HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrown Tide Comp Assessment & Management Program Vol 1 11/1992BROWN TIDE
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Volume I
Robert J. Gaffney
County Executive
Mary E. Hibberd, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner
SUFFOLK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
November, 1992
BROWN TIDE
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Volume I
Robert J. Gaffney
Suffolk County Executive
Prepared by:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Mary E. Hibberd, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner
Division of Environmental Quality
Joseph H. Baier, P.E., Director
Office of Ecology
Vito Minei, P.E., Chief, Project Manager
Walter Dawydiak, Project Coordinator
With assistance from:
Dvirka & Bartilucci, Consulting Engineers,
Tetra -Tech, Inc., and
Creative Enterprises of Northern Virginia, Inc.
November, 1992
This document was prepared by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 205(j) of the
Clean Water Act of 1987 (PL 1004). This project lois been financed in part with Federal funds provided by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency and administered by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation under Contract C-002242. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United
State Environmental Protection Agency or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
I am pleased to present the summary of the Brown Tide
Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP).
As you are aware, the Brown Tide crisis has dramatically
illustrated the need to take steps to ensure the permanent
protection of the Peconic Estuary system. The Brown Tide has
decimated the nationally significant scallop population and caused
numerous other adverse natural resource and aesthetic impacts,
threatening the livelihoods of the East End baymen and the local
tourism -based economy.
This study clearly demonstrates the commitment of Suffolk
County to the protection of the Peconic Estuary system resources.
Over four years of intensive efforts were dedicated to BTCAMP,
which was funded with $200,000 of federal grant monies and more
than $1.3 million of Suffolk County contributions. This funding,
although substantial, is a small price to pay for the preservation
of Peconic Estuary water quality and natural resources.
The program, which was conducted by Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, was supported by three consulting firms and
numerous researchers. In addition, the management of BTCAMP was a
cooperative effort among all levels of government and included
strong and active citizen participation. I have no doubt that
BTCAMP will serve as a model and forerunner for other marine
surface water quality protection programs. In fact, largely due to
BTCAMP efforts and a nomination document prepared by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, the Peconic Estuary has
recently been designated a nationally significant estuary by its
acceptance into the federal National Estuary Program. With this
acceptance, the Peconic Estuary joined only seventeen other
estuaries in this program, qualifying for additional funding for
further management, research, and demonstration projects.
I trust that, as you read the summary, you will share my
concerns regarding the threats to the Peconic Estuary resources.
The study has clearly demonstrated the need for management to
preserve this invaluable resource, which has recently been
designated by the Nature Conservancy as one of the "Last Great-
Places"
reatPlaces" in the western hemisphere. With your support, we can
effectively proceed with implementation o_' the detailed program
recommendations, leaving our treasured legacy intact for
generations to come.
--
i �
ROBERT J. GA FNEY
Suffolk County Executive
i
PARTICIPANTS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Vito Minei, Project Manager
Walter Dawydiak, Project Coordinator
Technical
Report Preparation
Field Data
Vito Minei
Arlene Freudenberg
John Bredemeyer
Robert Nuzzi
Terry Blumenauer
Gary Chmurzynski
Walter Dawydiak
Mac Waters
Bob Ochsenreiter
Brown Tide
Computer Data
Charles Schell
Laboratory
Peter Hoffman
Ed Olson
Mac Waters
Larry Stipp
Ron Paulsen
Environmental
Ralph Melito
Laboratory
Carto raaphic
Ken Hill
Tom Keenan
Suffolk County Planning Department
Arthur Kunz, Director
Dewitt Davies
Laurette Fischer
Manasement Committee
Vito Minei, SCDHS
Walt Dawydiak, SCDHS
Robert Nuzzi, SCDHS
Felix Locicero, USEPA
Jon Gorin, USEPA
Ken Koetzner, NYSDEC
Karen Chytalo, NYSDEC
Dewitt Davies, SCPD
Lauretta Fischer, SCPD
Tony Conetta, Dvirka & B artilucci
Jim Pagenkopf, Tetra Tech
Mike Morton, Tetra Tech
Chris Smith, Cornell Cooperative Extension
Jeanne Marriner, Chairperson, CAC
ii
Citizens Advisory Committee
Jeanne Marriner, Jean C. Lane, Kevin McDonald, Lary Penny, Bruce Anderson, John Holzapfel,
George Bartunek, Joan Robbins, Peter Wenczel, Cathy Lester, Mal Nevel, Lynn Buck, Robert
McAlevy, Betty Brown, Dr. John Kelly, Chris Smith, Robert Pike, Ellen Latson, Roger Tollefsen,
Kathleen McGinnis, Steve Latson, Marge Acevedo, Peter Needham, Carol Morrison, Sharon Kast
Consultants
Dvirka & B artilucci
Tetra -Tech
Special acknowledgements are given to Walter Dawydiak for his extensive technical and editorial
efforts to bring this document to completion; Robert Nuzzi for his relentless and invaluable
oversight of the Brown Tide research process; the Marine Resources Bureau (Bob Ochsenreiter,
Mac Waters, John Bredemeyer, Gary Chmurzynski, Charles Schell), a truly hardy lot of scientists
who often braved adverse conditions to obtain monitoring data; Mac Waters, whose dedication in
the laboratory resulted in the Brown Tide monitoring database; Jean Marriner, whose energy and
cooperative spirit fueled not only the CAC, but also the entire BTCAMP effort; Chris Smith and
Emerson Hasbrouck for providing invaluable liason between the technical study and citizens
groups; other sections of the SCDHS--Groundwater Resources, Industrial Wastes and Hazardous
Materials, and Environmental Laboratories --which provide assistance in report review, data
collection and samples analyses; and last but not least, the Office of Ecology support staff (T.
Blumenauer, A. Freudenberg, P. Hoffman, and T. Keenan) whose patient efforts and positive
dispositions buoyed the program.
Vito Minei
Project Manager
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 1-1
1.1.1 BTCAMP Study - Origins and Objectives. . . 1-1
1.1.2 The Pollution Problem. . . . . . . . . . . 172
1.1.3 Water Quality and Natural Resource
Impacts . . .1-4
1.1.4 Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.1.5 The Population.Complication. . . . . . . . 1-5
1.1.6 The BTCAMP Approach: Monitoring, Research,
and Modelling . . . . . . . ... . . . . 1-6
1.2 Study
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-7
1.2.1
Study Area Description . . . . . .
1-7
1:2.2
Boundaries of Study Area . . . . . . . . .
1-9
1.2.3
Primary Study Area . . . . . . . . . . .. .
1-15
1.2.3.1- Peconic River Drainage Basin. . . .
1-15
1.2:3.2 Flanders Bay Region . . . . . .
1-16
1.2.4
Extended Study Area. . . . . . . . . ... .
1-16
-
1.2.4.1 Great Peconic Bay Region. . . . . .
1-17
1.2.4.2 Little Peconic Bay Region . . . . .
1-17
1.2.4.3 Shelter Island Sound and Associated
Harbors Region. . . . . . . . . .
1-18
1.2.4.4 Gardiners Bay Region. . . . . . . .
1-19
1.2.4.5 Western Block Island Sound Region
1-19
1.2.5
Jurisdictional Boundaries. . . . . . . . .
1-19
1.2.6
Groundwater -Contributing Area. . . . . . .
1-21
1.2.7
Surface Water -Contributing Area. . . . . .
1-23
1.2..8
Stormwater Runoff -Contributing Area. . . .
1-23
1.3 Planning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24
1.3.1 BTCAMP Project Team. . . . . . . 1-24
1.3.2 Key Issues/Planning Approach . . . . . . . 1-25
1.3.3 Existing Conditions (General). . . . . . . 1-27
- 1.3.3.1 Characteristics of System . . . . . 1-27
1.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework. . . . . . . . 1-27
iv
1.3 Planning Approach (cont.)
Page
1.3.4 Definition of Problem. . . . . . . . .
_ 1-29
1.3.4.1 Surface Water Quality . . . . . . .
1-29
1.3.4.1.1 Water Quality Model Basis. .
1-29
1.3.4.1.2 Data Sources . . . . . .
1-30
1.3.4.1.3 Water Quality Modelling
Results. .. . . .. . . .
1-31
1.3.4.2 Pollutant Sources -to System . . . .
1-31
1.3.5 Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-32
1.3.5.1 Management Needs. . . . . . . . . .
1-32
1.3.5.2 Management Alternatives and
Predicted Water Quality . . . . . .
1-32
1.3.5.3 Alternatives Evaluation and
Preferred Alternatives. . . . . . .
1-32
1.3.6 Implementation/Follow-up . . . . . . . . .
1-33
1.3.6.1 Implementation Strategy . . . . . .
1-33
1.3.6.2 Follow-up Actions . . . . . . . .
1-33
1.4 Related Planning Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-33
1.4.1 National Estuary Program . . . . . . . . . 1-33
1.4.2 The Long Island Sound Study. . . . . . . 1-34
1.4.3 The New York -New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-34
1.4.4 New York Bight Restoration Plan. . . . . . 1-35
1.4.5 National Estuarine Research Reserves . . . 1-35
1.4.6 Hudson River Estuary Management Program. . 1-35
1.5 Previous Peconic System Water Quality Studies 1-35
1.5.1 Historical Data -Availability (Pre -Brown
Tide Years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-35
1.5.1.1 208 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-36
1.5.1.2 Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-36
1.5.1.3 System Hydrography. . . . . . . . . 1-37
1.5.2 Model Calibration Data . . . . . . . . . . 1-37
1.5.3 Historical Water Quality Processes . . . . 1-40
1.6 Study Priorities/Water Quality Issues ... 1740
1.6.1 Peconic River Drainage Ba -sin . . . . . . 1-41
1.6.2 Flanders Bay . . . . . . . . . 1-41
1.6.3 Systemwide Study Priorities. 1-42
1.6.4 Future Investigations. . . . . . . . 1-43.
V
Paae
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROCESSES . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1
Land and Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1
2.1.1 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1
2.1.2 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-2
2. 1. 3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-4
2.1.4 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-9
2.1.5 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-9
2.1.6 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-13
2.1.7 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-13
2.2
Estuarine Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-15
2.2.1 Waterborne Transport Processes . . . . . .
2-15
2.3
Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-21
2.3.1 Habitats/Ecosystems. . . . . . . . . . . .
2-22
2.3.1.1 Tidal Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . .
2-22
2.3.1.2 Freshwater Wetlands . . . . . . . .
2-23
2.3.1.3 Terrestrial Ecosystems. . . . . . .
2-38
2.3.1.4 Significant Coastal Fish and
Wildlife Habitats . . . . . . . . .
2-40
2.3.1.5 Rare and Unique Habitats. . . . . .
2-40
2.3.1.6 Protected Plants. . . . . . . . . .
2-45
2.3.1.7 Nature Preserves. . . . . . . . . .
2-45
2.3.2 Surface Water Resources. . . . . . . . . .
2-47
2.3.2.1 Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-47
2.3.2.2 Finfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-56
2.3.2.3 Eelgrass. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-63
2.3.2.4 Underwater Lands in the Peconic
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-64
2.3.3 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-65
2.3.3.1 Breeding Birds. . . . . . . . . . .
2-66
2.3.3.2 Endangered, Threatened or Species
of Special Concern. . . . . . . . .
2-66
2.4
Special Designation Areas . . . . . . . , . . .
2-69
2.4.1 Special Groundwater Protection Areas
(SGPAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-69
2.4.2 Critical Environmental Areas . . . . . . .
2-70
Vi
2.4 Special Designation Areas (cont.) Page
2.4.3 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. . . . . . . . 2-70
2.4.4 Flood Hazard Designations. . . . . . . . . 2-72
2.4.5 Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers . . . 2-73
2.5 Recreational Resources. . . . . . 2-74
2.5.1 Parks and Beaches. . . . . . . . . . . 2-74
2.5.2 Golf Courses . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 2-77
2.5.3 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79
2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . 2-79
2.7 Water Dependent Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-83
2.7.1 Marinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-83
2.7.2 Boat Repair and Storage Facilities . . . . 2-92
2.7.3 Ferry Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-92
2.7.4 Mariculture Facilities . . . . . . . . . 2-93
2.8 Human
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2-94
2.8.1
Population . . . . . . . . . ... .
. . . . 2-94
2.8.2
Land Use . . . . . . . . : . .
. . . . 2-102
2.8.3
Special Land Use Studies . . . . .
. . . . 2-104
2.8.4
Economics. . . . . . . . : . . .
. . . . 2-107
3.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY. . . . .' . . . . . . .
. . . . 3-1
3.1 Water Quality Standards, Classifications; and
Designated Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.1.1 Peconic River Drainage Basin . . . . . . . 3-4
3.1.2 Flanders Bay . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3.1.3 Peconic/Gardiners Bay System . . . . . . . 3-17
3.1.4 Boundary Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
3.2 Surface Water Quality Conditions - Impairments
and Hydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3.2.1 Areas of Impairment or Contravention of
Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
3.2.2 Surface Water Hydrodynamics. . . . . . . 3-33
vii
3.3
Ongoing Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-40
3.3.1 Federal/State Programs . . . . . . . .. . .
3-40
3.3.2 Suffolk County Programs. . . . . . . . . .
3-42
3.3.3 Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-43
3.3.4 Water Quality Programs . . . . . . . . . .
3-45
3.3.5 Intensive Surveys. . . . . . . . . . .
3-45
3.3.6 Sediment Flux Studies. . . . . . .-. : . .
3-46
3.3.7 Research Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-46
3.4
Surface Water Quality Conditions - Conventional
and Non -Conventional Pollutants . . . ...
3-47
3.4.1 Conventional Pollutants. . . . . . . . . .
3-51
3.4.2 Nonconventional Pollutants . . . . .
3-62
3.5
Summary of Assessment and Trends. . . . . . . . .
3-65
4.0 THE BROWN TIDE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-1
4.1
Spatial Extent of the Brown Tide Organism. . . .
4-2
4.1.1 Peconic Estuary. . . . . . . . . . . .
4-2
4.1.2 South Shore Bays. . . . . . . . . . .
4-9
4.1.3 Physical Factors Affecting Brown Tide
Abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-10
4.2
Biology of the Brown Tide Organism. . . . . . .
4-13
4.2.1 General Characteristics . . . . . . . .
4-13
4.2.2 Growth Dynamics . . . . . . . . . ...
4-15
4.2.3 Habitat Requirements. . . . . . . . . . .
4-17
4.2.4 Trophic Level Interactions. . . . . . . .
4-17
4.3 Effects.
4.3.1 Primary and Secondary Effects . . . . .
4.3.2 Effects on the Fisheries Resources. . . .
4.3.3 Brown Tide Effects on Eelgrass Habitat. .
4.3.4 Effects on Shellfish. . . . . . . . .
4.3.5 Socioeconomic Effects . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.6 Effects on Local and Regional Agencies. .
4.4 ' Eutrophication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Eutrophication Modeling . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Nutrient Levels versus Brown Tide
Abundance. . . . ... . . . . . . . . .
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-28
4-32
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-39
4.5 Brown Tide Research Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.6 Comparison to Other Bloom Events . . . . . . . . 4-46
4.7 Bay Scallop,Seeding Efforts. . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.8 Summary and Prognosis for the Future . . . . . . 4-50
5.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Brief Summary of Groundwater Quality
Characterization and Implications . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 Groundwater Quality Conditions. . . . . . . . . .
5-2
5.2.1 'Methodology and Presentation of Results.
5-2
5.2.1.1 Monitoring Wells. . . . . . . . . .
5-3
5.2.1.2 Public Water Supply Wells . . . . .
5-11
5.2.1.3 Private Water Supply Wells. . . . .
5-11
5.2.2 Discussion of Results -Nitrogen . . . . . .
5-20
5.2.2.1 Monitoring Well Nitrogen
Data. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
5-20
5.2.2.2 Public Supply Well Nitrogen
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-28
5.2.2.3 Private Supply Well Nitrogen
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-28
5.2.3 Discussion of Results -Organic Chemicals.
5-33
5.2.3.1 Monitoring Well Organic
Chemical Data . ... . . . . . . .
5-33
5.2.3.2 Public Supply Well Organic
Chemical Data . . . . . . . . . . .
5-33
5.2-'.3.3 Private Supply Well Organic
Chemical Data . . . . . . . . . . .
5-33
5.2.4 Discussion of Results -Pesticides . . . . .
5-39
5.2.4.1 Monitoring Well Pesticide
Chemical Data : . . . . . . . . . .
5-39
5.2.4.2 Public Supply Well Pesticide
Chemical Data . . . ... . . . . . ..
5-40
5.2.4.3 Private Supply Well Pesticide
Chemical Data . . . . . . . . . .
5-40
5.2.5 Synopsis of Results. . . . . . . . . . .
5-44
ix
5.3 Groundwater Programs. . ... . . . . . . . . . . 5-45
5.3.1 Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48
5.3.2 State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51
5.3.3 Regional Agency Programs . . . . . . . . 5-54
5.3.4 Suffolk County Agency Programs . . . . . . 5-55
5.3.5 Town & Village Agency Programs . . . . . . 5-58
5.4 Groundwater Classifications and Standards . . . . 5-59
5.4.1 Groundwater Classifications. . . . . . 5-60
5.4.2 Groundwater Standards. . . . . . . . . 5-60
VOLUME II
6.0 SOURCES OF
POLLUTANTS TO THE PECONIC SYSTEM . . . . .
6-1
6:1 Point
Source Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-7
6.1.1
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. . . . . .
6-11
6..1.2
Industrial/Commercial Discharges
6-39-
6.1.3
Major Point Sources: Peconic River,
Meetinghouse Creek, and Riverhead STP. . .
6-48
6.1.4
Duck Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-64
6.1.5
Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-73
6.2 Nonpoint Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-82
6.2.1
Overall Nonpoint Source Loadings to the
System . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
6-85
6.2.2
Agricultural and Residential Land Use and
Loading.t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-89
6.2.3
On -Site Sewage Disposal. . . . . . . . . .
6-103
6.2.4
Spills, Leaks and Storage Tank Data. .
6-115
6.2.5
Hazardous Waste Storage/Improper Disposal.
6-130
6.2.6
Stormwater Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-136
6.2.7
Marina/Boating Impacts . . . . . . . . . .
6-151
6.2.8
Dredging Impacts and Sediment Flux . . . .
6-159
6.2.9
Atmospheric Deposition . . . . . . . . . .
6-180
6.2.10
Animal Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-184
6.3 Land Use and Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . 6-185
6.3.1 Existing Land Use and Land Use Changes -
Primary Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-188
X
6.3.2 Existing Land Use and Land Use Changes -
Extended Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . 6-197
6.3.3 Land Available For Development . . . . . 6-203
6.3.4 Changes in Environmental Resources . . . 6-210
6.4 Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Summary . . . . 6-210
7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Computer Modelling: Impact Assessment and
Alternatives Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7.1.1
Nitrogen and Coliform Goals. . . . . . . .
7-8
7.1.2
Base Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-13
7.1.3
Peconic River Management Alternatives. . .
7-13
7.1.4
Riverhead STP Management Alternatives. . .
7-16
7.1.5
Meetinghouse Creek Management Alternatives
7-22
7.1.6
Miscellaneous Model Runs . . . . . . .
7-24
7-46
7.1.6.1 Ocean Boundary Impacts. . . . . . .
7-24
7-49
7.1.6.2 No Man -Induced Pollution. . . . . .
7-24
7-51
7.1.6.3 No Future Controls. . . . . . . . .
7-24
7-51
7.1.6.4 Atmospheric Deposition. . . . . . .
7-24
7.1-7
Groundwater Management Alternatives. . . .
7-25
7.1-8
Coliform Bacteria Management Alternatives.
7-27
7.1-9
Sediment Flux as Incorporated in Model . .
7-28
7.2 Findings and
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-29
7.2.1 Brown
Tide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-29
7.2.2 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-32
7.2.3 Marine Surface Water Quality . . . . . . .
7-36
7.2.4 Major
Point Sources. . . . . . . . . . . .
7-40
7.2.4.A
Sewage Treatment Plants . . . . . .
7-40
7.2.4.B
Peconic River . . . . . . . . . .
7-46
7.2.4.0
Meetinghouse Creek. . . . . . . . .
7-49
7.2.5 Major
Non -Point Sources. . . . . . . . . .
7-51
7.2.5.A
Sediment Flux . . . . . . . . .
7-51
7.2.5.B
Stormwater Runoff . . . . . . . . .
7-52
7.2.5.0
Groundwater Underflow-Fertilizer and
Sanitary System Waste Contribution.
7-55
7.2.6 Other
Sources of Pollution . . . . . .
7-60
7.2.6.A
Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-60
7.2.6.B
Hazardous -Materials and Industrial
Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-62
Xi
.7.2.6.0 ,Marinas and Boating . . . . . . . . 7-66
7.2.6.D Atmospheric Deposition. . . . . . . 7-71
7.2.7 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-72
7.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-73
7.3.1 Brown
Tide . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-73
7.3.2 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
7-73
7.3.3 Marine
Surface Water Quality . . . . .
7-74
7.3.4 Major
Point Sources. . . . . .. . . .
7-75
7.3.4.A
Sewage Treatment Plant. . . . . .
7-75
7_.3.4.B
Peconic River . . . . . . . . . . .
7-79
7.3.4.0
Meetinghouse Creek. . . . . ... . .
7-80
7.3.5 Major
Non -Point Sources. .
7-81
7.3.5.A
Sediment*Flux . . . . . . . . . . .
7-81
7.3.5.B
Stormwater Runoff . . . . . . . . .
7-81
7.3.5.0
Groundwater Underflow-Fertilizer and
Sanitary System Waste Contribution.
7-82
7.3.6 Other
Sources of Pollution . . . . . . . .
7-82
7.3.6.A
Landfills . . . . . . . . . . .
7-82
7.3.6.B
Hazardous Materials and Industrial
Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-83
7.3.6.0
Marinas and Boating . . ... . . . .
7-83
7.3.6.D
Atmospheric Deposition. . . . . . .
7-84
7.3.7 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-85
7.4 Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7=85
7.5 Compliance with Clean Water Act Objectives. . . .
7-87
7.6 Updated Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . 7-88
8.0 Citizens' Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.0.1 Citizens' Involvement in Peconic Estuary
Management . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.0.2 Section 205(j) and Citizen Input . . . . . 8-1
8.0.3. BTCAMP CAC Goals & Objectives. . . . . . 8-1
8.1 Organizational Activities . . . . . . . 8-2
8.1.1 CAC Inception and Development. . . . . . . 8-2
xii
8.1.2 Committee Management Structure and
Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8.2 General Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 8-5
8.3 Activities and Achievements . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.3.1 Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8.3.2 BTCAMP Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8.4 CAC Operation - Evaluation and Recommendation . . 8-13
8.5 CAC Policy Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14
8.5.1 Administration, Funding, Public Participation
and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14
8.5.2 Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
8.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21
8.7 CAC Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1
VOLUME III
Appendix Paae
A Species Inventory of the Peconic System Study Area A-1
SCDHS Project Specific -Data
B Breeding Birds of the Peconic System Study Area. . . . B-1
C Water Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
D SCDHS Intensive Sampling Run Data. . . . . . . . . . D-1
E SCDHS Brown Tide Sampling Station Data . . . . . . . E-1
F Stormwater Runoff Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix
Paae
G SCDHS Point Source Monitoring Data (except 1990) . . . G-1
H Dissolved Oxygen Data. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . H-1
I Hydrogeology Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
J Management Alternatives - Computer Modelling Runs. . . J-1
K Brookhaven National Laboratory - Updated Environmental.
Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
L Grumman - Updated Environmental Data . . . . . . . . . L-1
xiv
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page
1.2-1
Water Body Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-11
1.5-1
Peconic Bay Historical Water Quality Data. . . .
1-38
2.1-1
General Surficial Geology. . . . . . . . . . . .
2-3
2.1-2
General. Soil Characteristics . . . . . . . . . .
2-5
2.1-3
Peconic Bay Sediment Characteristics . . . . . .
2-8
2.1-4
Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units . . . . . .
2-11
2.1-5
NYS Classifications for Surface Waters . . . . .
2-14
2.1-6
Monthly Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-16
2.1-7
Rainfall at Riverhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-17
2.3-1
Tidal Wetland Indicator Species. . . . . . . . .
2-24
2.3-2
Tidal Wetlands in the Peconic System . . . . . .
2-25
2.3-3
Salt Marsh Acreage . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .
2-33
2.3-4
Freshwater Wetland Plants Occurring
on Long Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-35
2.3-5
Additional Freshwater Wetlands Indicator
Species Common on Long Island ._ . . . . . . . .
2-37
2.3-6
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats
In and Adjacent to the Peconic System . . . . .
2-41
xv
Table No.
Title
Page
2.3-7
Shellfish and Flounder Landings. . . . ... . . .
2-48
2.3-8
Waters Closed to Shellfishing in Suffolk County.
2-54
2.3-9
Closed Shellfish Grounds in the Peconic System
2-55
2.3-10
List of Fish Species from an Otter Trawl in the
Peconic System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-59
2.3-11
Freshwater Fishes Reported from the Peconic River
System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-61
2.5-1
Major New York State and Suffolk County Parks
in the Peconic System . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-75
2.5-2
Campgrounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-76
2.5-3
Golf Courses in the Peconic System . . . . . .
2-78
2.7-1
Marinas and Pump Out Facilities. . . . . . . . .
2-84
2.7-2
Public Boat Launches . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-90
2.7-3
Mooring Permits Issued by Town . . . . . . . .
2-91
2.8-1
Population Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-95
2.8-2
East End Population Projections... . . . . . ...
2-96
2.8-3
East End Seasonal Population Increase. . . . . .
2-98
2.8-4
East End Year-Round'Households . . . . . . . .
2-99
2.8-5
East End Average Household Size. . . . . . . .
2-100
2.8-6
Long Island Population Density and Family
Incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-101
xvi
Table No.
Title
Page
2.8-7
Land Uses in BTCAMP Study Area . . . . . . . . .
2-103
2.8-8
1981 Land Use in East End Towns. . . . . . . . .
2-105
2.8-9
East End Land Use Projections for 2000 and 2020.
2-106
3.1-1
Quality Standards for Fresh Surface Waters . .
3-3
3.1-2
Quality Standards for Saline Surface Waters. . .
3-5
3.1-3
Quality Standards by Classification for Fresh
Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-6
3.1-4
Quality Standards by Classification for Saline
Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-9
3.1-5
The Water Bodies of the Peconic River Drainage
Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-11
3.1-6
Flanders Bay (Water Bodies). . . . . . . . . . .
3-14
3.1-7a
Gardiners Bay (Water Bodies) . . . . . . . . . .
3-18
3.1-7b
Shelter Island Sound (Water Bodies). . . . . . .
3-19
3.1-7c
Little Peconic Bay (Water Bodies). . . . . . . .
3-22
3.1-7d
Great Peconic Bay (Water Bodies) . . . . . . . .
3-23
3.2-1
1988 Priority Water Problem List in the
Peconic System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-28
3.2-2
Concentrations (ug/1) of Tributyltin (TBT) and
Dibutyltin (DBT) in Suffolk County Marine Waters
3-32
xvii
Table No. Title Page
3.2-3 Freshwater Boundary Inflows Utilized in the
Hydrodynamic Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.3-1 BTCAMP Research Projects, 1985-1989. . . . ... . 3-48
3.4=1 Distribution of Certain. Contaminants in the
Peconic System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63
3.4-2 Selected Pesticide Contaminants in the Peconic
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66
4.3-1 Distribution of Zostera Marina (Eelgrass) . . . 4-24
4.6-1 Recent Algal Blooms in New Jersey Waters 4-48
4.7-1 Bay Scallop Restoration'Project. . . . . . . . . 4-49
5.2-1 Groundwater Qualtiy Analysis Regions . . . . 5-5
5.2-2 Monitoring Well Historical Nitrogen Data . . . . 5-8
5.2-3 Summary of Monitoring Well Nitrogen Data 5-21
5.2-4 BTCAMP Monitoring Well Historical Data Profile 5-26
5.2-5 Summary of Public Water Supply Well Nitrogen
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29
5.2-6 Summary of Private Well Total -Nitrogen Data,
1973-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30
5.2-7 Summary of Private Well Total Nitrogen Data,
Peconic Bays System Regions, 1987-1988 5-32
5.2-8 Summary of Monitoring Well Organics and
Pesticides Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
Table No.
Title
Page
5.2-9
Summary of Public Water Supply Well Organics
Data. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
5-36
5.2-10
Summary of Private Well Organic Chemical Data.
5-37
5.2-11
Summary of Private Well Pesticide Data,
1980-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-41
5.2-12
Summary of Private Well Pesticide Data by
Individual Constituents, 1980-1988 . . . . . . .
5-43
5.2-13
Deep Monitoring and Public Supply Wells. . . .
5-46
5.2-14
Groundwater Data from Deep Monitoring and Public
Supply Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-47
5.3-1
Summary of Existing Programs Related to Major
Groundwater Management Agencies. . . . . . . . .
5-49
5.4-1
New York State Department of Health Drinking
Water Standards and Guidelines, January 1990..
5-61
6.1-1
Point Source Nutrient Concentrations and
Loadings: 1976 vs. 1988-1990 . . . . . . . . . .
6-14
6.1-2
Sewage Treatment Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-16
6.1-3
Comparison of Surface Water Sewage Treatment
Plant Nitrogen Loadings in the Peconic System.
6-18
6.1-4
STP DMR Operating Data (January 1987 -July 1988).
6-20
6.1-5
1988 Sewage Treatment Plant SPDES Permit
Violations . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-21
6.1-6
1989 Sewage Treatment Plant SPDES Permit'
Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-22
Table No. Title Page
6.1-7 Additional DMR Monitoring Data -Brookhaven
National Lab and Grumman Aerospace . . . . . . . 6-25
6.1-8 Riverhead STP Point Source Effluent Nitrogen
Data (February - May, 1989). . . . . . . . . . . 6-29
6.1-9A SCDHS Riverhead STP Combined Effluent Sampling
Data, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30
6.1-9B Riverhead Scavenger Waste Facility, Summary of
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32
6.1-10 Shelter Island Heights STP Data, 1988-1989 . . . 6-35
6.1-11 Sag Harbor STP Weir Outlet Sampling Data, 1990 . 6-37
6.1-12 Active Industrial SPDES Permits in Study Area. . 6-44
6.1-13 Inactive or Former Industrial Dischargers. . . . 6-46
6.1-14 Point Sources, Comparison of Nitrogen
(Constituents) Concentrations and Loadings:
1976 vs. 1988-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-49
6.1-15A Peconic River Gauge Sampling Data, 1990. . . . . 6-51
6.1-15B Peconic River at Spillway, Grangebel Park,
Riverhead, Sampling Data, 1990 . . . . . . . . 6-55
6.1-16A Duck Farms in Peconic System Groundwater -
Contributing Area. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 6-66
6.1-16B Duck Farm Wastewater Discharge and Treatment
Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-67
6.1-16C Duck Farm SPDES Discharge Requirements . . . . 6-68
XX
Table No. Title Page
6.1-17A Meetinghouse Creek Sampling Data - Downstream
of Corwin Duck Farm, 1990. . . . . . . _ . . . 6-70
6.1-17B Meetinghouse Creek Headwaters Sampling Data,
1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-72
6.1-18 Landfills in Peconic System Groundwater -
Contributing Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-74
6.1-19 Landfill Operation and Contamination Data: . . . 6-77
6.2-1 Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Summary . . . . 6-87
6.2-2 Residential and Agricultural Land Use in Sewered
and Unsewered Areas in Peconic River and
Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas. . . 6-90
6.2-3 Estimated Nitrogen Leaching Rates in Sewered,
Unsewered and Agricultural Areas . . . . . . . 6-91
6.2-4 Estimated Annual Nitrogen Recharge Rates
by Land Use Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-93
6.2-5 The Properties of Nitrogen Sources Used
on Golf Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-95
6.2-6 Relative Fertilizer Nitrogen Loading in
Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -
Contributing Area From Residential and
Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-96
6.2-7 Total Nitrogen Loading by Land Use in Peconic
River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing
Area From Residential and Agricultural Lands . . 6-97
XXi
Table No.
Title Page
6.2-8 Residential and Agricultural Fertilizer Nitrogen
.Loading in Peconic River and Flanders Bay
Groundwater -Contributing Area. . . . . . . . . . 6-99
6.2-9 Nitrogen Loading from Groundwater, Peconic
River and Flanders Bay, 1988-1989. . . . . . . . 6-100
6.2-10 Projected Loading Comparison to Groundwater and
Surface Water, Peconic River and Flanders Bay
Areas, 1988-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-101
6.2-11 Agricultural Statistics for Suffolk County . . . 6-102
6.2-12 Simulated Nitrate Leaching Concentration for
Various Land Uses in Southold. . . . . . . . . . 6-104
6.2-13 Changes in Agricultural and Vacant Land Use
from 1976 to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-105
6.2-14 Land Uses in Unsewered Areas in Peconic River and
Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas.-. 6-107
6.2-15 On -Lot Sewage Disposal in Peconic River and
Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas. . . 6-108
6.2-16 Wastewater and Scavenger Waste Generation Factors 6-110
6.2-17 On -Lot Scavenger Waste Generation in Peconic River
and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas. 6-112
6.2-18 Tank Leaks in Study Area, January 1986 through
1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-117
6.2-19 Spills and Leaks in vicinity of Study Area,
October 1985 to August 1988. . . . . . . . . . . 6-119
Table No. Title Pane
6.2-20 Spills and Leaks in Study Area, Pre -1984:
Large Spills Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-121
6.2-21 Grumman Aerospace, Calverton and Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Storage Tank Data . . . . . 6-123
6.2-22 Major Aboveground, Outdoor Storage Tank
Facilities in the Peconic System Groundwater -
Contributing Area in Riverhead Town. . . . . . . 6-126
6.2-23 Land Use in Stormwater.Runoff Contributing Area
to Peconic River and Flanders Bay. . . . . . . . 6-140
6.2-24 Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors. . . . . . . 6-142
6.2-25 Selected Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors . . . 6-143
6.2-26 Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors, Supplemental
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-144
6.2-27 Stormwater Runoff Loading. . . . . . . . . . . 6-145
6.2-28 Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading in
Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic
River and Flanders Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-146
6.2-29 BOD and TSS Loading in Stormwater Runoff
Contributing Area to Peconic River and
Flanders Bay . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . 6-148
6.2-30 Fecal and Total Coliform Loading in Stormwater
Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and
Flanders Bay . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-149
6.2-31 Coliform Load Reductions and Shellfish Bed
Openings As Predicted by the Matrix Manipulation
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-150
Table No.
Title
Page
6.2-32
Coast Guard Regulations for MSDs - As.of
January 30, 1980 . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
6-155
6.2-33
Federal Navigation Projects in the Peconic System
6-162
6.2-34
Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects. . .
6-163
6.2-35
Coliform Waste Characteristics . . . . . . . . .
6-186
6.3.1
Land Uses in Peconic River and Flanders Bay
Groundwater -Contributing Areas . . . . . . . . .
.6-189
6.3-2
Land Use in Stormwater Runoff -Contributing Area
to Peconic River and Flanders Bay. . . . . . . .
6-190
6.3-3
Land Use Classification System . . . . .. . . . .
6-191
6.3-4
Land Use Region Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . .
6-194
6.3-5
Changes in Agricultural and Vacant Land
Use from 1976 to 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-196
6.3-6
Summary of Land Use Data ,(in. acres) for the
South Fork Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
6-198
6.3-7
Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the
Shelter Island Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-199
6.3-8
Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the
North Fork Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-200
6.3-9
Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the South
Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork Basins . . .
6-201
6.3-10
Summary of Land Available for Development for
Areas 1-8 by Category . . ... . . . . . . . . .
6-205
xxiv
Table No. Title PacrP
6.3-11 Summary of Land Available for Development for
Areas 1-8 by Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-206
6.3-12 Preliminary estimate of land available for
development in the South Fork, Shelter Island
and North Fork Basins as of 1988 (in acres). . . 6-207
6.3-13 Estimated losses of Environmental Resources
from 1976 to 1987/88 (in acres). . . . . . . . . 6-211
6.4-1 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-212
6.4-2 Groundwater Quality and Point and Nonpoint
Loading Adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-215
6.4-3 Point Source Coliform Estimates, Wet Year vs-.
Dry Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-217
6.4.4 Projected Loading Comparison to Groundwater
and Surface Water, Peconic River and Flanders
Area, 198,8-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-222
7.0-1 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
7.1-1 Point Sources Included in the WASPS Peconic
Bay Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
xxv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Title
Paae
1.2-1
Map of Long Island Including the Study Area. . .
1-8
1.2-2
The Peconic System Study Area. . . . . . . . . .
1-10
1.2-3
Planning Area Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-14
1.2-4
Jurisdictional Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . ..
1-2.0
1.3-1
Water Quality Assessment Approach. . . . . . . .
1-28
2.1-1
Groundwater Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . .
2-12
2.2-1
Average Salinity Distribution. . . . . . . . . .
2-19
2.3-1
Landings by Year for Bay Scallops. . . . . . . .
2-50
2.3-2
Landings by Year for Hard Clams. . . . . . . . .
2-51
2.3-3
Landings by Year.for Oysters . . . . . . . . . .
2-53
3.2-1
Location of Tide Stations in Peconic Bay System.
3-36
3.2-2a
Computed Velocities in Peconic Bay on
July 20, 1976 at hour 05:00. . . . . . . .
3-38
3.2-2b
Computed Velocities in Peconic Bay on
July 20, 1976 at hour 11:00. . . . . . . . . . .
3-39
3.2-3
Computed Tidal Ranges vs. Observed Tides at Four
3-41
3.4-1
Water Quality Sampling Stations. . . . . . . . .
3=52
3.4-2
Flanders Bay Water Quality Sampling Stations
3-53
3.4-3
Average Nitrogen Constituent Levels. . . . . . .
3-54
XXvi
Figure No.
Title
Paae
3.4-4
Average Phosphate Levels . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-55
3.4-5
Total Nitrogen and Total Kjeldahi Nitrogen . . .
3-56
3.4-5A
Total Nitrogen - Summer Conditions . . . . . . .
3-57
3.4-5B
Total Nitrogen - Winter Conditions . . . . . . .
3-58
3.4-6
Average Total and Fecal Coliform Counts. . . . .
3-59
3.5-1
Total Nitrogen Time Series (Flanders Bay Only)
3-68
3.5-2
Total Phosphorous Time Series (Flanders Bay Only)
3-69
4.1-1
Areas of Brown Tide Occurrence ... . . . . . . .
4-3
4.1-2
SCDHS Brown Tide Water Quality Sampling Stations
4-4
4.1-3
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average
Cell Count .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
4.1-4
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Maximum
Cell Count by Month for Flanders Bay Station
4-8
4.1-5
Steady -State Pollution Susceptibility. . . . . .
4-11
4.1-6
Brown'Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Cell
Count vs. Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
4-12
4.2-1
Brown Tide Organism. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-14
4.3-1
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Cell Count
vs. Depth of Light Penetration (Secchi).
4-25
4.3-2
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average Cell
vs. Depth of Light Penetration (Secchi).'. . . .
4-26
Figure No.
Title
Paae
4.4-1
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average
Cell Count vs. Ammonia Nitrogen Levels . . . . .
4-41
4.4-2
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average
Cell Count vs. Nitrite Nitrogen Levels . . . . .
4-42
4.4-3
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average
Cell Count vs. Nitrate Nitrogen Levels . . . . .
4-43
5.2-1
Groundwater Quality Analysis Regions . . . . . .
5-4
5.2-2
Private Well Average Nitrogen Concentrations
5-12
5.2-3
Private Well Average Nitrogen Data by Region,
1987-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-13
5.2-4
Private Well Average Total Nitrogen Data by
Region, Comparison By Time Periods . . . . . . .
5-14
5.2-5
Private Well Organic Chemical Detection Data by
Region, 1977-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-15
5.2-6 Private Well Organic Chemical Detection Data,
Comparison by Time Periods . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
5.2-7 Private Well Pesticide Data. . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5.2-8 Average Pesticide Concentrations in Private Water
Supply Wells, 1980-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
5.2-9 Pesticide Detections Above Drinking Water Guidelines
in Private Water Supply Wells, 1980-1988 . . . . 5-19
6.0-1 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading
(General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.0-2 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading . . . 6-5
Figure No.
Title
Pace
6.1-1
Point Source Discharge in the Study Area . . . .
6-8
6.1-2
Sewage Treatment Plants in Study Area. . . . . .
6-9
6.1-3
Point Source Phosphorus Loading. . . . . . . . .
6-12
6.1-4
Point Source Nitrogen Loading. . . . . . . . . .
6-13
6.1-5
Comparative Nitrogen Constituent Loading . . . .
6-15
6.1-6
Brookhaven National Laboratory-Peconic River
Sampling Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-41
6.1-7
Rowe Industries Organic Plume. . . . . . . . . .
6-47
6.1-8A
Peconic River Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Concentrations (October 1976 - September 1986)
6-53
6.1-8B
Meetinghouse Creek Nitrogen Data (April 1987 -
March 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-57
6.1-8C
Riverhead STP Nitrogen Data (April 1989 -
March 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-59
6.1-9
Peconic River Coliform Data (April 1989 -
March 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-60
6.1-10A
Meetinghouse Creek Coliform Data (April 1987 -
March 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-61
6.1-10B
Meetinghouse Creek Coliform Data (April 1988 -
March 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-62
6.1-11
Riverhead STP Coliform Data (April 1989 -
March 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-63
6.1-12
Landfills in the Peconic System. . . . . . . . .
6-76
Figure No. Title Page
6.1-13 North Sea Landfill, Previous Monitoring Wells and
Location of Leachate Plume . . . . . . . . . . . 6-78
6.2-1 Concentrations of Conventional Parameters in
Stormwater as Compared to those in Secondary -
Treated Municipal Effluent . . . . . . . . . . . 6-84
6.2-2 Nitrogen Flow in the Watershed . . . . . . . . . 6-B6
6.2-3 Relative On -Lot Wastewater Generation. . . . . . 6-113
6.2-4 On -Lot Sewage Disposal by Land Use . . . . . . . 6-1.14
6.2-5 Comparison of Sediment Volumes and Land Use Types 6-152
6.2-6 Locations of Federal and Suffolk County
Dredging Projects. . . . . . . . . . 6-160
6.2-7 Location Map of the Peconic Bay Estuarine ---System
Showing Positions of Sediment Flux Sampling
Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-175
6.2-8 Benthic Oxygen Flux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-176
6.2-9 Benthic Nitrate + Nitrite Flux . . . . . . . . . 6-177
6.2-10 Benthic Ammonium Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-178
6.2-11 Benthic DIP Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-179
6.2-12 Average Monthly Rainfall pH Data (1978-1987) 6-181
6.2-13 Annual Rainfall pH Data, 1978-1987 . . . . . . . 6-182
6.4-1 Total Nitrogen Loading to Peconic River/Flanders
Bay, 1988-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-213
XXX
Figure No. Title Pale
7.1-1 Point Sources Included in WASP5 Peconic Bay Model 7-10
7.1-2 Longitudinal Transect used for Presentation of
Peconic Bay WASP5 Model Results. . . . . . . . . 7-11
7.1-3 Enlargement of Link -Node Network Showing Flanders
Bay and Peconic River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
7.1-4 D.O. Range vs Chlorophyll. . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
7.1-5 Chlorophyll vs Total Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . 7-15
7.1-6 Base Case Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18
7.1-7 Total Nitrogen Verification Run. . . . . . . . . 7-19
7.1-8 Cumulative Improvement of Management Alternatives 7-26
7.6-1 Impacts of Riverhead STP Flow. . . . . . . . . . 7-90
7.6-2 Impacts of Riverhead STP Flow. . . . . . . . . . 7-91
L0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study
1.1.1 BTCAMP Stud gins and Objectives
The Peconic system is an interconnected series of shallow coastal embayments at the eastern
end of Long Island, New York, that has been plagued with an unusual algal bloom which has been
popularly dubbed the "Brown Tide." This bloom has resulted in widespread devastation of the
living resources (shellfish, finfish, eelgrass) of this important coastal ecosystem.
The microscopic algal cell responsible for the recurring bloom has been named Aureococcus
anophagefferens. The Brown Tide organism persisted in high concentrations for extended periods
in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. The Brown Tide continues to occasionally reappear, as evidenced
by the elevated Brown Tide cell counts which were observed in July of 1990 in West Neck Bay, a
sheltered water body off Shelter Island, and western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays.
Brown Tide has also reappeared in high concentrations in Shinnecock and Moriches Bays in the
fall of 1990 and persisted into the winter. A recent, intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the
Peconic Estuary system in May, 1991 and persisted in high concentrations through July, 1991. A
Moriches and Shinnecock Bays bloom of Brown Tide also began in May, but persisted through
December 1991. In the summer of 1992,.Brown Tide reappeared in high concentrations in West
Neck Bay, Great South Bay, Shinnecock Bay, and Moriches Bay. Due to the severe impact that
the Brown Tide bloom has had on the Peconic system, including the destruction of a large
percentage of the eelgrass population as well as the decimation of the area's thriving shellfish
industry, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has initiated the Brown
Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP).
BTCAMP is a multi-year study designed to address the cause of the Brown Tide, as well as
more conventional water quality problems, and to identify measures that could restore and
preserve the water quality of the affected East End bays. This project provides for a
comprehensive program of bay monitoring, mathematical modelling, and support of specialized
research activities to identify measures to prevent or minimize future episodes of the Brown Tide
bloom. The BTCAMP Management Plan presented in this report will also investigate the more
conventional water quality problems impacting local bay areas, identify corrective actions to
minimize future water quality problems, and provide a framework to support ongoing water
quality management in the Peconic system.
The initial objective of BTCAMP and the focus of the present report is the development of a
management plan that functions as a planning tool for State, County, and local agencies. One key
facet of the study is to determine the relationships that may exist between man's activities in the
coastal area of the Peconics and concomitant changes in water quality that may have contributed to
1-1
the Brown Tide blooms. In addition to the above effort, the main focus of the management plan is
to present preferred techniques for point and nonpoint source pollution control strategies, as well
as to identify additional land use planning and environmental management programs which can be
implemented to improve water quality in the Peconic system.
Technically feasible alternatives have been developed and presented in this document.
Based upon review and evaluations performed as part of this study, a recommended plan is
presented to be used as a tool and planning guide. Although economic factors will be considered
in this study, a detailed analysis of economic issues is beyond the scope of BTCAMP.
Nevertheless, if it is technically feasible to improve water quality to the point that the occurrence
of Brown Tide may be prevented or inhibited, then decision-making bodies will have sufficient
information to determine the benefits of corrective actions.
1. 1.2 The Pollution Problem
Pollution problems in the Peconic estuary have resulted from numerous point and non -point
sources of pollution which have individually and cumulatively adversely affected the Peconic
system. The point sources in the study area include ten sewage treatment plants, six of which
discharge directly to surface waters. Duck farming activity has also played a prominent role in the
pollution of the Peconic estuary. In the late 1970's, at least seven duck farms discharged within
the study area; today only one of these farms remain active, but is nonetheless a major facility
which has caused pollution of the Peconic system. Both sewage treatment plants and duck farms
contribute significant loads of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), coliforms, BOD, and
suspended solids. Finally, rivers and tributaries such as the Peconic River and Meetinghouse
Creek have been considered as point sources, since they provide convenient opportunities to gauge
flow and monitor for pollutant levels. In actuality, the streams incorporate the impacts of several
point and non -point sources within their watershed, such as stormwater runoff, sewage treatment
plant effluent, fertilizer, and sanitary system effluent. In the case of Meetinghouse Creek, the
Corwin duck farm contribution is factored into the overall pollution loading of the creek.
