, Clarence, and David A. Munro. 1954: Eelgrass $[~!i~!ii~gronmental Relations, Journal
of W'zldlife Management, 18: 449-460. :~?:::? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cottam, Clarence. 1933: Disappearance ofEelgrass~e.East Co~}~Plant D~sease Reporter,
17, 46-52.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, ~:~.T. L~. i:'~i i~:.i~:ification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United S[~!? U.S. ~' and Washington, D.C.,
FWS/OBS- 9/31.
Davis, Chiislgpher A., Genlgl ~ersity ~:~i~g~lii~i~}hcture within and anong Transplanted and
Untransplani~i:~Eel~ass (~?~i!?narina ~i~ster's Thesis San Dieeo University 1994
r~awes, ~ ~., i~i~j~:~.J. 1995: Se~va~s B~od,,,ers~ty m The Indian V, iYer
Lagoon. S~i~?!}~bl~:57, No t, 1995.
De Jonge, ::::::~ .... pher F. D'Elia, Ragnar Elmgrean, and Barbara L. Welsh,
Respo~]::'to Develo in Four Different North Atlantic Estuarine Systems,
Univ~y Sciences Department. P. 179-196.
........... ~
D~son, M.S 1997. :~etland Mitigation. Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland.
D~rm,. William~ii-Gregory J IVlarshall. and Ca, thteen Wigand, Effect of 'Brown T~de Shadmg on
Ep~e~ss (Z~?$rera ~arina L.) Distributions In: ' Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts
of R6~e~ Brown Tides and Other Unusual Blooms". Cosper, EM, E.J.
Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp 675-692.
Duarte, CM, 1991: Seac, rass Depth Linfits Aquatic Botany, 40 (1991)
-51 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ltABITAT CRITERIA
Duarte, C.M., 1995: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Relation to Different Nutrient Regimes.
OPHELIA 41: 87-112.
Duarte, C M., I(al~ J., 1990. Biorna-qs Density and the Relationsh/p Between Submff~ed Macrophyte
Biomass and Plant Growth Form. Hydrobiolog~a 196: 17-2~..
Duguay, Linda E., Doreen M. Monteleone and Clare-Elle~':~glietta, j~:.and Distributibn
of Zooplankton ~d Ichthyoplanlaon in Great South Bay ~'York Du~::'~i!~i~i~ide Outbreaks
of 1985 and 1986. In. 'Novel Phytoplank'ton Blooms: Cauls and I~pacts of Re~g[~ T~des
and Other Unusual Blooms". Cosper E M, E J. Carpente~i::~r~7 Bricelj (Eds.). ::~:'Notes on
Coastal and Estuafine Studies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, :~g~. ~:~::::::: ...... '
Dunne and Leopold, Water in Environmental Plannin~?~H ~.i~nd Co, San Francisco,
' ::~iiiiiiiii}iii::~ii::~i~}~ii::~!i~ii::i::!i :.! ~: ....
1978. .................... ',:~ .....................
EEA, Inc. 1991. Fresh Kills landfill Dredge S~ii~i:~g Facili~!:'+~eachate Analysis Report.
June 1991. -, .... ::::::;.' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......................
Eisel, M.T., Shoreline Survey: Great ge~;~ic, Litt[~'i>econiq?.~iiners, and Napeague Bays, Marine
Sciences Research Center. :~:~ :;~:~:~:~: .~
Environmental Laboratory. Dredged Material:
~:~:~ Station,
(3D-ACM) Version 7.0 Operating Instructions.
Federal E~ 1991. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, City of New York,
Richmq~County. hers 360497 0102-C.
Fon~a, M., 1990: Wetl~ ~eation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, 171-
189~
~a, M.S, Ken~$rthy, W.J., Thayer, G.W. I982: A Low-Cost Planting Technique for Eetgrass
(zoysia m~a L.)i u s Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J, Thayer, G.W., Heller, D.Y, and Cheap, K.M. 1985: Transplanting
of the Seagrasses Zostera Marina and Halodule Wrightii for Sediment Stabilization and Habitat
Development on the East Coast of the United States, US Army Corps of Engineers Final Report,
August 1985
- 52 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
Gambi, MC., Nowell, R.M, Jumars, P.A. 1990: Flume Observations on Flow Dynamics in Zostera
marina (Eelgrass) Beds. Marine Ecolo_~t Pro~ess Series, 61 (1990) 159-169
Gleason, H.A. & A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of No~easte~United States
and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY.