Other point sources include nine major landfills which exist in the study area, five of which
are currently active. For example, the North Sea landfill has generated a plume of ammonia, iron,
and manganese which has reached its surface water boundary at Fish Cove. Industrial and
commercial sources such as the Rowe Industries site in Sag Harbor, which has generated a plume
of organic solvents which have.reached their discharge boundary at the surface waters of the study
area, constitute another point source of contamination.
- Nonpoint sources encompass those pollution sources which have no single identifiable point
of entry for the contamination. Sediment flux, which is the interchange of chemicals such as -
oxygen and nutrients between bottom sediments and the water column, is a major source of
pollution to the Peconic system. Recently, sediment/water column flux has been identified as the
1-2
single largest source of nitrogen pollution to the Peconic system based on limited sampling data
(Dr. J. Garber, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory). Sediment flux rates reflect particulate organic
carbon deposition and subsequent sediment diagenesis, or decomposition and mineralization of
organic matter. The deposition of particulate organic carbon is directly related to phytoplankton
production and point source loading, such as sewage treatment plant and tributary contribution.
Groundwater contribution is a nonpoint source of contribution which incorporates several
pollutant sources in its overall load. For example, sanitary system effluent and fertilizer leachate
are pollution sources which are included in the groundwater contribution analysis. This
groundwater loading evaluation relies on groundwater quality analysis (see Section 5) coupled
with actual quantitative groundwater contribution estimates which are based on data obtained from
a USGS three-dimensional finite difference grid model (see Section 6).
Another major nonpoint source is stormwater runoff, which has historically been considered
to be the primary source of bacterial contamination to the surface waters of the Peconic system.
Although stormwater runoff has historically been considered to be the major factor in surface
water coliform loading which results in the closure of shellfish beds, discharges from boating -
related activity are another potential source of several types of pollution, including bacteria, oil and
grease, and other chemical pollution. Marinas and boating are potential concerns in constrained
and poorly -flushed water bodies. Shoreline development and sanitary waste disposal are also a
concern with respect to pathogen contribution to constrained and poorly -flushed water bodies due
to unproper siting of sanitary systems in shallow groundwater conditions as well as possible
overflow and bypass of sanitary waste. Atmospheric deposition is another non -point source of
pollution considered in this study, as is hazardous chemical leakage and spillage.
Although the nonpoint source nitrogen loading as quantified in Section 6 greatly exceeds the
total nitrogen load for point sources, the management of point sources remains a primary concern
in the Peconic Estuary system and a major goal of BTCAMP. The significance of point sources
has been established by computer modelling of the surface water system, which has shown that
stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition, and groundwater underflow are not nearly as
significant in the management of nitrogen contribution to the Peconic Estuary system as are the
point sources (see Section 7). The predictive computer modeling (Tetra -Tech) has also determined
that the marine surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality.
Preliminary sampling efforts (Dr. D. Capone, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory) to determine the
actual contribution of groundwater to the marine system further indicate that groundwater nitrogen
input may not be a major influence in the water quality of the Peconic system (see Section 6).
Thus, the apparent quantitative significance of groundwater nitrogen contribution must be
tempered by evidence that it is not as important as other point sources.
In terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts related to nitrogen loading,
point sources are more significant due to the concentrated, localized nature of their discharges at
1-3
environmentally sensitive locations in the Peconic Estuary. Sediment flux, due to its apparently
high loading rate, is a nonpoint source which is a major management concern with respect to
nitrogen input despite the dispersed nature of its contribution. However, sediment flux is directly
related to point source deposition and further highlights the need for control of point sources. The
relative impacts of the various sources as evaluated with respect to management alternatives are
discussed in detail in Section 7.
1. 1.3 Water Quality and Natural. Resource Impacts
Historically, most- of the Peconic estuary has experienced generally good to excellent water
quality. However, several areas of the estuary now do not meet water quality standards required
for shellfishing, fishing, and.swimming (see Section 3). Pathogen contamination from stormwater
runoff as well as from sewage treatment plant effluent and potential duck farm contribution
continue to be serious problems which have resulted in the closure of over 3,000 acres of
shellfishing grounds. In addition, the Peconic River and Flanders Bay have not met pollution
input guidelines set forth in the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan
(LI 208 Study). As a result, nutrient pollution and cultural eutrophication have been occurring in
the poorly flushed areas of the western bays system in which the heaviest loading of contaminants
occur. Pesticide contamination of East Creek has been detected, most likely due to the agricultural
influence in the area. In addition, a draft report indicates that clam populations in Fish Cove may
have been adversely impacted as a result of North Sea Landfill leachate (H2M, 1990). Recently, a
USEPA press ' release (October, 1992) announced that no further federal action at the North Sea
landfill site is necessary, based on a program of remedial action. The program calls for further
monitoring of groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish Cove, and hard clam recruitment.
The most severe manifestation of the problems which have been plaguing the Peconic
Estuary is the occurrence of the Brown Tide Bloom, which persisted for extended periods in 1985
through 1988 and subsequently continued to reappear unpredicatably. The devastating effects of
the Brown Tide (see Section 4) have included the virtual eradication of the scallop population and
the decimation of eelgrass beds and hatchery areas. Other shellfish and finfish have also suffered
from the Brown Tide bloom; the long-range impacts of the Brown Tide have yet to be assessed.
The Brown Tide organism continues to occasionally reappear, as evidenced by the elevated Brown
Tide cell counts which were observed in July of 1990 in West Neck Bay, a sheltered water body
off Shelter Island, and western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays. Brown Tide has also
reappeared in high concentrations in Shinnecock and- Moriches Bays in the _ fall of 1990 and
persisted into the winter.
1.1.4 Economic Impacts
The impacts of all forms of coastal pollution have substantial economic repercussions.
Between 1970 and 1990, 2,198 additional acres of shellfish beds were closed in the Peconic
system. These closed shellfish grounds are generally located in the numerous creeks and bays that
contain the most productive shellfish beds.
1-4
Approximately ninety commercial fish species, including seven of the ten most valuable,
depend on coastal waters during one or more stages of their life cycle (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1983). Sixty percent of the annual U.S. marine commercial harvest, and sixty-four
percent of the marine recreational catch, consist of estuarine -dependent species (Natural Resources
Defense Council, 1976).
The present management plan has been developed with an understanding that the economies
of the East End communities rely heavily on the inshore marine resources of the Peconic estuary.
One major component of the water resources historically taken from the system is the bay scallop,
ArgMectin irradians. Prior to 1985, Peconic and Gardiners Bays typically accounted for about
one quarter of all bay scallops harvested in the United States (Suffolk County Planning
Department, 1987). The baymen of eastern Suffolk County have depended upon the bay scallop
as a primary source of their fall and winter fishing income. For example, in 1982, bay scallop
catches from the Peconic System accounted for approximately 28% of the United States landings
of this species; the catch in 1982 was 491,000 pounds and had a dockside value of $1.8 million.
However, by 1987 and 1988, after the scallop population was devastated as a result of the Brown
Tide, only about 300 pounds per year were harvested, with an annual dockside value of
approximately $2,500.
The Peconic Bay oyster is another species of historic importance which has suffered as a
result of recent algae blooms. Although oysters have suffered in quality and in excessive mortality
from algae blooms dating as far back as the 1940's, the oyster business was worth about $3.4
million annually in 1982 before its value plummeted to less than $10,000 per year in 1987.
Although the dockside value of commercial fishery landings is significant, it is much smaller
than the actual revenues generated by other water -related activities, including businesses,
restaurants, marinas, and other institutions which cater to sportfishermen, boaters, and bathers who
utilize the Peconic system. The Association of Marine Industries (AMI) has reported that,
according to an analysis of a 1987 survey conducted by the AMI, annual- gross revenues of the 69
marinas in the Peconic Estuary system is estimated to be 115 million dollars, with overall direct
revenues derived from boaters exceeding an estimated 229 million dollars. Thus, water quality is
inextricably linked to the economic well-being of the Peconic Estuary area.
1. 1.5 The Population Complication
The coastal communities of the east end of Long Island, like many coastal areas in the
United States, have been experiencing rapid growth associated with second home development,
tourism and residential construction. In the United States, more than fifty percent of the
population resides within a few miles of the coast. As the migration to the coast continues, coastal
estuaries are exposed to several problems which include the the deterioration of water quality.
Water quality degradation is often associated with the process of cultural eutrophication, which is
1-5
the process whereby surface water systems undergo an accelerated process of aging due to
pollutant -generating activities of man. Other key issues which accompany population increases in
coastal areas are public access -and open space preservation.
Increases in population accelerate land use changes, thereby potentially resulting in dramatic
impacts upon nearby surface waters. Land use intensification can result in elevated loadings to
surface waters of nutrients from turf fertilizer and sanitary system effluent as well as contaminants
associated with stormwater runoff and boating -related activities. Industrial, commercial (e.g.,
duck farms) and municipal (e.g., sewage treatment plant) discharges are additional sources of
pollution which may accompany land use intensification. The pollution -related problems
associated with the growth of the east end are exacerbated by the fact that a substantial portion of
east end acreage is utilized for agricultural purposes. Agriculture has been identified as a major -
contributor of nutrient and pesticide pollution to the environment.
In 1989, the total population of the five east end towns, exclusive of seasonal residents, was
approximately 114,569 (LILCO, 1989). The projected year-round population for the five east end
towns in the year 2000, exclusive of seasonal residents, is approximately 136,350 (LIRPB, 1987).
The influx of seasonal residents more than doubles the existing population during the summer
months. It is clear that population growth and increased leisure time have resulted in a greater
demand for recreational areas in Long Island as well as elsewhere along the coast.
1. 1.6 The BTCAMP Approach: Monitoring Research, and Modelling
To support resource management efforts within the Peconic system, it has been necessary to
obtain data to characterize the Brown Tide bloom and its occurrence and interactions with other
organisms in the aquatic community. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office
of Ecology, Bureau of Marine Resources has been monitoring the geographic, seasonal, and
weather-related distribution of the Brown Tide in the Peconics since the summer of 1985 (see
Section 4). SCDHS has also been monitoring other conventional water quality parameters as they
relate to water quality and the Brown Tide.
In establishing estimates of potential pollutant loadings to the surface waters of the Peconic
system, SCDHS has also undertaken an extensive program of data collection, analysis, and
mapping. The major foci of these efforts are point source discharges, non -point source
contributors, and land use in the study area. Point sources include sewage treatment plants,
landfills, duck farms, and industrial discharges. The major components of the non -point source
evaluation include sediment flux, groundwater quality, stormwater runoff, land use, on -lot sewage
disposal, and fertilizer contribution. Land use data was mapped and digitized in a cooperative
effort between the Long Island Regional Planning Board and SCDHS.
1-6
The thrust of the monitoring and data analysis efforts was to generate credible estimates of
pollutant loading to be used in the hydrodynamic and eutrophication modeling performed by the
surface water modeling consultant, Tetra Tech. The link -node hydrodynamic model has been
successfully used to reproduce hydrodynamic parameters such as tidal fluctuation and salinity
distribution. A eutrophication model has also been applied to analyze nutrients, algae, and oxygen
dynamics in the Peconic Bays system. The model has been used to evaluate potential water
quality impact of various nutrient management scenarios to assist in formulating water quality
management plans and is, thus, the cornerstone of the BTCAMP effort.
Research being conducted for BTCAMP includes investigations into the mode of action of
the Brown Tide on shellfish and shellfish larvae, the study of distribution of eelgrass in Brown
Tide -affected areas, an assessment of climatologic factors affecting the onset of Brown Tide, and
the computerization of historical data collected in the Peconic system. Research efforts also
include Brown Tide growth requirements, in-situ fluorometric data collection, and
immunofluorescent study of the Brown Tide organism. In addition, sediment -flux water studies
and analysis of nutrient inflow via groundwater discharge are among the studies conducted for
BTCAMP.
A number of agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals have been involved in the
monitoring and research activities related to the surface waters of the Peconic system. The Marine
Sciences Research Center at Stony Brook, Southampton College, the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Pace
University are among the organizations which have contributed significantly to BTCAMP.
Specific information regarding the contributions of these groups is contained in appropriate
sections of this document.
1.2 Study Area
The Peconic system study area is the Peconic Bay estuary and its groundwater -contributing
and stormwater runoff -contributing areas. These areas also are collectively deemed the system's
"drainage area." This region was broken down into into a primary (western) study area, which
includes the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions, and a secondary (eastern) study area. The,
primary and secondary study areas are further divided into a total of seven smaller study areas.
This Section describes the study area and its boundaries.
1.2.1 Study Area Description
The Long Island area is presented in Figure 1.2-1. The Peconic Bay estuary is located on the
eastern end of Long Island, and is bordered by the Island's North and South Forks. Generally
speaking, it is a shallow, vertically well -mixed estuary which has little or no seasonal stratification.
Circulation is horizontal and almost entirely due to tidal flow, which greatly exceeds freshwater
1-7
LOCATION MAP
NNH
NEW YORK coN�
J
PENNSYLVANIA
MD. D L
VlROINi^ LONG ISLAND
NORTH
CAROLINA
SOUTH
\CAROLINA
G�NN�G� 1 GARDINERS BAY
/ SovNo
NEW YORK YORK / S� PNS
GREAT PECONI
BAY A
`r -V p 1 SUFFOLK
NASSAU 1 COUNTY
QUEENS tj
COUNTY 1
v
FISHERS ISLAND
LITTLE
P.ECONIC
!jMMORICHES
BAY
OUNDARY OF THE GROUNDWATER
CONTRIBUTING AREA
COCK BAY
KINGS r—W NGREAT SOUTH BAY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
® -STUDY AREA SURFACE WATERS
FIGURE 1.2-1
MAP OF
LONG
ISLAND INCLUDING THE STUDY AREA
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
SERVICES
NO SCALE
PBH - 2/92
input. Water exchange and flushing of the bay system takes place through Gardiners Bay, which
lies immediately outside the mouth of the estuary. The major tributary discharging freshwater into
the estuary is the Peconic River, which enters Flanders Bay at the Town of Riverhead with
headwaters which are in the Town of Brookhaven. The Peconic River is the largest body of
surface freshwater flowing into the Peconic system. Over 60% of the land in the Peconic River
corridor is in the recreational and open space land use categories.
The study area includes four major bays and numerous minor bays, harbors, coves, and
creeks (see Figure 1.2-2) which encompass an area of over 100,000 acres (Tetra -Tech, 1989; S.C.
Real Property Tax Service Agency, 1983). The surface water system contains four major islands:
Robins, Gardiners, Shelter, and Plum Islands. A listing of the water bodies and tributarie's by
planning area is presented in Table 1.2-1.
The major portion of the shoreline of the Peconic system includes lands within the
jurisdiction of five of Suffolk County's 10 townships: Southold, Riverhead, Southampton, East
Hampton, and Shelter Island. Portions of the Peconic River shoreline and its watershed are
located in the Town of Brookhaven. The 1987 peak population of the five East End towns (year
round residents plus seasonal residents) was approximately 282,000. It has been projected that the
region's peak population will increase by 30% - nearly 84,000 people - by the year 2000, resulting
in a peak.population of 365,000 (LIRPB, 1987). This increase in population will be manifest in
land use and activity changes, as well as in changes in the use of Peconic system waters and
resources. These changes, in addition to those expected to occur in that portion of the Peconic
River drainage basin in the Town of Brookhaven, will determine to a great extent the future
commercial and recreational value of the Peconic system as expressed in its water quality, habitat,
and fish and wildlife resources.
1.2.2 Boundaries of Study Area
Long Island's major groundwater divide, which traverses the island on an east -west axis, is
split in the study area into a North Fork and a South Fork divide. These divides are utilized as the
study area boundary. In the westernmost portion of the study area, an additional area of influence
which contributes groundwater to the Peconic River has been delineated. This is the area in which
the shallow flow groundwater regime reaches the surface waters of the Peconic River and its
tributaries. Thus, the study area consists of the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River
and Peconic-Flanders Bays system.
The deeper recharge aquifers in the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area, although
generally flowing towards the river and Peconic estuary, have a vertical component of flow which
precludes a direct impact on the surface waters of the river system. The time scale for deep flow
areas to impact on surface waters in this region is locally variable and is not known with precise
certainty; the time range is estimated to be on the order of centuries. In addition, the Magothy
1-9
i
0
D
GARDINERS BAY
SHELT
LONG I SLAND SOUND AR AN RS
SLAN
MEETINGHOUSE CREEK S0�`�0�0
USGS GAUGE STATION LITTLE
PECONIC
'
RIVERHE
GREAT ,BAY
r PECO E FLANDERS BAY PECONIC EAST HAMPTON
BROOKHAV.EN
I CHE��1
Aj. `NNj \c
SOUTHAMPTON
ocE NVI
FIGURE 1.2-2 THE PECONIC SYSTEM STUDY AREA
SOURCES SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
LEGEND
STUDY AREA'
NO SCALE
PBH - 2/92
TABLE 1.2-1
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
Water Body Summary
Peconic River Drainage Basin - Area 1
Duck/Grassy/Sandy Ponds System Linus Pond System
Swan Pond System Little Peconic River System
Flanders Bay/Tributaries - Area 2
Flanders Bay
Cases Creek
Peconic River
Reeves Bay
Sawmill Creek
Birch Creek
Terry Creek
Mill Creek
Meetinghouse Creek
Hubbard Creek
Reeves Creek
Goose Creek
Miamogue Lagoon
Great Peconic Bay/tributaries - Area 3
Great Peconic Bay James Creek
Red Creek Pond Deep Hole Creek
Sebonac Creek Unnamed Creek
Little Sebonac Creek Downs Creek
Brushs Creek West Creek
Shinnecock Canal East Creek
Squire Pond Horton Creek
Cold Spring Pond
Little Peconic Bay/tributaries - Area 4
Cutchogue Harbor Hog Neck Bay
Little Peconic Bay Little Creek
Wickham Creek Richmond Creek
East Creek Corey Creek
Mud Creek Wunnewetta Pond System
Broadwater Cove Cedar Beach Creek
Wooley Pond Fresh Pond
North Sea Harbor/Fish Cove/Davis Creek
TABLE 1.2-1 (cont.)
BTCAMP Water Body Summary
Shelter Island Sound & Associated Harbors - Area 5
Goose Creek Stirling Creek
Jockey Creek Noyack Creek
Town Creek Mill Creek
Hippodrome Creek Little Northwest Creek
Northwest Creek Hashomomuck Pond/Long Cr/Mill Cr
Alewife Pond Gull Pond
Sag Harbor Southold Bay
Northwest Harbor Orient Harbor
Noyack Bay Greenport Harbor
Pipe's Cove Spring Pond
Budd's Pond Unnamed Creek W/O E. Beixedon Rd
Moore's Drain System
Unnamed Embayment (N. Haven, S. Harbor Dr.)
Unnamed Creek (N. Haven, N. Road)
Crab Creek Dickerson Cr.
W. Neck Cr./W. Neck Bay Nicoll's Cr.
Menantic Cr. Smith Cove
Bass Creek Majors Harbor System
.Paynes Creek/Sag Harbor Cove System
Coecles Inlet/Congdon's Cr/Foxen Cr
Dering Harbor/Chase Cr/Gardiner Cr
Gardiners Bay & Associated Harbors
Narrow River (Hallock's Bay).
Hands Creek
Hog Creek
Napeague Bay
Fort Pond Bay
Fresh Pond
Lake Montauk
Home Pond
Western Block Island Sound - Area 7
Block Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Atlantic Ocean
- Area 6
Long Beach Bay/Little Bay System
Unnamed Creek (Near Rackett's Ct)
Three Mile Harbor
Hog Creek
Accabonac Harbor/East Harbor
Napeague Harbor.
Great Pond
Bostwick Creek
1-12
aquifer flows eastward so that the point of discharge of water recharged into the Magothy aquifer
in the primary study area is generally beyond the most environmentally sensitive waters of the
study area. Therefore, for planning purposes, the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic
River has received special attention with respect to land use and pollutant loading analysis.
East of CR 105, the groundwater -contributing area to Flanders Bay has been divided into a
near -shore and an inland influence. The rationale for this separation is that the areas near the shore
have a more direct and immediate impact on the surface water system, while groundwater in areas
further inland may take decades or centuries to reach the bays. More detailed information
regarding the study area geology and hydrology is contained in Section 5: Groundwater Quality
Assessment.
The northern boundary of the North Fork system study area is the northern branch of the
groundwater divide from CR 105 in the Town of Riverhead to Orient Point in the Town of
Southold. The southern boundary of the South Fork study area is the groundwater divide from CR
104, which generally follows Sunrise Highway (NYS Route 27) until it veers north and
approaches the hamlet of Noyack. It then travels southeast to West Amagansett, where it
approaches Montauk Highway (NYS Route 27A). From this point the groundwater divide follows
the general direction of Montauk Highway to Montauk Point. The eastern boundary of the study
area is western Block Island Sound, from Orient Point southeast to Montauk Point.
Due to the environmental sensitivity of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions and the
adverse impacts which these areas have sustained, these regions have been designated as the
primary study area. In general, because of a number of factors which include significance and
availability of data and limited funding, the modelling and analysis (e.g., land use) in this area
have received priority status and extensive attention. The remainder of the study area, while also a
major component of this study, has been classified as the extended study area. For planning and
management purposes, the overall study area was further broken down into seven (7) planning
areas of the Peconic system as shown on Figure 1.2-3.
Surface waters outside of the Peconic River and Peconic/Flanders Bays System groundwater -
contributing area have not been specifically included as part of the study area. However, sampling
activities in other marine waters in which the Brown Tide has occurred (Shinnecock Bay,
Moriches Bay and eastern Great South Bay) are discussed in appropriate sections of this
document. Management options evaluated and developed for the Peconic system can be examined
in the future to determine applicability to other waters which have experienced the Brown Tide
bloom.
1-13
LONG ISLAND SOUND
II RIVERHEAD
l PFCD " 'v
AREA 1
BR�-OY.HAVEN AREA
1 N•E��
i4i
GRF
PECONIC
AN S BAY BAY
AREA 3
t
�1 6AY
NIVkNj \0
�ND 41##
®, AREA 7
$!� ISLAND SOUND
0
i ,,
SHEIi R ,GARDINERS BAY ®,
ANu ,
SLAN AREA 6,
L11TlE E A 5
PtcoNlc ' 1
BAY
AREA 4 ,
L
1 ` EAS1 HAUPi0N
SC•'�1;;AV.PT01;
0 c� X11
FIGURE 1.2-3
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY
LEGEND
-- TOWN BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
AREA 1- PECONIC RIVER
AREA 2 - FLANDERS BAY
AREA 3 - GREAT PECONIC BAY
AREA 4 - LITTLE PECONIC BAY
AREA 5 - SHELTER ISLAND SOUND
AREA 6 - GARDINEFIS BAY
AREA 7 - BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
KO SCALE
FBH - 10,'90
1.2.3 Primates Study Area
The primary study area is bounded by the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic
River and Flanders Bay system from the-Peconic River's headwaters in Brookhaven Town to its
estuarine mouth at the Cross River Parkway (CR 105). East of the Cross River Parkway, the
North and South Fork groundwater divides bound the north and south of the study area. The
primary study area includes Flanders Bay and extends east to a boundary delineated by a line
l running south from Manor Lane to the intersection of Riverhead -Hampton Bays Road with
Sunrise Highway. Further divisions of the primary study area include the Peconic River Drainage
Basin and the Flanders Bay Region. The Flanders Bay regions includes a coastal area, which has a
! more immediate impact on the surface waters of the study area, and an inshore area north of Route
25 and south of Route 24.
Detailed land use projections have been developed for the study area with a focus on the
primary study area (Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions). The primary study area was
targeted for this intensive evaluation due to limited study resources, the environmental sensitivity
of this region, and the adverse impacts which the area had sustained. In all, the primary study area
j consists of over 30,200 acres (47.2 sq. miles, 122.2 sq. kilometers). The Peconic River
groundwater -contributing area encompasses approximately 15,900 acres from the river's
headwaters near Brookhaven National Laboratory to its last non -tidal area at Riverhead's
Grangebel Park. The groundwater -contributing area to Flanders Bay is comprised of
approximately 14,300 acres. Detailed land use data is contained in Section 6.3.
Of the primary study area, approximately 8,300 acres are in the open space/recreational land
use while 8,600 acres remain vacant. These figures represent 1988 conditions and do not reflect
recent Suffolk County acquisitions. Residential areas encompass 4,400 acres of the groundwater -
contributing area, while 3,550 and 3,730 acres are used for commercial/industrial/ institutional and
agricultural purposes, respectively. Most of the remaining 1,600 acres are occupied by surface
waters and transportation/recharge uses.
The stormwater runoff -contributing area to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions is
estimated to contain approximately 8,200 acres. Of this total, 3,700 acres are set aside as
recreational/open space land and 1,400 acres remain vacant. Other land uses include 1,480 acres
developed as residential, 730 acres utilized by commercial/ industrial/institutional establishments,
and 170 acres used for agricultural purposes. Surface waters and transportation/recharge
constitute the bulk of the remaining 750 acres.
1.2.3.1 Peconic River Drainage Basin
The Peconic River Drainage Basin is referred to as Area 1 (see Figure 1.2-3), and is bounded
on the north and south by the groundwater -contributing area of the Peconic River. The eastern
1-15
boundary of Area 1 is Cross River Drive (CR 105) extending south to CR 104 and ultimately the
groundwater divide. The western boundary of the Peconic River Drainage Basin is the
groundwater -contributing area terminus, which is in the vicinity of the intersection of William
Floyd Parkway (County Road 46) and Middle Country Road (NYS 25).
The Peconic River and its tributary systems are about 15 miles long and its headwaters are
located near the intersection of William Floyd Parkway and Middle Country Road (NYS 25) in a
wooded, marshy area. The Peconic River is Long Island's only eastward -flowing river and has
four main tributaries. These tributaries include, from west to east, the Grassy/Sandy Ponds
system, the Linus Pond system, the Swan Pond Cranberry Bog system, and the Little Peconic
River system.
1.2.3.2 Flanders Bay Region
The Flanders Bay Region, referred to as Area .2 (see Figure 1.2-3), is bounded on the north
and on the south by the groundwater divide. The region is bordered on the east by a line running
south from Manor Lane to the intersection of Riverhead -Hampton Bays Road with Sunrise
Highway. The inland areas of the Flanders Bay region include the areas on the North Fork north
of Route 25 and the areas on the South Fork south of Route 24, with the remainder of the Flanders
Bay region designated as coastal.
Flanders Bay has a surface area of 3.9 square miles and an average depth of 4.9 feet. The
mean tidal range is 2.7 feet. Ten rivers and creeks empty into Flanders Bay, including the Peconic
River, Sawmill Creek, Terry Creek, Meetinghouse Creek, Reeves Creek, and an un -named creek
(all in the Town of Riverhead). Creeks and rivers in the Town of Southampton that empty into
Flanders Bay include the Peconic River, Goose Creek, Birch Creek, Mill Creek, and Hubbard
Creek. The groundwater -contributing and stormwater-contributing areas includes the hamlets of
Aquebogue, Jamesport, Flanders, and a section of Southport.
1.2.4 Extended Study Area
The extended study area originates at a line running south from Manor Lane to the
intersection of Riverhead -Hampton Bays Road with Sunrise Highway. The north and south
boundaries of the extended study area are the groundwater divides, while the eastern boundary of
the study area is western Block Island Sound, from Orient Point southeast to Montauk Point. The
extended study area includes the planning sub -regions labeled Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic
Bay, Shelter Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, and Western Block Island Sound.
Land use data estimates were performed for the extended study area. However, the
methodology used for this analysis was not as rigorous as that utilized for the primary study area
1-16
(see Section 6.3). Thus, the extended study area land use estimates are intended only as a rough
approximation to characterize eastern study area land use patterns.
The total acreage in the extended study area is approximately 83,600 acres. The land use
figures for the extended study area indicate a significant residential influence of 18% of all acreage
in the eastern study area. Agricultural lands also occupy substantial acreage at about 11% of the
extended study areas, while a total of 23% of the land in the extended study areas is in open
space/recreational land uses.
1.2.4.1 Great Peconic Bay Region
The Great Peconic Bay Region, Area 3 on Figure 1.2-3, is bounded on the north and on the
south by the east -west groundwater divides. The Bay is bordered on the east by a line running
south down Depot Lane across Great Peconic Bay to Cow Neck Point. Area 3 contains all of
Robins Island. From Cow Neck Point, the study area follows North Sea Road south to where it
runs into Sandy Hollow Road and intersects with Sebonac Road.
Great Peconic Bay has a surface area of approximately 30 square miles and an average depth
of 15 feet. The mean tidal range is 2.5 feet. Eleven creeks flow into Great Peconic Bay including
_Red Creek Pond, Sebonac Creek, and Little Sebonac Creek in the Town of Southampton, East
Creek in the Town of Riverhead, and Brush's Creek, Horton's Creek, James Creek, Deep Hole
Creek, Unnamed Creek, Down's Creek, and West Creek in the Town of Southold. Squire Pond,
Cold Spring Pond and Shinnecock Canal in Southampton are also connected surface water bodies.
The groundwater -contributing and stormwater-contributing area includes the hamlets of
Jamesport, Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, New Suffolk, Southport, Squiretown, Shinnecock Hills,
and a portion of North Sea.
1.2.4.2 Little Peconic Bay Region
Little Peconic Bay region, Area 4 on Figure 1.2-3, is bounded on the north and on the south
by the groundwater divide. The region is bordered on the east by a boundary which projects from
the north groundwater divide to Main Bayview Road. The boundary skirts the south side of Goose
Creek and follows the Great Hog Neck coastline to Paradise Point. From Paradise Point, the
eastern boundary extends south to Jessup's Neck, and then to Millstone Road.
Little Peconic Bay has a surface area of approximately 22 square miles and an average depth
of 21 feet. The mean tidal range is 2.4 feet. Seven creeks feed into Little Peconic Bay, including
Wickham Creek, East Creek, Mud Creek, Little Creek, Richmond Creek, Cedar Beach Creek and
Corey Creek in the Town of Southold. Also connected to Little Peconic Bay are the surface
waters of Broadwater Cove and Wunneweta Pond in Southold and Wooley Pond, Fresh Pond, and
the North Sea Harbor/Fish Cove/Davis Creek system in Southampton. Area 4 also includes
1-17
Cutchogue Harbor and Hog Neck Bay. The Little Peconic .Bay groundwater -contributing and
stormwater-contributing areas, designated collectively as Area 4, include the hamlets of East
Cutchogue, Nassau Point, Peconic, Bayview and Cedar Beach in the Town of Southold, and the
hamlets of North Sea, Rose Grove, and a portion of Noyack in the Town of Southampton.
1.2.4.3 Shelter Island Sound and Associated Harbors Region
The Shelter Island Sound and Associated Harbors Region, referred to as Area 5 on Figure
1.2-3, is bounded on the north and on the south by the groundwater divides. Area 5 is bounded on
the east by a line that begins at Main Road just west of the peninsula which includes Orient and
Orient point. The boundary then proceeds south, excluding Orient Beach State Park, to Cedar
Point down the east side of Alewife Pond to the groundwater divide near the intersection of Old
Northwest Road and Stephens Hand Path.
Area 5 takes in the water bodies of Southold Bay, Greenport Harbor, Noyack Bay, Orient
Harbor, Northwest Harbor, and Sag Harbor. Area 5 also includes all of Shelter Island and its
adjacent water bodies. The groundwater -contributing and stormwater-contributing areas include
the hamlets of Southold, East Marion and the Village of Greenport in the Town of Southold, and
the hamlets of Noyack, Grassy Hollow, and the Village of North Haven in the Town of
Southampton. The area also includes Sag Harbor Village in East Hampton and Southampton
Towns. Hamlets on Shelter Island include Shelter Island Heights, Ram Island, and the Village of
Dering Harbor.
Shelter Island Sound and the associated harbors have a surface area of 29 square miles and -'
an average depth of 16 feet. The mean tidal range is 2.4 feet. Numerous creeks discharge into the
Shelter Island Sound and associated harbors area. These include Goose Creek, Jockey Creek,
Town Creek, an unnamed creek, Hippodrome Creek, Hashamomuck Pond (Long Creek/Mill
Creek), Stirling Creek, and the Moore's Drain system in the Town of Southold. In the Town of
Southampton, Noyack Creek, Mill Creek, and Paynes Creek, and an un -named creek in North _
Haven discharge. into Area 5. In the town of Easthampton, Little Northwest Creek, Northwest
Creek, and Alewife Pond empty into Area 5. Budds Pond, Gull Pond, and Spring Pond in
Southold and an un -named embayment in North Haven also are directly connected to the surface
water system of the region. Shelter Island creeks that empty into Area 5 include West Neck
Creek, Crab Creek, Gardiner Creek, Bass Creek, Nicoll's Creek, Dickerson Creek, and Menantic
Creek. Additional water bodies connected to the larger surface water systems in this area include
Smith Cove, the Majors Harbor system, the Dering Harbor/Chase Creek/Gardiner Creek system,
West Neck Bay, and the Coecles Inlet/Congdon's Creek/Foxen Creek system.
1-18
1.2.4.4 Gardiners Bay Region
The Gardiners Bay Region (Area 6 on Figure 1.2-3) is bounded on the north by the
groundwater divide which terminates at Orient Point and on the south by the groundwater divide
that ends at Montauk Point. The eastern boundary of the Gardiners Bay area is an imaginary line
running from Orient Point southeast to Montauk Point. All of Gardiners Island is contained in the
Gardiners Bay area.
Gardiners Bay has a surface area of 76 square miles with a mean tide range of 2.5 feet. The
groundwater -contributing and stormwater-contributing area for Gardiners. Bay includes the
hamlets of Orient and Orient Point in the Town of Southold and Three Mile Harbor, Maidstone
Park, Gerard Park, Springs, Kingstown, West Aimagansett, Barnes Hole, Devon, Promised Land,
Napeague, and Montauk in the Town of East Hampton. Surface water bodies which feed the
Gardiners Bay system include Narrow River (Hallock's Bay), an un -named creek, and the Long
Beach Bay/Little Bay system in the Town of Southold. In the Town of East Hampton, surface
water contributors include the Hands Creek/Three Mile Harbor system, Accabonac Harbor/East
Harbor, Fresh Pond, Napeague Harbor, Lake Montauk and Hog Creek in the Town of East
Hampton.
1.2.4.5 Western Block Island Sound Region .
Block Island Sound has a surface area of approximately 521 square miles and is bounded by
Rhode Island to the north and New York to the south. The average depth of Block Island Sound is
approximately 131 feet. The western area of Block Island Sound represents the eastem-most
planning area, or Area 7. It is a partly enclosed body of water between Rhode Island and Long
Island that separates the waters of Long Island Sound and the Peconic system from the coastal
waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
1.2.5 Jurisdictional Boundaries
The territorial seas are the jurisdictional domain of the federal government and individual
states. The limit of the Territorial Sea cuts across Block Island Sound east of the study area
boundary. Thus, the surface waters of the Peconic system (all planning areas) are wholly within
the limits of the United States Territorial Sea.
The jurisdiction of local governments in New York extends offshore so that townships share
control over underwater lands in the system with New York State. The jurisdictional boundaries
of each town in the study area are represented on Figure 1.2-4. Of the local governmental units in
the study area, the Peconic system encompasses portions of the East End towns of Riverhead,
Southampton, East Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and a small portion of the Town of
Brookhaven. Five incorporated villages lie within the Peconic system: Sag Harbor in the Towns
1-19
LONG ISLAND SOUND
MEETINGHOUSE CREEK
USGS GAUGE STATION
1
I RIVERHE
r
BROOKHAVEN /
uORICHEc" BAS
C
SHELT �RDINE�BAY I / AR RS
AN
�SLAN (�
OHO
��LLl
PEBCIN I C
GREAT /
�0RIC
/ EAST HAMPTON
SOUTHAMPTON
D�EpN
FIGURE 1.2-4 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
TOWN BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA
NO SCALE
PBH — 2/92
of Easthampton -and Southampton, Pine Valley in the Town of Southampton, North Haven in the
Town of Southampton, Dering Harbor in the Town of Shelter Island, and Greenport in the Town
of Southold. Recently, a decision by the voters of Pine Valley has resulted in the disincorporation
of the village.
The primary study area contains areas which are located in the Towns of Brookhaven,
Riverhead, and Southampton. The Town of Brookhaven contains a relatively small section of the
Peconic system in the vicinity of Brookhaven Lab and in the hamlets of South Manor and
Manorville. All of the Town of Brookhaven portion of the study area lies in the Peconic River
Drainage Basin (Area 1). The Town of Riverhead's portion of the study area follows the north
side of the Peconic River from its headwaters (Area 1) to Flanders Bay Region (Area 2). The
entire north shore of Flanders Bay and part of Great Peconic Bay (Area 3) Region lie within
Riverhead Town. Portions of the Peconic River Drainage Basin (Area 1) and the entire south
shore of Flanders Bay (Area 2) Region lie within Southampton Town boundaries.
The extended study area is comprised of portions of the Towns of Southampton, Southold,
East Hampton, Shelter Island, and a small portion of Riverhead. The area east of Manor Lane on
the North Fork in Riverhead is part of Great Peconic Bay (Area 3). Areas in the Town of Southold
included in the Peconic system include Great Peconic Bay Region (Area 3), Little Peconic Bay
Region (Area 4), Shelter Island Sound Region (Area 5), Gardiners Bay Region (Area 6), and
Block Island Sound Region (Area 7). Portions of the Great Peconic Bay Region (Area 3), Little
Peconic Bay Region (Area 4), and Shelter Island Sound and Associated Harbors Region (Area 5)
lie within Southampton Town boundaries. The entire Town of Shelter Island lies within the
Peconic system; Shelter Island Town comprises over half of the Shelter Island and Associated
Harbors Region (Area 5). Areas that lie within East Hampton Town boundaries are Shelter Island
Sound (Area 5), Gardiners Bay (Area 6), and western Block Island Sound (Area 7).
1.2.6 Groundwater -Contributing Area
Under natural conditions, the only source of water to the Long Island groundwater system is
recharge from precipitation. Approximately half the precipitation that reaches the land surface
infiltrates into the water table. In certain regions, deep recharge conditions exist because water
recharges downward to one of the underlying aquifers: the Upper Glacial, Magothy and Lloyd.
However, some of the recharge water flows in a shallow flow subsystem and discharges to streams
or lakes.
Long Island's major groundwater divide, which traverses the island from west to east, passes
through the Pine Barrens and splits near Riverhead into a north branch extending into the North
Fork and a south branch extending into the South Fork. Groundwater north of the divide moves
northward to Long Island Sound, and groundwater south of the divide moves southward to the
south shore bays system and the Atlantic Ocean. In general, groundwater from the area between
1-21
the two branches of the divide flows towards the Peconic River and Peconic Bay. This divide is
not stationary but moves north or south as the water table configuration changes. 'These changes
occur seasonally and also during periods of recharge or drought. Seasonal fluctuations in water
levels at the divide are usually less than 5 feet.
It should be noted that the boundaries of the study area are based on the groundwater divide
of the glacial aquifer, which is relatively shallow and susceptible to degradation resulting from
human activities. The Magothy aquifer potentiometric surface profile is not identical to that of the
glacial aquifer. Although the Magothy aquifer is included as part of the overall groundwater study
for BTCAMP, the deep recharge aquifers have a vertical component of flow which precludes an
immediate . impact on the surface waters of the river system since the residence time of
groundwater in the Magothy aquifer is on the order of centuries. In addition, the Magothy aquifer
flows eastward so that the point of discharge of water recharged into the Magothy aquifer is
generally beyond the most environmentally sensitive waters of the study area. More detailed
information regarding the study area geology and hydrology is contained in Section 5:
Groundwater Quality Assessment.
In recent years, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a three
dimensional finite difference model of the Long Island aquifer system. Using this "regional"
model for BTCAMP, the USGS has estimated the fresh water flow into Flanders Bay to be
approximately 50 million gallons per day; 71% is stream flow into the bay, and the remaining 29%
is groundwater flow directly into the bay. The USGS also provided a breakdown of the flow
according to the finite difference grids which measure 4,000 ft by 4,000 ft. In addition, the USGS
has determined that -for the land area east of Flanders Bay, along the North and South Forks, the
groundwater systems are independent from the regional system. The USGS believes these areas
contribute only a small amount of fresh water to the remainder of the Peconic system.
The groundwater -contributing area around the upper reaches of the Peconic River has poor
drainage and many small ponds and swamps. Discharge in these upper reaches averages 3 cubic
feet per second, while the downstream reaches. average 30 cubic feet per second (Warren, et al,
1968). It is, therefore, probable that the main groundwater -contributing area in the vicinity of the
Peconic River is in the area of the downstream reaches of the river.
Land use estimates -for the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River and Flanders
Bay have been summarized in Section 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 and are presented in detail in Section 6.3.
Section 6.3 also presents approximate land use estimates for the extended study area.
1-22
1.2.7 Surface Water-ContributingAre
Most of the surface water area of the Peconic system is comprised within the major bay
systems. There are, however, numerous lakes, streams, and ponds which feed into the bays. A
listing of water bodies and tributaries by planning areas has been presented in Table 1.2-1. The
marine waters of the study area, as well as the freshwater lakes, ponds, and streams, are used for a
variety of recreational purposes which include boating, fishing, and swimming. The NYSDEC
stocks Laurel Lake and Fort Pond with brown trout and other fish to provide recreational
opportunities for area fishermen.
The NYSDEC classifies Long Island marine waters as to their potential best usage (see
Section 2.1.6 for a further discussion of these classifications). Such uses are dependent upon the
natural functioning of marine ecosystems, which is dependent on a variety of parameters. Two
major boundary conditions in evaluating suitability of surface waters for particular uses are
dissolved oxygen and coliform bacteria concentrations. Coliform bacteria in marine waters are
considered to be an indication of potentially pathogenic contamination due to human or animal
waste, while adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations are necessary for the continued health of
shellfish and finfish populations. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are a result of natural
processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, degradation of organic matter, and surface gas
exchange.
Water quality problems in portions of the freshwater and marine water systems in the
Peconic system include bacterial contamination and excessive algae growth caused by nutrient
enrichment, which occurs as a result of point and non -point source pollutant loading. As a
general rule, more highly developed drainage basins result in poorer fresh surface water quality.
1.2.8 Stormwater Runoff -Contributing Area
In addition to a groundwater -contributing area, a stormwater runoff -contributing area has
been delineated by the SCDHS for the primary and extended study areas. This stormwater runoff -
contributing area was delineated on the basis of analysis performed for previous studies. Primary
study area boundaries were then field -checked to ensure as accurate a delineation.as possible. The
establishment of a stormwater runoff -contributing area facilitated estimates of overall pollutant
loading via the application of stormwater runoff loading factors to applicable regions in the study
area (See Section 6).
Stormwater runoff is the portion of the total precipitation that flows over the land surface
and is a mechanism whereby pollutants enter surface water and groundwater systems. Raindrops
dislodge soil particles and contaminants from land surfaces and carry this material in suspension or
solution with the runoff. The presence of impervious surfaces and stormwater drainage systems
that conduct runoff away from specific location may increase the volume, accelerate the flow, and
1-23
in some cases, contribute to the erosion of soils and stream banks (LIRPB Nonpoint Source
Management Handbook, 1984).
Stormwater runoff has been associated with high concentrations of bacteria in estuarine
waters and the closing of shellfishing areas due to high indicator bacteria counts. A portion of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) involved monitoring bacterial counts following
storms in freshwater streams and ponds, at discharge points to estuarine waters, and in the bays
during and following storm events. It was calculated that stormwater runoff accounted for at least
96% of the total and fecal coliform discharge into the Peconic system. Revisions of this estimate
are contained in Section 6.
Sources of stormwater .runoff and groundwater contamination are highways, residential
development, commercial/industrial areas, and agricultural lands. Contaminants associated with
stormwater runoff include bacteria and viruses, metals, pesticides, inorganic chemicals such as
phosphates, nitrates, and chlorides, and substances which have a high oxygen demand.
Contaminants found on urban and rural land surfaces include animal wastes, highway deicing
materials, fertilizers, pesticides, urban refuse, by-products of industry and urban development, and
spillage from unproper storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. Nitrogen,
phosphorus, and other contaminants from fertilizers, septic systems, general animal wastes, duck
fauns, and landfills may enter fresh and marine waters by stormwater runoff, stream flow, and/or
groundwater flow. Nitrogen has been identified as a limiting growth factor in estuarine waters,
and as such, elevated nitrogen levels can result in phytoplankton blooms and increases in rooted
aquatic growth.
1.3 Planning Approach
1.3.1 BTCAMP Project Team
The BTCAMP project is headed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(SCDHS), with the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) as a subcontracted agency
involved in project review and responsible for land use data collection and analysis. The
consultants for BTCAMP are Dvirka and Bartilucci, Tetra -Tech, Inc. and Creative Enterprises.
Dvirka and Bartilucci has the primary responsibility for assisting the SCDHS with the preparation
of the BTCAMP document with further assistance from the other study participants, while Tetra -
Tech, Inc. and Creative Enterprises are the water quality modeling team.
There are also three committees participating in this effort:
1. BTCAMP Management Committee - This committee is responsible for providing
continual technical and administrative guidance throughout the duration of the project.
Membership includes SCDHS, LIRPB, NYSDEC, USEPA, the chairman of the
1-24
BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee, and the chairman of the Brown Tide
Technical Task Force.
2. BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - The CAC was formed to assure
public involvement in the project. The BTCAMP CAC is comprised of representatives
from industry, environmental and civic organizations, baymen, boaters, sport
fishermen, and other interested citizens. Activities of the CAC have included
disseminating information to educate the public regarding the scope, goals, and
progress of the program. This dissemination of information was accomplished by
newsletters, a video and an accompanying booklet, and public information
conferences, including two "State of the Bays" conferences conducted in 1988 and
1990 as well as four successful "Save the Bays" workshops co-produced with Cornell
Cooperative Extension Marine Program.
3. Brown Tide Technical Task Force - This task force was first convened in early 1987 to
help Suffolk County decide future Brown Tide research and management needs.
Members include the BTCAMP Management Committee plus representatives of the
NYS Department of State, Sea Grant Institute, SUNY at Stony Brook Living Marine
Resources Institute (LMRI), and Cornell Cooperative Extension Service. The task
force also has been active in examining control measures, most notably stormwater
runoff controls and land application of sewage treatment plant effluent.
1.3.2 Key Issues/Planning Approach
Using the planning areas and boundaries delineated in Section 1.2 to provide focus to the
management effort, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has initiated the
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program .(BTCAMP) to address several
issues. These issues include addressing the potential causes and impacts of the Brown Tide
blooms in the system. The focus of this analysis is to identify potential measures to prevent or
minimize recurring episodes of the Brown Tide bloom. More broadly, however, the study is
designed to investigate the conventional water quality problems in the Peconic System, such as
point and nonpoint sources of pollution, as well as to identify corrective actions to minimize future
water quality problems regardless of Brown Tide occurrence.
In general, the planning approach includes an evaluation of existing conditions in the study
area and an assessment of problems and needs. The study also includes an analysis of
management alternatives, the selection of preferred alternatives, and the formulation of an
implementation strategy. Major elements in the water quality planning approach include the
following:
1-25
* Existing Conditions (General)
o Characteristics of System - natural setting, processes, etc. (Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5).
o Regulatory Framework - Federal, State and local levels (Sections 3 and various other
sections).
* Definition of Problem
o Surface Water Quality - identification of key constituents and contaminants of concern
(Sections 3 and 4).
o Pollutant Sources to System - analysis of point and non -point source loading using
historical data on environmental conditions, discharges, and groundwater quality
(Sections 5 and 6).
* Management Plan
o Management Needs - evaluation of problem areas and causes to facilitate identification
of management needs (Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7).
o Management Alternatives and Predicted Water Quality - identification of alternatives
for reducing constituents of concern which presently enter the system and assessment
of water quality through the use of predictive modelling (Section 7).
o Alternatives Evaluation and Preferred Alternatives - assessment of alternatives for
effectiveness and feasibility, and presentation of the preferred combination of
management options as a recommended plan to be considered for implementation
(Section 7).
* Implementation/Follow-up
o Implementation Strategy - description of an implementation strategy for the preferred
alternatives, including identification of potential funding opportunities and allowances
for public/private sector involvement in the process (Section 7).
o Follow-up Actions - provisions and recommendations regarding management updates,
assessment of the implemented alternatives, and future studies and system monitoring
(Section 7).
1-26
Figure 1.3-1 summarizes the overall water quality assessment approach for the computer
modelling elements of BTCAMP. Central to this program is the development and application of a
water quality/eutrophication model which will serve three important purposes:
o Assist in developing a conceptual representation of the Peconic system.
o Provide a focus for the continued evolvement of the bay monitoring program.
o Assist in determining the key cause and effect relationships (physical, chemical,
biological) controlling system wide water quality conditions.
1.3.3 Existing Conditions (General)
' 1.3.3.1 Characteristics of System
A fundamental understanding of the physical characteristics, natural setting, and chemical
and physical processes of the Peconic system is important in developing a working knowledge of
site-specific conditions. Such a working knowledge is necessary in conducting a study such as
BTCAMP and is a crucial element required for the development of the circulation model which is
used in the water quality/eutrophication simulations. General information regarding the nature and
scope of the study and the general planning approach incorporated in BTCAMP is included in
Section 1, while specific details regarding the environmental setting of the Peconic system are
presented in Section 2. In addition, surface water data has been collected on the hydrologic and
bathymetric characteristics of the Peconic system for use in model setup calibration, verification,
and data collection. This data is discussed in Section 3. Finally, Section 5 addresses the pertinent
hydrogeologic aspects of the study area. The scope and focus of the program resulted in the
identification of a wide array of physical and chemical characteristics and issues that have been
addressed in a priority manner. These issues are dealt with in subsequent sections of the report.
1.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework
As assessment of information regarding applicable agencies, organizations, programs, laws,
standards, regulations, and policies which pertain to the system in question must be performed as
part of the management process. ' Therefore, the approaches to water quality planning and
management of the Peconic Bay Estuary must include descriptions and analyses of relevant
agencies, organizations, programs and laws pertaining to the Peconic system. Ultimately, an
alternatives evaluation and a selected management plan must prove to be feasible with respect to
regulatory, administrative, legal, and financial concerns as they relate to the existing regulatory
framework in the system.
1-27
N
co
Figure 1.3-1
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program
Water Quality Assessment Approach
Characterization Data Design of
of Peconic Bay Assessment Monitoring Program
- Bay (Pre -Processing) - Bay
- Watershed - Watershed
Conceptual Model Formulation
Representation Model and Development
- Key Processes Development - Transport
- Spatial Scale -Biological
- Chemical
- Temporal Scale I - Sediment
Model Calibration Interpretation
Mapping and of Model Results
and Verification - Transport
Graphic Overlays (Post -Processing) - Biological
- Chemical
- Sediment
Map Overlays Model Application Watershed Pollutant
of Resources (Assess Problems) 4 Loading Alternatives
and Model Outputs and Causes - Point Sources
- 1970's - Non -Point Sources
- 1988
- 2000
Management Plan
Modification
of Monitoring
Program
Modification
of Model
Kinetics
Regulatory, administrative, and jurisdictional considerations are presented in Section 3 as
they relate to water quality. Implementation of the preferred management alternatives (Section 7)
is discussed in light of regulatory standards that apply to the study area. Likewise, existing land
use and waste handling practices require investigation and are discussed in Section 6. Ongoing
surface water quality monitoring studies are discussed in Section 3, as well as ongoing ecological
investigations, land use studies, groundwater monitoring programs, and industrial discharge
monitoring studies.
1.3.4 Definition of Problem
The process of defining the problems affecting the Peconic estuary system has been broken
down into two broad categories: surface water quality and pollutant sources. The surface water
quality analysis is designed to identify key constituents and contaminants of concern, while the
pollutant source evaluation identifies the contributing sources of these problems.
1.3.4.1 Surface Water Quality,
The extensive body of surface water quality data collected for the Peconic system is
examined in detail with respect to impediments to certain uses (Section 3) and the brown tide and
its impacts (Section 4). Historical sources of surface water quality data are also discussed in
Section 1.5, and BTCAMP monitoring efforts are discussed in various other section in the
document. In addition, a complex water quality model has been developed to simulate the marine
surface water quality conditions in the study area.
1.3.4.1.1 Water Quality Model Basis
One of the primary goals of BTCAMP is the development and application of a water quality
model to relate bay water quality conditions to environmental factors such as tidal fluctuations,
meteorological conditions and point and non -point source loading. To facilitate the development
and testing of the mathematical model, a monitoring program was conducted to obtain data to
describe current conditions. Historical water quality data and point and nonpoint source pollutant
loading information was also used in the water quality assessment and in the development and
testing of the model. The resulting model is is capable of simulating water quality and
eutrophication conditions in the Peconic system under varying boundary conditions
(meteorological, point and nonpoint pollutant sources and tidal influence).
The Peconic Bays system water quality model utilizes conservation of mass as a
fundamental principle of the analysis. The output of the Peconic Bay model is used to construct
seasonally -averaged mass balance budgets of nutrients and other pollutants to evaluate the relative
significance of controllable and noncontrollable nutrient inputs on phytoplankton production.
1-29
The structure of the Peconic Bay ecosystem model consists of four parts: (1) transport
submodel; (2) biological submodel; (3) chemical submodel; and (4) sediment submodel. The
deterministic, time -varying partial differential equation of each state variable in the model (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen) describes the lateral,.longitudinal, and temporal gradients of each water quality
constituent.
The spatial scale of the model extends from the western open ocean boundary of Block
Island Sound (Orient Point - Montauk Point) to the western end of the Peconic Bays System in
Flanders Bay at Riverhead. A finer resolution grid was employed within the Flanders Bay area to
properly characterize the higher gradients resulting from freshwater inflow of the Peconic River,
wastewater discharges from the Riverhead STP, and the relatively longer flushing time of this
region:
The time scale associated with eutrophication and nutrient enrichment problems is typically
seasonal from spring through fall. The Brown Tide blooms, specifically, began during the summer
and have persisted throughout the fall and into early winter (of 1987-88). With the weekly
frequency of monitoring data available for the Brown Tide bloom years of 1986-87, it is
appropriate to develop the water quality model based on tidally -averaged transport for the
simulation of eutrophication-related processes that occur on a time scale of days to weeks. The
Peconic Bay model has been developed to simulate the seasonal variation in phytoplankton-
nutrient dynamics with the calculations integrated from spring through fall using a time step on the
order of 0.5 to 1 day.
1.3.4.1.2 Data Sources
Major emphasis in the eutrophication analysis of the Peconic system has been placed on the
development of the various kinetic interactions, functional formulations, and estimates of model
parameter values. The intention is to derive a scientifically credible, yet practical, model that
adequately represents the observed ecological behavior of the Peconic system during the years of
the Brown Tide blooms and during characteristic non -Brown Tide year.
Data was developed in order to specify initial condition, boundary condition, and forcing
function distributions in time and space for the model. In addition, data was developed to specify
the numerous kinetic, stoichiometric, and physiological parameter values that were needed for the
biological and physical components of the Peconic Bay model. Data and information that is
readily available from field and laboratory observations within the Peconic system has been used
in the development of the model. In instances where data is not available for the Peconic system,
data reported in the literature for other marine ecosystems has been used to identify the various
model parameter values. Data utilized in the water quality modeling effort is discussed further in
Section 1.5.1 and Section 3.
1-30
1.3.4.1.3 Water Quality Modelling Results -
The product of the water quality modeling effort is a set of state equations that specifies the
mathematical formulation and interaction of the state variables and forcing functions which are
involved in the analysis of eutrophication in the Peconic system. The resulting model has been
used to evaluate management scenarios which reduce point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings
to mitigate observed water quality issues. In this way, future water quality conditions may be
predicted and comparatively assessed for various conditions and management schemes. Water
quality assessments for various management scenarios are conditions are discussed further in
Section 7.
It is important to stress here that it is unlikely that the proposed eutrophication model will be
successfully able to "predict" the occurrence of the Brown Tide bloom without further information
on the governing kinetic relationships which control its growth cycle. Despite this potential
shortcoming, the model will still be able to simulate ("predict") water quality conditions in non -
Brown Tide years. Thus, the model provides a tool to allow evaluation of general bay water
quality and ecosystem conditions under various forcing functions (meteorological, point and
nonpoint sources, boundary conditions) in the watershed. Model scenarios have been developed to
allow an evaluation of current and projected trends in water quality and the associated impacts on
existing bay resources. The model scenarios that have been produced provide a key input to the
assessment of problems and causes of environmental degradation of the Peconic system.
1.3.4.2 Pollutant Sources to System
An extensive evaluation of point and nonpoint source pollution was performed by the
SCDHS as part of BTCAMP. This evaluation was used in the formulation of the surface water
quality modeling effort, both for current conditions and for future management alternatives which
reduce or eliminate pollutant sources. " Detailed information regarding pollutant loading is
contained in Section 6.
In summary, major point source pollutants include sewage treatment plants and duck farms
while nonpoint sources include sediment flux, stormwater runoff and leachate containing fertilizer
and septic system pollutants. Landfills, industrial discharges, and other pollutant sources were
also incorporated in the comprehensive pollutant evaluation. In addressing pollutant loading to the
Peconic System, data from the BTCAMP land use and regional groundwater quality assessments
were utilized. In addition, stormwater runoff areas to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay were
delineated by field investigations conducted by the SCDHS.
1-31
1.3.5 Management Plan .
1.3.5.1 Management Needs
Using extensive data on environmental conditions and the results of model scenarios, the
Management Plan quantifies the significance of specific environmental problems and assesses the
impacts of various management options in developing a framework for implementation of a
comprehensive Peconic system management plan.. .
1.3.5.2 Management Alternatives and Predicted Water Quality
Based on the identification of problems, causes, and needs (see Sections 3, 5, '6, and 7), a
number, of appropriate .management alternatives for the study area were formulated and
subsequently evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify the potential actions for
restoring and protecting the Peconic system. These management alternatives, along with the
resulting water quality as predicted through computer modelling, are presented in Section 7.
1.3.5.3 Alternatives Evaluation and Preferred Alternatives
In.developing and evaluating management alternatives to address the study area's needs, the
capabilities of various control alternatives to achieve water quality objectives have been
considered. Control alternatives which are acceptable in terms of water quality objectives were
then evaluated to determine the monetary cost of implementing the alternatives. The monetary
cost of control alternatives is only one of the factors upon which a final selection of an alternative
is based. Other important factors include implementation feasibility, public acceptability,
technical reliability, and economic, social, and environmental impact.
Iii making conclusions regarding the Brown Tide and in formulating recommendations for
pollution control and abatement, BTCAMP has not undertaken a complete impact analysis for all
specific aspects of each individual element of the study. For example, a long-range
recommendation to upgrade the Riverhead sewage treatment plant to attain the nitrogen guideline
in the marine surface waters of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay may be effected in three
different ways, (groundwater discharge, relocated surface water discharge, or advanced
denitrification with.an outfall at the existing location). The following list presents the evaluation
criteria which were generally considered in the assessment of management alternatives and which
should be more specifically developed and utilized by agencies with responsibility for
implementing specific aspects of given recommendations:
o Anticipated water quality impacts/improvements
o Overall cost effectiveness
o Operability
1-32
o Local costs
o Administrative considerations
o Cost distributions
o Dependability and risks
o Potential adverse environmental impacts
o Public acceptability
o Ability to address priorities and needs
Based on the anticipated benefits of management alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria presented in Section 7, a recommended set of management alternatives is presented. The
preferred alternatives constitute a management plan most able to' effectively address the
management objectives within the framework of the constraints assessed in Section 7, including
environmental, technical, administrative, legal, and financial limitations.
1.3.6 Implementation/Follow-up
1.3.6.1 Implementation Strategy
The implementation strategy for the preferred alternatives addresses administrative and legal
procedures required to effect the recommended plan. The identification of funding opportunities,
as well as the provision of public and private sector involvement in the process, is also addressed.
The detailed implementation strategy is contained in Section 7.
1.3.6.2 Follow-up Actions
Recommendations and provisions for future management updates, additional studies, and
system monitoring is presented in Section 7. This plan will also set forth procedures which will
facilitate periodic assessments of the effectiveness of implemented alternatives.
1.4 Related Planning Efforts
Several related water quality and planning efforts have been reviewed as part of BTCAMP.
These related efforts define other water quality and management studies and programs. Where
applicable, these other studies and programs have been used to identify or characterize the
impacts, potential sources, and mitigation measures for observed conditions and effects in the
Peconic system.
1.4.1 National Estuary Program
As formally authorized by the Clean Water Act of 1987, Congress established a National
Estuary Program to improve the environmental quality of the nation's most important estuaries.
1-33
The National Estuary Program is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
identify nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and to
promote the preparation of comprehensive management plans to ensure their ecological integrity.
The program's goals include the protection and improvement of water and sediment quality and
the enhancement of living resources. Currently, Estuarine study areas include: Buzzard's Bay in
Massachusetts, Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut, Narragansett Bay in Rhode
Island, and Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. The New York -New Jersey
Harbor was added to the National Estuary Program by the EPA in 1988. In all, 17 estuarine areas
have convened management conferences or are on the EPA priority consideration list. A
document nominating the Peconic Estuary for inclusion in the National Estuary Program was
completed by SCDHS in March, 1991; the Peconic Estuary was added to the priority list by
Congress in 1988.
1.4.2 The Long Island Sound Study
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is a five-year project sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The primary goal of the LISS is to develop a plan to
preserve and protect the water quality and resources of the Sound. More than 100 federal,
interstate, state, and local agencies, universities, and environmental groups as well as industry and
the public are involved in the study. These groups are working together to identify the major
environmental problems threatening the Sound and to develop a comprehensive conservation and
management plan for solving these problems. As a boundary area to the BTCAMP study and a
contributor to overall water quality in the Peconic system, the findings of the Long Island Sound
Study will be useful for future water quality efforts in the Peconic system.- -
1.4.3 The New York -New Jersey Harbor Estuary Proaram
Under the National Estuary Program, the New York -New Jersey Harbor was designated as
an estuary of national significance in 1988. A five-year Management Conference was then
convened to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (COMP) for the
Harbor. The CCMP is designed to provide the overall umbrella for management of New York
Bight water quality. It will provide a Bight -wide ecosystem perspective within which more
detailed, site-specific solutions may be developed. These solutions can be orchestrated through
ongoing programs and studies.
The CCMP places priority on the control of those pollutants most directly associated with
important water use impairments. The Plan also builds upon remedial programs already underway
under the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, and other related Federal, State, and local legislation. As part of this process, the Plan is
assessing the extent to which those efforts are adequate to meet water quality and public health
goals and will recommend such additional measures as may be required.
1-34
1.4.4 New York Bight Restoration Plan
In response to concerns about the degradation of water quality and marine resources, the
U.S. Congress passed the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 which, in
part, requires the EPA to prepare a restoration plan for the New York Bight. The New York Bight
is an ocean area extending over 100 miles into the Atlantic Ocean from the mouth of the Hudson -
Raritan Estuary to the limit of the Continental Shelf. Roughly 240 miles of sandy shoreline
stretching from Cape May, New Jersey to Montauk Point, Long Island form its landside border.
The New York Bight Plan is a three-year effort scheduled for completion in April 1991.
Congress required that the restoration plan undertake the following tasks: (1) identify and assess
the impact of pollutants affecting water quality and marine resources; (2) identify uses being
adversely affected; (3) determine what is happening to the contaminants and assess their effect on
human health and the marine environment; (4) identify technologies and management practices
necessary to control the pollution; (5) identify costs of implementing such technologies and
management programs as well as impediments - to such implementation (6) devise an
implementation schedule; (7) develop recommendations for funding and for interagency and
intergovernmental coordination; and (8) assess alternatives to burning wood at sea. A requirement
to assess alternatives to ocean dumping of municipal sludge was rescinded by the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act of 1988.
1.4.5 National Estuarine Research Reserves
In the late 1960's, Congress recognized the need to protect coastal resources from the
pressures of development and pollution. In particular distress were the nation's estuaries. Under
the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act, Congress provided for the establishment of a national
system of estuarine research reserves in which to study natural and human processes occurring in
estuaries. Protected and managed as long-term natural field laboratories, these sites offer valuable
opportunities to build a comprehensive base of information and data which will be used to monitor
changes in estuaries and to make better management decisions than would otherwise be possible.
So far, seventeen national estuarine research reserves have been created. The program is
administered by NOAA.
1.4.6 Hudson River Estuary Management Program
Established in 1982, the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve is a network of
four sites located along 100 miles of the 152 -mile Hudson River estuary. These sites were
selected to represent a range of salinity regimes and plant and animal communities found along the
lower Hudson. They are also among the largest and least disturbed sites on the Hudson. The four
sites are Piermont Marsh, Iona Island, Tivoli Bays, and Stockport Flats.
1-35
1.5 Previous Peconic System Water Quality Studies
The .Peconic system has been the subject of a number of studies prior to the occurrence of
the Brown Tide due to the concern for the system's water quality. Although system -wide water
quality is generally excellent, the western end (Peconic River and Flanders Bay) of the system has
historically had elevated nutrient and coliform levels; the potential for further degradation of the
system is great (see Sections 6 and 7).
1.5.1 Historical Data Availability (Pre -Brown Tide Years)
Although the Peconic system has not been the subject of lon -tg erm comprehensive water
quality and ecological studies, there is a fair amount of historical data that was useful in the
development of the eutrophication model. Summaries of the available historical water quality data
through 1976 are given in Hardy (1976) and Tetra Tech (1977).
1.5.1.1 208 Plan
In 1978, the Nassau/Suffolk Regional Planning Board, together with several agencies from
the bi-County area (e.g., SCDHS, NCHD, NCDPW, SCWA), conducted the "Long Island Waste
Treatment Management Plan" (L.I. 208 Plan). As part of this study, intensive field monitoring and
modeling analyses were performed on the western and central regions of the Peconic system.
Results of these analyses indicated that, although the majority of the central and eastern Pecoriic
system exhibited, good quality, the Peconic estuary and Flanders Bay were subject to the
impounding impacts of weak tidal flushing and close proximity to the region's major pollutant
sources (Peconic River, duck farms, and the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant).
The 208 Plan recommendations highlighted the need for the control or elimination of duck
farm discharges and the control of point and nonpoint discharges to the Peconic River and
Flanders Bay so that a recommended nitrogen budget would not be contravened. The 208 Plan
also recommended that monitoring should be continued and that the Riverhead Sewage Treatment
-Plant discharge of pollution should be mitigated. Additional recommendations included studying
the contribution of sediment nutrient fluxes and benthic oxygen demand on the overlaying water
column and conducting a more detailed evaluation of resident algal population dynamics, which
appear to dominate bay water quality conditions.
1.5.1.2 Data Sets
Research and monitoring programs for the Peconic system include: the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation fisheries and shellfish sanitation surveys; the Marine
Science Research Center of the State University of New York -Stony Brook (MSRC) (1969-1989);
the New York Ocean Science Laboratory (NYOSL) (1971-1979); and Long Island
1-36
University/Southampton College (1968-1984). Since 1985, research and monitoring data are
available for the Brown Tide bloom from Suffolk County and the MSRC. Hydrographic,
nutrients, and plankton data for Block Island Sound, the seaward boundary for Gardiners Bay, are
available from studies by Gordon Riley and his colleagues at Yale University (1943-1949);
NOAA/NODC; Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL); and NOAA/NMFS Sandy Hook
Laboratory (1940-1985). A list which summarizes the above data sets is presented in Table 1.5-1.
1.5.1.3 System Hydrography
Perhaps the most comprehensive data set for describing the hydrography of the Peconic
system is the circulation study conducted by SUNY-MSRC in 1984 and described in Wilson and
Vieira (1985). This data set consists of 12 months of continuous tide records at four stations, two
months of current (speed and direction) records at 14 stations, and 12 (monthly) plots of surface
salinity along a west -to -east transect of the Peconic system. This data set has been utilized to
calibrate the advective and dispersive components of the transport model in terms of water surface
and salt balance response to observed boundary conditions forcing functions (that is, ocean sea
surface/salinity levels and fresh water inflows).
1.5.2 Model Calibration Data
A primary goal of the ongoing bay water quality/eutrophication model development and
application.has been to relate bay water quality conditions to point and nonpoint source pollutant
loads. This approach involves model simulation of past (mid 70's, pre -Brown Tide years), current
(1985-1989, Brown Tide years), and future conditions. The review of historical water
quality/oceanographic data and pollutant loading data is critical to identify periods for which an
adequate data base is available for model calibration of pre -Brown Tide years. After reviewing the
data sources, it was determined that the most complete set of historical data set is from the
County's federally funded 208 Plan conducted during the summer of 1976 (Tetra Tech, 1977). Of
course, the model was also calibrated and subsequently verified against existing data; see Sections
3.2.2, 4.4.1, and 7 for a discussion of the model and its results.
The 208 Plan data set, although useful, is limited to "conventional" water quality data, and
does not include, other than chlorophyll -a, phytoplankton primary productivity data (cell counts,
species identification, particulate carbon and nitrogen, etc.) useful for calibrating a comprehensive
eutrophication model. Therefore, other data sources have been investigated to determine the
availability and applicability of information to augment the County's data sets. The New York
Ocean Science Laboratory (NYOSL), for example, conducted seasonal studies of plankton,
nutrients, and hydrography during the mid 1970's in Peconic Bay that would be very useful for
model development.
1-37
Table 1.5-1
Peconic Bay Historical Water Quality Data
Hyd.
In—
Survey
Begin
End
No.
Temp
Org
Org
Phyto
Phyto
Zoop
Turb Coli Sed Sed
Data Source
Reference
Area
Date
Date
Sta
Sal.
Oxy
Nutr
Nutr
Biome
Prod
Biome
Secc B—ac t Tvae Flux
NY Cons Dept.
Tressler & Bere (1939)
Gardiners Bay
Aug
38
Aug
38
1
X
X
Yale Univ
Deevey (1952a)
Block Is Sound
Aug
43
Jul
46
14
X
X
X_
X
X
X
Yale Univ
Riley (1952a)
BIS/LIS
Jan
46
Jan
47
X
Yale Univ
Deevey (1952a)
Block Is Sound
Jan
49
Dec
49
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yale Univ
Riley (1952b)
Block Is Sound
Jan
49
Dec
49
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
LIU
Welker et al (1988)
Peconic system
Jan
68
Dec
88
19
X
X
X
X
X
SUNY—MSRC
Hardy (1969)
BIS/LIS
Jan
69
X
X
X
X
X
SUNY—MSRC
Hardy & Weyl'(1970)
BIS/LIS
Jan
70
Jan
70
X
X
X
X
NOAA/NMFS, BNL
Stoddard et al (1986)
NYB/BIS
Jan
70
Sep
88
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
00 SUNY—MSRC
Hardy (1970)
BIS/LIS
Oct
70
Oct
70
33
X
X
X
X
SUNY—MSRC
Hardy (1971)
BIS/LIS
Apr
71
Aug
71
26
X
X
X
X
X
X
NYOSL
ref. in Hardy (1976)
Flanders Bay
Apr
71
Apr
71
25
X
X
X
SUNY—Cortland
Brennan (1973)
Peconic system
Jan
72
Dec
72
X
NYOSL
ref. in Hardy (1976)
Pec/Chain Bays
Sep
72
Jan
74
6
X
X
X
SUNY—MSRC
Hardy (1976)
Peconic system
Mar
75
Mar
75
32
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCDHS
Nuzzi et al
Peconic system
Jan
76
Dec
87
19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCDHS
Tetra Tech (1977)/208
Flanders Bay
Jul
76
Sep
76
19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCDHS
Tetra Tech (1977)/208
Great Pec Bay
Jul
76
Sep
76
19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCDHS
Bruno et al (1980)
Peconic system
Apr
77
Apr
78
9
X
X
X
X
X
NYOSL
Bruno et al (1983)
Little Pec Bay
Jun
78
May
79
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1.5-1 (continued)
Peconic Bay Historical Water Quality Data
Additional Source: Queens College, Katuna, M.A. (1974), "The Sedimentology of Great Peconic Bay, Long Island, New York."
Hyd.
In—
Survey
Begin
End
No.
Temp
Org
Org
Phyto
Phyto
Zoop
Turb
Coli
Sed Sed
Data Source
Reference
Area
Date
Date
Sta
Sal. Oxy
Nutr
Nutr
Biome
Prod
Biome
Secc
Bact
Type Flux
NYOSL
Turner et al (1983)
Little Pec Bay
Jun 78
May
79
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
NYOSL
Turner (1982)
Little Pec Bay
Jun 78
May
79
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
NYSDEC
NYSDEC (1890)
Flanders Bay
Jul'79
Aug
80
93
X
NYSDEC
NYSDEC (1981)
Peconic Bay
Jul 80
Aug
80
153
X
NYSDEC
Verber (1983)
Flanders Bay
May 83
May
83
41
X
SUNY—MSRC
Wilson & Vieira (1985)
Peconic system
Jan 84
Dec.84
4
X
SUNY—MSRC
Cosper et al/BTCAMP
Great Pec Bay
Jan 86
Dec
88
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUNY—MSRC
Cosper et al/BTCAMP
Flanders Bay
Jan 86
Dec
88
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
SCDHS
Nuzzi et al/BTCAMP
Peconic system '
Jan 86
Dec
88
13
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Weber et al. (1988)
Peconic Bays
May 88
Jul
88
204
X X
X
Additional Source: Queens College, Katuna, M.A. (1974), "The Sedimentology of Great Peconic Bay, Long Island, New York."
Also of importance to the model development and testing was the availability of data and/or
estimates of point and nonpoint source pollutant loads during the past, current, and future
watershed simulation conditions. Discharge data for the few major point sources (Riverhead
Sewage Treatment Plant, duck farms) were not difficult to obtain or project. However, the
quantification of nonpoint source loadings from the Peconic watershed system (especially for
nutrient inputs), is a complex task. To allow a "prediction' of future bay water quality conditions
under various land use distributions, a prediction of the appropriate levels of surface runoff (flows
and pollutants) as well as groundwater underflow for these watershed conditions were required.
These predictions are discussed in detail in and Section 5.0: Groundwater Quality Assessment and
Section 6.0: Sources of Pollutants.
1.5.3 Historical Water Quality Processes
Water quality distributions in an estuary such as the Peconic system are influenced .by a
complex set of physical, chemical, biological, and geochemical processes. Processes significant in
the Peconic system include freshwater inputs such as tributary flows, groundwater seepage, and
precipitation. Land drainage runoff is an additional component of water quality distribution.
Point source loading from waste treatment plants (including duck farm runoff), atmospheric
deposition, and tidal exchange with Gardiners Bay and Block Island Sound are significant
estuarine influences. The sediment -water exchange of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon, circulation
processes, geometric and bathymetric characteristics, and seasonal variations in solar radiation,
precipitation, and water temperature are additional factors which influence the Peconic system.
In the . eutrophication analysis of the Peconic system, the relevant parameters are
hydrography, including temperature and salinity, phytoplankton biomass, species abundance, and
primary productivity. Additional variables are water quality, including dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, bacteria, turbidity, light extinction, and zooplankton biomass and abundance.
1.6 Study Priorities/Water Quality Issues
As discussed in Section 1.3, the work for BTCAMP has provided insight into water quality
issues in many of the planning areas. Chief among these issues are pollution sources such as
sediment flux, duck farms, sewage treatment plant discharges, stormwater runoff, sanitary waste,
and fertilizer leachate which contribute to the pollutant loading of the Peconic River and Flanders
Bay system. Flanders Bay, a small, shallow water body which receives the flow from the Peconic
River, has exhibited the characteristics'of a stressed system. A significant portion of Flanders Bay
is closed to shellfishing, and Flanders Bay manifested some of the highest cell counts of the
Brown Tide organism of any water body in the Peconic system during the Brown Tide bloom. In
addition to receiving the Peconic River's pollutant load, Flanders Bay also receives significant
pollution contribution from nonpoint sources as well as from Meetinghouse Creek. These factors,
1-40
among others, led to the decision during the BTCAMP to investigate in greater detail the pollutant
loading from the above -noted sources, as well as other significant factors which relate to the
Brown Tide.
1.6.1 Peconic River Drainage Basin
Major point sources of pollution to the Peconic River drainage basin include point sources
such as the Riverhead and other sewage treatment plants. Mass loadings of nutrients and organic
material are also contributed to the Peconic River by nonpoint sources such as sediment flux,
stormwater runoff and groundwater contribution which includes pollution from fertilizer leachate
and sanitary system contribution. Atmospheric deposition is another process which affects the
nutrient load to the Peconic system.
As measured by SCDHS sampling conducted at the Peconic River USGS gauge station, the
overall nutrient loadings from the Peconic River were estimated to have decreased from levels
estimated as 190 pounds per day in 1976 to approximately 130 pounds per day of loading for the
1988-90 period. By comparison, the Riverhead STP contributed approximately 140 pounds per
day of nitrogen to the River at its estuarine mouth in the 1988-90 time period. Pollutant loadings
are discussed in detail in Section 6.
Nonpoint source pollution ' stems from various sources, including agricultural fertilizer
application, residential fertilizer application; and sanitary waste leachate. Approximately 1.5
million gallons per day of wastewater (240 pounds per day nitrogen) was estimated to be
generated by on -lot sewage disposal in the groundwater contribution area to the Peconic River. In
addition, agricultural and residential fertilizer contribution to groundwater was estimated to be
approximately 250 pounds per day in the Peconic River region of the primary study area. These
loadings adversely affect groundwater 'quality which, in turn, affects surface water quality;
nonpoint source loading as measured by groundwater nitrogen contribution accounted for a direct
loading of over 300 pounds per day nitrogen to the surface waters of the eastern Peconic River
area. Stormwater runoff accounted for only five pounds per day of nitrogen loading in the Peconic
River area; but was more significant -in terms of coliform loading (1.3 trillion mpn/day).
1.6.2 Flanders Bay
Flanders Bay is a small (3.9 square miles), shallow (4.9 feet average depth), estuarine
embayment that has long been characterized by high nutrient and coliform bacteria concentrations,
highly fluctuating dissolved oxygen levels, and periodic, intense algal blooms. The Bay is subject
to the compounding influences of locally weak tidal flushing and close proximity to the region's
major pollutant sources, which include the Peconic River, ' one active' and several inactive duck
farms, and the Riverhead and other sewage treatment plants. Major sources to Flanders Bay
include the Peconic River (discussed above), Meetinghouse Creek (360 pounds per day total
1-41
nitrogen), and sediment flux (over 2,300 pounds per day in combined Peconic River and Flanders
Bay areas).
Approximately 700 pounds per day of nitrogen were estimated to leach to groundwater in
the Flanders Bay region as a result of fertilizer and sanitary waste associated with residential and
agricultural activities in the groundwater -contributing area to Flanders Bay. Of this quantity, 415
pounds was attributed to fertilizers, with most of the, remaining 285 pounds per day of nitrogen
loading due to sanitary waste (1.7 mgd in Flanders Bay region). The heaviest nitrogen loading
was estimated to occur in the North Flanders Bay region, due largely to the extensive amount of
fanning in the area. Based on estimates of groundwater inflow and actual groundwater sampling
data, the actual contribution of nitrogen to surface waters from groundwater- is --approximately 300
pounds per day. Stormwater runoff accounted for only 21 pounds per day of nitrogen loading in
the Flanders Bay area, but was more significant in terms of coliform loading (4.1 trillion
mpn/day)• .
Although detection rates for most organic chemicals were relatively low, pesticide
contamination was found to be common, especially in the North Fork where the use of aldicarb
was historically widespread. Average pesticide concentrations in the region north of Flanders
Bay, for example, were about 10 ug/l.
Average total nitrogen in private well samples,in the Flanders Bay region was found to be in
the range of 5 to 6 mg/1 in North Fork regions. This relatively high level of nitrogen was likely f
due to intensive agricultural pressures as well as residential on -lot -sewage disposal and fertilizer
contribution. Meanwhile, the South Fork and western Peconic River regions, which had relatively
less agricultural and,residential pressure, had average nitrogen concentrations in the range of 1 to 3
mg/l. Total loading of nitrogen from groundwater to surface waters was estimated to be 215 and
60 pounds per day in the North and South Fork areas of Flanders Bay, respectively..
1.6.3 Systemwide Study Priorities
Although the nonpoint source nitrogen loading greatly exceeds the .total nitrogen load for
point sources, the management of point sources remains a priority concern in the Peconic Estuary
system with,respect'to nitrogen loading. The significance of point sources 'has been established by
computer modelling of the surface water system, which has shown that stormwater runoff,
atmospheric deposition,, and .groundwater underflow are not nearly as significant_ in the
management of nitrogen contribution to, the Peconic Estuary system as are the point sources.
Specifically, the computer modeling has alsodetermined that the marine surface water system is
not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. The preliminary sampling efforts of Dr.
Capone to determine the actual contribution of groundwater to the marine system further indicate
that groundwater -nitrogen input may not be a major influence in the water quality of the Peconic
system (see Section 6). Dr. Capone's sampling tends to indicate that the groundwater contribution
1-42
estimates of the USGS as applied in determining nitrogen loading to Flanders Bay may be
conservatively high. Thus, the apparent quantitative significance of groundwater nitrogen
contribution must be tempered by evidence that it is not as important as other point sources.
However, as discussed in Section 7, prevention of groundwater degradation in the Peconic River
area is of paramount importance.
In terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts, point sources such as the
Riverhead STP and Meetinghouse Creek are more significant due to the concentrated, localized
nature of their discharges at environmentally sensitive locations in the Peconic Estuary. Sediment
flux, due to its apparently high loading rate, is a nonpoint source which is a major management
concern with respect to nitrogen -input despite the dispersed nature of its contribution. However,
sediment flux is, directly related to point source deposition and further highlights the need for
control of point sources. The relative impacts of the various sources as evaluated with respect to
management alternatives are discussed in detail in Section 7.
Coliform loading is also a priority for analysis and management within the Peconic River
and Flanders Bay area. Management alternatives evaluated include the effects of improvement
and worsening in coliform loading to Flanders Bay, with a focus on water quality with respect to
shellfishing requirements.
Other sources of pollution were also addressed as part of the comprehensive evaluation of
potential sources of contamination in the study area. The sources included landfills, the most
significant of which was the North Sea landfill which has generated a plume of contaminants
including ammonia, chlorides, and manganese. According to a 1986 Remedial Investigations
Draft Work Plan (Ebasco Services, Inc.), the boundary of this plume has reached Fish Cove. A
draft report by H2M Group Consulting Engineers for the Town of Southampton entitled "North
Sea Landfill, Phase H Remedial Investigation, Fish Cove Study" has indicated that the
groundwater leachate from the landfill has upwelled in an area of approximately four acres which
exhibits high concentrations of leachate constituents. According to this report, the contamination
may have adversely impacted clam populations in a portion of Fish Cove. Recently, a USEPA-
press release (October, 1992) announced that no further federal action at the North Sea landfill site
is necessary, based on a program of remedial action. The program calls for further monitoring of
groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish Cove, and hard clam recruitment.
Present and past toxic and hazardous leaks, spills, and discharges were also evaluated, with
emphasis on a Sag Harbor site known as Rowe Industries from which a plume of organic solvents
has leached. As noted in a 1984 SCDHS report, this plume has migrated to Sag Harbor Cove. In
addition, inactive duck farms, industrial discharges with SPDES permits, and major storage tank
facilities were addressed, as were major industrial (Grumman Aerospace) and institutional
(Brookhaven National Laboratory) facilities.
1-43--
1.6.4 Future Investigations
The multi-year intensive study of the Peconic system which has included sampling and
review of historical . data has allowed Suffolk County to develop this management program to
address the Brown Tide issue in the context of broader water quality issues. This program should
be considered as an ongoing step towards the protection and enhancement of the environmental
quality of aquatic life in the Peconic system.
Additional research is required to further identify and , define many of the sources and
potential effects of associated impacts to the Peconic system, especially with respect to Brown
Tide -related issues, sediment flux, and system -wide coliform loading. Asa result, of the scope and
focus of the study, many of these issues have not received full attention because of the need to
evaluate issues of a more immediate priority. Such areas are recommended for further study and
are referenced in appropriate locations throughout the report.
1-44
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PROCESSES
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROCESSES
This Section describes the rich resources and physical characteristics of the Peconic-system.
The environmental setting of this region is presented in order to characterize the component
ecosystems and the factors that influence them. Descriptions of areas of special concern, unique
habitats, and terrestrial and aquatic species are included, as is a discussion of the cultural impact on
the system. The information presented in this Section is intended to be of sufficient detail to provide
a background of Peconic system resources against which impacts of BTCAMP recommendations can
be measured. As discussed in Section 2.3, a comprehensive inventory of all natural resources in the
study area is beyond the scope of BTCAMP, which has a narrower focus on marine and water quality
issues. However, as this section, clearly indicates, in light of the value of the resources and the
potential for harm and degradation, such an inventory is warranted in the future as part of a more
detailed, study area -specific natural resources management plan.
2.1 Land and Water Resources
This section provides a brief and generalized overview of the physical characteristics of the
Peconic System and its surrounding land area.
2. 1.1 Geology
The chain of bays comprising the Peconic Bay estuary features a convoluted shoreline having
numerous necks, islands, bluffs, salt creeks, and marshes. These features are common to coastal plain
estuaries formed by the flooding of a river valley (Pritchard, 1955). However, the river valley now
occupied by the Peconic Bay estuary was formed both by stream erosion and by the action of glacial
erosion and deposition. The glacial deposits outwashed from the moraines form the substrate of the
bays and coastal plains and range from erratic boulders, gravel, and sand, to fine silt and clay.
Brennan (1973) found the sediment composition of the Peconic Bays to range from moderately
to well sorted, fine to coarse grained material. The coarsest sediments were found in deeply scoured
tidal channels while mid -bay sediment samples from Great Peconic, Little Peconic and Noyack Bays
contained poorly sorted sandy muds, with a high content of fine organic debris which Brennan
postulates to be of duck farm origin.
The Peconic River -Flanders Bay region is underlain by Pleistocene deposits consisting of
terminal moraine and outwash deposits of glacial origin. The terminal moraine forms a ridge along
the center of Long Island which splits west of the Peconic -River. The Harbor Hill branch forms hills
and bluffs along the North Fork of Long Island while the Ronkonkoma moraine extends south of the
Peconic River and along the South Fork. Outwash plains composed of sand, silt, and some gravel
have been deposited between the moraines which are composed of till and gravel. The Peconic River
cuts an east -west channel in the outwash plain and carries alluvium into Flanders Bay. Marsh
2-1
deposits are found along the bay. The high permeability of -the soils surrounding the river and bay act
to limit surface runoff. Pleistocene deposits form the most shallow hydrogeologic unit; the upper
glacial aquifer. The surficial geology of the study area is presented on Table 2.1-1. - - -
The Magothy formation, which comprises the Magothy aquifer and is composed of sand, silt
and clay, underlies the Pleistocene deposits. Permeability of this aquifer is less than that of the upper
glacial although the latter is thicker resulting in a higher transmissivity.
Below the Magothy Formation rests the Raritan Formation of late Cretaceous age. This unit is
generally divided into the lower Lloyd Sand member and the overlying Raritan Clay member which
forms a confining layer at the.base -of the Magothy formation. Below this zone is the Lloyd aquifer, a
sand aquifer of very low transmissivity. Generally, the depth to the Raritan formation makes it an
unlikely source of drinking water within the study area. Crystalline bedrock from the Pre -Cambrian
age lies beneath the Raritan formation. Additional data regarding subsurface soil conditions is
contained in Section 2.1.5 (hydrogeology).
2.1.2 Topography
The total land area of Long Island is about 1400 square miles. From end to end the island is
about 120 miles long and its maximum width is approximately 23 miles. The north fork of Long
Island, which terminates at Orient Point, is 27 miles long. The south fork of the island, separated
from the north fork by Peconic and Gardiners Bays, is 44 miles long.
The south fork in Southampton is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from sea level along
both the northern and southern coastal areas to over 200 feet (msl) in the central inland portions of the
Town.
The southern shoreline of the North Fork is characterized by gentle slopes, though there are
some bluffs in the vicinity of Nassau Point and Indian Neck. A predominant north shore topographic
and geologic feature is the Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine which consists of steep slopes, bluffs, and
rolling landscape.
The central portion of the North Fork is located on gently sloping outwash plains resulting from
glacial melting. Elevation ranges from sea level to 160 feet above mean sea level, although most of
the North Fork is at an elevation less than 50 feet msl. The highest elevations and steepest slopes are
found along the north shore in the western part of Southold Town. A peak elevation•of 160 feet msl
is found in the Mattituck Hills. The topography of Robins Island and Fishers Island. is also
characteristic of the morainic deposits in the area. Both islands have very irregular topography, with
many hills and some steep bluffs.
2-2
Feature
Shore, Beach, and Salt Marsh
Deposits and Artificial Fill
(Undifferentiated)
Harbor Hill Ground Moraine
N
W
Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine
Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine
Outwash Deposits (undifferentiated)
Till Deposits (undifferentiated)
Table 2.1-1
GENERAL SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
Location (By Township)
Brookhavenl, East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island,
Southampton, Southold
Southold (Plum Island only)
Riverhead, Southold
-Southampton, East Hampton
Brookhavenl, East Hampton, Riverhead, Southampton, Southold
East Hampton, Shelter Island, Southampton, Southold
Source: USGS, 1974
Note: Ronkonkoma Ground Moraine and Manetto Gravel do not occur on the East End.
1. Only for those portions of Brookhaven in the study area.
2119M/1
Elevations on Shelter Island are generally below 70 feet. The exceptions are in the western part
of the island in the communities of Shelter Island Heights and near West Neck Bay where elevations
can range up to 180 feet.
2.1.3 Soils -
The general soil types of the East End of Long Island are presented in Table 2.1-2, which
describes the characteristics of -the soils and indicates the Towns in which they occur. The soils in the
vicinity of the Peconic River Drainage Basin consist of the Plymouth -Carver Association which is
characterized by deep, excessively drained, coarse textured soils. North of the Peconic River and
running east to Mattituck is the Haven -Riverhead Association. This soil series is a well drained,
medium to coarsely textured soil found on outwash plains.
The south fork of. Long Island eastward from_ Southampton to Amagansett is mantled by the
Bridgehampton-Haven Soil Association. The association occurs on the outwash plain and is
characteristically level or gently sloping, with short slopes which are slightly steeper along
intermittent drainage ways. Slopes range from about 1 to 6 percent in most places, . increasing to
about 15 percent along the drainage ways. Bridgehampton soils constitute about 35 percent of the
Association and Haven Soils about 25 percent; minor soils comprise the remaining 40 percent.
The Soil Conservation Service (1975) describes the Bridgehampton soils as deep and well
drained to moderately well drained. The soils are generally a silt loam, but the surface layer and
subsoil ranges from silt loam to a very fine sandy loam. The soils are 36 to 56 inches thick, resting
on glacial outwash. The Bridgehampton soils occur mainly in the southern part of the Association.
The Haven soils are described as deep and well drained with a loam surface layer and a loam or
silt loam subsoil. The soil layer ranges from about 18 to 36 inches thick. The moderately sloping
Haven soils commonly occur on the sides of drainage ways and on many of the broad, nearly level,
gently sloping areas in the northern part of the Association.
The minor soils of the Bridgehampton-Haven Association are mapped as Carver and Plymouth
soils (deep and excessively drained), Riverhead soils (well drained), Berryland soils (poorly drained),
and Raynham soils (poorly drained). The Carver, Plymouth and Riverhead soils are found on the
sides of some drainage ways and the Berryland and Raynham soils occur around ponds and creeks
and adjacent to tidal marshes. Wooded areas adjacent to Bridgehampton soils have a soil similar to
the Plymouth soil, with a silty subsoil.
Robins, Shelter, and Gardiners Islands contain the Montauk Haven -Riverhead Association soil
series, a well drained to moderately well drained coarse textured soil found on the moraine. Plum
Island is characterized by the Carver -Plymouth -Riverhead Association, a well drained and moderately
coarse textured soil. East of Amagansett the Napeague area contains the Dune Land - Tidal Marsh -
2-4
Table 2.1-2
GENERAL SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil Association Characteristics Location (by Town)
Carver -Plymouth -Riverhead
Association
Haven -Riverhead
N
Association
Plymouth -Carver Association
(rolling and hilly)
Riverhead -Plymouth -Carver
Association
Dune Land -Tidal Marsh -Beaches
Association
Deep, rolling excessively drained Riverhead, Southold,
and well drained, coarse textured Southampton
and moderately coarse textured
soils on moraines .
Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, Riverhead, Southold
well drained, medium textured and
moderately coarse textured soils on
outwash plains
Deep, excessively well drained, coarse Brookhavenl, East Hampton,
textured soils on moraine Riverhead, Southampton
Deep nearly level to gently sloping, Southampton
well drained and excessively drained,
moderately coarse textured and coarse
textured soils on the southern outwash plain
Sand dunes, tidal marshes, and beaches of East Hampton,. Southold,
the barrier beach and south shore Southampton
N
1
Soil Association .
Bridgehampton-Haven Association
Montauk -Haven -Riverhead
Association
Montauk, sandy variant
Plymouth Association
Montauk -Montauk, sandy variant-
Bridgehampton Association
Plymouth -Carver Association
(nearly level and undulating)
Table 2.1-2 (Continued)
GENERAL SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics
Deep nearly level to gently sloping, well
drained to moderately well drained, medium
textured soils on outwash plains
Deep, nearly level to strongly sloping,,
well drained to moderately well drained,
moderately coarse textured and medium
textured soils on moraines .