Gorden, H.H., Moore, K.A., Orth, KJ. 1979: Distributio~i~::Abundan~il~i~erged Aquati~~:
Vegetation in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Vir~ Institut~M~}}~!:~.~es. Cog~.ct
Hammer, D.A 1992. Creiting Freshwater Wetlands. Ann Arbor.
Harrison, Paul G., t990: Variations in Suc~cess ofEelg~'Tr~}~.~r a Five-year Period,
Hartog D.C. 1987: Wasting Disease and Othe~:~fi~i~!i~mena in Zd3'~'~ra Beds. Aquatic Botany,
Hoff_man, Robert S., 1991: Relative ~ries Vaf¢'~s of Na~:~:~ersus Transplanted Eet~ass Beds
(Zostera marina) in Southern Califo~i*i~Eoast~i~etlands C~Smal Zone '91 Conference-ASCE, 1991.
Hom a , Rol ert S., 1988: R~gv~:ofEel~.i~::.~sion Bay, San Diego, California Following
Beach Rest~fion_.....~.::.::...::::~:::::.>. Work, ~}~gs of th~:'Eel~ass Symposium, Chula Vista, California,
Hotcl kiss, N~::~!f~iiiiii~ommo~'~i:ii~!tderwater and Floating-leaved Plants of The United States
and Canada. D0~g~[i~ations, ~i::7~*rk, NY: 124 pp.
Howar~i i~} K., Sea-~rass Growth and Survivorship Under the Influence of
Epipl3~ Grazers. Aqu~:~&y, 24 (19~6) 287-302.
HB~f; L.J., et al. 1978: Upland Habitat Development with Dredged Material: Engineering and
~]~}Propa_.qation. U;$. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, December 1978. DS-78-
JO115;i}~i~.::::~990 (Aug) "The Efficiency of Constructed Wetlands in the Reduction of Phosphorus
and Sediment Discharges from Agricultural Watersheds." MS Thesis, University of Maine Orono,
ME.
Kemp, WM., Murray, L. Borurm J, Sand-Jensen. K., 1987: Diel Grov,-[h in Eelgrass Zostera marina.
- 53 -
PECONIC .ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol. 41:79-86
Khanbilvardi, Armed, and P. Gleason, "Flow Investigation for Landfill Leachate (FILL)", Journal
of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 12l, No.1, January, 1995.
Knobel, E. 1977. Field Guide to the Grasses, Sedges and Rushes ofthe~[~tates. Dover
Publications, New York, NY: 83 pp.
Koch, E.W., Beer, S. 1996: Tides Light and The Distri~on
Sound, USA AquaticBotan 53 1996 97-107
Kraemer, G.P., Randall, S.A. 1995: Impact of Daily Pho~$~h~i{~.efiod on Protein Synthes~s
and Carbohydrate Stores in Zostera marina L. For Survival in Light
BLimited Environments. Journal ofExperimentall~q~,ze Biolo~i~gi~logy. 185 (1995) 191-
Kusler, J.X. & M.£. mentula. 1590. Wetl~'iSreati~i~:i~orati~'n: The Status of'the
Science
Island Press, Washia~ork D.C. ..i::ii{~i~*:' .... :::?': iii?i:
Landm, M.C. 1992. Concept, Hi~i~:'and Examples of~efic~al Uses &Dredged Material. U.S.
Army Eng/neer Waterways Expe~t Stafi6~i: 6th Nati~:~al Workshop on the Beneficial Uses of
Dredoed Material. New Orleans?
Landin 3rowing on Dredged Material
tort 1~o. WES-M]?-D-78-7, Army Engineer
Waterways MS.
Leschisirt Waterfowl Use o Constructed Wetlands in
Northwe~rn (12) 3: 178-183.
Lor~, D.G., W.C. Sh~&'~.D. Rufther. 1991. Conservation Plants for the Northeast. U.S.
D~m fAgri
merit..:. :. o cu , Soil Conservation Service. Program Aid 1154.
L'J~ J;D.,. et al. t9~8 Upland and Wetland Habitat Development with Dredged Material:
E~!0gi~;~°n~iderations. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, December 1978
Fi~t R~i ~echnical Report DS-78-15.
Mahoney, John B, Detrimental Biological Effects of Ph.vtoplankton Blooms Deserve Increased
Attent/on. In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and Other
Unusual Blooms" Cnsper, E M., E.J Carpenter and VM. Bricelj (Eds). Lecture Notes on Coastal
- 54 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS E[ABITAT CRITERIA
and Estuarine Studies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.575-597.
Marble, A.D. 1992. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI.
Maynord, S.T., et al. 1992. Design of Habitat Restoration Using Dredge. Mato~ at Bodkin
Island, Chesapeake Bay, MD. U.S. Army En~neer Waterways Experi~i!i!~ii~n, June 1992.
Final Report, Wetlands Research Progam Technical Repo~:.!i~-RE~iiiii!i!il~iiiiii?:iiii!~ii:;::.~
Meiorin, E.C. 1986"
Urban Stormwater Treatment at Co,gte Hills M~gh, ~s~ali~n of Bag::
Area Governments.
Meiorin, E.C. 1989 "Urban!RunoffTreatment in a Fres~i~igater Marsh in F~nt
California," in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Tre~ii~!::~cipal, Industrial and
Agricultural, Hammer, D.A., ed., 1989
Mitchell, R.S. 1986. A Checklist of New York.$~ii~i~t~. Bulle;~i:~i!~}8, New York State
Moore, K..& Neckles H.A. Orrh, R.J. 1~36: Zost~r~ mfi~i(~i~ss) Growth and Survival
Along a Gradient of Nutrients and Tt!g~ity in tl!~i~ower ~¢'~ake Bay. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 142 (1996) 2472~i~' ::!iii? ?:::iii?
Muehlstein, Lisa K. 1989: ~,{rs~iives on ~:~as~:::.iDisease ofEelgrass Zostera marina
Diseases 0~ugtic Org~}~.211-22 l;¢i::l~ili}~
New Yor~:ii~i~{g~eil}i:'i~ental Conservation 19SS. New York State Freshwater
Wetland Ma s
Nichols, D.,,~i}ii~;~§~?i<i~ iof na~¢~l wetlands to remove nutrients form wastewater effluent,"
Journal W~{er Polluti0'aii~?{~ai:i~ederation. 55(5):495-505
...,~}i~: 1990. Ecolo~ical{:.iQo~Fnunities of New York State. Latham, New York.
--~:&i 1974. New York State Tidal Wetlands Map 568-492.
N~ffiS, ~ameS G,:':Sandy Wyllie-Echevema, Thomas Mumford, Allison Bailey, and Terry Turner,
(1097~i ~i~i{ing Basal Area Coverage of Subtidal Seagrass Beds Using Underwater Videography.
Aquatic Botany, 58 (1997) 269-287.
Nuz.zi, Robert, and R.M. Waters, The Spatial and Temporal Distribution of 'Brown Tide' in Eastern
Long Island, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
-55-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Olesen, B., Sand-Jensen, K. 1994: Demography of Shallow Eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Populations-Shoot Dynamics and Biomass Development. Journal of Ecology, 82 (1994) 37%390.
Orth, R_J., Moore, K.A., 1988: Distributions of Zostera marina L. and Rtqpia ra~iritima L. Sensu
Lato Along Depth Gradients in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, U S A A uati~otan 37 1988 291
~.. q ................ ~::::~ .......... ~v _( ) -
Orth, Robert J., Kenneth A. Moore, 1984: Distfibuti6~ii~:'and
Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An Historical Perspecfi~!:.ii~Stuar~ (1
:?*[?~i:i!:i~i::::i'??' ~iii'?~ili~:~:~:~ - ·
Pagenkopf, J.R., M.R. Morton, A. Stoddard, and E.Diiii~8~;~:.."Water Quality ~*snitofing and
Modeling for the Peconic Bay Brown Tide Comprehensiy~i~$. and Management Program".
Paradiso, J.L. 1969. Mammals &Maryland. U.S. Del~!~:0ftfi~i~:Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. North American Fauna no. 66.