Deep, rolling and hilly, excessively
drained, coarse textured soils on moraines
Deep, rolling and hilly, excessively
drained and moderately well drained to
well drained, medium textured to coarse
textured soils on moraines
Deep, excessively drained, coarse textured
soils on outwash plains
Source: General Soils Map, Suffolk County, U.S. Soils Conservation Service
1. This is the only soil association found in the Brookhavemportion of the study area
V
Location (by Town)
East Hampton, Southampton
East Hampton, Shelter Island,
Southampton
East Hampton, Southampton
East Hampton, Southampton
East Hampton
Beaches Association typical of the coastal zone. Hither Hills is dominated by the Montauk, sandy
variant - Plymouth Association which are well drained, coarse textured soils. The Montauk region is
characterized by the Montauk -Montauk series, an excessively to moderately well drained soil found
on moraines. The Haven -Riverhead association is bounded on the north and south by soils of the
Carver -Plymouth -Riverhead Association.
Aquatic Sediments
The aquatic sediments associated with the Peconic system have not been extensively quantified.
These sediments are typical of shallow coastal embayments and are predominantly comprised of
sand, mud, .and shell fragments. Brief descriptions of the benthic sediment types typically
encountered in the Peconic system are presented in Table 2.1-3.
The "soils" of the Peconic Bay estuary are the sediments found on bay bottoms. Deposition of
materials by tributaries, overland stormwater runoff, point source loading, weathering, normal
biological activity, eutrophication, and atmospheric deposition form the sediments of the Peconic
system which vary from soft muck to hard sand. Some areas have high levels of organic materials
while others are primarily silica and quartz sands.
Sediments are reservoirs for materials that enter the marine environment. At the interface with
the water, sediments exchange nutrients (both organic and inorganic), gases, and ionic compounds,
provide a substrate for biological activity, and define the physical dimensions of the bottom.
Accumulation rates in a semi -enclosed littoral zone, such as the Peconic system, can be as high as 10
to 200 inches per thousand years (Duxbury; 1971; Riley and Chester, 1971). Chemical
interrelationships in the sediment are complex, involving photic, inorganic, organic, and biochemical
reactions.
In the Peconic system, dissolved oxygen levels in the water are generally conducive to aerobic
biological activity at the sediment -water interface. Under normal (non -brown tide) conditions, most
of the shallow areas, including Flanders Bay, receive the full spectral range of incident solar radiation
down to the water/sediment interface, allowing for photosynthetic processes at the surface of
sediments.
For the deeper water bodies (>5 feet) the influence of incident radiation on the sediments can be
severely limited at depth to the longer wavelengths of incident light. The deposition of lighter
materials, often organic in nature, is less likely to occur in these deeper waters. The organic materials
generally remain suspended and are used by the biota and exchanged with oceanic waters by water
transport processes. As a result, the sediments of the deeper waters tend to be characterized by
inorganic silica and quartz sands. It should be noted, however, that biologic activity in these
sediments is very high because of the generally nutrient and oxygen rich overlying water.
2-7
Table 2.1-3
Peconic Bay Sediment.Characteristics Inventory
Loran -C
Depth ft
Bottom Type
43872.5
5
Hard Sand
26257.2
43875.0
7
Hard Sand .
26257.5
43877.5
8
Hard Sand
26257.5
43882.5
-8
Hard'Sand,
26260.0
Stone
.43872.5
18
Hard
26260.0
43870.0
- 6
Hard Sand,
26262.5
Shell
43867.5
10
Sandy Mud,
26262.5
Shell
43870.0
17
Hard Sand,
26265.0
Shell
43865.0
6
Hard Sand,
26265.0
Shell
43862.5
4
Hard Sand
26265.0
43862.5
8
Hard Type,
26267.5
Shell
43892.5
8
Hard Sand
26270.0
43890.0
18
Hard Mud
26270.0
Shell
43887.5
24
Hard Stone
26270.0
43885.0
26
_Hard Sand
-262.70
43860.0,
N/A
Soft Mud
26270.0
Source: NYSDEC, 1980
2-8
Sediment flux rates- reflect point source -related particulate organic carbon deposition-, and
subsequent sediment diagenesis, or decomposition and mineralization of organic matter. Recent
research by Dr. Jonathan Garber (Chesapeake Biological Library) indicates that sediment fluxes of
oxygen and nutrients into the water column represent significant components of the overall nutrient
and oxygen budgets of the Peconic system, especially in the shallower regions of the system. Dr.
Garber's report further found that benthic fluxes in the Peconic system are of magnitudes sufficient to
exert influence on water quality both directly, via uptake of oxygen by the sediments, and indirectly
via fertilization of phytoplankton with recycled nutrients. The report is also the basis for the estimate
that sediment flux is the single greatest source of nitrogen loading to the Peconic-River/Flanders Bay
system. Additional data would be needed to better quantify the impact of benthic fluxes on Peconic
Bay system productivity and water quality. Sediment flux is discussed in greater detail in Section
6.2.8.
2.1.4 Groundwater
Groundwater is water in porous, underground deposits forming reservoirs known as aquifers.
Most of the groundwater found under Long Island exists in sandy sediments -deposited by glaciers
and is used on Long Island for drinking, agriculture and industry. Although water yield from an
aquifer is a function of the rate and quantity of movement within the aquifer, the sustainable yield is
controlled by the rate at which water soaks through the overlying soils to recharge it. At present, the
extraction of groundwater for human use has not exceeded the rate of recharge in most parts of the
study area. However, it is essential that groundwater quantity and quality be protected.
Contaminants from septic tank effluent, agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
etc.), industrial chemicals and landfill. leachate, as well as saltwater, can enter aquifers making them
unpotable and, in some cases, unsafe for agricultural use.
Groundwater contribution to the Peconic Estuary system has been a subject of study with
respect to pollutant loading. Section 5 discusses in detail the groundwater quality conditions in the
study area. The quantification of nitrogen loading from groundwater to surface waters is presented in
Section 6.4, which applies SCDHS estimates of groundwater nitrogen concentrations to USGS
estimates of groundwater underflow to obtain an overall nitrogen loading rate from groundwater to
surface waters for specific planning regions. This loading rate is discussed with respect to impacts
and management alternatives in Section 7..
2.1.5 Hydrogeology
The unconsolidated sediments in the study area are saturated with water from the water table to
bedrock. The upper portion of the, groundwater reservoir is freshwater which originates from local
precipitation; the deeper groundwater is saline. Water table elevation is approximately 45 feet above
mean sea level in the western portion of the study area around the headwaters of the Peconic River.
Precipitation averages about 45 inches annually, approximately half of which is estimated to recharge
2-9
the fresh groundwater reservoir. The' balance is accounted for by overland runoff and
evapotranspiration. The recharge of approximately 22 inches is equivalent to an average rate of about
one million gallons per day per square mile.
The geologic units present in the area comprise several � hydrogeologic units. The more recent
Pleistocene deposits constitute what has been designated the Upper Glacial Aquifer. The Magothy
Formation, Matawan group, of late Cretaceous origin, forms the Magothy aquifer. The Lloyd Sand
Member, also of the late Cretaceous age, has been designated the Lloyd Aquifer. The Raritan Clay
Member of the Raritan Formation acts as a relatively impermeable confining -layer separating the
Lloyd aquifer from the Magothy aquifer. The Upper Glacial aquifer is the major source of water
supply for both the North and South Forks, since the Magothy aquifer generally -becomes salty in
these areas. The stratigraphy and hydrogeologic units that comprise the study area are shown on
Table 2.1-4.
The study area is bounded by the groundwater divide - the geographic boundary on the north
from which groundwater travels south to the Peconic River and to Flanders, Peconic and Gardiners
Bays; and on the south from which groundwater travels north to those water bodies. Cross sections
showing the general hydrogeologic formations of four portions of the, eastern end of Long Island are
presented Figure 2.14.
The Long Island Waste Treatment Management Plan. ("208 Plan," Long Island Regional
Planning Board, 1978) defined control strategies for controlling point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to the groundwaters and surface waters of Long Island. As part of the 208 Plan, eight
hydrogeologic zones, based on recharge rates and existing water quality, were defined to assist in
planning and pollution controlmanagement. Three of the eight zones, Zones III, IV and V are in the
present study area. Zone III is an area of deep recharge that generally has high quality groundwater
in both the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Since hydraulic conductivity of both the Glacial and
Magothy aquifers in Zone III is high, there is considerable potential for water supply development in
this zone. Much of the area is in low density, primarily nonagricultural land use.
Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern part of the South Fork. This area is
characterized by intensive agricultural activities which have resulted in nitrate -nitrogen
concentrations above 6 mg/l in wells located in agricultural areas. Water quality in residential areas is
still generally acceptable.'
The boundaries of Zone V were redefined in the Long Island Groundwater Management Plan
(LIGMP, NYSDEC, 1986), which designated Zone V on the South Fork as deep recharge area. Both
Zones III and V receive special regulatory protection due to their deep recharge status under Article
VI (Realty Subdivisions, Developments, and Other Construction Projects) and Article VII (Water
Pollution Control) of the, Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
2-10
Table 2.1-4
STRATIGRAPHY AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
Source: USGS 1974
Approximate
System
Series
Geologic Unit
Hvdrogeologic Unit
Thickness (ft.)
Quaternary
Holocene
Shore, beach, salt marsh
Upper glacial aquifer
0-60
deposits and artificial fill
Pleistocene
Till; Harbor Hill Terminal
0-150
Moraine
Outwash deposits
0-350
Cretaceous
Upper Cretaceous
Matawan Group - Magothy
Mag_ othy Aquifer
0-1000
Formation
undifferentiated
Raritan Formation,
Raritan Clay
0-250
Clay Member
Raritan Formation,
Lloyd Aquifer
0-550
Lloyd Sand Member
Pre Cambrian
Pre Cambrian
Crystaline rocks
Bedrock
Not Known
Source: USGS 1974
z
Q
U •
� o
O I
400•
o
e p w
SEA
LEVEL _—_—
Gard
400• Monmouth greensand
800'
1200•
1600'
Z •
W •c 2 c
po m =o
o c� c N e
1. a�
c5t7 0 ¢
E
'o
L c
�0 w
200' - o y Greenport
SEA
LEVEL Upper glacial aquifer
400: �Gardiners Clay
Magothy aquifer
Monmouth greensand
800• —
n
RaritaclSoul
y
1200' ���' ' I.lo.Vyd a/17% Bedrock
1600'
O
'
Z
O
O
Wrn
y
_ro
�
Z
=2Q
m° 0J3
o-
E
e
J
Ln.
,
0
n
E•
C, v
b
F'
Z
400'.
e E
A
Shore Acres
O
v
SEA
Upper glacial aquifer
LEVEL
Clay �
Upper glacial aquifer
Magoihy aquifer
400'
800•
400•
Magothy eouifer
��� ��
l
Raritan c1aV .
eo0
� d equilef
-.+�l�jiBedrock
1200•
L101
1600'
Bedrock
1600•
1600'
Z •
W •c 2 c
po m =o
o c� c N e
1. a�
c5t7 0 ¢
E
'o
L c
�0 w
200' - o y Greenport
SEA
LEVEL Upper glacial aquifer
400: �Gardiners Clay
Magothy aquifer
Monmouth greensand
800• —
n
RaritaclSoul
y
1200' ���' ' I.lo.Vyd a/17% Bedrock
1600'
Q
O E'�'!
U u
ti o-
H'c
200' 1- F
SEA Q ��—
LEVEL
BLOCK ISLAND Terminal
-Upper glacial aquifer SOUND
Magothy aquifer
400' Monmouth greensand
200*
SEA 800•
LEVEL ��! �,foVSQUt,!�' Bedrock
400• 1200•
600'
1200•
1600•
SOURCeUsosa1974_ _GROUNDWATER CROSS SECTIONS
O
Oy
t2
h4
H14
¢
H- 200'
IL SEA
LEVEL
400'
800•
1200'
i
FIGURE 2.1-1
A
j
Z
O
Wrn
=2Q
Z
c o
C, v
x E, Z C' 200'
SEAQ
e
t
a CARDINERS BAY
Fii
SEA
LEVEL
Upper glacial aquifer
LEVEL
400'
Magoihy aquifer
400'
800•
-•-- RariClay �T1rf/�'�
800•
l
Vol►dre�Ottifer
1200'?
-.+�l�jiBedrock
1200•
1600'
1600•
Q
O E'�'!
U u
ti o-
H'c
200' 1- F
SEA Q ��—
LEVEL
BLOCK ISLAND Terminal
-Upper glacial aquifer SOUND
Magothy aquifer
400' Monmouth greensand
200*
SEA 800•
LEVEL ��! �,foVSQUt,!�' Bedrock
400• 1200•
600'
1200•
1600•
SOURCeUsosa1974_ _GROUNDWATER CROSS SECTIONS
O
Oy
t2
h4
H14
¢
H- 200'
IL SEA
LEVEL
400'
800•
1200'
i
FIGURE 2.1-1
2.1.6 Surface Water
The surface waters of the Peconic system include the freshwater creeks, lakes and ponds, and
saline harbors, bays, coves and inlets. The freshwater systems are used for fishing, boating, and
swimming while marine waters support both recreational and commercial uses such as shellfishing
and finfishing. A listing of marine surface waters in the study area was previously presented in
Section 1.2.1.
Contamination of surface waters is caused- by nonpoint source pollution including sediment
flux, stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition, and groundwater underflow which includes
components such as septic system leachate and fertilizer leachate. Point sources of pollution include
sewage treatment plants, duck farms, landfills, etc. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters may cause
blooms of undesirable algal species, and reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations. Both point and
nonpoint pollution can introduce pathogens to shellfish lands and recreational areas, making them
unsuitable for shellfish harvesting and/or contact recreation.
New York State classifies its surface waters according to "best use" of the water body. The
highest level of classification, Class AA or SA (the "S" prefix refers to marine waters), indicates high
quality waters suitable for drinking (freshwater) or shellfishing (marine waters). The lowest
classification, characterized as Class D or SD waters, refers to lower water quality unsuitable for fish
propagation. The water quality classifications are described in Table 2.1-5. Selected surface water
classifications in the Peconic system include the Peconic River which is generally classified as B and
C, depending on the particular reach of the river, and Flanders Bay, which has classifications ranging
from SA to SC, with small tributary areas classified as SD. Detailed water quality standards for all of
the specific water body segments of surface waters in the study area are contained in Section 3.
Waterbodies in the Peconic system with lower classifications have generally been impacted by
organic and other loadings from point and nonpoint sources. A more complete discussion of the
surface water quality of the system, including trend assessments, is presented in Section 3.0.
2.1.7 Climate
The climate of Suffolk County can be characterized as temperate. Air masses and weather
systems generally originate in the humid -continental climate of North America and are tempered by
the maritime influence of the Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. This results in
an abundance of precipitation and .a reduced range in daily and annual temperatures. Winter
temperatures are milder than those of the mainland areas at similar latitudes, while summer
temperatures are cooler. Historically, seasonal temperature extremes occur in January and July. At
the Long Island Research Farm in the Town of Riverhead, the January average temperature is -0.6
degrees C (30.9 degrees F) and July -temperatures average 22.9 degrees .0 (73.3 degrees F). The 30 -
year average annual temperature (1951-1980) at this station is 11.2 degrees C (52 degrees F), while
2-13
TABLE 2.1-5
NEW YORK STATE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MARINE AND FRESH SURFACE WATERS
Fresh Surface Waters
Marine Waters
Classification
Best Usage
Conditions of Best Usage
Classification
Best Usage
Class AA
Water supply for drinking
Waters will meet Health'Department
Class SA
Shellfishing for market purpose and
or food processing
standards
primary and secondary contact recreation
Class A
Water supply for drinking
Waters will meet Health Department
Class SB
Primary and secondary contact recreation
or food processing
standards for drinking water with
and any other use except for the taking
approved treatment
of shellfish for market purposes
Class B
Contact recreation and other
--------
Class SC
Fishing, fish propagation, and contact recreation
uses except water supply
(maybe limited by other factors)
and food processing
Class C
Fishing, fish propagation, and
Class SD
All waters not primarily for recreational pur
contact recreation (may be
--------
poses, shellfish culture, or the development
limited by other factors)
of fishlife and- because of natural or man-made
conditions cannot meet the requirements of these uses
Class D
Fishing and contact recreation.
Waters must be suitable
Class I
Secondary contact recreation and any other
Waters are not suitable for
for fish survival
usage except primary contact recreation and
propagation of fish
shellfshing for market purposes
Class N
Enjoyment of water in its
'No waste discharge whatsoever
Class 11
All waters not primarily for recreational purposes,
natural condition for what-
permitted without approved -filtration
shellfish culture or the development of fish life.
ever compatible purposes
through 200' of unconsolidated earth
BTCAMP
the 30 -year average annual precipitation recorded is 45.32 inches. Average monthly temperatures
and precipitation are recorded in Tables 2.1-6 and 2.1=7.
Annually averaged wind directions are predominantly northwesterly and southwesterly,
occurring from each direction with about equal frequency. Winds at the extreme eastern regions of
the north and south forks tend to be stronger and less predictable than winds in the western region of
the Peconic system. The dominance of the northwest wind is most pronounced in the winter months
when polar air masses prevail in the region; however, there is a strong northwesterly component to
the wind throughout the year except during the summer months of June and July. The predominant
wind direction becomes southwesterly in the summer when tropical air masses prevail. However, a
substantial southwesterly component to the wind persists from late spring into midwinter. February
and March are the only months in which southwesterly winds are relatively infrequent.
2.2 Estuarine Processes
Estuaries are confined coastal bodies with an open connection to the sea where the seawater is
partially mixed with freshwater from the land. Estuaries differ in size, shape, and volume of water
flow, and are all influenced by the geology of the region where they occur.
2.2.1 Waterborne Transport Processes
Estuarine currents result from the interaction of streamflow, oscillating ocean tides, and wind.
The overall flushing time of an estuary is a measure of the total time required for a conservative
substance (e.g., salts) to be transported from the head of the estuary to the seaward boundary. Within
an estuary, flushing time can vary widely between embayments and open water areas. The nontidal
flow (i.e. freshwater inflow) in an estuary is a major driving force in the determination of estuarine
flushing and exchange with the seaward boundary. In the absence of freshwater inflow, tidal
exchange and wind mixing combine to progressively disperse and flush material, including pollutants,
from the estuary.
As a conservative substance, the seasonal and spatial distribution of salinity reflects the
physical forcing processes in the estuary: freshwater inputs from tributaries, groundwater inflow,
precipitation and point sources; tidal exchange within Peconic Bay; tidal exchange with Block Island
Sound; bathymetric regions of the Bay; wind stress; and net nontidal physical forcing. Since physical
forcing is a significant factor in the distribution of the other water quality parameters of interest, the
distribution of salinity can provide valuable insight for interpretation of the observed distribution of
nonconservative properties such as oxygen, nutrients, and phytoplankton.
The salt balance resulting from the rate of freshwater inflow to the Peconic estuary and its
removal through exchange with the seaward boundary (Gardiners Bay, Block Island Sound) is also a
quantitative measure of the effectiveness of tidal mixing in dispersing pollutants through the estuary.
2-15
Table 2.1-6
Peconic System
Monthly Temperatures
N/A - Not available at time of preparation
* Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm
**Measurements taken at Greenport Power House
Sources:
NOAA 1982
NOAA 1988
NOAA 1989
2040M/4
2-16
Riverhead
Greenport
Month
Temperature
(*F)*
Temperature. (°F)**
195140
1988.
1989
1988
1989
January
30.9
29.7
36.0
26.8
34.5
February
31.8
34.0
32.7
33:3
30.8
March
39.1
41.0
39.7
38.6
37.2
April
48.9
48.4
49.0
46.6
46.3
May
59.2
60.1
60.7
56.9
57.6
June
68.1
70.1
71.2
66.3
67.6
July
73.3
76.7
74.2
73.8
71.7
August
72.5
76.7
74.2
74.4
71.9
September
66.1
66.0
67.5
63.9
66.1
October
55.9
52.1
N/A
51.1
N/A
November
45.7
47.5
N/A
46.6
N/A
December
35.4
36.2
N/A
34.6
N/A
Average
52.2
53.2
51.1
N/A - Not available at time of preparation
* Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm
**Measurements taken at Greenport Power House
Sources:
NOAA 1982
NOAA 1988
NOAA 1989
2040M/4
2-16
Sept
Jan
Feb
Mar
AR
1976 (208 Study)
5.39
2.55
3.12
2.18
1980
1.63
0.83
6.21
5.11
1984
2.31
6.34
5.21
5.28
1985
1.21
2.11
1.96
1.83
1986
4.19
3.11
3.78
1.88
1987
5.92
-1.00
5.05
6.07
1988
3.48
5.13
4.73
2.82
N
6.14
6.32
8.98
6.60
v 1989
.1.67
3.12
4.06
5.11
1990
4.69
2.48
1.53
5.07
Sept
TABLE 2.1-7
Nov
Dec
Rainfall
at Riverhead
*
(inches)
May
June
July
Aua
3.64
2.02
3.93
8.58
1.82
3.76
1.67
1.33
8.27
7.21
7.63
0.41
5.15
6.14
2.39
5.93
0.91
3.41
4.07
4.87
1.92
0.92
1.68
4.76
2.91
1.60
4.21
1.04
7.38
6.14
6.32
8.98
6.60
2.89
4.59
4.23
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
1.98
6.52
0.48
2.48
43.22
1.40
3.69
3.62
0.91
31.98
2.87
3.29
2.24
2.86
53.92
1.35
1..25
6.22
0.96
36.50
1.08
2.45
6.61
7.41
43.77
4.34
2.77
3.72
3.03
41.18
3.09
4.03
9.42
2.07
'44.53
5.10
7.28
5.48
1.03
61.67
2.96
7.26
1.90
5.80
50.00
* Rain gage'located at Cooperative Extension Research Farm on Sound Avenue and Horton Avenue, Riverhead.
Average annual rainfall at Riverhead between 1951-1980 is 52.2 inches (NOAA 1982).
The fraction of freshwater in the Peconic system can be estimated from the gradient .of salinity
observations in the Peconic system and in Gardiners Bay/Block Island Sound.
Due to the shallowness of Peconic Bay and the intensity of tidal mixing throughout the water
column, vertical salinity gradients are small. The Peconic system is characterized as vertically mixed
throughout the year with a relatively homogenous water column distribution for density, dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, and plankton observations. Spatially, there is a significant salinity gradient along
the longitudinal axis of the Peconic system from Flanders Bay to Gardiners Bay, reflecting freshwater
inflow from the Peconic River, groundwater seepage and inputs from other small tributaries, tidal
exchange within the Peconic system, tidal exchanges with Block Island Sound, and nontidal forcing
of the Ocean boundary (sea surface elevation, continental shelf forcing). Within the Peconic system,
salinity typically ranges from 12-27 ppt in Flanders Bay to 29.5 ppt in Gardiners Bay (Hardy, 1976).
A representation of average salinity gradients for the system is presented in Figure 2.2-1.
From data collected in March 1975, it is estimated that Peconic Bay contains an average of 6.1
percent freshwater (Hardy, 1976). The estimated average flushing time is 56 days for the Peconic
system based on this data and the geometric characteristics of the system.
Because of the constant variations in salinity within estuarine environments; organisms
inhabitating estuaries must be euryhaline (physiologically capable of surviving over a wide range of
salinity), sufficiently mobile to maintain themselves within tolerable salinity levels (finfish, for
instance), or have mechanisms to protect themselves against salinity changes (such as the ability of
bivalves to isolate themselves within the closed environment between their shells). Thus, the
distribution of organisms within an estuary is affected by salinity.
Planktonic species are of special interest because they have little or no ability to move on their
own, traveling with the water mass within which they are confined. They thus tend to be maintained
within tolerable, if not optimal salinity levels, being withdrawn only by diffusive forces. Since the
net movement of water in the Peconic Estuary is seaward, the maintenance of a planktonic population
within the estuary is dependent upon a reproduction rate which balances the rate at which the
organisms are flushed out of the estuary. This is true not only of phytoplankton, such as the brown
tide organism, but also of zooplankton, including larval forms of economically important shellfish.
An analysis of phytoplankton biomass and productivity in the Peconic system suggests that tidal
exchange and flushing serve to substantially reduce excessive accumulations of biomass in Flanders
Bay despite high influx rates of nutrients into the western regions of the bay (Bruno et al., 1980)
Temperature
- Unlike salinity, water temperature in the system is characterized by distinct seasonal variation
with a winter minimum (January) of 32 to 36 degrees F (0 to 2 degrees S) to a summer maximum
2-18
N
approx 30 ppt
29 p p t
28 p p t
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
25 ppt
SHELT GARDINERS BAY
AR RS
LONG I SLAND
SOU D
AN
SLAN
15 p p t
LITTLE
PECONIC
RI
EAD h
BAY
'
GREAT V
PECO
E PECONIC
LAN RS BAY BAY
EAST HAMPTON
SOUTHAMPTON
LEGEND -
BROOKHAVEN
STUDY AREA
BAy
HI NEC K
YOR I CHE5 B AY
-
OCEAN
FIGURE 2.2-1
AVERAGE SALINITY
DISTRIBUTION
NO SCALE
SOURCES TETRA TECH.
1989
PBH - 2/92
(August) of 75 to 82 degrees F (24 to 28 degrees Q. The horizontal and vertical distribution of water
temperature during March, 1975 indicates an.east-west gradient and a well mixed water column. The
spatial distribution of surface water temperature reveals a dominant east -west gradient during April,
1971 ranging from 48 degrees F (9 degrees C) in Flanders Bay to 42 degrees F (6 degrees C) in
Gardiners Bay.
Water Quality
Distributions of water quality parameters in estuaries are influenced by a complex set of
physical, chemical, biological, and geochemical processes. In the Peconic system those processes
include freshwater inputs from tributaries, groundwater seepage and stormwater runoff as well as
point source loadings from wastewater treatment plants. Atmospheric depositions, tidal exchange,
sediment -water exchange of nutrients, oxygen and carbon as well as the seasonal variation of solar
radiation and temperature also influence water quality on both micro and macro levels.
The oxygen content of Little Peconic Bay is characterized by strong seasonal variability with a
winter maximum of 12mg/l to a summer minimum of 7 mg/l. Dissolved oxygen content in Flanders
Bay is typically lower than in Little Peconic Bay, reflecting the longer residence time and the organic
loading from the Peconic River and the Riverhead STP. Oxygen saturation, however, is usually
greater than 80% even during summer (Hardy, 1976; Bruno et al., 1980).
Macronutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) distributions in the Peconic Bay system are
characterized as generally well mixed vertically, with relatively small spatial gradients along the east -
west axis of the bay (see Section 3 and 4 for further discussion of surface water quality). Seasonal
variability results in the most dramatic range of macronutrient concentrations. During March, 1975,
the spatial gradient was found to be 0.2 - 0.6 ug at NH4-N/1 and <0.5 - 10. ug at NO3-N/l. The
phosphate distribution during this period also reflects a moderate east -west spatial gradient with a
well mixed water column. The concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous and silica vary considerably
during the annual cycle reflecting depletion during summer and winter/spring phytoplankton blooms,
and accumulation during periods of minimal phytoplankton production (Bruno et. al. 1980).
Observations of total organic nitrogen and phosphorous for the Peconic system are limited to
measurements made in March 1975 when total organic nitrogen concentrations ranged from 60 - 150
ug N/1 and total organic phosphorus ranged from 190 1110 ug C/1 (Hardy,. 1976).
According to data collected by Suffolk County over the period 1977 to 1985, baywide average
nutrient levels in Flanders Bay have apparently remained constant (nitrogen) or decreased slightly
(phosphorus). This may be partially explained by the control and/or elimination since 1977 of duck
farm discharges, a historically large source of nutrients to Flanders Bay. The initiating mechanism
for the brown tide blooms appears to be unrelated to the availability of macronutrients, and perhaps
2-20
more indicative of, large scale meteorological conditions or the existence of micronutrients or
chelators (or both), as has been suggested by Nuzzi (1988) and Cosper et al. (1988).
- Data on numbers of coliform bacteria in the Peconic Bay System are available as a result of
routine shellfish and bathing beach water quality monitoring programs, as well as from the BTCAMP
study. Observations of sediment and water column bacteria are also available for March, 1975
(Hardy, 1976). Densities of coliform .bacteria will be used as indicators of pollution inputs to the
Bay.
Measurements of mean photic zone light energy in Flanders and Little Peconic Bays during
1977-78 revealed a decreasing gradient from east to west, apparently due to the particulate inflow
from the Peconic River and the longer residence time of water in the western part of the system.
2.3 Natural Resources
The analysis of the physical attributes of the natural resources of an ecosystem is a scientifically
manageable endeavor, limited and dependent only on the time and resources available to the
investigators and the state of the art of investigation techniques. In contrast, management of natural
resources proves to be a much more difficult task which must consider a number of competing, and
often amorphous, social and economic factors. In the management process, the assessment of the
value of resources is an issue which is often shrouded in various contrasting elements of emotion,
apathy, necessity, self-interest, and personal philosophies and beliefs. Ultimately, the proof of how a
society values its natural resources is manifested in the visible interactions of man and his environs
and the changes in the environment itself.
It is clear from the state of the Peconic Estuary environment that the people of the East End
value their natural resources quite highly. The Peconic system's coastal resources provide a large
portion of the economic base for the five East End Towns (Riverhead, Southampton, Southold,
Shelter Island and East Hampton). The utilization of these resources has played a significant role in
the cultural and economic development of the eastern end of Long Island. However, the increasing
demands on these resources has resulted in a general agreement among the public, government
officials and resource managers that resource preservation and enhancement is crucial to the both the
social and economic well being of Long Island's east end communities.
Until now, the preservation of the East End resources has been relatively easy, largely because
the region is situated too remotely for residents to travel to metropolitan employment centers on a
daily basis. However, the demand for recreational resources and the continuing stresses of suburban
sprawl are complicating efforts to preserve the area's natural resources.
The primary focus of the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Plan is
obviously on surface water quality, and not all natural resources issues. However, surface water
2-21
quality and natural resources are clearly inseparable. Therefore, natural resources information and
impacts are considered in this study in relation to recommendations for surface water protection. The
richness and diversity of the ecosystems found in the Peconic system study area are described below
to provide the overview and background necessary to responsibly evaluate management alternatives.
The following subsections illustrate that the importance of the natural resources is demonstrated
not only by objective criteria such as uniqueness, diversity and productivity, but also by the
commitment of various levels of government and the local residents to management and preservation.
Given the scope of BTCAMP, these subsections are intended to be an overview of the resources in
the system rather than a comprehensive inventory. As discussed in Section 7, such a comprehensive
inventory is warranted as part of a detailed, study area -specific management plan in light of the value
of the resources and the potential for future harm and degradation.
2.3.1 Habitats/Ecosystems
2.3.1.1 Tidal Wetlands
Tidal wetlands, or salt marshes, are grassy coastal habitats that are a complex of distinctive and
clearly marked plant associations. The critical factors in plant zonation in a salt marsh are elevation
and frequency of tidal flooding.
With a very high concentration of nutrients, tidal wetlands are .also an extremely productive
ecosystem, providing habitat for innumerable species of fish and wildlife. The productivity of tidal
wetlands and their value as wildlife habitat, in flood and storm control, as a defense against pollution
of coastal waters, as sediment traps, and as recreational and educational areas, was recognized in the
New York State Tidal Wetlands Act enacted in 1973 (Article 25 of the NYS Environmental
Conservation Law). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is, currently
conducting an updated mapping and inventory of tidal wetlands on color, infra -red aerial
photographs.
The NYS Tidal Wetlands Act divides marine wetlands into the following ecological zones:
o Intertidal Marsh (IM) - This is the area generally lying between the daily tides. It is
dominated by Snartina alterniflora and produces the most primary nutrients.
o Coastal Fresh Marsh (FM) - These areas are uncommon in. New York, and are found
primarily where freshwater run-off is backed up by daily tides. They are usually
bordered by rushes, cattails, and brackish water cordgrass, as well as by pickerel weed
and marsh roses. This type of wetland is highly -productive and has extremely high value
for wildlife.
2-22
o High Marsh or Salt Meadow (HM) - This wetland zone is generally above the daily tidal
flow, and is regularly flooded about ten days out of the month, and during storm tides.
The high marsh is dominated by SSp inaap tens and Distichlis snicata. It is moderately
productive, has some value for wildlife, and forms an important buffer between uplands
and estuarine waters.
o Coastal Shoals. Bars and Mudflats (SM) - These include areas that are exposed at low
tide and are not covered with rooted vegetation. However, this zone may merge with
normally flooded, shallow waters which support widgeon grass and/or eelgrass.
o Inshore Waters (Littoral Zone - LZ) - Consisting of shallow bay bottoms less than twelve
feet in depth at mean low water. These areas support eel and widgeon grasses and are
highly productive. They are of great value to many aquatic species including juvenile
fish, bay scallops, and waterfowl. Inshore fisheries are largely dependent on the littoral
zone, and it provides the most productive shellfishing.
o Formerly Connected Tidal Wetlands (FC) _ These are wetlands which have been partially
shut off from normal tidal flows or are in the process of being shut off. The original
marine plant community still dominates, although the zone may be lightly infiltrated with
the common reed. These areas remain a part of the marine food web.
Because of relatively a high degree of remaining open space in coastal areas, the Peconic
system is still rich in tidal wetland areas. The indicator species in this region are presented in Table
2.3-1 and an inventory of tidal wetlands is given in Table 2.3-2. This inventory is based on a report
produced by the Marine Science Research Center (MSRC) at SUNY -Stony Brook (1972), which
includes a breakdown of tidal marshes by Township acreage, public access, and dominant salt marsh
plant species. Salt marshes in the Peconic System are of excellent quality and have, as a whole, been
less impacted by dredging and filling than tidal marshes in western Long Island. This data is
combined in Table 2.3-3 to provide acreages of salt marsh for the Five East End towns within the
study area.
2.3.1.2 Freshwater Wetlands
Significant acreages of wetlands are scattered throughout the study area, especially in the
Peconic River corridor. Although actual freshwater wetlands acreage in the study area have not been
estimated, the wetlands depicted on the tentative Freshwater wetland maps for Suffolk County occupy
approximately 18,283 acres. This figure represents 3.1 percent of Suffolk's 'total land area (Sanford,
1989).
2-23
Table 2.3-1
LISTED TIDAL WETLAND INDICATOR SPECIES
ARTICLE 25
Wetland -Type
Coastal fresh marsh
Intertidal marsh
High marsh
Formerly connected
tidal wetlands
Source: NYSDEC
Species
Narrow—leaved cattail
Freshwater cordgrass
Salt reed grass
Arrow arum
Pickerelweed
Rice-cutgrass
Cordgrass
Salt hay
Spike grass
Seaside lavender
Black grass
Chairmaker's rush
Marsh elder
Groundselbush
Common reed
2-24
Scientific
Typha angustifolia
Snartina pectinata
Snartina cynosuroides
Peltandra vir inica
Pontederia cordata
Leersia Mzoides
Snartina alterniflora
SSpartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Limonium carolinianum
Juncus Gerardi
Scirpus americanus
Iva frutescens
Baccharis halimifolia
Phragmites communis
Table 2.3-2
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Distichlis spicata
Mean Tidal
Town
Location # of Acres
Dominant Species
Range ft
Area
Riverhead
Terry Creek
24
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Flanders Bay, Area 2
Meetinghouse Creek
Phragmites communis
Riverhead
Indian Island
8
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Flanders Bay, Area 2
Phragmites communis
N
N
Riverhead
Reeves Creek
16
Distichlis spicata
2.5
Flanders Bay, Area 2
East Creek
Spartina patens
Spartina alterniflora
Riverhead
Brown's Point
32
Distichlis spicata
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
South Jamesport
Spartina patens
Spartina alterniflora
Southampton
Squire Pond
27
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Southampton
Cold Spring Pond
34
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Distichlis spicata
Table 2.3-2 (Continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Spartina alterniflora
Mean Tidal
Town
Location
# of Acres
Dominant Species
Range ft
Area
Southampton
Peconic River
26
Typha spp
2.5
Peconic River
Spartina alterniflora
Drainage Basin, Area 1
Phragmites communis
Southampton
Reeves Bay
28
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Flanders Bay, Area 2
N
Southampton
Cows Yard Beach
360
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Flanders Bay, Area 2
to Goose Creek
Southampton
Red Creek Pond
21
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Southampton
Cow Neck
350
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Distichlis spicata
Southampton
North Sea Harbor
96
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
Southampton
Wooley Pond
10
Phragmites communis
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
Spartina alterniflora
. Table 2.3-2 (Continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Mean Tidal
Town Location # of Acres
Dominant Species
Ran - e Lft
Area
Southampton Jessup's Neck
26
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Spartina patens
'Distichlis spicata
Southampton North Haven,
21
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island.Sound, Area 5
Northside
N
v
Southampton North Haven
14
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Short Beach,
Southampton North Haven, .
45
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
South and East Sides ,.
Distichlis spicata
East Hampton Ninevah Beach
57
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
East Hampton Northwest Creek
247
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
East Hampton Alewife Pond and
28
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Cedar Point
Phragmites communis
Table 2.3-2(Continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Town Location # of Acres
East Hampton Three Mile Harbor 83
East Hampton Acabonac Harbor 275
East Hampton Fresh Pond
N
co East Hampton Napeague Harbor
East Hampton Lake Montauk
East Hampton Oyster Pond
East Hampton Montauk Point
East Hampton Gardiner's Island
8
320
35
3
2
166
Dominant Species
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Baccharis halimifolia
Distichlis spicata
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
N.A.
Phragmites communis
Spartina patens
N.A.
Mean Tidal
Range (ft)
2.5
2.5
[I]
F]
2
2
2.5
Area
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
6
1
Gardiner's Bay, Area 16
Table 2.3-2 (continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Mean Tidal
Town
Location # of Acres
Dominant Species
Range ft
Area
Southold
Brush's Creek
14
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Southold
James Creek
12
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
�' Southold
Deep Hole Creek
27
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
N
and unnamed Creek
Phragmites communis
Southold
Downs and West Creeks
150
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Southold
Cutchogue Harbor
40
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
and Wickham Creek
Distichlis spicata
Southold
Robins Island
19
N. A.
2.5
Great Peconic Bay, Area 3
Southold
Cutchogue Harbor
98
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
East and Mud Creeks
Haywater and
Broadwater Coves
Table 2.3-2 (continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Mean Tidal
Town
Location
# of Acres
Dominant Species
Range ft
Area
Southold
Wunneweta Pond
3
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
Southold
Little Creek
23
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
L Southold
Richmond Creek
16
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
0
Southold
Corey Creek
13
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
Southold
Cedar Beach
26
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Little Peconic Bay, Area 4
Southold
Paradise Point
3
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Southold
Reydon Shores
5
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Southold
Goose Creek
30
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Phragmites communis
Southold
Jockey and Town
7
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Creeks
Distichlis spicata
Table 2.3-2 (continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Mean Tidal
Town
Location # of Acres
Dominant Species
Range ft
Area
Southold
Hippodrome Creek
5
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Southold
Hashamamuck Pond
37
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Southold
West of Pipes Cove
1
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
w
Southold
Pipes Cove
31
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata .
Southold
Conkling Point
8 -
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Southold
East of Pipes Cove
14
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Southold
Gull Pond and
6
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
Stirling Creek
Southold
Dam Pond and
43
Spartina alterniflora
2.5
Shelter Island Sound, `Area 5
Orient Causeway
Township Location
Southold Orient Point
State Park
Southold Long Beach Bay
Shelter Is. Coecles Inlet
Shelter Is. Cattail Pond
Table 2.3-2 (Continued)
TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
(After MSRC, 1972)
Mean Tidal
# of Acres Dominant Species Range ft
103 Spartina patens .2.5
264
68
1
Shelter Is. Mashomack Reserve 128
Shelter Is. Smith Cove and 31
South Ferry
Shelter Is. West Neck and 14
West Neck Harbor
Distichlis spicata
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Spartina alterniflora
Phragmites communis
Typha latifolia.
Spartina patens
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Area
Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
2.5 Gardiner's Bay, Area 6
2.5 Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
2.5 Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
23 Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
2.5 Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
2:5 Shelter Island Sound, Area 5
1
*
Table 2.3-3
Salt Marsh Acreage
for the BTCAMP Study Area
Town
Acres by Town
Riverhead
80 Acres
Southampton
1058 Acres
Southold
998 Acres
East Hampton
1224 Acres
Shelter Island
242 Acres
TOTAL
3602 Acres
Salt Marsh Acreage by Study Area
Study Area
Acres
Peconic River Drainage Basin (Area 1)
26 Acres
Flanders Bay (Area 2)
412 Acres
Great Peconic Bay (Area 3)
686 Acres
Little Peconic Bay (Area 4)
977 Acres
Shelter Island Sound and Associated
Harbor (Area 5)
242 acres
Gardiner's Bay (Area 6)
1259 Acres
Block Island
TOTAL
3602 Acres
(43 acres on Fisher's Island, outside of study area, not included in totals
2-33
Freshwater wetlands in the Peconic system are protected by Article 24, the New York State
Freshwater Wetland Act, enacted in 1975. The Act has a provision for local government to assume
control over freshwater wetlands within its jurisdiction and at least seven of Suffolk's ten townships
have enacted legislation to protect freshwater wetlands. Indicator species for freshwater wetlands are
presented on Table 2.3-4; additional wetlands species are contained in Table 2.3-5.
Freshwater wetlands benefits include flood and'storm control, wildlife habitat preservation,
protection of subsurface drinking water supplies, provision of recreational opportunities, pollutant
buffering, erosion control, education and scientific research, and open space and aesthetic
appreciation. Within the Peconic system the twenty-six mile Peconic River corridor has in excess of
207 locations of 56 state, national and globally endangered plants and animals. The Peconic River
itself is fifteen miles long, with an estuarine portion of two miles and tributary corridors which
comprise an additional 9 miles in length. Significant acreages of freshwater wetlands also exist in
many other portions of the study area, including the Montauk area in the Town of East Hampton.
The Peconic River supports a wide diversity of vegetative communities. Thirty-five natural and
man4nfluenced vegetative communities occur within 660 feet of the river's banks (Inous and Naidu,
1986). Red maple swamp habitat is common in the lower elevations along the river. These swamps
are characterized by small, heavily overgrown waterbodies surrounded by dense woods. Several
other rare communities also are found in the Peconic system, including coastal plain ponds, Atlantic
_ white cedar swamps, and bogs. The predominant tree of the Peconic region is the Pitch -Pine, which
can grow quite well in wetland conditions. The Pitch Pine even has a "lowland form" which, because
its roots are in the water table, grows much taller and more straight than upland trees.
Water. in the Pine Barrens is generally acidic and low in nutrients-, with highly permeable soils.
The slow-moving groundwater fed streams which course through the region are colored by tannic
acid from decaying pine needles and oak leaves, and are lined by sphagnum or peat mosses as well as
heath plants like leatherleaf, sweet gale, and cranberries. Some of the less common or rare bog
wildflowers include many orchid species (such as CalWoaon V., rose pogonia, white fringed orchid,
and Arethusa sp.) which have their Long Island strongholds in these Pine Barrens wetlands.
Additionally, several kinds of carnivorous plants including pitcher plant, sundews, and bladderworts
that have leaves and roots modified to capture and digest insects to supplement their nutrient intake.
Many other members of the heath family live in the Peconic's wetlands. Maleberry flowers in
midsummer and has dry fruits, unlike blueberry. - Staggerbush contains mild poisons and has
blueberry -like flowers and dry fruits. Pine barrens Leucothoe is a rare southern shrub of deep
swamps and thickets whose flowers are very attractive to hairstreak butterflies, which sometimes
swarm on them in July.
2-34
Table 2.3-4
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTS LISTED IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE ECL
(FRESHWATER WETLANDS ACT)
OCCURRING ON LONG ISLAND
WETLAND TREES
Red maple
Willows
Swamp white oak
Silver maple
American elm
WETLAND SHRUBS
Alder
Buttonbush
Dogwoods
Leatherleaf
EMERGENT VEGETATION
Cattails
Pickerelweed
Bulrushes
Arrow arum
Arrowheads_
Purple loosestrife
Reed
Bur -reeds
Swamp loosestrife
Water plantain
ROOTED. FLOATING -LEAVED VEGETATI N
Water lily
Water shield
Spatterdock
FREE-FLOATING VEGETATION
Duckweed
Big duckweed
Acer rubrum
Salix sPP•
Quercus bicolor
Acer saccharinum
ulmus americana
Alnus spp.
C=halanthus occidentalis
Cornus spp.
Chamaedaphne calyculata
TyRha sPP-
Pontederia cordata
Scirpus spp.
Peltandra virginica
Sagittaria spp.
Lythrum salicaria
Phragmites communis 1
SRarganium spp.
Decodon verticillatus
Alisma plantago-aquatica
Nvmphaea odorata
Brasenia schreberi
Nuphar sp.
Lemna spp. .
Snirodela polyrhiza
1. Now recognized as Phragmites australis.
2-35
Table 2.3-4 (continued)
WET MEADOW V' GETATIMN
Sedges Carex spp.
Rushes ,uncus spp.
Cattails TyRha spp.
Rice cut -grass Leersia oryzoides
Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus
,Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea
Spikerush Eleocharis spp.
BOG MAT VEGETATION
Sphagnum mosses Sphagnum spp.
Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne.calyculata
Pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea
Cranberries vaccinium macrocarpon
SUBMERGENT VEGETATION
Pondweeds
Potamogeton spp.
Bladderworts
Utricularia spp.
Wild celery
vallisneria americana
Coontail _
Ceratophyllum demersum
Water milfoils
MvrioghvlTum spp.
Stonewort
Nitella spp.
Water weeds
Elodea spp.
Water smartweed
Polygonum amphibium
2-36
Table 2.3-5
ADDITIONAL FRESHWATER WETLAND INDICATOR SPECIES COMMON ON LONG ISLAND
TREES
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
HERBS (cont.)
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Tupelo
Nvssa sylvatica
Beggar ticks
Bidens spp.
Pin oak
Ouercus Palustris
Skunk cabbage
Symplocarpus foetidus
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
(Canada mayflower)
Maian.themum,canadense
River birch
Betula nigra
Dewberry
Rubus.hispidus
Sweet gum
Liguidambar stvraciflua
(Sassafras)
Sassafras albidum
SEDGES
(American holly)
Ilex mucronata
Beak—rush
Rhvnchospora spp.
Cotton grass
Eriophorum sp.
SHRUBS
Spike rush
Eleocharis sp.
Highbush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
Three—way sedge
Dulichium sp.
(Inkberry)
Ilexag lbra
Twig rush
Cladium mariscoides
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra alnifolia.
Wool grass
Scirpus.cvperinus
Witherod
Viburnum nudum
Softstem bulrush
Scirpus validus
Arrowwood
Virburnum dentatum
Common three—square
Scirpu,americanus
Red chokeberry
Aronia arbutifolia
Umbrella sedge
Cvperus spp.
Swamp azalea
Rhododendron viscosum
-Tussock sedge
Carex.stricta
(Sheep laurel)
Kalmia angustifolia
(Spice—bush)
Lindera benzoin
RUSHES
(Elderberry)
Sambucus canadensis
Soft rush
Juncus.effusus
Meadowsweet
Spiraea latifolia
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
GRASSES
Wild millet
Echinochloa crusgalli
HERBS
Marsh marigold
Caltha Palustris
Forget—me—not
Myosotis scorpiodes
VINES
Golden pert
Gratiola aurea
(Dodder)
Cuscuta spp.
Germander
Teucrium eanadense
Climbing false buckwheat
Polygonum scandens
Willow—herb
Epilobium spp.
(Briars)
Smilax spp. -
Boneset
Eupatorium Perfoliatum '
(Blackberry, raspberry, etc.)
Rubus spp.
Joe—pye weed
Eupatorium spp.
(Multiflora rose)
Rosa multiflora
Sundew
Drosera spp.
(Grapes)
Vitis spp.
Smartweeds
Polygonum spp.
Jewelweed
Impatiens spp.
SUBMERGENTS
Bugleweed
L cy opus spp.
Water cress
Nasturtium officinale
Mad dog skullcap
Scutellaria spp.
Water starwort
Callitriche sp.
Sensitive ferm
Onoclea sensibilis
Wild celery
Vallisneria americanum
Cinnamon fern
Osmunda cinnamonea
Golden saxifrage
Chrysowlenium americanum
Royal ferm
Osmunda regalis
Marsh fern
Thelvpteris Palustris
Source: NYSDEC
2-37
Several shrubs in the rose family are found in the Peconic system. Dwarf sand cherry is a small
cherry species native to the area. It can be found in open bog mats and sandy pond and stream
margins. Red and black chokeberries are seen in dense thickets, and several species of wild rose
grow in swamps and bogs. The swamp rose is the most common wild rose.
Other shrub species live in the thickets bordering the river, including many species of
Viburnum, willows, alders, small gray birches (also stunted by the nutrient -poor, acidic waters), and
occasionally poison sumac. Like the trees, some of the shrubs are well adapted to fires and burning
in a similar manner as the trees of the pine barrens. Even many of the poorly fire -adapted species,
however, can survive fires if their rootstocks remain below the water surface. These shrub species
have persisted in the Peconic even though they are surrounded by fire -climax pine barrens vegetation.
An examination of the sides of the Peconic River's shores reveal many of the river's
wildflowers in season. Meadow beauty blooms in masses on shores and flats in July and August. In
spring, over a dozen species of violets grow on the swamp floors. Yellow swamp candles and blue
flag iris can be seen in marshy areas in June and July. Red cardinal flower appears in late summer
along stream margins, preceded by turks-cap and canada lilies. Jewelweed grows in lush masses
along the wet shores and swamp edges, producing hundreds of orange flowers in August. The pink
Joe-pye weeds attract late -summer insects to their flat-topped flower heads.
The vast majority of the over one thousand Peconic plant species are herbaceous, most species
are wild flowers and small, wind -pollinated plants like grasses and sedges. Most -of the rarest and
most endangered plants in the river system belong to this group. Many of these plants, particularly in
the upstream portions of the river, are very sensitive and dependent on the periodic fluctuations of the
groundwater table for opportunities to grow and reproduce. The zone between regional high and
regional low water table levels is the critical habitat for many of these groundwater -dependent plants.
During high groundwater periods, these plants are submerged and dormant. They sprout, flower and
produce seed when groundwater levels drop (Long Island Pine Barrens Society, 1985).
Species that inhabit the Peconic system's freshwater wetlands are particularly susceptible to
disturbance since many of the plants, amphibians, reptiles and nonflying mammals are geographically
restricted to Long Island. A local extinction (a loss of a species population from a specific
geographic area) of a species found in freshwater wetlands on Long Island is more likely than in
mainland populations of the same species.
2.3.1.3 Terrestrial Ecosystems
The dominant vegetative community in the Peconic system is the pine parrens. The pine
barrens formerly extended throughout much of central Long Island. Contiguous tracts of the pine
2-38
barrens now -cover approximately 110,000 acres in the Towns of Brookhaven,. Riverhead,
Southampton and East Hampton.
The pine barrens is and has -been shaped -by a number of ecological factors including the
frequency and intensity of wild fire, the sandy and nutrient -poor soils, the depth to the water table,.
and the quality of groundwater. In the upland forests of the pine barrens, pitch pine Pinusrigida) is
the dominant tree.. In some regions this species forms an unbroken canopy, while in other areas,
generally morainal, it occupies the canopy with various oak species.
The dominant pine barrens tree species, the pitch pine, is often referred to as a fire climax
species. It competes well against other forest tree species in the sandy soil of the pine barrens since it
survives fire most effectively. Fires have occurred with some frequency inr the pine barrens, because
rain percolates rapidly through the sandy soils, and a dry litter accumulates at the surface (Long
Island Pine Barrens Society, 1985).
In addition to pine barrens, there are numerous other covertypes in the Peconic system, a fairly
common representative of which is old field succession. Former farmland goes through a
successional state -characterized by pioneer eastern red cedar QMniperus ykginiana), sumacs, birches,
briars Rubus spp.), and numerous annuals and perennials. A more advanced stage of this habitat
type is pine and red cedar. In addition, the farm land -pasture community is common on the North
Fork of the Peconic system, and consists of fallow fields or those fields planted with potatoes,
cauliflower, various vegetables or pasture grasses.
Dune communities are usually associated with coastal areas. These habitats are usually
dominated by beach grass (Ammophila brevili ug lata), which is tolerant of nutrient deficient soils,
high winds, salt spray and an.unstable growing surface. Additional species found in 'this habitat
include bayberry M rica pensylvanica), beach plum Prunus maritima), and bearberry
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi).
The Shinnecock Hills area supports a vegetative community characterized by low scrubby
growth and heathlike plants. Bare patches of moss and sand are interspersed with this type of
vegetation. Common species, include black oak Quercus velutina), post oak Quercus stellata),
sassafras Sassafras albidum), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and pitch pine Pinus rigida) while the
dominant shrubs are blueberry (Vaccinum spp.) and catbriarS( milax spp.) -
The mixed hardwood forest is a habitat type found in a number of locations in the Peconic
system. Typical vegetation includes American beech Fa us grandifolia), White oak uercus alba),
sweet birch (Betula lenta), dogwood Comus florida , red maple Acer rubrum), black gum N ssa
svlvatica), white pine Pinus strobus), and others. Examples of these kind of habitats -can be found in
and around Northwest Harbor in East Hampton and Moore's Woods in the Town of Southold.
2-39
In deciduous swamps (freshwater wetlands), red -maple and black gum are common, often
associated with a fern Osmunda spp.) understory. The trees found in the drier soils are some of the
most valuable hardwoods in North America. Additional habitats are associated with developed areas
and include recently cleared housing sites; established housing, and institutional and recreational
facilities.
The habitats noted in this section are intended to be illustrative of some of the, major habitats
found in the study area and are not an exhaustive survey. An inventory of habitats ,and species found
in the Peconic Estuary study area as noted in field inspection reports in SCDHS files is contained in
Appendix A. The field inspections were conducted by SCDH& primarily as part of -the environmental
evaluation process for proposed developments.. It should be noted that not all proposed developments
in the study area are field -surveyed by SCDHS, and .that some of the proposed projects may have
already been developed.
2.3.1.4 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats
The New York State Department of State administers the federally approved New York State
Coastal Management Program which was established by the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act of 1981. Through the State's Coastal Program, the State is committed to the
protection of Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats to preserve the recreational, commercial,
and ecological benefits derived from coastal fish and wildlife resources. Under this program, a
habitat is significant if it serves one or more of the following functions: (a) is essential to the survival
of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population; (b) supports populations of species which
are endangered, threatened, or of special concern; (c) supports .populations having significant
commercial, recreational, or educational value; and (d) exemplifies a habitat type which is not
commonly found in the State or in a coastal region. Also, the significance of certain habitats
increases to the extent they could not be replaced if destroyed. The Peconic estuary contains 40
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, which represent 40%' of all the State designated
habitats on Long Island. The Peconic Bay habitats are by far the' largest and most diverse
concentration of habitats when compared, to any other segment of New York State's 3,200 miles of
coastal area which extends through 23 coastal counties. Habitats are protected through consistency
review provisions of the state and federal coastal acts and on the local level through Local Waterfront
Revitalization Programs. A listing of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to
the Peconic System is contained in Table 2.3-6.
2.3.1.5 Rare and -Unique Habitats
- In addition to habitats designated as significant, there are several rare -and- unique habitats
within the Peconic Estuary study area as designated by the New York State Natural Heritage
Program. The rare ecosystems as designated in the "Priority Listings of Rare and- Natural
2-40
TABLE 2.3-6
SIGNIFICANT HABITATS
in and adjacent to the Peconic System
Name of Area or Report
Town
Type of Area or Report
Edwards Avenue Cranberry Bog
Brookhaven
sig hab
Manorville Leatherleaf Bog Watershed
Brookhaven
sig hab
Manorville-Riverhead Pine Barrens
Brookhaven
sig hab
Peconic River and Drainage
Brookhaven
CZM
Riverhead Hills
Brookhaven
sig hab
Accabonac Harbor
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Alewife/Scoy Pond Wetlands
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp-
Big and Little Reed Ponds
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Bostwick Point
East Hampton
sig hab/end. sp. -
Cedar Point Peninsula
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Culloden Point
East Hampton
C2M
Fort Pond
East Hampton
C2M
Gardiner's Island
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Hither Hills Uplands
East Hampton
C2M
Lake Montauk
East Hampton
C2M
Migrating Sand Dunes
East Hampton
sig hab
Montauk Point
East Hampton
sig hab
Napeague Beach
East Hampton
CZM
Napeague Harbor
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Northwest Creek
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Oyster Pond
East Hampton
C2M
Sag Harbor & Northwest Harbor
East Hampton
C2M
Three Mile Harbor
East Hampton
CZM/end. sp.
Firebreak Pond
Riverhead
sig hab/end. sp.
Flanders Gun Club
Riverhead
aerial/end. sp.
Jamesport Town Beach
Riverhead
CZM/end. sp.
Runway Ponds
Riverhead
sig hab/end. sp.
South McKay Wetlands (Swan Pond)
Riverhead
sig hab
Fresh Pond
Shelter Island
C2M
Mashomack Preserve
Shelter Island
CZM/end. sp.
Sag Harbor & Northwest Harbor
Shelter Island
C2M
Shell Beach
Shelter Island
CZM/end. sp.
Shelter Island Vicinity Mashomack Preserve
Shelter Island
aerial
Alewife Creek/Big Fresh Pond
Southampton
CZM
Cow Neck
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Cranberry Bog County Park
Southampton
C2M
Flanders Bay Wetlands
Southampton
C2M/end. sp.
Great Peconic Bay
Southampton
aerial
Iron Point
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Long Island Dwarf Pine Plains
Southampton
sig hab
Maple Swamp - Birch Creek
Southampton
sig hab
2-41
Name of Area or Report
North Haven Woodlands
North Sea Harbor (Conscience Point)
Noyack Bay
Noyack Bay Beaches
RCA Bog Ponds
Sag Harbor & Northwest Harbor
Sebonac Neck
Shinnecock Bay
Towd Point
Cedar Beach Point
Conkling Point
Corey Creek
Cutchogue Harbor & Wetlands
Downs Creek
Hashamomuck Pond
Hungry Point Islands
Husing Pond
Jockey Creek Spoil Area
Little Creek & Beach
Long Beach Bay
Maratooka Point
Orient Harbor.
Paradise Point `
Port of Egypt Island
Richmond Creek & Beach
Robins Island
TABLE 23-6 (cont.)
Town
Tyke of Area or Report
Southampton
CZM
Southampton
sig hab/end. sp.
Southampton
aerial
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Southampton
sig hab/end. sp.
Southampton
CZM - -
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Southampton
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
sig hab
Southold
sig hab/end sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
sig hab/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end sp.
Southold
sig hab/end. sp.
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Southold
CZM
Southold
CZM/end. sp.
Key
sig hab - Significant Habitat. Report available for review at Significant Habitat Information Service (address
below).
CZM - Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Additional information available from NYS Dept. of State,
Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12231.
end. sp. - Provides habitat for NYS Endangered or Threatened species.
aerial - Waterfowl habitat area identified by aerial survey.
For additional information on any of the above -referenced sites, contact:
Significant Habitat Information Service
700 Troy - Schenectady Road
Latham, New York 12110
518-783-3932
2-42
Communities -with Occurrences on Long Island" (New York Natural Heritage, Program, December
1986) which occur within the study area are as follows:
* dwarf pine plains (globally, rare)
* coastal plain Atlantic white cedar swamps
* maritime interdunal swale
* maritime red cedar forest
* maritime grasslands
* maritime heathlands
* coastal plain pond shore
* pitch pine/scrub oak barrens
* freshwater tidal marsh
* salt flats
* brackish intertidal shore
* pitch pine -heath barrens
* coastal salt ponds
* pine barrens shrub swamp
* southern nutrient -poor fen
These ecosystems vary in degree of rarity from rare in New York State to globally rare, such as
the dwarf pine plains. A description of a few of the important habitats in the study area is as follows.
Coastal Plain Ponds
Coastal plain ponds are small bodies of freshwater that have a sandy bottom substrate, gently
sloping shores and fluctuating water levels. The vegetation along the shore makes up the coastal
plain pond shore community. The large scale environmental processes which affect the pond plant
communities include groundwater movement from surrounding upland areas and associated nutrient
transport.
The margins of the coastal plain ponds contain some of the rarest plants in New York State.
The pond margins change from year to year .in response to groundwater elevations. The plants that
live in this zone have adapted to both flooding conditions and ,prolonged low water levels. The
significance of coastal pond plains is that they contain:
o highest concentration of rare plants in New York
o several globally rare species
o many species of fish and wildlife which depend on the -high water quality found in the
- ponds
2-43
Current research - being conducted -by the Nature, Conservancy. and Cornell University is
attempting to determine the size ' of buffer areas necessary to protect the ponds; the effect that
increased withdrawal of groundwater will have on pond water levels; effects on plant species from
nutrient inputs from nearby septic systems and the effect of atmospheric deposition on the rare plant
communities.
Atlantic White Cedar Swamus
The Atlantic White cedar (Chamaecyaris th oidaes) is the most characteristic tree. species of
pine barren wetlands, and the largest stand remaining on Long Island is in the Peconic System at
Cranberry Bog County Park south of Riverhead. Originally white cedar was found throughout the
Peconic River region. Early settlers discovered that the wood of white cedar resists decay.and insect
attacks and subsequently clearcut the original stands for outdoor structural timber and shingles.
Mature white cedar trees are extremely fire sensitive. When wildfires sweep the groves most trees
perish. The bog peat under these trees. contain millions of tiny seeds dropped each year by the white
cedar. When the older trees are killed by fires these seeds germinate and the cycle begins again. Red
maples tend to invade and choke out older, unburned white cedar stands, so that the white cedar is fire
dependent even thought the individual trees cannot survive fires.
Hessel's.hairstreak is a small green butterfly that in its larval stage feeds solely on Atlantic
white cedar. As a consequence, Hessel's . hairstreak is found only in and around dense groves of
Atlantic white cedar. In 1985 there were only four Long Island populations known to exist.
Dwarf Pine Plains
The Long Island Dwarf Pine Plains form part of the southern boundary of the Peconic River
Drainage Basin's groundwater contributing area. The Dwarf -Pine Plains is composed of a core of
approximately 2,000 acres centered along Old Riverhead Road -(County Road. 31) and including the
norther half of the Suffolk County Airport to north of Sunrise Highway which includes the -
"Hampton Hills" property owned by Teamster's Local 282. Although two-thirds of the Dwarf Pine
-Plains are outside of ,the Peconic system study area, the rarity of the Dwarf Pine Plains ecosystem and
the dynamic nature of the groundwater divide warrant further discussion of this rare habitat.
The Long Island Dwarf Pine Plains is a pygmy or miniature forest dominated by gnarled scrub
oaks and a shrubby form of the Pitch Pine. The soils of the Dwarf Pine Plains and adjacent" areas are
the driest,. most acidic and most nutrient poor of the entire Pine. Barren's region. Fires occur here
very frequently -about once every six years. The dwarf form of the Pitch Pine produces closed
(serotinous) cones which -usually open only after being heated by a passing wildfire. The major
threats to the Dwarf Pine Plains is development and fire suppression. Some of the uncommon species
that breed in the Dwarf Pine Plains are the buck moth (Hemileuca maia and the northern harrier
Circus ccaneus), also called the marsh hawk.
244
2.3.1.6. Protected Plants
The- protected status of certain plant species in New York State is based on both federal and
state laws and regulations. Under federal law, an "endangered species" has been found by the U.S.
Department of the Interior to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A federally "threatened species" is likely to become an endangered species within the near
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
New York, under ECL Article 9 and 6 NYCRR Part 193.3, provides special protection for
endangered, threatened, exploitably vulnerable, and rare plant species. "Endangered" native plants
include those plants which are listed as federally endangered as well as plants determined by
NYSDEC to be in danger of extinction or .extirpation in New York State. 'Threatened species"
include federally threatened species occurring in New York as well as those plant species determined
by the NYSDEC .as likely to become an endangered species within the- foreseeable future in New
York State. "Exploitably vulnerable" native plants are threatened in the near future with extinction or
extirpation if causal factors continue unchecked. Finally, "rare" native plants are defined as having
only 20 to 35 extant sites, of 3,000 to 5,000 individuals statewide.
Numerous nationally and locally significant threatened and endangered plant species are found
in the Peconic system. In the Long Pond Greenbelt and the Calverton Ponds systems alone, the
distribution of numbers of rare, threatened, and endangered plant species ranks among the highest in
concentration in New York State. An example of a federally listed endangered species in the Peconic
Estuary study area is sandplain gerardia; Nantucket shadbush, NE blazing star, and bushy rockrose
are candidate species which are currently under consideration for endangered species designation by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Zaremba, 1992).
2.3.1.7 Nature Preserves
The Nature Conservancy is an international organization committed to the preservation of
natural diversity by protecting the finest remaining examples of natural Habitat. The Conservancy
owns and manages a number of properties within the Peconic System. This subsection is dedicated to
a brief overview of these properties. Numerous other wildlife refuges and parks in the study area are
owned and managed by federal, state, and local organizations. These refuges and parks are presented
in Section 2.5.1.
A partial listing of Nature Conservancy's properties in the Peconic System are:
Husing Pond - Mattituck• .
Maratooka Lake - Mattituck
Griffith Preserve - Quogue
Zoe B. DeRopp Sanctuary - East Quogue
2-45
Stuyvesant Wainwright Memorial Wildlife Refuge - Southport
Mashomack Preserve - Shelter Island
Mud Creek Marsh - Mattituck
Howell Meadow - Southold
Long Beach Bay Orient = -
Barley Field Preserve - Fisher's Island
The Nature Conservancy may acquire, land by outright purchase, it may purchase land for
eventual transfer to governmental preservation agencies, or it may enter into registry agreements with
landowners. Due to the concentration of rare and endangered species near the Peconic River
headwaters, the Nature Conservancy has focused much of its effort in this area. In 1988 and 1989,
the Nature Conservancy has protected or helped protect more than 700 acres along the Peconic River.
South of Sag Harbor, the South Fork/Shelter Island Chapter is investing $2 millionto protect the
beaded necklace of ponds known as the Long Pond Greenbelt. Both.chapters are working with
various government agencies to protect what may be the three finest remaining salt marsh ecosystems
on the Island: Long Beach Bay wetlands, Flanders Marsh, and Accabonac Harbor. As many as -250
species of birds use these marshes for nesting, feeding, 'and migratory rest stops. Recent Nature
Conservancy Protection efforts in the Peconic system are given below:
Owl Pond (Flanders): Acquisition, two tracts, one acre. One of New York's last Atlantic
white cedar swamps. Total TNC-protected area:. 510 acres.
Peconic River Headwaters (Brookhaven/Riverhead): Management. agreement, 500 acres.
Coastal plain ponds containing New York's greatest number of rare species (27).-
Cranberry
27):
Cranberry Bog (Southampton): Management agreement, -215 acres. Best example of a coastal
plain Atlantic white cedar swamp in New York. Also home to four, rare plants, banded sunfish,. and
the state imperiled Hessels hairstreak butterfly.
Calverton Ponds System- (Manorville): Assisted acquisition by Suffolk Co., two tracts, 160
acres. North America's largest unprotected coastal' plain pond shore complex. Twenty. -five species
considered rare or of special concern.
Hubbard Creek Marsh (Flanders): Management agreement. Two tracts, 320 acres.
Considered Long Island's finest remaining salt marsh. Contains NY's largest known population of
rare eastern mud turtles.
Flanders Pond System (Flanders): Management agreement, 150 acres. High-quality coastal
plain pond community. Believed to contain highly endangered Hessel's `hairstreak butterfly and
Lemmer's noctuid moth. -
2-46
Maple Swamp (Flanders): Acquisition, two tracts, 61 acres. Outstanding example of red
maple swamp. Critical groundwater recharge area. Total TNC-protected area: 700 acres.
Moore's Woods (Greenport): Registry, 150 acres. Only site in NY for rare orchid; also
contains rare wetland plant.
2.3.2 Surface Water Resources
2.3.2.1 Shellfish
The following discussion is concerned with the major shellfisheries found in the Peconic
system. Other species harvested in small amounts include the soft clam (Mya) and the blue mussel
M tilus) and oyster (Crassostrea). The shellfish and flounder landings from 1976 to 1989 are
presented on Table 2.3-7.
Bay Scallop (ArgWecten Irradians Irradians)
The bay scallop has a short life span of 18 to 22 months and adults generally spawn only once
in their lifetime, from late spring through stunmer. Long Island bay scallops generally experience
mass natural mortality during midwinter of their second year. Bay scallops utilize eelgrass beds as
their principal setting areas. Hence, the continued health of the bay scallop population is directly
linked to the abundance and vigor of eelgrass beds.
Historically, the bay scallop (Argonecten irradians irradians) has been an important bivalve
species in the Peconic System. In Kellogg's, 1901, Study of the Clam and Scallop Industries of New
York State, bay scallop abundance was centered in the 'Peconic and Gardiners Bays. Kellogg was
concerned about overharvesting of the bay scallop resource and the apparent clash of interests
between the lessees of underwater lands for oyster cultivation and the clam and scallop harvesters.
In recent times, the bay scallop has been perhaps the most important fishery in the Peconic
System. By far, the vast majority of bay scallops landed in New York State have originated from this
area. Records indicate that annual landings of bay scallops have experienced wide fluctuations,
which are probably the result of changes in environmental conditions, e.g., the decline in eelgrass
beds in the 1930's and the brown tide algae bloom during the summers of 1985-1987 into 1988.
During the 21 -year period from 1966-1986, 5.7 million pounds of bay scallop meats were harvested
from the region. The average annual production during this period was 271,000 pounds, with the
peak production of 683,000 pounds occurring in 1974, and the lowest production of 5,200 pounds
occurred in 1986 as a result of the Brown Tide bloom. (This was the lowest production recorded by
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and its predecessor agencies
since it began publishing records on fishery landings in 1946.) Scallop production continued to
dwindle to only about 250 pounds per year in 1988. In the early 1980's .the dockside value of bay
2-47
TABLE 2.3-7
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SHELLFISH AND FLOUNDER LANDINGS'
1976 TO 1989
'
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981,
'.1982
-------------
1983
1984
1965
1986
1987
1968
1989
HARD CLAMS
-----------------
-
-
Pounds
90.100
85.900
114.900
66.744
61,500
72.600
118,200
64.500
203.500
138.400
301,944
254,928
257,160
555.588
Dollars
11180,871
11179.372
$280.837
$217.129
-(235,475
$293.440
$552,605
$242,875
11746,423
11541,372
$1,501.545
$1,592,341
(1,691.729
$4,191,014
f / Ib
$2.01
$2.09
$2.44
$3.25
$3.83
54.04
114.68
$2.87
$3.67
$3.91
$4.97
$6.25
$6.58
$7.54
.OTHER CLAMS
-
Pounds
10,400
6.800
17,600
12,800
26.800
31,800
17.300
6.700
8.100
4,200
10,270
1.664
15.509
1,495
Dollars
$13.752
0,971
$16.492
$19,334
$18,357
$23,398
$19.597
$13.772
$19.046.
1110.505
(41.890
$5,472
$57.3110
$5,875
S / Ib '
111.32
$1.47
$0.94
111.51
$0.68
110.74
51.13
112.06
$2.35
$2.50
$4.08
$3.29
$3.70
113.93
MUSSELS
Pounds
.14,600
127.500•
7.300
-5,700
11,400
22,100
4,500
3.800
2,700
1,700
470
1,960
630
210
Dollars
116,173
$62.648
$4,041
$3,040
116.348
$16,503
$3.260
$3,096
$2,050
$1,320
$464
111,960
$645
$199
S / Ib
$0.42
$0.49
$0.55
$0.53
$0.56
$0.75
$0.72
$0.81
$0.76
$0.78
$0.99
$1.00
$1.02
$0.95
OYSTERS
'
Pounds
1,531.400
765,100
571.100
870,200
912,200
973.200
751,000
892,.500
314.500-
56.700
6,270
1,815
6,630
878
Dollars
$3,836.978
$1,934.010
$2,804.509
$3.015,537
$3.458,877
$3,447.182
$2.946,095
$1,210.009'
$258,175
$29.502
119,310
$43.340
(4.790
Ib
$2.51
$2.53
_$1,665,867
$2.92.
$3.22
$3.31
113.65
$4.59
$3.30
113.85.
$4.55
$4.71
$5.,13
$6.54
$5.46
BAY SCALLOPS
'
00 Pounds
436.025
.198,987
280.257
343,829
406,197
214.957
491,190
167,222
275.142
-143,890
5.205
373
'250
1,570
Dollars
$816,372
$488.876
$836,922
$1.237,371
$1,734,461
$780.339
$1,775,938
$992,477
111,249.412
$667,860
$26.720
$2,907
'$2,375
1121.980
S / Ib
$1.86
$2.46
$2.99
$3.60
$4.27
$3.63
113.62
$5.94
$4.54
$4.78
$5.13
117.79
$9.50
1114.00
OTHER SHELLFISH
Pounds =
--
--
--
900
5,100
4.000
2,600
3.500
3.165
2,300
--
--
--
--
Dollars
--
--
--
$312
$1,983
(1,694
$1,326
$1,930
$1,755
(1,230
--
--
--
--
f / Ib
--
--
--
$0.35
$0.39
$0.42
110.47
$0.55
$0.55
110.53
--
--
--
--
-----------=------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL SHELLFISH
Pounds
2.084.525
1,184,287
991.157
1,300.173
1,423',197
1,318,657
1.384,990
1,158.222
807.107
347,190
321,159
260.740
280.179
559.741
Dollars
$4,854,146
112.674,877
52.804.159
114,281.693
$5,012,161
114,574,251
$5.799,908
$4,200.245
$3,228.695
$1,500.462
$1,600,121
$1,611,990
$1,795,469
54.223.858'
S / Ib
zzzzazzaazsazxxazzzxzze�saz:zxxzxaxzazzazxzzazzzzzzsxszazasssazaz:azar:zxazaxzxszzxsazazzxzzxxsxxzzxcaazzxzxsc:xzzsxxxasazxzzasxzxzzzzssazxxzesxaaxsxxsxxazaxaaxaxaazzxaza=zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
$2.33
$2.26
112.83
$3.29
$3.52
113.47
$4.19
113.63
$4.00
$4.32
54.94
116.18
$6.41
$7.55
• FLOUNDER
Pounds
184,157
331.602
138,845
161,773
117,281
87.409
' 70,192
126.922
157,342
138,374
--
--
--
--
Dollars
$50.638
$99.820
$54,543
$61,468
$45,377
$40.933
$35.217
$64.531
$92.342
$111.450
--
--
_-
--
f / Ib
110.27
$0.30
$0.39
$0.38
$0.39
$0.47
$0.50
$0.51
SO.59
$0.81
--
--
--
--
10TA1 FLOUNDFR a
SHELLFISH
i
Pounds
2,268,6821.515.889
1.130.002
1.461.946
1.540,478
1.406.066
2.125,182
1.285. 144
964.449
485,564
324,159
260,740
280.179
559.741
Ooflars
$4 904.784
$2 774 697
52.858,702
$4.343.163
$5,057.578
54.615,184
$5 835.125
$4,264.776
$3.321.037
51.611.912
$1.600.121
$1.611.990
SI.795.469
$4 123.858
$ / Ib
$2.16
$1.83
S2 53
$2.97
$3.28
$3.28
$2 75
$3.32
$3.44
53.32
$4.94
$6.18
I $b 41
S7 55
• National Marine Fisheries Service. Fisheries Statistics
Division
Landings by Year
for Water (Otte = 0036
and the Years
1976-1985.
C la
1.11,1 a
vel 16-19
scallops landed was as high as $1.8 million, as a result of to the precipitous decline caused by the
Brown Tide, the dockside value of bay scallops landed in 1986 was $27,000. By 1988, the value of
scallops had diminished to $2,300 per year. Figure 2.3-1 shows landings of bay scallops.
The Peconic System scallop fishery is not only important to the State's commercial fishing
industry; it is of national significance as well. In 1982, for example, bay scallop catches from the
Peconic System accounted for approximately 28% of the total United States landings of this species.
Suitable habitat for the bay scallop is found in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York,
New Jersey and North Carolina. The extent . of the habitat, however, is extremely limited so that a
major proportion of the suitable habitat along the Atlantic Coast is found in the Peconic System.
Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
Until recently, the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) resource in the Peconic/Gardiners Bay
system was of secondary economic importance in comparison to the harvest of the world renowned
Peconic Bay scallops and oysters. The hard clam fishery of commercial interest in this estuary is
located primarily in the creeks, harbors and small embayments ringing the Peconic/Gardiners Bay
system such as Hashamomuck Pond, Flanders Bay, Northwest Harbor, Mill Creek, and the north side
of Great Peconic Bay. The average annual landing of hard clams from Peconic and Gardiners Bays
over a 21 -year period (1966 - 1986) is approximately 15,000 bushels, which represents 3% of the
average annual hard clam landings reported in Suffolk County during this time. The landings of hard
clams collected in the system are presented in Figure 2.3-2.
Unlike towns in western Suffolk County, it is estimated that the recreational. catch in
Peconic/Gardiners Bays exceeds the commercial harvest of hard clams. The high recreational catch
is attributed to the influx of summer residents. In 1983, Suffolk County estimated the recreational
catch of hard clams as a percentage of total harvest. Southampton's recreational harvest was 50% of
the total town harvest of 60,448 bushels. East Hampton's recreational harvest was 65% of its total
town harvest of 5,554 bushels. Southold's recreational. catch accounted for 40% of its total town
harvest of 2,843 bushels. Shelter Island figures were not available and Riverhead Town's total
harvest was 114 bushels of which 5% was recreational harvest.
Hard clam spawning on Long Island typically takes place from May through September. It
takes approximately three years for a hard clam to reach harvestable size of one inch. Hard clams are
marketed in three general size categories based on shell size. Littlenecks are the smallest, and have
the highest dockside value because the small clams are the most tender when eaten raw on the half -
shell. Cherrystones are intermediate in size, and chowders are the largest. All clams less than
littleneck size of 2.54 centimeters or one inch are seed clams, and are illegal to harvest and market
according to New York State Conservation Law. Hard clams eventually reach an old age period
during which growth is slow and interrupted. Old age is usually reached in six to ten years depending
on environmental conditions.
2-49
Brown Tide Comprehensive 'Assessment and Management Program
Landings by Year for Bay Scallops
1976'- 1989
Thousands of Pounds Millions of Dollars
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
.75
.5
.25
.75
.5
.25
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 ' 1982 1.983 -1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
• Based on National Marine- Fisheries Service Data
Landings for water code - 0036 from 1976 to 1985
FIGURE 2.3-1 and NYSDEC Landing Data from 1986 to 1949.
N
CTI
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
Landings by Year for Hard Clams*
1976 - 1989
Thousands of Pounds
.m
$ Hard Clams + Dollars
500
400
300
200
100
0'
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
FIGURE 2.3-2
Millions of Dollars
6
M
M
I I I I I 1 10
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
• Based on National Marine Fisheries Service Data
Landings for water code - 0036 from 1976 to 1985
and NYSDEC Landing Data from 1986 to 19$9.
American Oyster (Crassostrea viMinica)
The culture of the American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) had been an important industry in
the Peconic/Gardiners Bay system since the late 1800's when oyster companies planted seed from
Connecticut on underwater land grants in the bay system.
. . In 1884, an Act to cede lands underwater in Gardiners and Peconic Bays to Suffolk County for
the purpose of oyster culture only was passed by the New York State Legislature. This act gave
oyster cultivators access to some prime hard clam and scallop beds. Kellogg (1901) documented the
conflict that followed between the oyster cultivator and the clam and scallop harvester. Much of the
current negative attitude toward leasing of underwater lands can be traced back to the -substantial
number of leases held by oyster cultivators at the tum of the century.
By the 1930's the oyster industry was already in decline throughout Long Island, although the
Gardiners/Peconic Bays was still producing significant amounts of oysters for sale to outside markets.
The oysters were often shipped in the shell as opposed to producing points outside of New York
where oysters were sold as open or shucked oysters.' Suffolk County oysters were _often quoted in the
market as twice the price of southern oysters (Suffolk County Supervisor's Association, undated).
The oyster landings for the Peconic system are presented in Figure 2.3-3.
Beginning in the late 1940's, blooms of a small species of phytoplankton that became known as
"small forms" appeared in Long Island bays. The small forms clogged the gills of hard clams and
oysters, although oysters were affected to a much greater extent than clams, inhibiting feeding such
that the meats of the shellfish were of poor quality and not acceptable in the market.
The American Oyster can live in waters with salinities ranging from 5 to 30 parts per thousand,
although it cannot stand prolonged exposure to high salinities. Peconic and Gardiners Bays are
utilized by oyster cultivators as large grow out facilities. The oysters are spawned in lower salinity
waterbodies and transplanted as seed oysters to Gardiners and Peconic Bays. Cultivated oysters
being grown to market size in the Peconic-Gardiners estuary experienced severe mortality with as
much as one million dollars in reported losses (Siddall, 1986).
Shellfishing_Closure Area
As a result of low intensity development in the East End and strong tidal exchange of high
quality water from Gardiners Bay, the vast majority of the Peconic Bay estuary has good to excellent
water- quality. As of March, 1990, 3,350 acres of Peconic and Gardiners Bays were- closed to
shellfishing. Historic closings of shellfish beds are presented on Table 2.3-8 for Suffolk County and
2.3-9 for the Peconic Systema The areas closed, however, are generally the small creeks and harbors
surrounding the Peconic/Gardiners Bay system, which are the most productive hard clam grounds
within the system. The waters uncertified for the taking of shellfish are usually adjacent to pockets of
2-52
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program
Landings by Year for Oysters
1976 - 1989
Thousands- of Pounds Millions of Dollars
1600 4
$ Oysters + Dollars 3.5
1400
1200 3
1000 2.5
800 2
600 1.5
400 1
200 0.5
0
1976, 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
• Based on National Marine Fisheries Service Data
Landings for water code - 0036 from 1976 to 1985
FIGURE 2.3-3 and NYSDEC Landing Data from 1986 to 1909.
Table 2.3-8
Waters Closed to Shellfishing in Suffolk County
Fishery
Great South Bay
Huntington Bay
Peconic/Gardiners
Bay System
Moriches & Shinnecock
Bay
Nissequogue River,
Stony Brook Hr., &
adjacent bays.
Acreage closed
to shellfishin�
7,626
1,022
2,624
4,650
1,699
Percent of water
body area closed
13.1
15.4
2.4
25.8
63.4
aBased on date obtained from NYSDEC Region 1, Stony Brook, N.Y. dated 1 January 1986.
2-54
Area Name
Nappeague Bay
Montauk Bay
Acabonac Hbr.
Three Mile Hbr.
Gardiners Bay
Northwest Hbr.
Shelter Is. Sound
Sag Hbr. and Coves
West Neck Hbr.
Noyack Bay
Southold Bay
Hashamomuck Pond
Orient Hbr.
Coecles Hbr.
Little Peconic Bay
Cutchogue Hbr.
Great Peconic Bay
Flanders Bay
Total
Table 2.3-9
Closed Shellfish Grounds in the Peconic System
(1970-1990)
Source: NYSDEC, Personal Communication, Recent Data, Charles DeQuillfeldt
NYSDEC, 1980 and 1981
2-55
January
1990
12
205
0
355
216
0
326
208
2
38
6
170
8
2
0
6
55
1,444
3,053
Uncertified Acreage As Of:
January
January
January
January
No.
Acreage
1970
1975
1980
1986
12
9,135
0
0
0
12
13
1,085
150
150
150
205
14
310
0
0
0
0
15
1,025
0
0
0
355
16
48,950
0
0
0
4
17
1,550
0
0
0
0
18
9,450
90
180
180
209
19
575
145
180
155
208
20
625
0
0
0
0
21
3,540
0
0
0
38
22
1,340
0
0
0
0
23
170
0
5
5
170
24
3,560
0
0
0
0
25
1,205
0
0
0
0
26
13,725
0
0
0
0
27
585
2
2
2
2
28
19,060
0
0
0
19
29
3,090
470
470
780
1,444
118,980
855
980
1,265
2,666
Source: NYSDEC, Personal Communication, Recent Data, Charles DeQuillfeldt
NYSDEC, 1980 and 1981
2-55
January
1990
12
205
0
355
216
0
326
208
2
38
6
170
8
2
0
6
55
1,444
3,053
relatively dense shoreline development and include all or portions of such areas as Stirling
Basin/Greenport Harbor, Hashamomuck Pond, Sag Harbor, Flanders Bay, and Three Mile Harbor.
The NYSDEC uses four classifications for shellfish growing areas:
o Certified - Approved for the taking of shellfish.
o Uncertified - Closed for the taking of shellfish.
o Conditionally certified - These shellfish growing areas have elevated bacteria counts
following rainfall events. The source of this bacteria is generally runoff from land
surfaces and storm drains. during prolonged periods of dry weather these areas generally
meet NYSDEC water quality standards. Conditional shellfish openings are run by the
NYSDEC during the winter months. Based on water quality surveys, the NYSDEC
establishes a rainfall limit for individual areas. When rainfall exceeds the limit the area is
closed for seven days. If there is no rainfall event which exceeds the limit during the
seven day period the area will be open on the eighth day.
o Seasonally certified - This designation covers these areas that have seasonal sources of
pollution such as marinas and mooring areas. These areas are typically closed during the
summer months and reopened during the winter.
In the Peconic system, conditional shellfish openings are conducted in Flanders Bay and
Reeves Bay in Riverhead, Goose, Birch and Mill Creeks in The Town of Southampton, and
Hashamomuck Pond in the Town of Southold.
2.3.2.2 Finfish
Marine Fishery
Nearly 80 species of marine fishes are taken for home consumption in Long Island waters,
while dozens of others are taken for bait or commercial use (NYSDEC 1987). Marine finfish fall into
four main categories as presented in NYSDEC, 1987.
o Anadromous fish, such as shad and striped bass, spawn in Atlantic coast rivers, including
the Hudson River. Young fish spend some time. in spawning estuaries for growth and
protection, and later engage in annual feeding migrations to coastal waters, returning as
adults to spawn at their estuaries of origin every spring.
2-56
o Estuarine fish,. such as winter flounder and blackfish, generally remain within an estuary
throughout their lives. Seasonal changes in distribution may occur for these species, but
most of the stock remains within local waters throughout its life cycle.
o Coastal migratory fisheries include some of our most popular food and sport fishes such
as bluefish, fluke, weakfish, porgies, and sea bass. These species range from southern
New England to the Carolinas and generally migrate inshore and north in the spring and
summer, and offshore and south in the fall and winter. Most of these species spawn
while the fish are away from New York, and young fish and adults move into our shallow
coastal waters and estuaries in the spring. Others, such as weakfish, spawn as they move
into our waters in the spring.
o Offshore fisheries such as cod, tuna, haddock, and sharks may or may not be migratory,
but generally do not enter New York State waters in large numbers. Although some fish
from these species may be taken in state waters, the greatest majority are taken from
federal waters within the 200 mile lnnit and are subsequently landed in New York and
other neighboring states.
In the Peconic system, during the 11 -year period from 1975-1985, commercial fishery catches
ranged from a low of 2.4 million lbs. to a high of 6.3 million lbs. The value of dockside landings
during this period was as high as $7.3 million (1982 dollars).
The recreational fishery in the Peconic System and its high water quality contribute
substantially to the tourism/recreational economy in eastern Suffolk County. Local businesses,
restaurants, marinas, etc. cater to the needs of fishermen, boaters, and bathers who use the waters
extensively during the summer season.
It is virtually certain that the value of the intense sportfishery within the Peconic Bays estuary
now exceeds that of the commercial fishery, particularly in supporting local businesses geared to
servicing this activity. The most sought after species by anglers include winter flounder, striped bass,
blue fish, -snapper, weakfish, and porgy. The sport fisheries and recreational usages of the bays,
together with their aesthetic attraction for tourism, make an important contribution to the local
economy. The dockside value of commercial fishery landings is typically multiplied three to four
times in terms of its impact on the regional economy.
Nursery
There is considerable evidence that the Peconic Bays estuary is very important as a nursery and
spawning ground for the coastal fisheries. After conducting a survey of young fish and eggs in all
Long Island coastal waters, Perlmutter (1939) concluded, "the general area extending from Great
Peconic Bay eastward to Montauk Point and vicinity is relatively more important as a spawning and
2-57
nursery area for most of the so-called summer fishes than any other region of the island." Because
fish eggs and larvae are delicately adjusted to their surroundings, any environmental changes in the
estuary caused by human activity could have substantial impact on coastal fisheries.
Peconic Bay has historically been considered an important spawning and nursery area for
weakfish in New York and a large percentage of New York State landings are taken in Peconic Bay.
In a 1985 trawl survey, NYSDEC. found substantial numbers of young -of -the -year and juvenile
populations of weakfish, winter flounder, scup, bluefish, butterfish, northern puffer, blackfish, and
Black Sea bass (see Table 2.3-10). Four species accounted for over 82 percent by number of the total
catch: weakfish, winter flounder, scup, and windowpane flounder.
Freshwater Fishery
In addition to the robust marine fishery, the Peconic Estuary system also supports a significant
freshwater fishery. For example, at least twenty-five species of freshwater fish are found in the non -
tidally influenced portions of the Peconic River (Guthrie, NYSDEC). Additionally, the Peconic
River is one of only two known locations in New York State that support populations of banded
sunfish. White perch Morone americana), pumpkinseed Le omis gibbosus), bluegill Le omis
macrochirus), and American eel (Ani rostrata) are abundant throughout the system. Brown
bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus), chain pickerel (Esox niter), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) are also common; yellow perch Perca flavescens) and black crappie Pomoxis
nigromaculatus) are common in certain portions of the Peconic River. The Peconic River drainage
area supports a popular recreational fishery, that draws anglers from all over Long Island. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation stocks rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mvkiss)
and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in Wildwood Lake. A list of freshwater species found in the western
non -tidal portions of the Peconic Estuary Ecosystem is contained in Table 2.3-11.
Freshwater fish species in the Peconic River that are -rare, low in numbers, or limited in
distribution include the bridle shiner Notro is bifrenatus), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), banded
sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), and swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme). The banded sunfish is
reported for Long Island as occurring only in the Peconic River drainage area.
Historical Fisheries
The Peconic Bays estuary system has served as a rich fisheries resource since 1640 when
Southold and Southampton were fust settled by Europeans. The fishery in the Peconics was first
operated by farmers turned part-time fishermen in response to local markets. A significant
commercial coastal whaling industry was pursued until 1750 by fishermen living along the Peconics,
although the whales were found seaward of the estuary. Even after the decline of this nearby source,
whaling continued to be a lucrative industry in the region. Between 1820 and 1845 whaling was
2-58
Table 2.3-10
2-59
List of Fish Species
From An Otter'Trawl in the Peconic'System*
FAMILY
SPECIES
COMMON NAME
Carcharhinidae
Mustelus canis
Smooth dogfish
Anguillidae
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
Clupeidae
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic menhaden
Engraulidae
Anchoa mitchilli
Bay anchovy
Batrachoididae
Onsanus tau
Oyster toadfish
Gadidae
Microgadus tomcod
Atlantic tomcod
Enchelyonus cimbrius
Fourbeard rockling
Atherinidae
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silversides
Gasterosteidae
A elp tes quadracus
Fourspine stickleback
" Syngnathidae
Svngnathus fuscus
Northern pipefish
Hippocampus erectus
Lined sea horse
Percichthyidae
Morone saxatilis
Striped bass
Serranidae
Centropristis striata
Black sea bass
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluefish
Carangidae
Caranx hippos
Crevalle jack
Trachurus lathami
Rough scad
Selene setapinnis
Atlantic moonfish
Sparidae
Stenotomus chrysops
Scup _
Sciaenidae
Cvnoscion regalis
Weakfish
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spot
2-59
Table 2.3-10 (Continued)
List of Fish Species
From An Otter Trawl in the Peconic System*
FAMILY
SPECIES
COMMON NAME
Chaetodontidae
Chaetodon capistatus
Foureye butterfly fish
Labridae
Tautoga onitis
Blackfish
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Cunner
Ammodytidae
Ammodytes americans
American sand lance
Gobiidae
Gobiosoma bosci
Naked goby
Stromateidae
Peprilus triacanthus
Butterfish
Triglidae
Prionotus carolinus
Northern sea robin
Prionotus evolans
Striped sea robin
Cottidae
Mvxocephalus aenaeus
Grubby
Bothidae
Citharichthys spilopterus**
Bay whiff
Etropus microstomus
Smallmouth flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
Fluke
Paralichthys oblongus
Fourspot flounder
Scopthalmus aquosus ..
Windowpane
Pleuronectidae
Pleuronectes americanus_
Winter flounder
Solidae
Trinectes maculatus
Hogchoker
Balistidae
Monacanthus hispidus
Planehead tilefish
Tetraodontidae
Spheoroides maculatus
Northern puffer
*NYSDEC, 1985
** Citharichthys spilopterus, the bay whiff, first record for New York waters, was noted
and identified by P.T. Briggs.