Peconlc Estuary Pro,am Citizens' Adwsory C~ee~:?.!~anate ~fle to the Pecomc Estuary",
June, 1998.
Peterle, T.J. 1991. Wildlife Tox/col~>g~~ Van Nd~irand Reknh0'ld, NY.
Peterson, L.A. 1977. A Field Guld~:to Edibl.~ild plan~ of Eastern and Central North America.
Houghton-M?lin
Phillips, i~}ilC., anci:!i:~:~iii:?!~:~McRoy::~i~!~i'' 2Sea rass Research Methods" United Nations
Educatio~iii:i~!~, and ~i:~rganization, 1990
Phillips o~Eelgrass with Special Emphasis on Restoration and
Managemeg[~ ~:i:~¢~~ CaligUla Eel~rass Symposium Chula Vista, California, May 27-28,
?ie~ G.J. 1994. Adap~ve'::~odes in Wetland Pl~nts~ A Preliminary. Review. Southern Tier
C~lting, Inc. West ciarkesville New York.
Pro¢~ngs of the California Eelgrass Symposium, Chula Vista, California, May 27-28, 1988.
Rc4d~ ~eK., and R~cha~d D. Wood "Ecology/of Inland Waters and Estuaries", Litton Educational
Publishing, 1976
Reusch, Thorsten BH., Anthony KO. Chapman. 1995: Storm Effects on Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.)
and Blue Mussel (M),'alus edulis L.) Beds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and £cology 192
- 56-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
257-271.
Reynolds, R.M., and J.J. Hurst, Quality Assurance Manual, Meteorology Program, Brookhaven
National Laboratory January 1994
Ruckelshaus, Mary H., Robert C. Wissmar, and Charles A. Simenstad, ,S~i:~ ~d Fates of Organic
Matter: Utilization of Eelgrass Carbon by Esmarine Bivalv~iiii~oceedi~.i~h~,: Califoma Eel~ass
Symposium, Chula Vista, California, May 27-28, 1988, pg::~'~.-i!i:::,::.::i:~i}i!ili::i!i~:i:~i::::iiii::i::i~:ii:::~:~:~:.:::i
Ryther, John H., l-Estofical Perspective of Phytoplankton ~lhoms
of the 1950's. In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: :~::::*' of Recurrer~{::i!~:'i~ides and
Other Unusual Blooms". ¢osper, E.M., E.J. Car[ ricelj (lEds.). Lecture Notes on
Coastal and Estuadne Studies. Springer-Verlag, Berlirk
Seapoint Sensors, Inc., Seapoint Turhidit~
Shim~ IVfichiyo, and Robert IC Cowen, ..... Chang3~::~:~i~g~iibn of Larval Fish within Great
South Bay, New York in Response to R~rrent E~opl~:~i~oms. In: "Novel Phytoplanlcton
Blooms' Causes and Impacts of Recurr~{ BroWni{~ides andli~l~} Unusual Blooms". Cosper, EM.,
E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj ~fl~ii}i::Lectu~i::~otes oni~'0astal and Estuarine Studies. Springer-
Short, F.T4iiiiiiiii~uehlstein,;;~i~i:.~l:t~rter D.,:i::~8~i~i~Igrass Wasting Disease: Cause and Recurrence
Short, F.T., 'i::'~i!i~i~ects of ~'~a~{:::.>tutrients on Seagasses: Literature Review and Mesocosm
Short, ~:', Burdick, D~!~.:.~, J.E. III, 1995: Mesocosm Experiments Quantify. the Effects of
EutrggNcation on Eelgr~§~iii~?~ra mw'ina Limnol Oceanogr. 40(4) 740-749
SI~? F.T., David M. ~rdick, Steven Granger, and Scott W. Nixon, 1996. Long-term Decline in
E~}~ss, Zostera ~a..... L., Linked to Increased Housing Development", Seagrass Biology:
Profii'~ngs of an Ni~mational Workshop, January 1996, pp 291-298.
S~}:~i~:! ~tings, B.W., and den Hartog, C., 1988: Comparison of a Current Eelgrass Disease to the
Wasting Disease in the 1930's. Aquatic Botany, 30 (1988) 295-304.