2-60
Table 2.3-11
Freshwater Fishes Reported from the Peconic River.System*
Family Scientific Name Common Name Comments
Anguillidae Anc,milla rostrata American eel A,ca
(Eels)
Ictaluridae Ictalurus nebulosus brown bullhead C,fw
(Catfish)
Catostomidae Erimyzon oblongm creek chubsucker Cl,fw,l
(Suckers)
Cyprinidae
Carassius auratus1
goldfish
R,fw
(Minnows)
Cyprinus carpio
common carp
Cl,fw
Notropis bifrenatus
bridle shiner-
R,fw
Notemigonus crysoleucas
golden shiner
C,fw
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus mykiss
rainbow trout
S,2
(Trout)
Salmo trutta
brown trout
S,2
Umbridae
Umbra pvamaea
eastern mudminnow
C,fw
(Mudminnows)
Esocidae
Esox ni er
chain pickerel
C,fw
(Pike)
Esox americanus
redfin pickerel
Cl,fw
americanus
Aphredoderidae
Aphredoderus sayanusl
pirate perch
Cl,fw
(pirate perch)
Cyprinodontidae
Fundulus diaphanus
banded killifish
C,fe
(Killifish)
Gasterosteidae
_Aveltes guadracus
fourspine
C1,fe
(Sticklebacks)
stickleback
Moronidae
Morone americana
white perch
A,fa
(Temperate basses)
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris
rock bass
R,fw
(Sunfish)
Enneacanthus obesus
banded sunfish
R,fw,l
Lepomis aibbosus
pumpkinseed
A,fw
Lepomis macrochirus
bluegill
A,fw
Micropterus salmoides
largemouth bass
C,fw
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
black crappie
Cl,fw
Percidae
Etheostoma fusiforme
swamp darter
R,fw
(Perches)
Etheostoma olmstedi
tessellated darter
Cl,fw
Perca flavescens
yellow perch
Cl,fw
(Continued)
1. Probably occurs in Peconic Drainage, but is not documented as
such by NYSDEC.
2-61
Table 2.3-11 (continued)
Rey to Comments
Distribution
A - Abundant, throughout the system
C - Common, throughout the system
Cl - Locally common, within the system
R - Rare, low numbers or limited distribution
S - Stocked, little or no natural reproduction
Life History
fa - Facultatively anadromous, some anadromous populations
and some landlocked populations
ca - Catadromous
fw - Freshwater: lives entire life in freshwater, but may
stray into estuarine waters
fe - Both freshwater and estuarine populations
Special Comments
1 - Reported only from the Peconic River Drainage on Long
Island
2 - Stocked only in Wildwood Lake in the Peconic System
Source: C.A. Guthrie, Sr. Aquatic Biologist, New York State Departmen.
of Environmental Conservation, Region 1, Building 40, SUNY at Stony
Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356.
(* Upstream from the dam at Grangebel Park; includes Little River,
Wildwood Lake, and all headwaters ponds. Excludes tidal portion of
river and any freshwater tributaries below Grangebel Dam.)
2-62
pursued on a global scale with large whaling vessels sailing from Sag Harbor; Greenport, Jamesport,
and New Suffolk.
The first large scale commercial fishery in the Peconic Bays came in -the 1830's when it was
realized that menhaden could be used as a cheap but excellent fertilizer in addition to being a source
of oil. Large bunker processing factories were operated at Sag Harbor, Orient, Southold, and Shelter
Island. In 1844, the Long Island Railroad finished a track from Long Island City to Greenport, which
shortened the transport between the fishing ports on the north shore of the Peconics and New York
City from several days (by sail) to five hours (by rail). With access to larger markets, the fisheries in
the Peconics expanded rapidly. By the 1880's, the Peconic and Gardiners Bay supported an extensive
pound net, oyster, scallop, quahog, soft clam, eel, and menhaden fishery. With the exception of
menhaden,. these fisheries continue to the present time.
2.3.2.3 Eelgrass
Eelgrass (Zostera marina is a rooted, submerged aquatic plant that plays an important role in
inshore marine ecosystems. Eelgrass displays a high level of productivity, is an important pathway
for the movement of nutrients between sediments and the water column, serves as habitat for various
life history stages of important finfish and shellfish (including the bay scallop), plays a role in
sediment depositional patterns in inshore waters, and forms the base of the estuarine detrital food web
in many areas.
Eelgrass abundance and health is controlled by light availability in the deeper areas of bays in
which it is found. The Brown Tide reduced the depth penetration of light in affected water bodies,
cutting off much of the light required by eelgrass for photosynthesis. A field survey of eelgrass
distribution in Great South Bay and the Peconic Bays system was undertaken, along with a literature
search of past eelgrass distributions. The field surveys incorporated precise station location
determination and observations of the bay bottom using SCUBA equipment and divers. Water depth
transects were made along an east -west axis throughout Great South Bay and the Peconic Bays
system. The maximum depth of penetration of continuous eelgrass cover, shoot density, Secchi disk
depth, salinity, temperature, canopy height, and sediment type were determined along each transect
(Dennison, -1987).
Secchi disk depths of less than 0.5 meters were coimmon in Long Island waters during the
brown tide events of 1985 and 1986. Observations along depth transects in Great South Bay and the
Peconic Bays system in 1985 and 1986 confirmed that reduced light penetration was correlated with
substantial die -off of eelgrass. Depth penetration by eelgrass in some areas of Great South Bay in
1985 was reduced from 7 to 12 feet; reductions from 12 to 6 feet were observed in parts of the
Peconic Bays system. More recent field data reveal that shading by the Brown Tide has reduced the
density of eelgrass shoots at a Station near Shelter Island in the Peconic Bays system from about 1800
shoots per square meter in 1984 to little. over 200 shoots per square meter in 1986. The period in
2-63
which the brown tide has been most prevalent coincides with the peak of the eelgrass season. The
loss of potential eelgrass habitat in the Peconic Bays system may be approximately 16,000 acres.
Locations of major eelgrass beds prior to the onset of Brown Tide include Flanders Bay, Orient
Harbor, Hallocks Bay, Three Mile Harbor, Northwest Harbor, Coecles Harbor, and several creeks.
Eelgrass beds serve as principal setting areas for bay scallop larvae. As such, long-term reduction in
the abundance and distribution of eelgrass would severely hamper efforts to reestablish bay scallop
populations through transplant programs or natural renewal.
2.3.2.4 - Underwater Lands in the Peconic S stem
In a 1987 report, the Suffolk County Planning Department investigated ownership of
underwater lands in the Peconic and Gardiners Bays. The harbors, bays, and creeks surrounding
Peconic and Gardiners Bays in Riverhead, Southold, Southampton, East Hampton, and Shelter Island
are under the control and jurisdiction of the towns. Control of the underwater lands in Peconic and
Gardiners Bays for shellfish cultivation purposes resides with both public and private interests. State
legislation passed in 1884 permitted Suffolk County to issue grants of underwater land for the
purpose of oyster culture. Approximately 8,500 acres of bay bottom still have oyster cultivation
rights that are privately owned. The Oyster Lands map prepared by Suffolk County Real Property
Tax Service Agency in 1983 also lists approxunately 4,500 additional acres under dual ownership,
primarily that of Suffolk County and L.I. Oyster Farms.
The ownership of underwater land is important for shellfish management because the owner of
fee or lesser interest in the land has jurisdictional control and management responsibility over the
shellfish resources on the land, or exclusive rights to their. harvest. Most of the underwater land
found in the embayments surrounding Suffolk County is owned by the towns or New York State with
some private firms having ownership rights.
Suffolk County was once active in managing the Gardiners and Peconic Bays area for oyster
culture pursuant to New York State law. Chapter 385 of the Laws of 1884, An Act to cede lands
under water of Gardiners -and Peconic Bays, to Suffolk County, Long Island, for the cultivation of
shellfish; authorized Suffolk County to issue grants of underwater land in perpetuity for the purpose
of oyster culture only. All grantees were to have their deeds recorded in Suffolk County and pay
property taxes on the underwater land (The oyster culture rights were considered as real property.)
Minor amendments were made to this legislation in 1896, 1906, and 1923 (Kaplan, 1984).
After the decline of the oyster industry in the northeast, County activity and interest waned in
Gardiners and Peconic Bays. Over the years, grantees have bought and sold oyster lots- and, as a
result, title to and exact locations of many of these parcels have become clouded. In some instances,
reference points on adjacent uplands that were used a century ago to locate underwater parcels are no
longer in existence. Determining the precise location and extent of these parcels is difficult at best.
The Oyster Lands map prepared by the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency in
1983 illustrates the ownership pattern of oyster cultivation rights on the underwater land in
Peconic/Gardiners Bays from the mouth of the Peconic River east to a line running from the most
easterly point of Plum Island to Goff Point at the entrance of Napeague Harbor. Approximately 550
irregularly shaped parcels with a total area of nearly 110,000 acres are shown on the map. Sixteen of
the parcels totalling 2,299 acres are indicated as having unknown owners. The largest private holder
of oyster lot cultivation rights in Peconic/Gardiners Bays - L.I. Oyster Farms - is listed as owning 80
parcels totalling 5,684 acres. LIOF is also listed as having dual ownership (primarily with Suffolk
County) of 10,214 acres involving 130 other parcels. Dual ownership is indicated on the map when
two conveyances cover the same parcel of underwater land. This dual ownership condition exists due
to historically poor conveyancing practices, particularly where the underwater land was of marginal
value.
Baymen have consistently opposed any leasing of New York State-owned underwater lands in
Peconic/Gardiners Bays pursuant to L 1969, ch 990. They have- expressed concern that the
completion of the survey maps clarifying the disposition of underwater land rights would result in
County implementation of a shellfish leasing program for Peconic/Gardiners Bays. This posture has
been taken, despite the justifications/benefits mentioned earlier of clarifying ownership rights
(Cohalan, 1982).
It should be pointed out that L 1969, ch 990 also requires the condition that Suffolk County
must adopt a local law containing regulations governing the leasing process and the use of lands not
leased before it can implement a shellfish cultivation leasing program. Since the policy decision to
lease has not been institutionalized by passage of the necessary local law and regulatory program,
Suffolk County does not have the power to implement shellfish leasing activities, nor does it have a
plan upon which they should be based. The act of proceeding with such a law and program would be
subject to public scoping under SEQRA (6 NYCRR Part 617) and the Suffolk County Legislature.
2.3.3 Wildlife
The Peconic system is part of the Atlantic Flyway, a flight path for migratory birds. During the
winter, large concentrations of wintering waterfowl use the open waters of the Peconic and Gardiners
Bays to rest and feed. Waterfowl such as Scoters, Goldeneye, Oldsquaw, Red -breasted Mergansers,
and Bufflehead commonly occur in the salt water bays, harbors, and inlets. In the fresh water ponds,
lakes, and rivers, Black Ducks, Mallards, and Canada Geese both winter and nest. Wood Ducks
breed along the Peconic River.
The animal species found in the Peconic River wetlands are mostly tied to individual plant
species or wetland communities. Over one hundred bird species either breed or migrate through the
Peconic system. Many of these species are declining elsewhere on Long Island due ,to habitat
2-65
destruction. The Eastern Bluebird, Pine Warbler, Great -Homed Owl, Veery,- Hermit Thrush, and
Whip -poor -will are all declining on Long Island..but still breed in the Peconic River drainage basin.
Many uncommon vertebrate species breed in the Peconic River wetlands, including the Star -
nosed Mole, Marbled Salamander, Spadefoot.Toad, Hognose Snake, Worm Snake, Spotted and Musk
Turtle, Red and Hoary Bats, and Short -tailed Weasel. The Striped Skunk, which is common in
upstate New York, is thought to be mostly found on Long Island in the Peconic River Drainage
Basin.
2.3.3.1 Breeding Birds
The "Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State" (Andrle, R.F., and J. R. Caroll (eds.), 1988,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York) contains the results of a state-wide effort to determine the breeding
birds species .in New -York State. 'For the purpose of this National Estuary Program Nomination
Document, the Breeding Bird Atlas was used to determine confirmed and probable breeding species
within the study area. Details regarding the methodology and results of this analysis, including a
detailed species inventory, is contained in Appendix B.
Approximately 125 of New York- State's 245 confirmed breeding species have been
documented as breeding with the Peconic System study area. An additional 15 species are considered
to be probable breeders within the study area.
The combined number of confirmed and probable breeding species represents approximately
57% of New York State's breeding birds. The importance of this percentage is underscored by the
fact that several of these species have been listed under New York State and Federal endangered
species regulations priinarily because of their state-wide and/or national significance and rarity.
2.3.3.2 Endangered. Threatened or Species of Special Concern
- The protected status of threatened and endangered species in New York State is based on both
federal and state laws and'regulations. Under federal law, an "endangered species" has been found by
the .U.S. Department of the Interior to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. A federally "threatened species" is likely to become an endangered species within the
near future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Under New York State statutes (ECL Section 11-0535), an "endangered species" is determined
by NYSDEC to be in imminent danger of extinction or extirpation in New York State, or federally
listed as endangered. A "threatened species" under New York State Law is determined by the
NYSDEC as likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in New York
State, or federally listed as threatened. Both the endangered and threatened categories are fully
protected under Environmental Conservation Law.
2-66
Numerous nationally and locally significant threatened and endangered. species are found in the
Peconic system. For example, -a draft report by Okeanos Marine Research Foundation, Inc.
reportedly indicates that there is significant evidence that the Peconic system is used as a nursery for
the Kemp's. Ridley turtle (Sadove, personal communication). The Kemp's Ridley is a federally
endangered species. In addition to the Kemp's Ridley, the loggerhead and leatherback turtles, both
federally listed endangered species, also are found in the Peconic system (Zaremba, 1991).
Endangered Bird Species that nest within the Peconic system include the piping plover and
roseate tern, which are also federally endangered species, and the least tem. Threatened bird species
that nest within the system include the northern harrier, red shouldered hawk, common tem, and
osprey.
Endangered species of amphibians found in the Peconic system include the eastern tiger
salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). All but three of the 68 known freshwater breeding ponds of the
Tiger Salamander in New York are located in Suffolk County (Sanford, NYSDEC, 1989). Small
vernal freshwater ponds are -especially valuable tosalamanders since open water normally exists only
during late winter and spring. This prevents fish which eat -salamander larvae from surviving in these
ponds.
Threatened species of reptiles found in the Peconic system include the eastern mud turtle
(Kinostemon subrubrum). The mud turtle inhabits muddy bottoms of ponds and streams, although
they are not as aquatic as some other native turtles. Mud turtles have been found in Cranberry Bog
County Park in Riverhead and at Hubbard Creek marsh in.Flanders.
It should be noted that much information concerning . the distribution of threatened and
endangered species on the east. end of Long Island has only recently been gathered. As research
continues, more of these rare species may be discovered.
In addition to threatened and endangered species, New York State has a third category unique
to the State called "Species of Special Concern." Special Concern Species are native species which
are not recognized as endangered or threatened but for which documented evidence exists regarding
concern for their continued welfare in New York State. The populations of species that fall in the
Special Concern category are monitored closely to detect population declines that may cause them to
be placed in the threatened or endangered category. Species of special concern receive no special or
additional legal protection under ECL 11-0535.
Birds listed as "Species of Special Concern" that have been confirmed as nesting or are
probable nesters in the Peconic system include least bittern, common barn owl, common nighthawk,
eastern bluebird, vesper sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. "Special concern" reptiles and
amphibians include the spotted salamander, blue spotted salamander, hognose Snake, diamondback
terrapin, and southern leopard frog. The coastal barrens buck moth is another species of special
2-67
concern found in the Peconic system study area; the buck moth has been under consideration for
threatened species status.
A brief description of some of the endangered Bird Species that nest within the Peconic system
is as follows.
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) - The Piping Plover is a small shorebird, that nests
extensively in the Peconic system in sparsely vegetated areas near salt water. The nest is
usually a shallow depression in the bare sand. The Piping Plover is on both the state and
federal endangered species list. Threats to this species came from natural predation,
predation by domestic animals, flooding, crushing of eggs and chicks by off-road vehicles,
and disturbance by beach visitors. Piping Plovers arrive on Long Island in late March or
early April and depart by the end of August.
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) - The Roseate Tern is a medium sized tem about. 15
inches long. This species nests in small colonies within the Peconic system adjacent to
major bay inlets. The largest colony is located on Great Gull Island. The decline of the
Roseate Tern can be attributed to vegetation changes in their nesting colonies, competition
with gulls, coastal development, and predation. Roseate Terns arrive in early May from
their wintering grounds along the coasts of Brazil, Venezuela, and Columbia and leave by
late August.
Least Tern (Sterna albifrons) - The Least Tem is a small white tem, eight to ten inches
long that nests on open sandy beaches, dredge disposal sites, and sand spits in the Peconic
system. The areas where Least Tem prefer to nest are heavily used for recreation and
shoreline development. Least Terns arrive in the Peconic system in early May and depart by
late August.
Descriptions of Threatened Bird Species that nest within the Peconic System are as follows.
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) - This raptor uses wetlands and upland habitats for
breeding, preferring locations just above the high salt marsh. The Northern Harrier is a
ground nester that has been confirmed nesting on Gardiners Island and the Napeague Harbor
area.
Red Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) - The Red Shouldered Hawk is a rare nesting
species in the Peconic system. It utilizes a variety of woodland habitats to nest including
low wetland and dry upland forests. Nests are placed in large deciduous trees near the main
trunk. This species has been confirmed as nesting in the vicinity of Napeague.
2-68
Osprey (Patidion haliaetus) - The .Osprey, or fish hawk, is a common nester in the
Peconic system. It may nest in trees, on telephone poles, or on the ground. Platforms
erected for Osprey nesting are a common sight on the East End of Long Island. It arrives in
late March and departs by the end of October.
Numerous.rare and endangered insect species, such as the coastal barrens buck moth, also occur
in the Peconic Estuary study area. Examples of endangered damselflies include the globally
endangered lateral bluet (Enalla rg_na laterale and the barrens bluet damselfly (Enallagma
recurvatum); other rare insects include the Martha spotted skimmer (Celithemis martha) and black
spotted skiunmer (Celithemis monomelaena) butterflies and the painted bluet damselfly (Enallagma
ip ctillri)•
2.4 Special Designation Areas
2.4.1 Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs)
Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs) were identified in the draft NYS Groundwater
Management Program for Long Island, NYSDEC, 1983 (LIGMP) and in the 208 Nonpoint Source
Management Handbook, LIRPB, 1984 (208 Handbook). These areas are defined as significant,
largely undeveloped, or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to
portions of the deep flow aquifer system.
In 1987, the .Sole Source Aquifer Special Groundwater Protection Areas Law (Article 55 of the
NYS Environmental Conservation Law) was enacted by the State. This law designated nine Special
Groundwater Protection Areas on Long Island. The largest and most pristine of these is the Central
Pine Barrens. The planning process required- by law for the protection of the groundwater beneath
these nine areas is now in' progress. The SGPA study, conducted by LIRPB, is scheduled for
completion in 1991.
The steps taken in the SGPA review process include an ,analysis of deep recharge boundaries,
an evaluation of potential groundwater problems; an update in land use, and an assessment of
opportunities for protecting recharge quality. The recommendations of pilot SGPA studies consider
controlling future development densities through zoning changes, site plan review, and critical parcel
acquisition and preservation. The SGPA program also cites the minimization or elimination of
existing point and non -point sources and the. prevention of new activities which are known to cause
groundwater problems as important measures in the preservation of groundwater resources.
Within the Peconic system, the Central Suffolk Pine Barrens SGPAs occupies the entire
Peconic River Drainage Basin and part of the Flanders Bay area. The South Fork Deep Recharge
Area SGPA stretches from North Sea east to West Amagansett and includes the Peconic Bay, Shelter
2-69'.,
Island Sound, and Gardiners Bay areas. The Hither Hills SGPA is located west of Fort Pond Bay in
the Gardiners Bay area.
2.4.2 Critical Environmental Areas
Critical Environmental Areas (CEA'.$) are specific geographic areas designated by a state or
local agency- having exceptional or unique characteristics that make the area environmentally
important. CEA's are designated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
Section 8 of Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part
617).
To be designated as a CEA an area must have exceptional or unique character covering one or
more of the following:
(i) a benefit or threat to human health; -
(ii) a natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and
areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality);
(iii) social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or,
(iv) an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change which may be
adversely affected by any change.
Designation of a CEA must be preceded by written public notice and a public hearing. Any
unlisted action located in a CEA must be treated as a Type I action by any involved agency. A Type I
action is an activity which requires coordinated agency review, since Type I actions are more likely to
require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement than non -Type I. actions.
In 1988, the Suffolk County Legislature established a Peconic Critical Environmental Area
(CEA). This law subjects actions within the CEA to more, stringent environmental review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act in order to protect the natural resources contained within the
area. In the legislative intent, the Legislature recognizes that the Peconic region requires such special
protective measures due to its inherent ecological diversity and value, as well as its historic and
recreational importance. Such protection has also been afforded to much of the western study area by
the previous designation of the Central Pine Barrens CEA.
2.4.3 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
New York State's Coastal Management Program (CMP) received Federal approval in
September 1982. , In order to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
2-70
(P.L. 92-583), the State had to enact legislation addressing coastal erosion problems. Thus, in 1981
the State Legislature passed the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, (Article 34 of the ECL) as the
principal law governing erosion and flood control along New York's coastline.
The purpose of Article 34 is to minimize or prevent damage and destruction to property and
natural resources from flooding and erosion due to inappropriate actions of man. This coastal hazard
mitigation policy is to be carried out through a regulatory program based on the control, through
permits, of development and other land use activities in designated erosion hazard areas. Article 34 is
intended to be implemented at the local level except for State agency activities, which will require
permits directly from the NYSDEC. Localities must adopt State -approved coastal erosion ordinances
incorporating the standards outlined in the regulations.
Erosion area permits must be obtained for development, new construction, erosion protection
structures, public investment, and other land use activities within the designated coastal hazard areas.
Permit applications are to include a description of the proposed activity, a map, any additional
information, and a fee Approval is contingent upon compliance with the standards, restrictions and
requirements; however, conditions can be attached to the permit, if deemed necessary. The proposed
regulated activity must meet the following general standards:
o it must be reasonable and necessary, relative to alternative sites and the necessity for a
shoreline location
o it must not aggravate erosion
o it must prevent or minimize adverse effects on natural protective features, erosion
protection structures or natural resources.
Furthermore, the regulations delineate restrictions on specific land use activities within both
types of coastal hazard areas. For natural protective feature areas specific restrictions are delineated
for activities in near shore areas, beaches, bluffs, and primary and secondary dunes. Regulated
activities include:
o dredging, excavating and mining
o construction, modification or restoration of
seawalls, bulkheads, breakwaters and revetments
o beach nourishment
o vehicular traffic
o the creation of pedestrian passages.
docks, piers, wharves, groins, jetties,
Activities not requiring a permit include planting, sand fencing, and the erection of private
elevated stairways. . Within structural hazard area the construction of nonmoveable structures is
allowed, but only if the structures are set back 50 ft from the edge of the bluff, with no permanent
2-71
foundations, and if a relocation plan is included with the permit application. The installation of
public service utilities requires a permit. Grading and excavating near bluffs must not direct surface
water runoff over the receding -edge.
2.4.4 Flood Hazard Designations
tions
Hurricanes and northeast storms are not rare events in the history of Long Island. National
Weather Service data indicate that the Island has been directly impacted by seven hurricanes and 15
tropical storms since 1886. Northeast storms causing significant water -related damage occur nearly
every year. Unusually severe storms occur in the area about three times every century.
Coastal areas on Long Island have experienced dramatic residential and commercial
development and change in recent years. As a result, Long Island is far more vulnerable to storm
related damage and potential loss of life today than it was more than 50 years ago when the
devastating hurricane of September 21, 1938 destroyed Westhampton Beach and other shoreline
communities. This is despite the fact that early warning systems and hurricane forecasting techniques
are now in place, and shoreline communities currently participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for managing the NFIP.
It is responsible for the conduct of the mapping program, establishment of floodplain management
criteria and ensuring that participating communities adopt and enforce ordinances and floodplain
management regulations. The Federal Insurance Administration within FEMA manages the
insurance aspects of the program.
Flood zones are represented on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS).- Flood prone areas (as
per the FIRMS) are numbered V and A zones, and unnumbered B and C zones. V and A zones are
"areas of special flood hazard". Numbered A zones, A-1 to A-30, are areas of 100 -year flood where
base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
In coastal A zones, new construction or substantial improvements must, ata minimum have the
lowest floor elevated to or above base flood elevation (BFE). This may be accomplished through the
use of clean fill, raised foundations, piles or columns.
All V zones are termed "coastal high hazard areas" or "areas of special flood -related erosion
hazards". Zone V differs from Zone A in that when flooding does occur, it is often accompanied by
high velocity waters. In the instance of storms with high winds, the wind action will result in
"pushing" more water inland, producing more flooding and associated erosion.
In coastal V zones, all new construction and substantial improvements to existing structures
must be elevated on pilings or columns so that the lowest floor of the dwelling is elevated to or above
2-72
the BFE. The space below the lowest floor is not to be used for human habitation and must be free of
all obstructions.
Zone B and zone C are only designated on the FIRM as unnumbered zones. Zone B includes
areas between the limits of the 100 -year and 500 -year flood. Also included are areas subject to the
100 -year flood having average depths of less than one foot, or where the contributing drainage area is
less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. C Zones are areas of
minimal flooding.
2.4.5 Wild. Scenic and Recreational Rivers
The Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Program was developed to protect and preserve, in a
free-flowing condition, those rivers of the State that possess outstanding natural, scenic, historical,
ecological and recreational values identified as being important to present and future generations.
The rivers system was created by the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act (Title 27,
Article 15, N.Y.S. Environmental Conservation Law) passed by the Legislature in 1972. The act
enabled the establishing of boundaries for rivers designated as wild, scenic, or recreational by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The western portion of the Peconic
River from its headwaters to an area near Edwards Avenue has been designated as a "Scenic River,"
while the designation of "Recreational River" has been conferred upon the remainder of the Peconic
as far east as Peconic Avenue in the hamlet of Riverhead, where the river is tidally influenced.
Part 666 set forth regulations- for the administration of this act which grants the NYSDEC
permit authority for new land uses and developments which require permits and occur within the
WSRR corridors. Such land uses and developments are allowable if they meet with the objectives of
the program, which include the preservation or restoration of the natural scenic beauty of the river
while not altering existing flow. Stringent density restrictions- also apply to new structures within the
WSRR corridor.
The Peconic River was placed under a moratorium on development on August 1, 1985
concurrently with its designation as a study river for possible inclusion in the River System. The
effective date of the newly promulgated Rivers System Regulations was March 26, 1986. On July 23,
. 1987 the river was made part of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System and the moratorium
on development was lifted. Since inclusion in the system, development within one-half mile of the
banks of the river and its tributaries is guided by the Rivers Regulations.
The NYSDEC submitted a proposal in January of 1989 to designate a portion of the Peconic
River as "Scenic" and an additional segment as "Recreational". The portion of the river that has been
nominated for the "scenic" designation runs from approximately ten miles from Middle Country Road
(NYS Route 25) to the Long Island Railroad bridge between Connecticut and Edwards Avenue and
includes a number of tributaries that feed into the main river. The recreational river designation is
2-73
approximately 5.5 miles -from the Long Island Railroad Bridge between Connecticut and Edwards
Avenue to Grangabel Park Dam in the Town of Riverhead. The designation includes approximately
two miles of the Little River from and including Wildwood Lake to its confluence with the VCC6 c
River.
2.5 Recreational Resources
The Peconic system is an entity whose economy is tied to its marine waters. The continued
health of these marine waterbodies is related to man's activities on land. Public awareness of this link
initiated an unprecedented effort by government and private conservation, groups to preserve critical
habitat in the Peconic system. At the same time, the recreational needs of year-round residents and
summer visitors must be met. Recreational activities popular in the Peconic system include boating,
fishing, sailing, swimming, and scuba diving. Demand for open space preservation, recreational
opportunities, and protection of critical habitat has resulted in substantial acreages of preserved open
space.
2.5.1 Parks and Beaches
Parkland in the Peconic system _can be broken down into Federal, State, County, and Town
holdings and private conservation lands. Each level of government has its own goals and objectives
for the parklands. Federal government park holdings in the Peconic system are part of the National
Wildlife Refuge system and emphasize protection of natural resources. State parklands are generally
large holdings which range from active, recreational facilities such as golf courses (Montauk Downs
State Park) to open space parks (Napeague State Park). Suffolk County parklands are acquired for
protection of sensitive environments, because the lands are located in a sole source aquifer, or the
land is of prime importance to Suffolk County residents. The size of Suffolk County parks varies but
is generally larger than twenty acres. County parklands in the Peconic system are some of the larger
holdings in the Suffolk County system. A listing of the major State and County Parks is presented in
Table 2.5-1 and campgrounds in the study area are listed on Table 2.5-2.
Many town park holdings tend to be small- parcels of land devoted to active recreation. Some
townships have been actively pursuing purchase of small parcels of land containing unique or
sensitive habitats. The Towns in Suffolk County each have a separate Parks and Recreation
Department or a number- of related departments which are specifically responsible for the
maintenance of town -owned parks, the planning of such parks, and the implementation of recreational
and cultural programs that are offered by the town. In most cases, they are directly responsible to the
town supervisor and/or the town board. Most villages do not have formalized Park and Recreation
Departments: Many functions of the village's park and recreation system are distributed among
existing village departments such as the highway department.
2-74
Cedar Beach County Parkland Town of Southold 62
Cedar Point County Park
Table 2.5-1
608
Major New York State and Suffolk County Parks
Hampton
in the Peconic System*
Cranberry Bog County Park
Name of Park
Location
# of Acres
Hither Hills State Park
Town of East
1,755
Town of Riverhead
Hampton
Sears -Bellow County Park
Montauk Downs State Park
Town of East
171
Town of Southampton
Hampton
Suffolk Hills County Park
Montauk Point State Park
Town of East
842
Brookhaven/Southampton
Hampton
Northwest Harbor County Park
Nappeague State Park
Town of East
1,300
'
Hampton
Orient Beach State Park
Town of Southold
357
Cedar Beach County Parkland Town of Southold 62
Cedar Point County Park
Town of East
608
Hampton
Cranberry Bog County Park
Town of
211
Southampton
' Indian Island County Park
Town of Riverhead
287
Sears -Bellow County Park
Town of Southampton
693
Hubbard (Flanders) County Park
Town of Southampton
1,350
Suffolk Hills County Park
Brookhaven/Southampton
740
Peconic River County Park
Brookhaven/Southampton
2,010
Northwest Harbor County Park
East Hampton
337
*Not all parks are entirely in Peconic system groundwater contributing area
2-75
Table 2.5-2
CAMPGROUNDS
East Hampton
Cedar Point County Park, East Hampton
Hither Hills State Park, Montauk
Riverhead
Indian Island County Park, Riverhead
Shelter Island
None
Southampton
Sears Bellows, Hampton Bays
Southold
"Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds, Greenport
McCann Trailer Park, Greenport -
2-76
Many of the Town Park and Recreation Departments work closely with the local school
districts utilizing both outdoor and.available indoor facilities. They also cosponsor many recreation
programs with other public agencies, quasi -public, private, and volunteer groups such as the YMCA,
the American Red Cross, the Rotary Clubs, and the Lions Clubs among others. Towns utilize nearby
churches, American Legion Halls, and other civic buildings (both publicly and privately owned) for
recreation purposes. The Towns of Southampton,. Riverhead, and East Hampton operate recreation
programs through a cosponsorship arrangement. The villages work closely with their local school
districts and towns. Citizen sponsored groups have demonstrated that they take active roles in local
recreation programs.
2.5.2 Golf Courses
The increase in leisure time has placed an increasing demand on recreational facilities. One of
the fastest growing recreational activities in the Unites States is golf. The 1990 "Golf Course Study
Inventory and Policy" ("Golf Course Study," Suffolk County Planning Department) has categorized
these golf courses in terns of municipal ownership, private membership, and privately owned daily
fee courses. Of the 16 golf courses in the Peconic system, four are municipally owned, five are
privately owned daily fee courses, and seven are restricted to private membership use. These golf
courses are listed in Table 2.5-3.
The Golf Course study extols the many virtues of golf courses. In addition to their value as
recreational resources, golf course benefits include open space and scenic value. Golf courses also
generate beneficial economic impacts related to use fees, tourism, etc. Thus, golf courses generally
have a positive impact on the quality of life in a given region.` Numerous other benefits associated
with golf courses are discussed in detail in the Golf Course Study.
Due to the high cost of land on Long Island, some golf courses have been converted to town
- houses and condominiums. In recognition of the increasing public demand for golf, the Suffolk
County Planning Department has recommended that existing golf courses should not be converted to
residential housing and that new golf courses be constructed in suitable locations. Mechanisms which
have been utilized to ensure the perpetuity of golf courses include transfer of development rights from
golf courses to other areas and cluster zoning around golf courses with a corresponding preservation
of open space.
While the benefits of golf courses are clear, the potential adverse impacts of golf courses are
also apparent. Such impacts include the leaching and runoff of fertilizers and pesticides to
groundwater and, ultimately, to surface waters. , A number of studies relating to contamination from
fertilizers and pesticides have been completed or are underway. The Golf Course Study recommends
prudent. management of golf courses, including the proper application of slow release nitrogen
fertilizers, the use of well-designed irrigation systems, and the reduction of size of greens, tees, and
fairways. The Study also recommends the monitoring of groundwater at golf course sites, at least on
2-77
Table 2.5-3
Golf Courses in the Peconic System
Name Township
Indian Island
(Suffolk County)
Riverhead
Swan Lake
Riverhead
Sandy Pond
Riverhead
Hampton Hills
Southampton
Island's End
Southold
North Fork Country Club
Southold
The Cedars
Southold
Gardiners Bay Country Club
Shelter Island
Shelter Island Golf Course
Shelter Island
Shinnecock Hills
Southampton
Noyack Golf & Country Club
Southampton
Montauk Downs (NY State)
East Hampton
Sag Harbor Golf Club (NYSDEC)
East Hampton
South Fork Country Club
East Hampton
National Golf Links of
x
America
Southampton
Southampton Golf Club
Southampton
Potential Privately Private
for Owned Member -
Development* Municipal Daily Fee shin
—
x
yes(possibly)
x
yes
x
no
x
yes
x
yes
x
yes
x
yes
x
—
x
yes
x
yes
x
—
x
—
x
yes
x
yes
x
yes
x
* As per January, 1990, Suffolk County Planning Dept., "Golf Course Study Inventory and Policy."
2-78
a pilot program basis. Such monitoring could be achieved through the sampling of water from
monitoring wells or existing on-site golf course irrigation systems.
2.5.3 Visual Resources
Visual resources are natural and man-made features that may be important to the local
community, to the region, or to the nation. Due to a low density shoreline development inmost of the
Peconic system, scenic vistas are numerous. There are only moderate variations in topography on the
east end of Long Island so that in general, rolling hills, ravines, or rock outcroppings do not interfere
with scenic views.
The New York State Coastal Management Program recognizes the importance of visual
resources and has embarked on a program to protect this unique resource. The Department of State
has begun to identify, evaluate and designate areas as Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance
(SASS). The methodology to designate the SASS has first been applied in the Hudson River coastal
area and is expected to be applied on Long Island in 1992. Once designated, scenic areas will be
protected through the consistency review provisions, of the state and federal coastal acts, and on the
local level through Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Areas in the Peconic system that have
received special designation as a result of scenic vistas include the "walking dunes" at Hither Hills
State Park. In addition, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) gives state and local
governments the opportunity to declare scenic sites "Critical Environmental Areas" (CEA). This
ensures that any proposed development in a designated CEA will be subject to a rigorous
environmental review.
Additional locations in the Peconic system known for scenic views or vistas are Montauk Point,
including its bluffs and Lighthouse; the scenic overlooks along Montauk Point State Parkway; the
lighthouse west of Cedar Point in Gardiners Bay; and the section of the Peconic River which has been
designated a "Scenic and Recreational River" by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation under the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers System Act (Article 15, New York
State Environmental Conservation Law). In general, the Peconic system is aesthetically rich with
dramatic bluffs, sandy beaches, and scenic creeks. The area also is salted with historic sites and
picturesque hamlets, and , contains expansive tracts of farmland and vineyards as well as numerous
wetlands and woodlands.
2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources
Indians have lived on Long Island for five thousand', years beforethe arrival of European
Settlers. Local bands of coastal Algonquins grew beans, squash, and corn, preserving the com for
winter use in a farina or porridge known as swamp. With arrowheads fashioned from beach pebbles
of chert and quartz, they hunted bountiful game. However, the foundation of their diet was sea food
in particular shellfish (clams, oysters, scallops, mussels, whelks) that were available. They used fiber
2-79
nets and basket traps and made weirs of branches on the mud flats; that trapped fish moving into
deeper water on the falling tide., They also towed branch traps, hurled. deer -bone harpoons, mad
fashioned hooks from bone and antler, weighting their lines with grooved -stone sinkers. ThE;ir
midden heaps contained shells, scales, and bones of sea turtles, sturgeon, and a variety of bony fishes,
which were dried on scaffoldings or smoked for winter provender.
The Shinacuts, or Shinnecocks, who fished originally from.the Pehick Konuk or Peconic River
all the way east to Accabonac Creek, in what is now East Hampton, and the Meantecuts, or
Munnataukets, who were concentrated in the vicinity of Montauk Great Pond, were skilled boatmen
who traveled to the mainland in big dugout "cannows". Because they made offerings to the fierce
Pequots of Connecticut, the east end of Long Island was known as Pommanocc, or "place of tribute"
(Matthiessen, 1986).
Wampum, or seawah, was used as currency in trade with Dutch and English settlers. The
wampum prized by the Indians of New England and upper New York State came first from the shores
of Great South Bay. 'It was made from the purple spot in the shells of hard-shell clams, carved into
cylindrical beads an eighth of an inch in diameter and a quarter inch long, and then' strung on thongs.
Beads were also -carved from' the white part of the shell, but were only half as valuable as purple
beads.
Until white men started manufacturing it, wampum was the great medium of exchange in the
lucrative fur trade. Using awls called muxes,.European settlers so increased the wampum supply that
great inflation resulted, and the Indians stopped using wampum as money. It remained in production
until the 1830s, however, and was exported to the Indians of the Northwest.
The Peconic system has served as a rich fisheries resource to the colonists since 1640 when
Southold and Southampton were fust settled by Europeans. The fishery in the Peconics was at first
operated by farmers turned part-time fishermen in response to local markets. A signific.ant
commercial coastal whaling industry was pursued until 1750 by fishermen living along the Peconics,
although the whales were found seaward of the estuary. Even after the decline of this nearby source,
whaling continued to be a lucrative industry in the region. Between 1820 and 1845 whaling was
pursued on a global scale with large whaling' vessels sailing from Sag Harbor, Greenport, Jamesport,
and New Suffolk. Whaling was made profitable by the widespread need for whale oil for
illumination .and whalebone for corsets. By 1718, whales near the beach were scarce, and by 1750
shore whaling had virtually ceased (Edwards and Rattray, 1932). Long Island, .with the exception of
Sag Harbor, yielded supremacy in whaling to Nantucket and New Bedford. The California gold rush
and then the Civil War disrupted whaling commerce. With the discovey of oil in Pennsylvania,
kerosene replaced whale oil as fuel.
The first large scale commercial fishery in the Peconic Bays came in the 1830's when it was
realized that menhaden could be used as a cheap but excellent fertilizer in addition to being a source
2-80
of oil. Large bunker processing factories were operated at Sag Harbor, Orient, Southold, and Shelter
Island. In 1844, the Long Island Railroad finished a track from Long Island City to Greenport, which
shortened the transport between the fishing ports on the north shore of the Peconics to New York City
from several days by sail to 5 hours by rail. With access to larger markets, the fisheries in the
Peconics expanded rapidly. By the 1880's, the Peconic and Gardiners Bays supported an extensive
pound net, oyster, scallop, quahog, soft clam, eel, and menhaden fishery. With the exception of
menhaden, these fisheries continue to the present time.
It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, when New York and certain nearby New
England cities began to grow and look to nearby rural areas as their food source, that Suffolk County
turned seriously to the raising. of soil crops for market purposes. In the early nineteenth century
potatoes were difficult to harvest and were grown generally in quantities sufficient only for the
farmer's private table use.
Eventually, modern machinery was developed which allowed farmers to greatly increase their
harvest until by the 1930's half of Suffolk County's farmland was devoted to potato farming.
Duck farming in Suffolk County dates to the late nineteenth century and was initially
undertaken on a small scale by farmers and baymen having a pond or a stream on their premises. As
the knowledge of the habits and diet of .the Pekin Duck became better known, the quality of the "Long
Island Duck" improved. Prior to World War I the demand for Long Island Duck increased. In
response to this demand new duck farms sprang up, principally in Moriches, Eastport, and Riverhead.
By the 1930's, six million ducks were produced on approximately ninety farms in Suffolk County.
Boat building began in Suffolk County around 1650 when settlers put together small boats to
travel to New Amsterdam (New York) and New England with furs, surplus crops, and the oil and
bone of "drift" whales. Sloops of from fifteen to thirty tons were built as early as 1762 at Sag Harbor,
which kept pace with a rapidly -developing coastal and West Indies -trade to become America's first
point of entry in 1790.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Greenport Village was the fishing, packing, and
shipping port for the East End. Once the menhaden haul seine fishery had declined in the second half
of the nineteenth century, some fishermen used the menhaden nets to catch striped bass, shad,
bluefish, and sturgeon.
Before the coming of the railroad, commercial fishing on the South Fork was largely confined
to salt or smoked fish and menhaden products, which could be. -processed and shipped without
refrigeration. The railroad to Montauk, completed in 1895, ran onto a fish dock constructed at Fort
Pond Bay and a special fish train left, Montauk every evening. -
2 -81
In the first decades of this century,. the leading local fishery was cod. Codfishing gave off-
season work to farmers who carted the boxed codfish to .the railroad station. Fisherman and bayinen
dug "skimmer" (surf) clams used for codfish bait, opened clams, and baited cod trawls. By die
1920's, the shore cod fishery had declined and the striped bass commercial fishery had replaced it.
The early settlements on- Long Island's East End used a variety -of means to generate power.
The South Fork communities, lacking large river systems, resorted to wind and tide mills. The early
Riverhead communities were fortunate in having the Peconic River as a source of power and a
number of water mills dotted the lower.and middle reaches of the Peconic River. - -
In 1885, cranberries were being grown in the wetlands along the Peconic River. No wheeled
equipment could be used in the bog so the whole •operation depended on plumbing systems and
manual hauling. Sand was carried to the beds to be laid over the mucky soils. -Cranberry vines were
planted in the sand in the spring and the berries were handpicked by the local population. Strings
were stretched across the bog to ensure that the pickers kept in line. The cranberry picking operations
survived into the 1930s, but according to some sources the crop declined due to the area being
inclined to frost damage, increased labor costs, and the long narrow alignment of the cranberry tracts
which proved inefficient to maintain and harvest.
In general, thestudy area is rich in historic and cultural resources. Many -of these resources
are, by their -nature, inextricably linked to the surface water resources in the study area. For example,
whaling is commemorated at the Sag Harbor Whaling Museum. In addition, an early submarine
testing facility was located in New Suffolk and is now memorialized with a monument.
In 1990, both Southold and Southampton Towns both celebrated the 350th anniversaries.
Much of the colorful history of Suffolk County may. be appreciated at the popular Suffolk- County
Historical Society Museum in Riverhead. As previously discussed, however, long before the settlers
landed on the shores of the Peconic estuary in 1640, the aboriginal inhabitants of the Peconic estuary
area enjoyed the wealth of resources of the system. The public acquisition of the Fort Corchaug
property on the Peconic Estuary in Cutchogue was motivated, in large part, to the historic resources
of the remnant Indian fort on the parcel. Also, numerous Indian artifacts and exhibits are open for
public viewing at the Long Island Chapter of the New York State Archaeology. Association in
Southold. Several other -historical societies maintain exhibits and historic restoration projects which
are also- open to the public.
This brief summary of some of the- significant cultural resources is intended to be illustrative
and is, by. no ' means, exhaustive. However, it is apparent that the Peconic region is of cultural,
aesthetic, and historic significance. The cultural --resources often require special protection and
economic support. In return, an irreplaceable resource of immeasurable academic, aesthetic, and
cultural satisfaction is sustained. These resources also are often focal points for community activities
and may provide economic benefits to the region in terms of the added incentive for tourist activities.
2-82
For all of these reasons, cultural resources can directly and indirectly impact upon the use and
management of the surface water -related resource and, subsequently, on surface water quality. ,
2.7 Water Dependent Uses
Marine recreational activities are an important use of estuarine resources. The demand for
marine recreation and coastal tourism is expected to continue to increase substantially in the northeast
as well as nationally.
Overall increased development throughout the coastal zone has led to progressively complex
issues that must be resolved by governmental agencies, marine developers, and coastal residents.
These issues are related to. the need to protect the sensitive coastal environment, while preserving or
enhancing multiple uses of valuable coastal resources. Water -related uses in the Peconic system
include boating, commercial and recreational finfishing and shellfishing, swimming, scuba diving,
and waterskiing. Estuarine waters are vulnerable to degradation from these intensive multiple uses.
2.7.1 Marinas
A marina is defined as a small craft harbor intended primarily for .the use of recreational boats.
A total of 69 marinas have been identified in the Peconic system, 10 of which have pump -out
facilities; by the time of report publication, permit requirements by NYSDEC likely will have
resulted in additional pump -out facilities. A listing of the marinas and pump -out facilities is
presented in Table 2.7-1, and a list of the fourteen public boat launch ramps in the Peconic Estuary
system is contained in Table 2.7-2. In addition, boat mooring permits issued by the east end Towns
for the Peconic estuary are presented in Table 2.7-3. The number of mooring permits issued in the
system was approximately 1400.
Marinas provide access to coastal waters, focal points for community activities, and focus for
upland development. Marinas also infuse tax revenues to communities, provide income for marina
owners, and offer local employment opportunities. The Association of Marine Industries (AMI) has
reported that, according to an analysis of a 1987 survey conducted by the AMI, annual gross revenue
for the marinas in the Peconic Estuary system is estimated to be 115 million .dollars, with overall
direct revenues which are derived from boaters exceeding 229 million dollars.
However, marinas also pose several potential environmental and health threats, including
turbidity and interference with sediment transport processes resulting from construction activity.
Benthic marine communities may be destroyed and valuable wetlands may be filled. In addition,
wastewater discharge from boats as well as storm water runoff from impervious areas may introduce
pathogens to the waterway causing closure of shellfish beds. Boat operation and maintenance can
release pollutants to the waterways which may concentrate in marinas with poor flushing and
circulation. More information regarding the potential adverse impacts associated with marinas is
contained in appropriate sections of this document.
2-83
Table 2.7-1
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES
No. of
East Hampton
Berths Pump Out
East Hampton Marina, Boat Yard Road,
N/A no
East Hampton
Shag Wong Marina, Three Mile Harbor Road,
Halsey's Marina, Three Mile Harbor Road,
40 no
East Hampton
Harbor Marina 423 Three Mile Harbor Road
N/A no
East Hampton
Maidstone Boat Yard, 295 Three Mile
Harbor Road, East Hampton
44
no
Shag Wong Marina, Three Mile Harbor Road,
N/A
no
East Hampton
Captain's Cove Marina, West Lake Drive,
100
no
Montauk
Uihlein's Marina & Boat Rental,
10
no
West Lake Drive, Montauk
Montauk Yacht Club
135
no
Montauk
Montauk Marine Basin,
125
no
Montauk
Star Island Yacht Club and Marina,
N/A
no
Star Island Road, Montauk -
West Lake Fishing Lodge, West Lake Drive,
100
no
Montauk
Off Shore Sports Arena, West Lake Drive,
50
no
Montauk
Note: N/A - Not Available
Sources: Suffolk County;
Verbal Confirmation with Marina Personnel;
Peter Needham, Assoication of Marine Industries, personal communication
2-84
Table 2.7-1 (Continued)
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES
Note: N/A - Not Available
2-85
No. of
East Hampton
Berths
Pump Out
Star Island Marina, Star Island Road,
N/A
no
Montauk
Gone Fishing Marina, East Lake Drive
N/A
yes
Montauk (closed temporarily)
Matt—A—Mar Marina Inc., Wickham Avenue,
N/A
yes
Mattituck
Three Mile Harbor Boat Yard, Three Mile,
50
no
Harbor Road, East Hampton
Three Mile Marina, 1 Galatin Lane,
N/A
no
East Hampton
No. of
Riverhead
Berths
Pump Out
East Creek Marina, Town Beach Road,
South Jamesport
75+
no
Great Peconic Bay Marina, Washington Ave.,
250
no
South Jamesport
up to 50 ft.
Larry's Lighthouse Marina, Meeting House
150
no
Creek Road, Aquebogue
Peconic River Club, 1380 Roanoke Ave.,
N/A
no
Riverhead
Indian Passage Yacht Club, 469 East Main St.,
N/A
N/A
Riverhead
Moose Lodge, Madison Ave., Riverhead
50
no
Peconic River Yacht Basin, 469 East Main St.,
135
yes
Riverhead
Note: N/A - Not Available
2-85
Table 2:7-1 (Continued)
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES
free
Mill Creek Marina, 313 Noyac Road,
No. of
no .
Shelter Island
Berths
Pump Out
Coecles Harbor Marina & Boat Yard,
55 and
yes
Hudson Ave., Shelter Island
50 moorings
no
Dering Harbor Marina,
40
yes
Shelter Island
N/A
no
Island Boat Yard, 65 South Menantic Road,
40+.
yes
Shelter Island
40
no
Shelter Island Marina, South Ferry'Road,
50
no
Shelter Island
N/A
no.
Hampton Bays
No. of
Southampton
Berths
Pump Out
Barons Cove Marina, West Water Street,
84
no
Sag Harbor
Shinnecock Canal Marina, Hampton Bays
50
yes --
free
Mill Creek Marina, 313 Noyac Road,
100
no .
Sag Harbor
Corrigan's, Newton Road, Hampton Bays
65
no
Peconic Rest & Marina, Noyac Road,
100
no
Southampton
Molnar's Landing, 31 Alanson Landing,
N/A
no
Hampton Bays
Pell's Fish and Marina, Dune Road,
40
no
Hampton Bays
Ponquoge Marina, 86 Foster Avenue,
N/A
no.
Hampton Bays
Note: N/A - Not Available
Table 2.7-1 (Continued)
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES
Note: N/A -Not Available
2-87
No. of
Southampton (continued)
Berths
Pump Out
Rovina Marina; 134 Springville Road,
-6-7
no
Hampton Bays
Sherry & Joe Corr's Best Boat Works,
40
yes
Little Neck Road, Southampton
South Shore Boats of Suffolk, Inc.,
40'
no
Library Avenue, Westhampton Beach
Indian Cove Marina, Montauk Hwy,
N/A
N/A
Hampton Bays
Colonial Shores Cottages and Marina,
N/A
no
83 West Tiana Road, Hampton Bays
Jackson's Marina Inc., Tepee,
N/A
no
Hampton Bays
Mariners Cove Marine, 9 Canoe Place,
N/A
no
Hampton Bays
Modern Yachts Inc., Newtown Road,
45
no
Hampton Bays
Redwood Boat Basin, Redwood Road, .
76
no
Sag Harbor
Waterfront Marina, Bay Street, Sag Harbor
60
no
Whaler's Marina, West Water Street,
80
no
Sag Harbor,
Gateway Marina, 1110 Flanders Road,
60
no
Riverhead
Sag Harbor Yacht Club, Bay Street,
Sag Harbor
N/A
no
Note: N/A -Not Available
2-87
Table 2.7-1 (Continued)
PECONIC SYSTEM _
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACELUIES
rack storage)
Village Marine - Bay Ave., Mattituck 50-100
Note: N/A - Not Available
Pump Out
no
no
no
no
no -
proposed
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
No. of
Southold
Berths
Albertson Harbor Marina, Main Road,
100
Southold Budds Pond
Cutchogue Harbor Marina, West Creek Ave.,
130+
Cutchogue
Preston's Docks, Greenport
20 boats
up to 60 ft.
Triangle Sea Scales, 36 South Street,
N/A
Greenport
Brewers Yacht Yard, Manhasset &
95
Beach Rd., Greenport - Renovated
Broadwaters Cove Marina, Skunk Lane,
20
Cutchogue
Claudio's Docks - Front St., Greenport
30
Narrow River Marina, Narrow River Road,
55
Orient - Hallocks Bay
New Suffolk Shipyard, New Suffolk Road,
64
New Suffolk
Orient Yacht Club, Village Lane, Orient
40
Strong's Marineland, Camp Mineola Road,
90-100
Mattituck
(plus 50 dry
rack storage)
Village Marine - Bay Ave., Mattituck 50-100
Note: N/A - Not Available
Pump Out
no
no
no
no
no -
proposed
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Table 2.7-1 (Continued)
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MARINAS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES
Southold (continued)
Brick Cove Marina, Greenport
Townsend Manor, Stirling Harbor, Greenport
Port of Egypt Marina, Main Road, Southold
Stirling Harbor Marina, Manhasset Ave.,
Greenport
Goldsmith's - Town Creek - Mill Creek
Mill Creek Inn, Main Road, Southold
Orient by the Sea, Main Road, Orient
Southold Marine Center, Jockey Creek
Note: N/A - Not Available
No. of
Berths Pump Out
95 yes, but
very
limited
N/A no
150 in no
water
130 dry rack
186 no
150 yes
45 no
80 no
64 no
Table 2.7-2
PECONIC SYSTEM
BROWN TIDE — COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCHES
East Hampton
East Lake Drive, Montauk
Gann Road, Three Mile Harbor.
Landing Lane, Springs
Northwest Landing Road, East Hampton
Shipyard Lane, Springs
Shore .Road, East Hampton
West Lake Drive, Montauk
Riverhead
Peconic Bay Blvd., South Jamesport
Pier Avenue, Riverhead
Shelter Island
Hudson Avenue, Shelter Island
Southampton
Santore, Road, Hampton Bays
Southold
First and Jackson Streets, New Suffolk
Manhasset Avenue, East Marion
Rte. 25, Orient
Source: Suffolk County
2-90
Table 2.7-3
PECONIC SYSTEM _
BROWN TIDE - COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (BTCAMP)
MOORING PERMITS ISSUED BY TOWN
East Hampton:
Accabonac Harbor - 63
Three Mile Harbor - 83
Napeague - 13
Northwest Creek - 18
Riverhead: None
Shelter Island 500
Southampton: 400
Southold: 300
Source: Suffolk County
2-91
The demand for recreational marinas is high in the coastal area and will continue to increase. It
is unlikely that increasing demand on the part of boaters for additional shorefront facilities in the
Peconic system can -be met due to the limited supply of available land, cost of land acquisition, and
environmental constraints on marina siting.
2:7.2 Boat Repair and Storage Facilities
Onshore support facilities are crucial to the continued expansion of recreational boating. Boat
repair and storage facilities generally require large tracts of waterfront land in order to operate
successfully. Boat storage in particular occupies the majority of available space in boat yards.
Trends demonstrated at boat shows, boat dealerships, and marina permitting applications indicate that
boat sizes are now in the 30 to 45 feet in length in the northeast (Tobiasson, 1986). The increase in
boat size has caused marinas to modify existing marina layouts to accommodate larger vessels. The
tendency toward larger boats has relegated smaller boats (12-26 feet) to unsuitable locations within
the marinas. Due to skyrocketing land costs and the waterfront location of boat yards, these sites are
particularly attractive to condominium and town house developers since they offer a combination of
waterfront living and boat docking facilities for prospective owners. These problems can be partially
mitigated by stacking stored boats in racks. Expansion of existing boatyards and storage facilities is
often limited by environmental regulations, particularly tidal wetlands restrictions.
2.7.3 Ferry Terminals
Ferry terminals in the Peconic system include the South Ferry, North Ferry, Orient Point -New
London Ferries, and the Plum Island Ferry. The South Ferry runs from Shelter Island to North Haven
(Sag Harbor). The ferry leaves approximately four times per hour from 7:00 am to 12:00 pm. After
midnight, the ferry operates on a call basis for emergencies. The South Ferry has a capacity of twelve
cars.
The North Ferry runs from Shelter Island to Greenport and leaves about four times per hour
from 7:00 am to 12:00 pm, and after those hours on an emergency request basis. The North Ferry has
a capacity of fifteen cars. The Orient Point - New London Ferries .consist of two or three ships
depending on passenger demand. The ferries leave New London or Orient about every two hours
from 7:00 am. to 7:00 pm. The ferries hold about fifty cars each. Plum Island Ferry runs a computer
and supply operation between the terminal near Orient Point and the Annual Disease Research
Facility on Plum Island. Boats include a passenger ferry approximately 100 feet in length and an 85
feet supply vessel.
2-92
2.7.4 Mariculture Facilities .
Mariculture can be defined as the manipulation of all or part of the life cycle of a species for the
purpose of improving its growth and development (Cosma Program, 1985). _ Mariculture may be
either public or private -in its orientation. Public and private mariculture have two very different
goals. The goal of public mariculture is to enhance shellfish stocks in a public fishery in a cost
effective manner while private mariculture's goal is to tum a profit. Private mariculture requires the
allocation and exclusive use of a portion of bay bottom for its activities. In the Peconic system,
private mariculturists use both underwater land they own and underwater land they are assigned by
the NYSDEC.
The NYSDEC regulates the activities of mariculturists through issuance of Off -Bottom. Culture
of Shellfish Permits. These permits are required yearly for both public and private mariculturists who
use off -bottom structures to grow shellfish. "The Temporary Marine Area User Assignment" is a one-
year renewable permit issued by NYSDEC. This permit allows the mariculturist to utilize a five acre
circle of bay bottom for shellfish culture.
In the Peconic system, five Temporary Marine Area User Assignment Permits were issued by
March 8, 1990. These include:
Coastal Farms Inc. - This assignment is located in Little Peconic Bay east of Robin's
Island. The owner transplants and depurates hard clams. The firm utilizes their
assignment in combination with 100 acres of underwater land they own.
John C. Scotti .III - This user assignment is located in Cutchogue Harbor. The
mariculturist grows oysters in racks and rafts.
Joseph Bielawski - This assignment is located off the, southwest corner of Robins Island
in Great Peconic Bay. The mariculturist uses lantern and pearl nets to grow bay scallops,
soft clams, and hard clams.
Ocean Pond Corp. - This firm's assignment is in West Harbor on Fishers Island. The
owners grow oysters.
East Marion Clam and Oyster Co. " This company owns underwater land south of ' the
Village of Greenport where they transplant hard clams.
Land-based mariculture facilities are located in Napeague and Montauk. Multi Aqua Culture
Systems grow pan -sized striped bass and fluke. The Town of East Hampton Aquaculture facility on
Lake Montauk raises hard claims and scallops.
2-93
Currently, private mariculturists have had difficulty in obtaining long-term access to underwater
lands through sales, lease, or other mechanisms to justify the initial investment required for a private
mariculture venture. Banks - are skeptical of financing mariculture operations that. must renew their
site permits annually. In addition, it takes two to three years for the shellfish to reach.harvestable size
and generate income for the mariculturist.
2.8 Human Resources
The Peconic system cannot be fully described without a discussion of the influence from
humans. Environmental stress on the system is generally, attributable to the effect of human actions,
either directly or indirectly. This Section briefly discusses the extent of human activity as part of the
ecosystem of the East End of Long Island.
2.8.1 Population
The Nassau -Suffolk region grew rapidly during the 1950's and 1960's. As Nassau County
became saturated, the western Suffolk County towns began to experience major suburban
development, both in terms of population and economy. Eastern Suffolk County; particularly the five
East End Towns of Riverhead, Southampton, Southold, East Hampton, and Shelter Island, was (and
still is) largely rural and seasonal in character and has not developed to the same degree as western
Long Island.
Suffolk County's population has -continued to steadily increase, while the population of Nassau
County over the past decade has remained relatively stable. In 1980, the population of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties was 1,321,582 and 1,234,132, respectively. In 1989, Suffolk County had a
population of 1,389,245, surpassing Nassau County's -population of 1,328,948 for the first time
(LILCO, 1989). This shift in population is accompanied by a new set of development pressures and
problems on eastern Suffolk County. The need to protect that area's valuable natural resources is a
priority since the rural character, recreational options, proximity to ' New York City, and overall
attractive environment of the East End are expected to continue attracting new residents and visitors
to the area.
The entire study area is located within the five east end Towns. In 1989, the east end had a
total population of 114,569, approximately 8% of the total Suffolk County population (LILCO,
1989). From 1970 to 198% the population of the east end increased approximately 30,000 from
84,491 to 114,569 persons, or approximately 35%. The population of Suffolk County grew from
1,127,030 to 1,389,245 persons, during -the same period, an increase of 262,215 (23%). LIRPB
projections indicate that approximately a 35% increase is to be expected over the next 20 years,
bringing the estimated east end population to, 156,350 in the year 2010. These population estimates
reflect year-round residents only. Historical and current, population of the east end is presented on
Table 2.8-1 and future population projections can be found on Table 2.8-2. These population
2-94
Table 2.8-1
POPULATION SUMMARY*
1989
1970 1980 Estimated
Town Census Census Population
Rivet -head
18,909
20,243
22,982
Southampton
36,154
43,146
50,853
Southold
16,804
19,172
21,798
N
I
East Hampton
10,980
14,029
16,472
Shelter Island
1,644
2,071
2,464
East End Total
84,491
98,861
114,569.
Suffolk County Total
1,127,030
1,284,231
1,389,245
Nassau County Total
1,428,838
1,321,582
1,328,948
Bi -County Total
2,555,868
2,605,813
20718093
*LILCO, 1989
Town 1990
Riverhead 23,650
Southampton 52,000
Southold 22,450
N
1
lO
.East Hampton 17,000
Shelter Island 2,500
East End Total 117,600
*LIRPB, 1987 Data
Table 2.8-2
EAST END POPULATION PROJECTIONS*
(Year
Round Population)
1995
2000
2005
2010
28,650
33,200
35,200
37,200
53,250
54,750
57,750
60,750
23,450
24,100
25,100
26,100
19,000
21,300
24,300
28,300
2,700
3.000
3.500
4.000
127,050
136,350
145,850
156,350
estimates were made prior to the results of the 1990 census, which preliminarily indicates that the
population of the five east end Towns is'just under 100,000.
The rural character, agricultural setting, .natural beauty, and recreational opportunities in the
area attract a large seasonal population during the summer months. The summertime population
creates great variations in the area economy and supports a seasonal housing market. This large
variation in population, however, also has an° impact on community services and resources. During
the peak season, traffic congestion make some areas less accessible to emergency services, making
substations necessary. The influx of individuals, mostly students, seeking seasonal employment adds
to the demand for affordable seasonal - housing and results in a number of "grouper residences."
Efforts to limit the number of unrelated individuals living in a single residence have been defeated in
the past. With the arrival of the summer population, Towns must increase emergency services,
sanitation operations, water demand, and maintenance of recreational facilities. The seasonal increase
in population in the east end is estimated to be as high as 171,000 people, over 140% of the year-
round population (LIRPB, 1987). This translates to an estimated peak population of 285,569 persons
for the area in 1989. The Town of East Hampton experiences the greatest influx of seasonal tourists .
(51,043), more than triple that of its year-round population. Southampton's seasonal increase during
the peak months (approximately 81,000) more than doubles its year-round population. Seasonal
increases of the East End Towns are presented on Table 2.8-3.
In 1989, there were 48,860 year-round households in the area, 11% of the Suffolk County total
of 447,887. There was a 27% increase in the number of households on the east end from 1980 to
1989, well above the 16% increase experienced by. Suffolk County as a whole during the same
period. While the number of households have been the rise, the average household size has
decreased. The average number of persons per household decreased 9%, from 2.48 to 2.27 between
1980 and 1989 (LILCO, 1989). This is fairly consistent with the 7% decrease experienced by Suffolk
County during the same period. This decrease may be attributed to the national trend of young,
unmarried persons and divorced couples establishing individual households and retirement homes for
older cohorts. Year-round households and average household size in the East End and Suffolk
County are presented on Table 2.8-4 and 2.8-5.
The data presented on Table 2.8-6 clearly demonstrates the rural nature of the five East End
Towns when compared to Long Island's population density. The population density of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties combined is over six times greater than that of the East End. When considered
separately, Nassau County has a density over thirteen times greater than the East End, and Suffolk
County, as a whole, has a density four tunes as great as the East End. The East End also has a median
family income that is 25% less than the Nassau -Suffolk average.
2-97
Table 2.8-3
EAST END SEASONAL POPULATION, INCREASE*
*LIRPB, 1987 Data
6
Seasonal and
Year Round
Population
32,392
130,551
44,697,
66,945
6.992
281,577
-Seasonal
Town
Population
Riverhead
10,193
Southampton
81,502
Southold
239694
East Hampton
51,043
Shelter Island
4,589
Total
171,021
*LIRPB, 1987 Data
6
Seasonal and
Year Round
Population
32,392
130,551
44,697,
66,945
6.992
281,577
Table 2.8-4
EAST END YEAR ROUND HOUSEHOLDS*
Town
1980
1989
Riverhead
7,492
9,116
Southampton
16,747
21,540
Southold
7,461
8,613
East Hampton
5,760
8,452
Shelter Island
887
1.139
East End Total
38,347
48,860
Suffolk County Total
385,719
447,887
*LILCO, 1989
2-99
Table 2.8-5
EAST END AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE*
Town
Riverhead
Southampton
Southold
East Hampton
Shelter Island
East End Average
Suffolk County Average
*LILCO, 1989
1980 1989
2.62 2.46
2.51 2.30
2.54 2.51
2.41 1.93
2.31 2.15
2.48 2.27
2.92 2.08
2-100
Table 2.8-6
LONG ISLAND POPULATION DENSITY AND FAMILY INCOMES*
2-101
Total
Estimated
Population
Median Family
Area
Population
Density
Income
Acres
_
1( 989)
(Persons/Acre)
1987 Est.
Long Island Total
869,946
6,957,593
7.99
—
(Including Brooklyn
and Queens)
Nassau -Suffolk
745,836
2,718,193
3.64
$41,987
Counties
Nassau County
179,516
1,328,948
7.40
$45,512
Suffolk County
566,320.
1,,389,245
2.45
$38,712
5 East End Towns
212,772
114,569
.54
$31,760
*LIRPB, LILCO, 1989
2-101
2.8.2 Land Use
The major portion of the shoreline of the Peconic System includes lands within the jurisdiction
of five of Suffolk County's 10 townships: Southold, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, and
Shelter Island. Portions of the Peconic River shoreline and its watershed are located in the Town of
Brookhaven. The 1989 population in the east ' end was 114,569. It has been projected that the
region's population will increase to 136.350 persons by the year 2000. This increase in population
will be manifest in land use and activity changes, as well as in changes in the use of Peconic System
waters and resources. These changes, in addition to those expected to occur in that portion of the
Peconic River basin in the Town of Brookhaven, will determine to a great extent the commercial and
recreational value of the Peconic system as expressed in its water quality, habitat, and fish and
wildlife resources.
Land use data have been tabulated in detail by LIRPB and computer digitized by LIRPB and
SCDHS for the western study area (Peconic River and Flanders Bay) by aerial photography study and
field verification. Estimates for the eastern study area were generated by aerial photography study to
update of 1982 land use study. The eastern study area estimates do not conform to the exact
boundaries of the study area due to the nature of the grid pattern of data organization for the original
database. In addition, no field verification was performed for eastern study area estimates.
Therefore, the eastern study area estimates are only gross indicators of existing development patterns
and are a major subject for further study and analysis.
Land uses for the western study area, including the Peconic River and the North and South
Forks around Flanders Bay, as well as estimates for the eastern study area are shown in Table 2.8-7.
Land use data is discussed in detail in Section 6.3. The land use figures indicate a significant
residential influence of 15% and 18% of all acreage in the westem and eastern study areas,
respectively. Agricultural lands also occupy substantial acreage at about 11% in the western and
eastern study areas. Although a total of 27% and 23% of the land in the western and eastern study
areas, respectively, is in open space and recreational land use, a substantial amount of land is still
vacant and open to development. The total developable acreage in agricultural and vacant lands is
38% and 48% in the western and eastern study areas, respectively, highlighting the need for planning
future development and pollution control strategies to protect surface water quality.
Where possible in this document, environmentally degraded conditions have been noted as they
relate to land use. Significant sources of pollutant loading include fertilizer nitrogen leachate from
residential and agricultural land uses and sanitary system leachate from residential uses. Pesticides
have also been identified as problems in agricultural areas, while stormwater runoff impacts are
greatest in the highly residential regions of the study area. In many cases, point sources also correlate
with land use. For example, industrial discharges have been documented as sources of contamination
in the study area. Increases in sewage treatment plant waste generation can also be directly correlated
with population growth and development proliferation. The Peconic estuary situation is especially
2-102
TABLE 2.8-7
Land Uses in BTCAMP Study Area (1988)
LAND USE
Low Density Residential
(less than or equal to 1 unit/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(greater than 1 to less than
5 units/acre),,-
High Density Residential
(greater than or equal to
5 units./acre)
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space - Recreational
Agriculture
Vacant
Transportation & Recharge Basin
Utilities
Waste Handling - Mngmnt.
Surface Waters
ALL LAND USES
WESTERN
AREA
Acres
(%)
1,.383
(5)
2,707
(9)
302
595
(2)
1,533
(5)
1,424
(5)
8,286
(27) .:
3,736
(12)
-8, 613
(29)
736
(2)
1.65
(1)
56
(0)
67' 8
(2)
30,214
(100)
EASTERN'
AREA **
Acres
6, 181
(7)
6,675
(8)
2,788
(3)
2,484-
(3)
1,365
(2)
2,144
(3)
18, 936
(23)
8, 968
(l 1)
30,925
(37)
3,136
(4)
83,602
(100)
* Includes Peconic River and Flanders Bay planning areas.
** Includes Great Peconic Bay, Little peconic bay, Shelter Island
Sound, Gardiners-Bay; and Western Block Island Sound -'areas.
NOTE: Western study area estimates. were generated by rigorous aerial
photograph study and field verifications. Eastern study area
projections are crude estimates which should be refined by
future study. A detailed explanation of BTCAMP land use data
is contained in 'Section 6.3.
2-103-
alarming in light of the above -noted potential for future degradation that exists due to the high degree
of vacant and developable land in the study area.
Suffolk County encompasses approximately 366,466 acres. The largest land use category in the
County is Vacant, consisting of 182,544 acres, or 32.2% of the total. This is followed by Residential
(139,872 acres),' Recreation (83,499 acres), and Agricultural (59,903 acres). The five East End
Towns comprise approximately 222,935 acres (39.4%) of the Suffolk County total. In the rural East
End, Vacant (98,758 acres), and Agricultural (46,499 acres) are the predominant land uses, followed
by Residential (29,584 acres) and Recreational/Open space (28,386 acres). Table 2.8-8 presents the
1981 land use estimates of the five east end Towns; for purposes of comparison, land use projections
for the years 2000 and 2020 are presented on Table 2.8.9. The greatest increase is expected in the
residential' category. Increases are also expected for the commercial/industrial/institutional and
recreational/open space categories. Decreases are expected in the agricultural and vacant land
categories. Detailed land use information specific to the study area is contained in Section 6.3.
2.8.3 Special Land Use Studies
It is often necessary to prepare land use studies to allow for controlled and environmentally
responsible development. Master Plans and Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs are two
special land use studies that may affect the Peconic system.
Master Plans
Master Plans can be a manifestation of a communities goals and objectives. The master
planning process identifies problems opportunities as well as establish a framework for the future
growth and development of the community.
The Town of Riverhead completed a master plan in the early 1970's and has updated the plan
with a farmland preservation subplan completed in 1987. The Town of Southampton has completed a
master plan and updates the plan through a series of area or district plans. The Town of Southold has
a master, plan that it updated in 1983. The Town of East Hampton has a master plan that it updates
through site specific or issue subplans. The Town of Shelter Island has no master plan at the present
time.
Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
The New York Coastal Management Program (NYSCMP) was approved by the U.S.
Department of Commerce in 1982 pursuant to Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act. - State legislation that was required in order to gain federal approval included the Waterfront
Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article 42, Executive Law) and the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas Act (Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law)., The NYSCMP is administered by
2-104
Table 2.8-8
1981 LAND USP IN EAST END TOWNS*
(in acres)
Commercial/
Total
Industrial/
Recreation/
Town
Area
Residential
Institutional
T.U.C.**
Open space
Agricultural
Vacant
Riverhead
48,435
2,982
2,392
7;268
4,606
19,216,
11,972
Southampton
104,336
16,005
4,916
6,192
9,472
16,918
50,867.
Southold
27,474
3,846
2,132
1,167
2,419
6,896
11,013
East Hampton
43,629
5,311
2,285
2,173
8,308
3,030
22,521
Shelter Island
8,673
1,440
664
164
3,581
439
2.385,
East End
232,547
29,584
12,389
16,964
28,386 '
46,499
98,758
Suffolk County
566,466
139,872
55,628
45,024
83,499
59,903
182,544
*LIRPB, 1981
**Transportation,
Utility,
and Communication
Table 2.8-9
EAST END LAND USE PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND 2020*
Commercial/
Suffolk County
Total 2000 170,800 61,250 44,275 99,900 44,475 145,800
2020 190,300 64,175 44,775 107,000 36,300 123,950
*LIRPB, Dvirka & Bartilucci, 1987
Industrial/
Recreational/
Town
Year
Residential
Institutional
T.U.C.**
Open Space
Agricultural
Vacant
Riverhead
2000
4,200
3,250
6,400
5,800
17,500
11,250
2020
5,100
3,700
6,200
6,000
16,000
11,400
Southampton
2000
21,000
5,325
6,300
14,000
9,000
48,675
2020
25,000
5,650
6,500
15,000
7,500
44,650
N "Southold
2000
5,000
2,325
1,200
2,900
91000
7,075
0
2020
6,500
2,500
1,200
3,000
7,500
6,800
rn
East Hampton
2000
7,500
1,400
2,250
10,000
1,500
20,950
2020
10,000
1,575
2,250
11,000
1,000
17,775
Shelter Island
2000
2,000.
725
185
3,600
300
1,890
2020
2,500
745
185
3,650
200
1,420
Total
2000
39,700
13,025
16,335
36,300
37,300
89,840
2020
49,100
14,170
16,335
38,650
32,200
82,045
Suffolk County
Total 2000 170,800 61,250 44,275 99,900 44,475 145,800
2020 190,300 64,175 44,775 107,000 36,300 123,950
*LIRPB, Dvirka & Bartilucci, 1987
the New York State Department of. State (NYSDOS); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration administers the federal Coastal Zone Management Program.
The core of the State's CMP is the 44 coastal policies which are derived from existing state
laws and regulations. The CMP and the policies provide' a foundation for taking a long range view of
the environmental, economic, and social needs of the State's coastline; and provide a framework to
ensure that those needs are met. The NYSDOS has the regulatory authority known as "consistency."
Through the consistency process, and by using the 44 policies and accompanying 7standards and
criteria, the NYSDOS can agree or object to proposed federal 'peiinits, funding, and direct actions.
For proposed state permits, funding, and direct actions, each ' state agency reviews its own actions,
usually through the State Environmental Quality Review Act, to.ensure that they are consistent.
Through the CMP, local governments can prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
(LWRPs). A LWRP is a locally prepared, detailed land and water use plan and decision-making tool
which thoroughly describes how the CMP policies apply in the local waterfront area. An LWRP
expresses local circumstances, needs, and objectives and sets 'fort design, location, and
environmental standards for coastal development in a municipality's waterfront area. Subject areas
that are addressed include: water -dependent uses, fish and wildlife, flooding and erosion, public
access and recreation, visual quality, agricultural lands, energy facilities; and water quality. The two
major benefits that result with an approved LWRP are that a waterfront plan is established to ensure
that the best use is made of a municipality's natural and cultural resources and that the state, federal,
and local agencies are required .to comply, with the local plan. The LWRPs being prepared by the
Peconic Bay municipalities can serve as a mechanism to implement National Estuary Program and
Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program recommendations.
At the time of this writing, four of the five eastern townships have initiated preparation of Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plans. Townships that have commenced preparing LWRP's include
Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, and Southold. In addition to the towns, the Village of Sag
Harbor has an approved LWRP and Greenport Village had their LWRP approved in 1989.
2.8.4 Economics
The five east end towns, although contiguous, have diverse economic bases. Seasonal
employment in tourism and agriculture are two sectors which differentiate -the east end townships
economic base from the rest of Suffolk County. ' The extent of development of the tourism and
agricultural sectors varies among the five townships.
The Town of Riverhead is a rural coiiununity with' an important agricultural sector. In 1987,
there were approximately 50,000 acres of farmland under cultivation in Suffolk County, with
approximately ninety percent of the farmland situated in the Towns of Riverhead, Southold, and
Southampton. Riverhead does not have a well-developed tourism industry. However, farm stands, .
2-107
greenhouses, and vineyards .provide attractions for day visitors and enhance the revenues of the local
agricultural community.
The Town of Southampton is a more suburban area that has extensive tourist, second home, and
condominium development. High quality farmland is now being displaced and traffic congestion is a
major concern. The Town of Southold is a rural area that has experienced a moderate level of
tourism development. The ferry from New London, Connecticut to Orient brings day visitors to
Greenport and is an important component of Southold's tourism industry. However, Southold also
has an agricultural component to its economy. This is reflected, in part, by the fact that most of the
vineyards of the growing Long Island wine industry are located in the Town. The Town of
Easthampton is a suburban area that has a small farming sector, second home development, and a
significant acreage of land in public ownership.
The Town of Shelter Island has substantial second home development and a small, but viable,
tourism industry. Nearly one third of Shelter, Island's land mass is occupied by the Mashomack
Preserve, which is, comprised of over 2,000 acres. As of 1987, there are 2,767 acres of available land
for residential development on Shelter Island.
Seasonal employment is an important aspect of the east end economic base. Seasonal
employment in agriculture accounts for 2000 individuals, of which half are local and half are
,interstate or foreign workers:
Tourism on Long Island generates between 7 and 9 billion dollars in revenues for the local
economy (Newsday, 1989). Most decisions about land use that affect tourism are made at the local
level. The benefits of tourism include increased employment and income, resulting increases in
standard of living, development of recreational facilities, infra -structure improvements, and reduced
property taxes. -
Tourism can have negative impacts on local communities. The influx of large numbers of
people can result in deterioration of the natural environment, increased pollution and traffic, higher
population densities, elevated land and housing prices, and increased cost for goods and services
during the tourist season. Tourism places a -strain on water, sewer, and electric services that may have
been designed for lower population densities.
The attraction of seasonal employees to the Peconic system is hampered by an inadequate
number of prospective employees and an inflated price for summer lodging that discourages
applicants. In an attempt to offset these drawbacks, employers have resorted to hiring of individuals
from Ireland and England and college students from off Long Island. As an inducement the
employers will offer free lodging to potential employees.
2-108
The economic losses suffered by baymen from the reduction in bay scallop populations caused
by the brown tide is a measure of direct economic loss. This loss has been discussed in detail in
terms of decline in value of scallop harvests in Section 2.3.2.1. However, a. significant acreage of
eelgrass beds (16,000 acres) was also, decimated. Bay scallops may rely on eelgrass beds in their
juvenile stages to protect them from starfish and crabs. The loss of eelgrass may be a compounding
impact on bay scallop populations.
The worth of an eelgrass meadow is difficult to determine due to the indirect benefits and subtle
effects on the ecosystem. One way to estimate the worth of an eelgrass meadow is to calculate how
much is paid for reestablishing an eelgrass bed by transplanting. Estimates range from $10,000 to
$15,000 per acre in 1982 dollars (Fonseca et al., 1982). In this manner, the potential loss of eelgrass
habitats can be estimated at $280 to $420 million dollars in 1982 dollars.
It is estimated that 174,000 households fish on Long Island. The estimated number of anglers
on Long Island is 348,700 (Kahn, undated). Both episodic and chronic pollution have important
effects on the recreational fishery . and tourism in general. Chronic pollution may affect the level of
fish stocks, which reduces the quality of recreational fishing, or it may affect the aesthetic quality of
the fishing experience. Episodic pollution, such as washup of medical wastes, may have a
substantially reduce the publics desire to participate in recreational fishing. Based on a 1985,
telephone survey, Kahn found that forty percent of nonanglers cite too much pollution as a reason not
to fish. Anecdotal information indicates that in 1988, $130 million was lost due to fouled beaches.
Fishing and party boat operators reported losing 26% of their business in 1988.
Although the dockside value of commercial fishery landings is significant, it is much smaller
than the actual revenues generated by other water -related activities, including businesses, restaurants,
marinas, and other institutions which cater to sportfishermen, boaters, and bathers who utilize the
Peconic system. A measure- of the economic value of the surface water resource in the Peconic
Estuary system is found in the marina industry. The Association of Marine Industries (AMI) has
reported that, according to an analysis of a 1987 survey conducted by the AMI, annual gross revenues
of the 69 marinas in the Peconic Estuary system is estimated to be 115 million dollars, with overall
direct revenues derived from boaters exceeding an estimated 229 million dollars.
Economic information related to the brown tide and other pollution events.needs to focus on the
activities of displaced fishermen, who may tum their attention to other fisheries, or fishermen who
leave the fishery altogether. Recreational users of the Peconic systems' marine waters may have
responded to the Brown Tide by visiting other non -impacted areas, or may cease taking trips to the
east end entirely. It is important to examine these changes in the context of a system to determine
both the direct and indirect impacts of the ecological change.
2-109
3.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
3.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
This Section of the BTCAMP report examines current water quality standards and conditions
for which there is available data and describes ongoing research and monitoring efforts. Surface
water quality trends and a summary and assessment of these trends are also discussed. .
Overall, the water quality of the Peconic system is excellent. However, there are localized
areas of impaired water quality and contravention of water quality standards. The western portion
and semi -enclosed harbors of the Peconic system show the most consistent contravention of the
standards. In addition, the western portions of Flanders Bay and the tidal region of the Peconic
River have been shown to exceed the recommended marine nitrogen guideline (see Section 7 for
nitrogen guideline derivation). Localized occurrences of depressed dissolved oxygen also have
been documented.
In contrast to the westernmost areas of the Peconics, the hydrodynamic interactions of the
eastern waters in the Peconic system allow for the greater observed influence of flushing and mixing
from cleaner oceanic waters. However, even in the eastern Peconics, the levels of coliforms and
nutrients may be high- in low flow or poorly flushed water bodies, depending on localized
conditions.
The major bay systems alone comprise over 100,000 acres, and are generally well mixed with
good to excellent water quality. More than 200 surface water bodies classified by the NYSDEC
contribute directly or indirectly into the Peconic system, including three rivers (Peconic, Little and
Narrow), forty-five tributaries, six lakes, fifty-four creek segments, seventy-four ponds, and
numerous harbors and coves as well as segments of the River and bays. Of the 242 segments of
water bodies in the Peconic system identified by NYSDEC, 34% are designated as B, SB or higher;
62% are designated as Class C or SC; and the designations for 4% of the segments are Class D or
SD.
The NYSDEC water quality classification and best usage approach (discussed below in
Section 3.1) is useful in relation to focusing on the. management and goals for particular water
bodies. However, BTCAMP did not undertake a site-specific analysis of best usage of each specific
water body in the Peconic Estuary system. Instead, the approach utilized for BTCAMP was one of
identification of surface water quality degradation (e.g., excess nutrient enrichment, coliforms
resulting in shellfish closures, etc.), assessment of pollutant sources, and evaluation of management
alternatives to mitigate existing pollution and prevent future degradation. In this way, BTCAMP
determined which management alternatives could be implemented to achieve system -wide
management goals (e.g., attainment of nitrogen marine guideline, opening of shellfish beds, etc.).
Pollution mitigation for small creeks and tributaries would have to be undertaken on a site-specific
basis with consideration of localized goals; pollution sources, pollution impacts; and management
alternatives.
-3-1
3.1 Water Quality Standards, Classifications, and Designated Uses
New York State water quality regulations define the designated uses, classifications and
standards for both ground and surface waters in the Peconic system. The water quality regulations
are incorporated into the Environmental Conservation law under Title 6, Chapter 10, Parts 700-705.
The existing standards and classifications for water bodies on Long Island are contained in 6
NYCRR Parts 920 through 925 inclusive.
The designated use, or "best use," of -a particular body of water establishes the water body
classification and the water quality standards that are to be achieved through management programs.
Reclassification to a higher level of designation (and associated.standards) establishes an attainment
goal towards which the management programs are directed. The last reclassification of surface
waters in the Peconic system was adopted on June 30, 1988. Approximately 242 water bodies in the
Peconic system have been identified for classification by NYSDEC. In -1988, approximately 17%
of these water bodies were given upgraded classifications that raised -their use designation. No
water bodies in the Peconic system were downgraded during the reclassification effort. Tables
presenting water quality classifications for water -body segments of the Peconic Estuary system are
contained in this section; Appendix C contains the name or description, classification, and standard
of each water body.
Water Index Numbering System (Appendix C Water Bodies)
The water index numbering system used by NYSDEC.to identify specific water bodies was
adapted from a series of biological survey reports on watersheds in New York. The primary waters
of a drainage area, such as rivers, bays, lakes, or sounds, are usually referenced by name or
abbreviation. Tributaries of the Peconic River are consecutively numbered from the mouth of the
Peconic River progressing upstream; a clockwise order was used in reference to Flanders Bay and
the Peconic/Gardiners Bay system. The Peconic River is considered by NYSDEC to be a tributary
of Flanders Bay; water bodies listed on Table 3.1-5 (see infra) are only those water bodies within
the groundwater contributing area and storm water runoff areas for the Peconic River. Other water
bodies within the study area are as follows: Flanders Bay is discussed in Section 3.1.2;
Peconic/Gardiners Bay, including. Shelter Island Sound, are discussed in Section 3.1.3; the
Boundary areas are discussed in Section 3.1.4. Those water bodies that are part of Gardiners Bay
and Gardiners Island have been grouped together for ease of discussion. These water bodies have
been grouped as they are presented in 6 NYCRR Part 924.6.
Best Usage
The best usage designation of a water body determines the surface -water classification. The
surface water classification in turn identifies the quality standards applicable to the water body. All
fresh surface waters in the State are subject to the standards presented in Table 3.1-1, in addition to
3-2
Table 3.1-1
Quality Standards for (All) Fresh Surface Waters
Items
Turbidity
Color
Suspended, collodial or settleable
solids
Oil and floating substances
Mcifications
No increase except from natural sources that
will cause a substantial visible contrast to
natural conditions. In cases of naturally
turbid waters, the contrast will be due to
increased turbidity.
None from man—made sources that will be
detrimental to anticipated best usage of
waters.
None from sewage, industrial wastes or
other wastes which will cause deposition or be
deleterious for any best usage determined for
the specific waters which are, assigned to
each class.
No residue attributable to sewage, industrial
wastes or other wastes nor visible oil film nor
globules of grease.
Taste and odor—producing substances, None in amounts that will be injurious
toxic wastes and deleterious to fishlife or which in any manner shall
substances adversely affect the flavor, color or odor
thereof, or impair the waters for any best
usage as determined for the specific water
which are assigned to each class.
Thermal discharges
Source: 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
(See Part 704 of this Title)
"The (above) items and specifications shall be the standards applicable to all New York
freshwaters which are assigned the classification AA, A, B, C or D, in addition to the
specific standards which are found in this section under the heading of each such
classification."
3-3
specific standards for each freshwater classification. Table 3.1-2 presents the water quality
standards which are applicable to all saline surface waters in the State.
As a result of periodic upgrading of the best usage, NYSDEC can reclassify water bodies to
reflect achievable management goals. NYSDEC is currently upgrading all Class D and SD waters
to Class C and SC in order to achieve water quality management goals.
Classification and Quality Standards
In general, the standards provide for 'reduction of influent material which would alter the
color, increase turbidity or result in deleterious odors or toxic substances in a water body. The
quality standards applicable to fresh surface water classifications are associated with sampling and
monitoring for: coliforms (total and fecal), pH, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen.
In general, as the classification decreases in quality (AA to D), the applicable quality
standards are lowered in varying degrees. For example, dissolved oxygen standards in those waters
identified for trout in freshwater areas have minimum dissolved oxygen level standards that are
higher than non -trout waters. Table 3.1-3 presents the classifications and standards for fresh surface
waters. A special surface water classification, Class N for a water body essentially left in a natural
condition, is found in the regulations for New York State surface waters. No Class N waters are
located in the Peconic system.
Saline water quality standards for each classification also relate to coliform (total and fecal)
and dissolved oxygen specifications. However, pH and total dissolved solids standards are not
applicable to marine waters. This is a result of the high natural buffering capacity of saline waters
and high naturally occurring amounts of dissolved solids of marine waters, especially in estuarine
environments and near coasts. Toxic wastes and deleterious substances are presented as a standard
for saline surface waters as opposed to the pH and dissolved solids standards for freshwaters. The
classifications and applicable quality standards for saline surface waters are presented on Table 3.1-
4.
3.1.1 Peconic River Drainage Basin
The classification and standards for the surface waters in the Peconic River Drainage Basin
(River) are found in 6 NYCRR Part 921 and are presented on Table 3.1-5. The Peconic River is not
used as a source of drinking water, as reflected by the classifications given to the surface waters of
the River. All freshwater portions of the River are classified B or C. The quality standards for
Great Pond are B(T), indicating trout water standards and higher associated dissolved oxygen levels.
No ponds, tributaries, or segments of the River are classified AA, A, SA, D, or SD.
3-4
Table 3.1-2 -
Quality Standards for (All) Saline Surface Waters
Items Specifications
Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, None in any -waters of the marine
sludge or other refuse district as ' defined by Environmental
Conservation Law (§ 17-0105)
pH
Turbidity
Color
Suspended, collodial or settleable
solids
Oil and floating substances
Thermal discharges
Source: 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
The normal range shall not be extended by
more then one—tenth (0.1).pH unit.
No increase except from natural sources, that
will cause a substantial visible contrast to
natural conditions. In cases of naturally
turbid waters, .the contrast will be due to
increased turbidity.
None from man—made sources that will be
detrimental to anticipated best usage of
waters:
None from sewage, industrial wastes or
other wastes which will cause deposition or be
deleterious for any best usage determined for
the specific waters which are assigned to
each class. -
No residue attributable to sewage, ,industrial
wastes or other wastes, nor visible oil film,
nor globules of grease.
(See Part 704 -of this Title)
"The (above) items and specifications shall be the. standards applicable to all New York
saline surface waters which are assigned the classification SA, SA, SC or SD, in addition to
the specific standards which are found in this, section under the heading of each such
classification."
3-5
w
rn
Table 3.1-3
QUALITY STANDARDS BY CLASSIFICATION FOR FRESH SURFACE WATERS
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
STANDARDS
Classification
Dissolved
Trout
and Best Usage
Coliform
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Oxygen
Waters
AA
The monthly median coliform value
Shall he between 6.5
Shall be kept as low as practi-
For nontrout waters, the
For cold waters suitable for
Water supply for
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
and 8.5
cable to maintain the best usage
minimum daily average
trout spawning, the DO
drinking or food
50 from a minimum of five examina-
of waters, but in no case shall it
shall not be less than 5.0
concentration shall not be less
processing
tions and provided that not more than
exceed 500 milligrams per liter.
mg/l. At no time shall the
than 7.0 mg/l from other than
20 percent of the samples shall exceed
DO concentration be less
natural conditions. For trout
a coliform value of 240 for 100 ml of
than 4.0 mg/1.
waters, the minimum daily
sample.
average shall not be less than
6.0 mg/l. At no time shall the
DO concentration be less than
5.0 mg/l.
A
The monthly median coliform value
Shall be between 6.5
Shall be kept as low as practi-
For nontrout waters, the
For cold waters suitable for
Water supply for
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
�P
and 8.5
cable to maintain the best usage
g
minimum daily averse
y g
bout a
spawning, the DO
drinking or food
5,000 from a minimum of five
of waters, but in no case shall it
shall not be less than 5.0
concentration shall not be less
processing
examinations, and provided that not
exceed 500 milligrams per liter.
mg/1. At no time shall the
than 7.0 mg/l from other than
more than 20 percent of the samples
DO concentration be less
natural conditions. For trout
shall exceed a coliform value of
than 4.0 mg/1.
waters, the minimum daily
20,000 for 100 ml of sample and the
average shall not be less than
monthly geometric mean fecal
6.0 mg/l. At no time shall the
coliform value for 100 ml of sample
DO concentration be less than
shall not exceed 200 from a minimum
5.0 mg/l.
of five examinations.
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
Table 3.1-3
QUALITY STANDARDS BY CLASSIFICATION FOR FRESH SURFACE WATERS
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
STANDARDS
Classification
Dissolved
Trout
and Best Usage
Coliform
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Oxygen
Waters
B
The monthly median coliform value
Shall be between 6.5
None at concentrations which
For nontrout waters, the
For cold waters suitable for
Contact recreation and
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
and 8.5.
will be detrimental to the growth
minimum daily average
trout spawning, the DO
any other uses except
2,400 from a minimum of five
and propagation of aquatic life.
shall not be less than 5.0
concentration shall not be less
water supply and food
examination, and provided that not
Waters having present levels less
1118/1. At no time shall the
dm 7.0 mg/l from other than
processing
more than 20 percent of the samples
than 500 milligrams per liter
DO concentration be less
natural conditions. For trout
shall exceed a coliform value of 5,000
shall be kept below this limit.
than 4.0 mg/l.
waters, the minimum daily
for 100 ml of sample and the monthly
average shall not be less than
geometric mean fecal coliform value
6.0 mg/l. At no time shall the
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
DO concentration be less than
200 from a minimum of five examma-
5.0 mg/l.
tions. This standard shall be met
during all periods when disinfection is
practiced.
C
The monthly median coliform value
Shall be between 6.5
None at concentrations which
For nontrout waters, the
For cold waters suitable for
Fishing, fish propaga-
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
and 8.5.
will detrimental to the growth
minimum daily average
trout spawning, the DO
tion; contact recreation
2,400 from a minimum of five
and propagation of aquatic life.
shall not be less than 5.0
concentration shall not be less
(may be limited by
examinations, and provided that not
Waters having present levels less
mg/l. At no time shall the
than 7.0 mg/l from other than
other factors)
more than 20 percent of the samples
than 500 milligrams per liter
DO concentration be less
natural conditions. For trout
shall exceed a coliform value of 5,000
shall be kept below this limit.
than 4.0 mg/l.
waters, the minimum daily
for 100 ml of sample and the monthly
average shall not be less than
geometric mean fecal coliform value
6.0 mg/l. At no time shall the
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
DO concentration be less than
200 from a minimum of five examina-
5.0 mg/l.
tions. This standard shall be met
during all periods when disinfection is
practiced. -
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
Table 3.1-3
QUALITY STANDARDS BY CLASSIFICATION FOR FRESH SURFACE WATERS
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
STANDARDS
Classification
Dissolved
Trout
and Best Usage
Coliform
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Oxygen
Waters
D
The monthly median coliform value
Shall be between 6.0
Not specified
Shall not be less than 3
Not specified.