Short, F T., Jones, G., Burdick, D, 1991: Sea,ass Decline: Problems and Solutions. Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Zone '9t Conference-ASCE: 439-453
-57-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS E[ABITAT CRITERIA
Short, F.T., Wyllie-Echeverria, S.,1996: Natural and Human-Induced Disturbance of Seagrasses.
Environmental Conservation 23 (1): 17-27.
Short,.F.T., Wolf, J., Jones, G, 1989: Sustaining Eelgrass to Manage a Healthy Estu~ Proceedings
of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management: 3689-37067:i.:
Silberhorn, G.M., Dewing, S.., Mason, P.A., 1996: Productio~ ofRePi6~Ci{3e. Shoots
Vegetative Shoots, and Seeds in Populations ofRuppia m~a from i~.i~ake Bay
Virginia, Wetlands, Vol. 16, No.2, 232-239 :.:~:~:: :~?: ':" ::?:i??~ii!i?~ii::i?:i?:?~::~:i::::
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (,,A, dopte~:i~i~3~:~iii::i~:~91). '::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:,~:~:~:~:~ .....
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Brown:'~!~prehensive Assessment and
Management Program - Volume I and IF', November, 19~i{iiii!!i!ii!iii~ii~??~i~:iiii~
Suffolk County Department of Health Services "Suffa~i'Water::~i~i!~'nitor/ng Report -
Volumes I and II", January, 1998. , ..~::i~::::i:.ii~:~::~-iiiiiiJliiii~iiii~i!i!~!ii!:.~: %::}i!iiii:~'!:?:iii!i!?:::i? - -
Suffolk County Department of Health Se~'~, Mafi~:::~:.B~au Peconic Estuary
Program Surface Water Quality Monito~: 1993-1~5,
Suffolk County Department of Heali~i:~rvicesi:~?~rown Ti~[~ Comprehensive Assessment and
Management Program".
Suffolk Cou~::Departmen~!~Ith Se~i~::~";f Ecology' Peconic Estuary Surface Water
Quality;: i h :Dissoi¢ and S~'~ed Aquatic Vegetation Habitat, October, I998.
Suffolk Cou~i~!:~:.~:. i:3:..~nt o£'~!~ices, 1999. Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends, Major,
External, Antkr~!i~iIroged:':~;: Groundwater and Duck Farms, January, 1999.
Suffolk C4~hty Depar~i'~lanniug,"Analysis of Dred~n~ and Spoil Disposal Activity
Con~ed by Suffolk C~i:~storical Perspective and a Look to the Future, October 1985.
Suffolk County Department of Planning, "Peconic Estuary Program Water Dependent Use and
Underwater Land ownership Inventory", April 1997.
Taylor, Sal .ty L.;ind Martine Villal~d, 1985 "Seaweeds of the Connecticut Shore, A Wader's
Guide,,? Connecticut Arboretum Bulletin No 18, September 1985
Tetra Tech. Inc., "Three Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of Peconic
Estuary", September, 1998
-58-
PECONIC ESTUARY £ELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Town of Hempstead Department of Conservation and Waterways, "The Biolo~ of Eelgrass",
1968.
United States Department of A~mSculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Suffolk County,
New York, April 1997.
United States Environmental Protection Agency,' Voluntee~i~ary M~. A Methods .
United States Fish and,,W?life Service, "Si~mfificant Hal~[i~ts and ~itat comi31~[~j~ew
York Bight Watershed , Southern New England Coastal Eco~:'~rogram,
Charlestown, Rhode Island} November, 1997.
United States Geological Survey, "Analysis
Small Embayments Within the
Travel Time to Three
York, July, 1996.
Vergeer, L.H.T., Aats, T.L., de Grout, J.D.,
Abiotic Factors (Light
on The Phofic Content of~
Welsh, Barbara L., Robert I. Welsh,
~' and The Effect of
(1995) 35-44.
Quantifying Hyporda and Anoxia
in Long Island Sound, Universit,
Wigand, Cat~een, A.
Predation..
marina)
4, No. 2 (199{
Wilson~E., and E.
the
Evor on.
S~nces Department. P. 131-137.
~urchill., i~t?~tory Studies on Eelgrass Seed and Seedling
~0-183. :31~i~?:~i~;:~:?
Genetic Analyses of Transplanted Eelgrass (Zostera
r in Southern California. Restoration Ecology, Vol.
of the Prevailing Meteorological Conditions During
ores in the Peconic Bays and the Characteristics of Bloom
W~lli~-Echeverria, S.~::;XiM. Olson, and M.J Hershman (eds.). 1994: Seagrass Science and Policy in
thd~ific Northwe~! Proceedings of a Seminar Series. EPA 910/1t.-94-004 63 pp.
W~gi¢!~eh~a, S., P,.M Thom, "Managing Seagrass Systems in Western North America,
Research Gaps and Needs", University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 1994
Zimmerman, KC., Alberte, R.S, 1996 Effect of Light/Dark Transition on Carbon Translocation in
Eelgrass Zostera marina seedlings. Marine Ecology Press Series Vol. 136305-309
-59-
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
Zimmerman, Richard C., John L Reguzzoni, Sandy Wyllie-Echevema, Michael Josselyn and
Randall S. Alberte., 1991: Assessment of Environmental Suitability for Growth of Zostera marina
L (eelgrass) in San Francisco Bay, Aquatic Botany, 39, 353-366
Zimmerman, Richard C., Robert D Smith, and Randall S. Alberte, Seagr~iii~e~tation: Developing
a Predictive Model of Light Requirements, Proceedings oftheii~alifomi~iiE~?~s~ Symposium, Chula
Vista california May 27-28 1988 6 19 :5!?:'
- 60 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS HABITAT CRITERIA
LIST OF CONTACTS
Ms. Charlotte Cogswell
C.R. Environmental, Inc.
639 Boxberry Hill Road
East Falmouth, MA
(518) 563-7970
Dr. A Coolidge Churchill
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York
(516) 877-4210
Mr. Sven Hogar
Creative Habitat Corp.
White Plaius, New York
(914) 948-4389
Ms. $¢..~rer ~:ujawski
USDS - Natural Resources Conse~afiSh:::.::,.: Servi~
National Plant Materials Center
Mr. Murray
Pinelands
32_~ IslanCt'Roa
Colu "m~fis, New Jersey
(609~i~91-9486
K~hSche~l
B~!~yF[ie~an
Ea~t;H~pi0n Town Natural Resources Department
300 Pantigo Place, Suite 105
East Hampton, Ne~v York
(516) 324-0496
-61 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS ItABITAT CRITERIA
Mr. Chris Smith
Ms. Sandy Duamais
Mr. Chris Pickerell
Mr. Emerson Hasbrouck
Suffolk County Cornell Cooperative Extension
3690 Cedar Beach Road
Southold, New York
(516) 852-8660
Dr. Frederick T. Short
University of New Hampshire
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
(603) 862-2175
New York State Sea Grant Extension
146 Suffolk Hall/SUNY
Stony Brook, New York
( 516 ) 632- 8730
Mr. Donald Danila
Utilitieii::Zn ta~:~::g~r
N.E. vironmen atory
P.O. Bo~iii~$ ii!ii:~:
Waterfor
(860) 447-179ti :::?:?:::: ?: ii
.......................
Rive[g~d County Cente~? :.~
300Center Drive
Riverhead, New York
(57!~):727-2315
Mrl cart Ehide
Mr ~ewi~ Davies
Suffolk County Department of PlarmJng
(516) 853-4865
Dr Charles Yarish
- 62 -
PECONIC ESTUARY EELGRASS E[ABITAT CRITERIA
University of Connecticut
yarish(~uconnvm, uconn, edu
(203) 461-6621
Dr. Sandra Shumway
Southampton College
239 Montauk Highway
Southampton, New York
Mr. Victor Cassella
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(516) 344-2271
Mr. Sandy Wyllie-Echeverda
University of Washin~on
Ms. Marci Bortman
Ms. Susan Antenen
The Nature Conservancy
(516) 367-3225
New York State Department: 9f ~vironmeri~i~tion
Coastal
2855 E. Coat I-Ii~?~guire 228
Corona
(714) 6~3~3076
Mr. Tom Halavik
U:8~iFish & Wildlife Setwices
(46i~ 364-9124
- 63 -