Fishing; contact
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
and 9.5
milligrams per liter at any
recreation (may be
on
2,400 from a minimum of five
time
limited other factors).
emons' and provided that not
Waters are not suitable
more an 20 percent of the samples
than
for propagation of fish
shall exceed a coliform value of
5,000 for 100 ml of sample and the
monthly geometric mean fecal
coliform value for 100 ml of sample
shall not exceed 200 from a mini-
mum of five examinations. This
standard shall be met during all
periods when disinfection is prac-
ticed.
N
1. Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, waste effluents or any sewage effluents not having had filtration resulting from at .
least 200 feet of lateral travel through unconsolidated earth.
Enjoyment of water in
its natural condition for
2. Deleterious substances, hydrocarbons, substances which would contribute to eutrophication, or surface runoff containing any of
whatever compatible
such substances.
Purposes
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.19
Table 3.1-4
QUALITY STANDARDS BY CLASSIFICATION FOR SALINE SURFACE WATERS
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.20
STANDARDS
Classification
Toxic Wastes and
and Best Usage
Coliforms
Dissolved Oxygen
Deleterious Substances
SA
The median MPN value in any series
Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
None in amounts that will interfere with use for
Shellfish* for market
of samples representative of waters in
primary contact recreation or that will be injurious
purpose and primary
the shellfish -growing area shall not
to edible fish or shellfish or the culture or propaga-
and secondary contact
be in exccess of 70 per 100 ml.
tion thereof, or which in any manner shall adversely
recreation
affect the flavor, color, odor or sanitary condition
thereof, or impair the waters for any other best
usage as determined for their specific waters which
are assigned to this class.
SB
The monthly medial coliform value
Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
None in amounts that will interfere with use for
Primary and secondary
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
primary contact recreation or that will be injurious
contact recreation and
2.400 from a minimum of five
to edible fish or shellfish or the culture or propaga-
any, other use except for
examinations, and provided that not
tion thereof, or which in any manner shall adversely
the taking of shellfish
more than 20 percent of the samples
affect the flavor, color, odor or sanitary condition,
for market purposes
shall exceed a coliform value of 5,000
thereof, or impair the waters for any other best
for 100 ml of sample and the monthly
usage as determined for their specific waters which
geometric mean fecal coliform value
are assigned to this class.
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
200 from a minimum of five exami-
nations. This standard shall be met
during, all periods when disinfection
is practiced.
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.20
w
i
0
Table 3.1-4
QUALITY STANDARDS BY CLASSIFICATION FOR SALINE SURFACE WATERS
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.20
STANDARDS
Classification
Toxic Wastes and
and Best Usage
Coliforms
Dissolved Oxygen
Deleterious Substances
Sc
The monthly medial coliform value
Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
None in amounts that will interfere with use for
Fishing, fish propaga-
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
secondarycontact recreation or that will be injurous
tion; contact recreation
2,400 from a minimum of five
to edible fish or shellfish or the culture or propaga-
(may be limited by
examinations and provided that not
tion thereof, or which in any manner shall adversely
other factors)
more than 20 percent of the samples
affect the flavor, color, odor or sanitary condition
shall exceed a coliform value of 5,000
thereof, or impair the waters for any other best
for 100 ml of sample and the monthly
usage as determined for the specific waters which
geometric mean fecal coliform value
are assigned to this class.
for 100 ml of sample shall not exceed
200 from a minimum of five exami-
nations. This standard shall be met
during all periods when disinfection is
practiced.
SD
Not specified.
Shall not be less than 3.0 mg/1 at any time.
None alone or in combination with other substances
All waters not primarily
or wastes in sufficient amounts to prevent -survival
for recreational
of fishlife, or impair the waters for any other best
purposes, ybeUfish
usage as determined for the specific waters which
culture, or the develop-
are assigned to this class.
ment of fishlife and
because of natural or
man-made conditions
cannot meet the require-
ments of these uses
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 701.20
Table 3.1-5
The Water Bodies of the Peconic River
Drainage Basin
Cross Refer—
ence-No.*
Name or Description
Class and Standard
1.
Peconic River (tidal)
SC
2.
Peconic River (Peconic Ave
C
Dam to Peconic Lake Dam)
3.
Peconic Lake (north of center)
C
4.
Peconic Lake (south of center)
B
5.
Peconic River
C
6.
Tributary of Peconic River
B
7.
Peconic River
C
8.
Silver Brook Pond
C
9.
Tributary of Peconic-River (tidal)
Sc
10.
Tributary of Peconic River
C
(freshwater)
11.
Tributaries of Peconic River
C
12.
Tributary of Peconic River
C
13.
Great Pondl
B
14.
Sweezy Pond
C
15.
Tributary of Peconic River
C
16.
Subtrib. of Peconic River
C
17.
Pond
C
18.
Pond
B
19.
Subtrib. of Peconic River
C
3-11
Table 3.1-5 (continued)
The Water Bodies of the Peconic River
Drainage Basin
Cross Refer—
ence No.* Name or Description
20.
Tributary of Peconic River
21.
Swan Pond
22.
Tributary of Peconic River
23.
Tributaries of Peconic River and
Sandy Pond, Linus Pond, Forest
Lake
24.
North Pond
25.
ponds
26.
Tributary of Peconic River
'27.
pond
28.
Tributary of Peconic River
29.
Tributary of Peconic River
30.
Zeeks Pond
31.
pond
32.
Tributaries of Peconic River
33.
Grassy Pond, Sandy Pond, Duck Pond
Peasy's Pond, and Horn Pond
34.
Subtribs. of Peconic River
including Carey Pond, Cranberry
Pond
Class and Standard
C
C
C
C'
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 920 through 925
* Cross reference number is provided so that listed water bodies can be
identified by the NYSDEC given water index number presented in Appendix C'.
1 Standards for Great Pond are B(T), and therefore have greater dissolved
oxygen standards.
3-12
The best usage for Class B waters is primary contact recreation, such as swimming, and any
other uses except water supply and food processing: Class B waters in the river are generally
adjacent to, or part of, nature preserves, vacant land or some other form of open space. The Class -E
waters of the river are generally those segments that are adjacent to, or part of, more developed
areas including agricultural, higher density residential, commercial, and institutional land uses.
The freshwater portions of the Peconic River system receive pollutant loading from point
sources such as the Brookhaven National Laboratory and Grumman Aerospace Corporation sewage
treatment plants and nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff, groundwater contributions, and
atmospheric deposition. However, due largely to the high degree of open space in the Peconic River
watershed, the Peconic River water quality is excellent (about 0.5 mg/l total nitrogen at U.S.G.S.
gauge in 1988-1990 time frame; see Section 6). Peconic River water quality appears to have
improved over the past fifteen years, perhaps due to the cessation of duck farm discharges and the
reduction in Grumman STP discharges (see Section 6).
It is estimated that approximately 6% of the water contribution to the Peconic system is
freshwater and the balance is a result of tidal fluxes in the system. The Peconic River comprises the
single largest fresh surface water input to the system, with the river's discharge at a poorly flushed
and environmentally sensitive portion of Flanders Bay. The quality of the water flowing out of the
River into the Peconic Bay estuary has been shown by computer modelling (see Section 7) to be a
significant source affecting the water quality of the western portions of the Peconic system, most
notably the western reaches of Flanders Bay.
3.1.2 Flanders Bay
The classification and standards for the surface waters in the Flanders Bay portion of the study
area are found in 6 NYCRR Part 921. The Peconic River, also addressed in the same part of the
regulations, is considered by NYSDEC to be tributary to Flanders Bay. Table 3.1-6 presents the
classification and standards for this portion of the study area. The classification and standards of the
waters in Flanders Bay and the other surface waters in this portion of the Peconic system are more
diverse and reflect the actions or contributions from the Peconic River, Great Peconic Bay, and 34
tributaries, ponds, and other associated water bodies.
The eastern and central portion of Flanders Bay are classified SA with corresponding SA
standards. The western portion of Flanders Bay is -classified SC with correlating SC standards. The
pollutant loadings from the Peconic River (which is primarily C or SC classified for the eastern
reaches of the River), point and non -point source discharges, Meetinghouse. Creek, and Reeves Bay
contribute to the water quality parameters that have been associated with the SC classification for
the western part of Flanders Bay. The remaining water bodies, which are tributary to Flanders Bay
either directly or indirectly, may also contribute to the water quality parameters associated with the
classification of Flanders Bay.
3-13
Table 3.1-6
Flanders Bay
Cross Refer—
ence No.
Name or Description
Class and Standard
35
Flanders Bay East
SA
36
Flanders Bay Center
SA
37
Flanders Bay West
Sc
38
Tributary of Flanders Bay East
Sc
39
Tributary of Flanders Bay East
SB
40
Tributary of Flanders Bay East.
SD
41
Tributary of Flanders Bay East
Sc
42
Tributary of Flanders Bay West
C
43
Tributary of Flanders Bay East
Sc
44 -
Reeves Creek
Sc
45
Pond
C
46
Pond
C
47
Meetinghouse Creek (part)
Sc
48
Meetinghouse Creek (part)
SD
49
Terry's Creek (tidal)
SC
50
Terry's Creek (freshwater)-
C
51
Sawmill Creek (tidal)
Sc
52
Sawmill Creek (tidal)
C
53
Tributary of Sawmill Creek (pond)
C
54
Tributary of Sawmill Creek (pond)
C
55
Merritt's Pond
B .
56
Ponds
C
3-14
Table 3.1-6 (Continued)
Flanders Bay
Cross Refer—
encs No.
Name or Description
Class and Standard
57
Reeve's Bay
SA
58
Tributary of Reeves Bay
SC
59
Tributary of Reeves Bay
SC
60
Goose Creek (tidal)
SC
61
Goose Creek (freshwater)
C
62
Birch Creek (tidal)
SC
63
Birch Creek (freshwater)
C
64
Tributaries of Flanders Bay East
C
(ponds)
65
Mill Creek (tidal)
SC
66
Mill Creek (freshwater)
B
67
Sears Pond
B
68
Hubbard Creek (tidal)
SC
69
Hubbard Creek (freshwater)
C
70
Bellows Pond
B
71
Penny Pond
B
72
LIS
SA
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 920 through 925
* Cross reference number is provided so that listed water bodies can be
identified by the NYSDEC given water index number presented in Appendix C.
3-15
The designated best usage(s) of the SA classified waters of Flanders Bay are shellfishing for
market purposes and primary and secondary contact recreation. Shellfishing in the east segment and
portions of the central segment of Flanders Bay is still allowed over approximately 1650 acres of the
bay. As a result of NYSDEC and SCDHS monitoring, waters adjacent to the western shoreline and
in the central portion of western Flanders Bay are closed to shellfishing.
The western segment of the bay is classified SC. The best usage of these SC waters are
fishing and fish propagation, as well as primary and secondary contact, despite the fact that "...other
factors may limit the use for that purpose." Currently, over 46% of the shellfish beds in western
Flanders Bay are closed as a result of unacceptable water quality. Since 1970, the acreage
uncertified for the taking of shellfish increased from 470 acres to 1,400 acres as of January, 1986.
The acreage of uncertified waters did not increase between January, 1986 and January, 1990 (see
.Section 2).
Two water bodies that are tributary to Flanders Bay remained classified SD after the June,
1988 reclassification effort. These water bodies are:
o Cross Reference Number 40 - a tributary of Flanders Bay east, 1.5 miles west of Miamogue
Point.
o Cross Reference Number 48 - the portion of Meetinghouse Creek above LIRR tracks.
These two water bodies are expected to be upgraded to SC in the future.
The saline waters of Flanders Bay and its tributaries are represented by each of the four water
classes, SA, SB, SC, and SD. The only SB class water body is a tributary to Flanders Bay east,
approximately 0.7 miles west of Miamogue Point. The only freshwater classifications found in the
Flanders Bay portion of the study area are B and C. Class AA, A and D waters do not occur in this
portion of the Peconic system, and no trout waters are classified hi this area.
The water quality of Flanders Bay depends on the extent of flushing and tidal flux with Great
Peconic Bay to the east and the pollutant loading from the nonpoint sources such as stormwater
runoff and point sources such as the Peconic River, Meetinghouse Creek, Reeves Bay, and the
Riverhead STP. Nonpoint source pollution as a function of the land use characteristics of the area
are discussed more fully in Section 6.
3-16
3.1.3 Peconic/Gardiners Bay System
The classifications and standards for the surface waters of the eastern portion of the study area -
are found in 6NYCRR Part 924 and presented on Tables 3.1-7a, through 3.1-7d inclusive. The
principal water bodies of the Peconic/Gardiner Bay system (i.e., Gardiners Bay, Shelter Island
Sound, Little Peconic Bay, and Great Peconic Bay) characteristically have excellent water quality,
which reflect the SA classification and standards given to each. Class SA waters have a designated
best usage of shellfishing for market purposes, and the water quality of the Peconic/Gardiners Bay
system reflects this in that only approximately 3% of the total acreage available to shellfishing in the
system has been closed. Additionally, this system is buffered from the largest point source impacts
to the entire system by Flanders Bay waters and is subjected primarily to localized nonpoint source
impacts of stormwater runoff, on -lot sewage disposal, and boater pollution. Recently, many
productive small creeks in the system have been closed to shellfishing (see Section 2).
The larger harbors and inlets of the Peconic/Gardiners Bay system are also classified SA and
include:
o Long Beach Bay
o Three Mile Harbor
o Orient Harbor
o Cutchogue Harbor
o Northwest Harbor
o North Sea Harbor
o Dering Harbor,
o Coecles Inlet
o Sag Harbor
o Accabonac Harbor
These waters are used extensively for shellfishing and primary and secondary contact
recreational activities. Both Three Mile Harbor and Sag Harbor (plus coves) contain a substantial
percentage (>30%) of the total acreage of closed shellfishing beds in the Peconic/Gardiner Bay
system.
The entire spectrum of saline classifications and standards are found in the Peconic/Gardeners
Bay system. Those water bodies that remained classified SD after June, 1988 are primarily
tributaries of:
o Gardiners Bay (1)
o Shelter Island Sound (4)
o Great Peconic Bay (1)
o Cold Spring Pond (1)
The predominant classification of the smaller saline water bodies in the Peconic/Gardiners
Bay system is SC. The larger ponds and creeks tend to be classified SA.
3-17
Table 3.1-7a
Gardiners Bay
Cross
Refer—
ence No. Name or Description Class and Standard
73
Gardiners Bay
74
Long Beach Bay
75
Orient Harbor
76
Tributaries of Gardiners Bay
77
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (pond)
78
Tributary of Gardiners Bay
79
Dam Pond
80
Marion Lake (NE part)
81
Marion Lake (SW part)
82
Spring Pond
83
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (pond)
84
Coecles Inlet
85
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (pond)
86
Tributaries of Gardiners Bay (ponds)
87
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (pond)
88
Northwest Harbor
89
Northwest Creek
90
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (tidal)
91
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (freshwater)
92
Alewife Pond
93
Tributaries of Alewife Pond
94
Tributary of Gardiners Bay (pond)
95
Three Mile Harbor
96
Hands Creek
97
Tanbark Creek
98 _
Hog Creek
99
Accabonac Harbor
100
Tributary of Gardiners Island
101
Tributaries of Gardiners Island
(freshwater)
102
Tributaries of Gardiners Island (tidal)
103
Tributaries of Gardiners Island (tidal)
3-18
SA
SA
SA
SD
C
SA
SA
SA
SC
SA
SC
SA
SC
SC
SC
SA
SA
SC
C
SC
B
C
SA
SC
B
SA
SA'
D
C
SA
SC
Table 3.1-7b
Shelter Island Sound
Cross
Refer—
ence No. Name or Description Class and Standard
104
Shelter Island Sound
SA
105
Crab Creek
SC
106
pond
C
107
Wecks Pond
C
108
Dering Harbor
SA
109
Chase Creek
SC
110
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
C
111
Gardiners Creek
SC
112
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (ponds)
C
113
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SC
114
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SD
115
Tributaries of Shelter Island Sound
SC
116
West Neck Harbor
SA
117
Dickerson Creek
SA
118
Fresh Pond
C
119
Menantic Creek
SA
120
West Neck Creek and Bay
SA
121
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (ponds)
C
122
Gull Pond
SC
123
Stirling Creek and Basin
SA
124
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
Sc
125
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound (tidal)
SC
126
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (freshwater)
C
127
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
C
128
Moore's Drain (tidal)
SC
129
Moore's Drain (freshwater)
C
130
Silver Lake
C
131
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (ponds)
SC
132
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SC
133
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SA
134
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
C
135
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SC
3-19
Table 3.1-7b (cont'd)
Shelter island Sound
Cross
Refer—
ence No.. Name or Description Class and Standard
136
Tributaries of Shelter Island Sound
137
Hashamomuck Pond
138
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
139
Tributaries of Shelter Island Sound
140
Town Creek
141
Jockey Creek (part)
142
Jockey Creek (part)
143
Goose Creek
144
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
145
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
146
Noyack Creek
147
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
148
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
149
Mill Creek
150
Trout Pond
151
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
152
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound
153
Tributaries of Shelter Island Sound
154
Tributaries of Shelter Island Sound
155
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
156
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (ponds)
157
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (incl._
freshwater pond)
158
Sag Harbor
159
Sag Harbor Cove
160
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound
161
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
162
Ligonee Brook (part)
163
Ligonee Brook (part)
164
Round Pond
165
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
3-20
SA
SA
C
SC
SA
SA
SC
SA
C
SC
SA
C
C
SC
C(T)
SC
SC
C
SD
SC
C
SC
SA
SA
SD
C
SC
C
C
C
Table 3.1-7b (cont'd)
Shelter Island Sound
Cross
Refer—
ence No. Name or Description Class and Standard
166
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound
C
167
Lily Pond
C
168
Long Pond
C
169
ponds
C
170
Little Long Pond
C
171
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound
SD
172
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound (pond)
SC
173
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound (tidal)
SC
174
Trib. of Shelter Island Sound (freshwater)
B
175
Subtrib. of Shelter Island Sound
B
176
Tributary of Shelter Island Sound
SC
3-21
Table 3.1=7c
Little Peconic Bay
Cross
Refer-
ence No.
Name or Description
Class and Standard
177
Little Peconic Bay
SA
178
Cedar Beach Creek
SA
179
Tributaries of Little Peconic Bay
SC
180
Tributary of Little Peconic Bay
C
181
Corey Creek
SA
182
Richmond Creek
SA
183
Little Creek
SA
184
Cutchogue Harbor
SA
185
Tributaries of Little Peconic Bay
SA
186
Mud -East Creeks
SA
187
Wickham Creek
SA
188
Tributary of Little Peconic Bay
SC
189
Tributaries of Little Peconic Bay (ponds)
C
190
Tributaries of Little Peconic Bay (ponds)
SC
191
Tributaries of Little Peconic Bay
C
192
North Sea Harbor
SA
193
Davis Creek
SA
194
Turtle Cove
SA
195
Fish Cove
B
196
Tributary of North Sea Harbor (tidal)
SC
197
Tributary of North Sea Harbor (freshwater)
C
198
Fresh Pond
B
199
Little Fresh Pond
B
200
Trib. of Little Peconic Bay & Wooley Pond
SA
201
Subtrib. of Little Peconic Bay (pond)
C
202
Tributary of Little Peconic Bay and
Freshwater Pond
SC
203
Tributary of Little Peconic Bay
C
3-22
Table 3.1-7d
Great Peconic Bay
Cross
Refer—
ence No. Name or Description Class and Standard.
204
Great Peconic Bay
SA
205
West Creek
SA
206
Tributary of West Creek (tidal)
Sc
207
Tributary of West Creek (freshwater)
C
208
Subtrib. of West Creek
C
209
Down Creek (tidal)
SA
210
Downs Creek (freshwater)
C
211
Halls Creek (tidal)
SA
212
Halls Creek (freshwater)
C
213
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay
C
214
Deep Hole Creek
SA
215
Tributary of Deep Hole Creek
SA
216
Tributary of Deep Hole Creek
C
217
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (tidal)
SA
218
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (freshwater)
C
219
Subtrib. of Great Peconic Bay
Sc
220
Subtrib. of Great Peconic Bay
C
221
Mattituck Pond
A
222
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (tidal)
Sc
223
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (freshwater)
C
224
Laurel Pond
A
225
Brush Creek (tidal)
Sc
226
Brush Creek (freshwater)
C
227
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay
SD
228
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (tidal)
Sc
229
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (freshwater)
C
230
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay (pond)
C
231
Red Creek Pond
SA
232
Tributaries of Red Creek Pond
C
233
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay
SA
3-23
Table 3.1-7d (Continued)
Great Peconic Bay
Cross
Refer—
ence No. Name or Description Class and Standard
234
Shinnecock Canal
SC
235
Tributary of Great Peconic Bay
SA
236
Cold Spring Pond
SA
237
Tributary of Cold Spring Pond
SD
238-
Sebonac Creek
SA
239
Bullhead Bay
SA
240
Little Sebonac Creek
SA
241
Scallop Pond
SA
242
Tributaries of Great Peconic Bay (ponds)
C
Source: NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 920 through 925
* Cross reference number is provided so that water bodies can be identified by
the NYSDEC given water index number presented in Appendix C.
1Standards for Trout Pond are C(T), and therefore have greater dissolved
oxygen standards.
2Standards for Laurel Pond are A(T), and therefore have greater dissolved
oxygen standards.
3-24
- There are no AA or B(T) classified water bodies in the drainage area of the Peconic/Gardiners
Bay system. Mattituck Pond and Laurel Pond are both classified A, but Laurel Pond has standards
of A(T) for trout waters. The only other water body with standards for trout is Trout Pond, which4s
classified C with C(T) standards. Most of the freshwaters are classified C, though some of the
larger freshwater ponds are classified B.
3.1.4 Boundaa Areas
The boundary areas to the Peconic system have - an effect on the water quality within the
system. Western Block Island Sound, Long Island Sound, and Shinnecock Bay/Canal comprise the
principle water bodies of the boundary_ areas. The majority of component water bodies are outside
of the -Boundary Areas and were not considered further.
Western Block Island Sound
Western Block Island Sound is the boundary area which has the greatest impact on the water
quality of the Peconic system. The tidal fluxes and the flushing actions associated with the mixing
of the two water systems accounts for the oceanic contribution of approximately 94% of the waters
to the Peconic system. Alternatively, the seaward flow of the Peconic estuary contributes the
greatest loading influence on the oceanic waters of Block Island Sound. .
Block Island Sound is classified SA. The major associated water bodies of Montauk Harbor,
Napeague Harbor, and Oyster Pond are also classified SA. The oceanic nature of the waters of
Block Island Sound account for the high water quality classification and standards. These waters
are extensively used for swimming and are recognized worldwide for sportfishing.
Long Island Sound
The waters of Long Island Sound commingle with those of Block Island Sound and the
Peconic system through the race between Orient Point and Plum Island. This relatively limited
opening restricts the influence of the Long Island Sound on the water quality of the Peconic system.
In the area of the race, the waters of the Long Island Sound are classified SA. This eastern part of
the Long Island Sound is more oceanic in nature than the western portion of the Sound, and water
quality exhibits little, if any, of the impairment observed in the western waters.
Shinnecock Bay/Canal
Shinnecock Bay is connected to Great-Peconic Bay by the Shinnecock Canal. The elevation
of the two water bodies and the lock system allows water to travel from Great Peconic Bay to
Shinnecock Bay, -but not the reverse. Shinnecock Bay is classified 'SA, whereas the Canal is
classified SC. The Canal is used extensively for fishing and boating. Shinnecock Bay does support
3-25
the harvesting of shellfish but some of .the less flushed and coastal portions of the bay have acreage
closed to shellfishing.
3.2 Surface Water. Quality - Impairments and Hydrodynamics
The water quality parameters which have been. routinely monitored for system -wide water
quality are temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved and total
phosphorus and nitrogen (nitrate -nitrogen, ammonia -nitrogen, organic -nitrogen), chlorophyll
pigments, and total and fecal coliform.
Dissolved oxygen is a function .of the relative rates of organic' production by marine
macrophytes and phytoplankton and of oxygen uptake via respiration by bacteria, phytoplankton,
and other marine species; turbulent mixing conditions also affect dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Low oxygen levels are typical of water bodies subject to high nutrient loadings (excessive cultural
eutrophication), which have a deleterious effect on water quality. The standing crop of
phytoplankton is measured by chlorophyll pigment concentrations, while total and fecal coliform
bacteria are used as indicators of fecal pollution. Non -fecal coliform are naturally occurring
organisms which are .found in the soil and decomposing organic matter, and fecal coliform
originates from warn -blooded animals. Water quality standards for shellfishing areas and bathing
beaches are related to levels of total and fecal coliform numbers. measured in a series of samples.
Dissolved -phosphorus and nitrogen are essential plant nutrients that, if found in high
concentrations, may stimulate excessive growth of algae and phytoplankton and _lead to accelerated
cultural ,eutrophication. These algal blooms can contribute to the depression of oxygen levels
through respiration and decomposition if nutrient inputs are sufficient to maintain high population
levels. If the products of decomposition build up in sediments, as occurs in eutrophic systems, the .
resulting alteration of nutrient flux rates and oxygen demand in the sediments continues to
exacerbate the eutrophication of the water body. The assessment of eutrophication in a water body
is one characteristic of deteriorated or impaired water quality.,
Based on analysis of Flanders Bay data which relates nitrogen concentrations to chlorophyll -a
and " chlorophyll -a to diumal dissolved oxygen variations, a surface- water total nitrogen
concentration limit of 0.5 mg/1 will ensure a minimum dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/1 (see Section 7).
Thus, BTCAMP refined the L.I. 208 Study marine surface water quality guideline to 0.5 mg/1 total
nitrogen for the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Although this nitrogen. guideline is exceeded in
the western portions of the Peconic Estuary and dissolved oxygen levels are occasionally depressed
in local areas, the system has apparently not demonstrated characteristics of advanced
eutrophication in terms of conventional nutrients. This information indicates that the system
.currently may -be near the limits of the factors of safety incorporated in the determination of the
marine nitrogen guideline.
3-26
3.2.1 Areas of Impairment or Contravention of Standards
The sources of impairment in terms of shellfish area closures in the Peconic system are, -in -
general, related to coliform bacteria loadings from stormwater runoff. To a lesser degree other point
source discharges and non -point source loadings, such as as localized on -lot sewage disposal and
boating -related contributions, may also be pollution factors (see Section 6). From 1986 to 1990,
387 additional acres of shellfish growing waters were closed in Gardiners Bay, Shelter Island
Sound, Southold Bay, Orient Harbor, Coecles Harbor, Cutchogue Harbor, and Great Peconic Bay as
a result of unacceptable levels of coliforms measured in these areas.
The NYSDEC biannually produces a New York State Water Quality Status report as a
requirement of Section 305'(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL95-217). In this report, water
body -specific information is presented for each of the 17 major drainage basins in the State. Each
drainage basin contains an inventory of priority water problems and a listing of priority water
problem severity. The problem severity criteria used to assess the problem water bodies is
presented below.
Problem Severity Criteria
Slight: A water is rated as having a slight problem when a classified use is occasionally
impaired. Typically, segments with slight problems have very localized problems. The designated
uses of the segment are basically supported by the water quality of the segment.
Moderate: A water segment is given a -problem severity rating of moderate when a classified
use is frequently impaired. The designated uses of the segment are partially supported by the water
quality of the segment; however, full use of segment is not attained.
Severe: A water segment is rated as having a severe problem when a designated use is
precluded or not supported by the water quality of the segment.
A listing of priority water problems in the Peconic system is provided in Table 3.2-1.
Peconic River Drainage Basin
As noted previously, the Peconic River is classified SC, C, and B, depending on the particular
reach of the River. The tidal portion of the Peconic River is classified SC due to pollutant loadings
from upstream waters, stormwater discharges, and the major point source contributor to the system,
the Riverhead STP.
In general, due largely to the high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed, the
water quality in the freshwater portions of the Peconic River is excellent with respect to nitrogen.
3-27
w
N
00
Location
Flanders Bay
Mattituck Inlet
Montauk Harbor
North Sea Harbor
Sag Harbor & Coves
Three Mile Harbor
Hashamomuck Pond
Table 3.2-1
1988 Priority Water Problem List
in the Peconic System
Segment
Segment
Impaired
Primary
Primary
Type
Size
Class
Use
Severity
Pollutant
Source
Bay
1,444 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
Pathogens
Urban runoff
Bay
125 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
Pathogens
Urban runoff
Bay
205 ac:
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
Pathogens
Urban runoff
Bay
18 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe .
'Pathogens
Urban runoff
Bay
208 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
Pathogens
Storm sewers
Bay
355 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
. Pathogens
Storm sewers
Bay
170 ac.
SA
Shellfishing
Severe
Pathogens
Urban runoff
Source: Modified from NYSDEC, 1988
i
Sampling at the at U.S.G.S. gauge in 1988-1990 time frame showed a concentration of 0.5 mg/l
total nitrogen (see Section 6). Peconic River water quality appears to have improved over the past
fifteen years from a concentration of 1.0 mg/1 total nitrogen measured in -1976 (based on limited
sampling), perhaps due to the cessation of duck farm discharges and the reduction in Grumman STP
discharges.
Data for total coliforms collected during the 208 Study in 1976 revealed that a coliform. level
of 70 MPN/100 ml was exceeded frequently throughout the Peconic River from Manorville to the
outlet of the Little River. However, Peconic River coliform levels are not atypical of freshwater
systems, and stonnwater runoff sampling did not show significant runoff contribution of coliform
loading during wet weather conditions (see Section 6). Although total coliforms concentrations are
significant throughout the River, fecal coliform concentrations are low in the headwaters and high
as the Peconic approaches Riverhead, increasing considerably in the downstream direction.
The sampling records from the 208 study for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) revealed
substantial levels throughout the River. These occurrences, however, do not correlate well with the
known sources of wastewater discharge to the River. The cause of this was not determined at that
time. A significant percentage of both total coliform and BOD levels may originate in the organic
matter associated with adjacent swamps and woodlands, contributing significantly to total River
loadings.
Data on dissolved oxygen (D.O.) have not been collected extensively throughout the River
system. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen vary widely along the River. Data ,collected and
analyzed in 1982 indicates a range of values from 9.3 ppm to 10.8 ppm in Forge Pond. Values for
other ponds in the system are as follows: Linus Pond has a concentration of 9.4 ppm; Niger, Zeeks
and Peasy's Ponds indicate values at 7.8, 6.7 and 8.0 ppm, respectively (1981 data); and in 1980, the
dissolved oxygen sampling in Prestons Pond (Forest Lake) indicated a level of 8.2 ppm. All of
these values are acceptable and are in excess of the 4 ppm standard for Class C waters (NYSDEC,
1987).
BNL produces a yearly "Environmental Monitoring Report" which summarizes the previous
year's environmental levels of radioactivity and other pollutants found in the vicinity of the lab.
The data addressed in the annual report and collected by BNL includes external radiation levels,
radioactive air particulates, tritium concentrations, radioactivity in the water, radioactivity
concentrations in stream biota, and radioactivity levels in groundwater underlying the laboratory.
BNL collects and analyzes water from. the Peconic River both on-site and off-site. For the years
1983 and 1984 on-site sampling indicated gross beta concentrations and tritium concentrations
levels to be 0.2%'of the Radiation Concentration Guide (RCG) level. Downstream samples taken at
Riverhead show a gross beta activity at 0.1% of the RCG. In 1984, data from the same sampling
station at Riverhead indicated the average gross beta concentration was 5.8% and the average
3-29
tritium levels were 1.3% of the EPA drinking water standards. The average gross alpha
concentration was 2.2% of the EPA drinking water standard.
Fish samples were collected from Donahue's Pond for -radionuclide analysis in 1983 and
1984. Concentrations for both years amount to less than one percent of the RCG assuming
ingestion of 50 grams of fish per day.
Flanders Bay
The majority of Flanders Bay is Class SA. The exception to this, as previously discussed, is
the western portion of Flanders Bay, classified SC, where a significant portion (1,444 acres) is
closed to shellfish harvesting mainly due to the presence of pathogens from stormwater runoff. In
addition, the Riverhead STP has also been shown to have an impact on the shellfish closure area
(see Sections 6 and 7). The drainage area of the Peconic River accounts for a substantial portion of
the total nutrient and pollutant'loading to Flanders Bay, as do the Riverhead STP and Meetinghouse
Creek. As previously noted and further discussed in Section 3.4 and 3.5, the marine total nitrogen
guideline of 0.5 mg/l is exceeded in western Flanders Bay as well as in tidal portions of the Peconic
River.
.A sanitary survey was conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
NYSDEC from May 17 to May 25, 1983. Forty-one stations were sampled over nine consecutive
days. Rainfall was recorded on six of the nine days of sampling with measurements varying from
.02" to .98". Following the .98" rainfall 22 out of 39 stations sampled exceeded the total coliform
standard (70 mpn/100 ml). High total bacteria coliform counts were recorded in Reeve's Bay (3500
inpn/100 ml), Goose Creek (1700 mpn/100 ml), Birch Creek (2800 mpn/100 ml) and Mill Creek `
(1300 mpn/100 ml). As a result of this survey, the FDA recommended that part of Reeves Bay,
Goose Creek, Birch Creek, and Mill Creek beconsidered for conditional area openings based on
rainfall. At the time of report preparation, Flanders and Reeves Bay, Goose Creek,- Birch Creek,
and Mill Creeks were conditionally opened to shellfishing (i.e., when rainfall does not exceed 0.20
inches for each of seven consecutive days, the area is opened on the eight day and remains open
until more than 0.2 inches of rainfall are recorded in twenty-four hours).
Peconic/Gardiners Bay System
The Peconic/Gardiners Bay system has 1,609 acres of underwater land closed to shellfish
harvesting. Sag Harbor and associated coves, which are Class SA waters, are closed to shellfishing
due to sewage treatment plant (STP) discharges and stormwater runoff. Occasional violations of
coliform limits of the SPDES permit for the Sag Harbor STP are discussed in Section 6.
Stormwater runoff has been identified by NYSDEC as the prime source of coliform bacteria
which has closed North Sea Harbor to shellfishing. Another source of pollution to the harbor is the
3-30
plume of leachate -contaminated groundwater identified as coming from the North Sea landfill (see
Section 6). The Three Mile Harbor receiving waters have been the recipient of stonnwater runoff
discharges which have resulted in the closure of 355 acres of shellfish beds. Stonnwater runoff -is -
the prime factor in closure of 170 acres of Hashamomuck Pond to shellfishing. Montauk Harbor is
a class SA water body, and has also been identified as being impacted by pathogens from urban
runoff. While stormwater runoff has been identified as the primary source of coliform loading in
the Peconic system, other sources may be responsible for some degree of loading, especially in
poorly flushed creeks and embayments. These sources include waterfowl waste, boating, and in
some cases improperly functioning sanitary systems; the impacts of these additional sources have
not been well defined.
Sag Harbor STP, Shelter Island Heights STP, and Plum Island STP have closed shellfish areas
around their outfall discharges. In areas such as Hashamomuck Pond, where elevated bacterial
counts are associated with rainfall, shellfish beds are conditionally opened by NYSDEC during dry
weather.
Toxic Materials From Boats
In the 1980's, concern over the use of the marine biocide tributyltin (TBT) grew as studies
showed that these antifoulant bottom paints detrimentally affect growth and reproduction of
nontarget marine organisms in areas of heavy recreational boating activity. In 1988, federal
legislation (Public Law 100-333) prohibited the use of TBT on vessels under 25 meters (82 feet) in
length. Exempt from these provisions are aluminum hulled boats under 25 meters. Most boats used
in the Peconic system are under 25 meters.
TBT compounds have been found to be highly toxic to nontarget aquatic organisms at the part
per trillion level. These organisms readily bioaccumulate TBT. Even at low, sublethal
concentrations, TBT may pose a threat to benthic populations. In Suffolk County, the N.Y.S.
Health Department has analyzed samples for TBT from Lake Montauk, Neguntatogue Creek (on the
south shore of western Suffolk County), Mt. Sinai. Harbor, and Huntington Harbor. See Table 3.2-2
for a tabulation of TBT data from Suffolk County sampling sites.
Based upon the above limited study effort, the highest concentrations of TBT were found in
Neguntatogue Creek. This creek is characterized as a narrow, heavily developed water body with
intensive recreational boating usage and poor circulation. This appears to be consistent with
research in California waters which found that TBT concentrations varied with flushing rates and
vessel types in enclosed harbors. In this study healthy marine fauna and lower TBT levels were
observed in well flushed areas, in contrast to reductions in biotic diversity and higher TBT levels in
bay areas.
3-31
Table 3.2-2
Concentrations (ug/1) of
Tributyltin (TBT) and Dibutyltin (DBT)
in Suffolk County
Marine Waters
Station TBT
DBT
Lake Montauk 0.020
0.020
(Town of East Hampton) 0.040
0.050
0.040
0.080
0.120
0.140
Neguntatogue Creek 0.370 0.320
(Town of Babylon) 0.480 0.560
1.700 —
0.011 ee 0.030
0.170 —
Mount Sinai Harbor
0.030
<0.020
(Town of Brookhaven)
0.040
0.020
0.011 ee
<0.020
Huntington Harbor
0.014
0.020 pl
(Town of Huntington)
0.018 ee
0.020 pl
0.009 ee
0.02
0.009 ee
0.020
Source: NYSDEC
NYSDOH - New York State Department of Health Laboratory Analysis
VIMS - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Laboratory Analysis
< - below detection
ee - estimated value
pl - present, but less than 0.02 ugll
3-32
Laboratory
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
VIMS
VIMS
NYSDOH
VIMS
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
NYSDOH
3.2.2 Surface Water Hydrodynamics
Water transport and circulation in the Peconic System is of particular interest as it relates -to -
the abundance and distribution of the Brown Tide organism. In addition, water transport processes
are important factors in the movement and concentration of nutrients and other pollutants which
impact water quality and which may affect the 'growth and spatial extent of the Brown Tide
organism.
Hydrodynamic Modeling
In view of the critical importance of circulation/transport to water quality and eutrophication
in estuaries, hydrodynamic modeling is an important aspect of the modeling efforts utilized in the
BTCAMP program. The model system used in the BTCAMP water quality modeling (WASPS; see
Sections 1.5.2, 4.4.1 and 7 for extended discussion) is a system of coupled transport and water
quality models which can be used separately or together to examine circulation, water quality, and
eutrophication in estuaries. The hydrodynamic .program utilized in. this study is a two-dimensional
model which simulates water movement due to tides, winds, and unsteady inflows. This model is a
link -node model which is nearly identical to the hydrodynamic model used to represent the Peconic
system in the 208 study prepared in 1976. In the present context, the hydrodynamic model is used
to supply averaged tidal circulations to the WASPS water. quality model. This model incorporated a
basic mass transport model (EUTRO5), a eutrophication model based on the Potomac Estuary
Model (Thomann and Fitzpatrick, 1982), and a toxics and sediment chemistry model.. The
eutrophication version, which can - simulate total biomass eutrophication conditions (i.e.,
phytoplankton growth/death, nutrient cycles; sediment interaction, and dissolved oxygen), is being
used for this study. Both historical data and new data collected under this study were used to
calibrate and verify the model.
The hydrodynamic model (DYNHYD5) solves one dimensional equations of continuity and
momentum for a branching or link -node network. Model simulations are derived using upstream
flows and downstream tidal heads over one to five minute intervals. . Then shorter intervals are
averaged over larger time periods,' stored, and -utilized later as hydrodynamic information input to
the water quality model.
Fluxes
The hydrodynamic properties associated with bays and estuaries significantly affect the
distribution, spatial extent and levels of contaminants in the system, as well as the ultimate effect
upon organisms within the system. In the Peconic Bays system the tidal exchange greatly exceeds
the freshwater inflow. As a result of the relatively small amount of fresh water inflow to the broad
bays, starting with Flanders Bay -arid extending through Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic Bay, and
Shelter Island Sound to the eastern end of the study area, combined with the relatively vigorous tidal
3-33
flows, this major portion of the estuary appears to be well mixed vertically. The freshwater
boundary area inflows used in the hydrodynamic model are presented in Table 3.2-3.
As a result of such vigorous tidal exchange, pollutants discharged into Peconic Bay, on the
whole, are dispersed and flushed out to the open_ ocean fairly rapidly. The overall flushing time of
an estuary is a measure of the total time required for a conservative substance (e.g., salinity) to be
transported from the end of the estuary to the seaward boundary. Within an estuary, flushing time
can vary widely between embayments and open water areas. The nontidal flow (i.e., freshwater
inflow) in an estuary is a major driving force in the determination of estuarine flushing and
exchange with the seaward boundary. In the absence of freshwater inflow, tidal exchange and wind
mixing combine to progressively disperse and flush pollutant inputs from the estuary.. Hardy (1976)
estimated an- average flushing time (Weyl and Robbins, 1975) for the Peconic system of 56 days
based on observations from March, 1975 and geometric characteristics of the Peconic system.
To support the hydrodynamic model, tidal gauge data were utilized from gauges placed in the
Peconic system. In 1984, -four tide gauges were deployed by MSRC in the Peconic system and were
operational for the entire year. The locations of the tide stations'are shown in Figure 3.2-1. These
four tide stations were used to calibrate the tide range and phase of the hydrodynamic model. This
was accomplished by analyzing the raw data (i.e., tide height versus time) with a harmonic analysis
program -to determine astronomic constituents of each tide station. These astronomic constituents
compared reasonably well to the long-term NOAA tide station at Montauk Point. The astronomic
constituents were then used to generate an average tide for July, 1984 at each of the four tide
stations. The four tide gauges were surveyed to a common datum, but the accuracy of the survey
was not known. The annual mean level of each tide record, therefore, was used as the datum at each
gauge.
In addition to freshwater and tidal flows, groundwater flows entering Peconic Bay required
-estimation for use in the hydrodynamics model. The groundwater flows estimated by the USG S_
three dimensional finite difference model of the aquifer system of Long Island, New York were
'ufilized. The North and South Fork areas surrounding Peconic Bay were- determined to be
independent groundwater systems and should only contribute a small amount of freshwater to the
bays (Buxton, 1988). Sections 5 and 6 discusses in detail the groundwater quality .inputs and
hydrogeologic conditions of the Peconic system.
Circulation
As discussed by Wilson et al. (1986), the Peconic Bays Estuary represents a system of very
shallow (mean , depth approximately 4.5 m), interconnected bays situated between the north and
south forks of Eastern Long Island. This system is composed of the tidal reaches of the Peconic
River, Flanders Bay, Great Peconic. Bay, Little Peconic Bay, Shelter Island Sound, and the several
small bays and harbors adjacent to these waterways. To the east, the Peconics connectto"Gardiners
3-34
Table 3.2-3
Freshwater Boundary Inflows
Utilized in the Hydrodynamic Model*
*Based on July 1984 average data
3-35
Flow
Flow
Inflow
Node
RLS)(_
sec
Meetinghouse Creek
63
8.11
0.229
Terry's Creek
64
2.46
0.070
Sawmill Creek
68
3.41
0.097
Riverhead STP
68
1.41
0.040
Peconic River
70
84.70
2.398'
White Brook
68
4.68
0.133
Birch Creek
58
0.97
0.027
Mill Creek
53
2.02
0.057
Hubbard Creek
52
3.72
0.105
*Based on July 1984 average data
3-35
LONG ISLAND SOUND
RIVERHEAD
PECO E
w
i
w
BROOKHAVEN
tunRICRE� BAY
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
SHELT R GARDINERS BAY AR RS
AN
SLAN
LITTLE
T P BAY I C T 1 �l
4 GREAT
PECONIC EAST HAMPTON
LANDERS BAY BAY
SOUTHAMPTON
LEGEND
STUDY AREA
NAME
STATION
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
SAG HARBOR
T1
41/00'10"N
072/17'41"W
GREENPORT
T2
41/05'57"N
072/21'45"W
NEW SUFFOLK
T3
40/59'28"N
072/28'13"W
MEETINGHOUSE
CREEK T4
40/56111"N
072/37'05"W
FIGURE 3.2-1. LOCATION OF TIDE
STATIONS
IN PECONIC
BAY
SYSTEM
iNOSCALE
SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
PBH
- 3/92
Bay via two channels, one to the north and one to the south of Shelter Island. Gardiners Bay in turn
connects to Block Island Sound and then to Long Island Sound toward the northwest and to the
Atlantic Ocean toward the southeast..
The Peconic Bay system is also connected to the Atlantic Ocean via the Shinnecock Canal and
Shinnecock Bay. This canal runs from the south shore of Great Peconic Bay to the northern reaches
of Shinnecock Bay. It contains locks which are opened only when water levels at the Peconic end
are higher than those at the Shinnecock end, so that the low is always directed from Great Peconic
Bay to Shinnecock Bay when the locks are open. The cross section of the canal is relatively small,
and the amount of discharge of water from the Peconics via this route is small compared to the
exchange through the eastern connections with Gardiners Bay. However, no quantitative
determination has been made of the effects of the discharge through the Shinnecock Canal on the
circulation in Shinnecock Bay. The total annual average fresh water inflow to the bays, including
stream flow, groundwater seepage, and precipitation, is extremely low, ranging from approximately
3 to 5 cubic meters per second. Tides within the bays are predominantly semidiumal. The mean
range at the mouth of the estuary is 0.78 m; and the tidal range increases within the estuary to 0.84
in at its western end. In areas of attenuation, such as within narrow channels, the tidal range
increases and may exceed 1.2 m/s.
The low fresh water inflow rate to the estuary and the associated weak horizontal salinity (and
density) gradients suggest that gravitational convection is poorly developed. Tidal flows and the
residual flows produced both by the interaction of the tide with the bathymetry and by
meteorological condition should dominate the circulation in the Peconic Bays.
During March and July of 1984, a field survey was conducted within the Peconic Bays to
evaluate the characteristics of water movements acid exchange as they affect the distributions of
both pollutants and shellfish larvae. The study involved current meter and sea level observations as
well as synoptic salinity surveys. The results reported in this paper (Wilson et al., 1984) are based
on preliminary analyses of a small subset of these data. Figures 3.2-2a and 3.2-2b show the relative
strength of the currents at high and low tides into the Peconic system.
Tidal Influences
Tidal flow is a periodic motion ultimately driven by the variations in gravity resulting from
the relative motions of the'earth, moon, and sun. In a water body such as the Peconic Bay system,
the tidal flow depends on the tidal epoch (that is, on the time relative to a clock which advances in
accord with the relative position of the earth, moon, and sun), and on the inorphology of the water
body (Carteret al. 1988).
Tides within Peconic Bays are predominantly semidiumal, having a mean range of 0.78 m at
Orient Point, and increasing to about 0.84 m at South James ort. Tide currents' in the constrictions
3-37
W
W
00
N Scale
0 10 20 30 40 ' 50
Velocity (cm/sec)
jo
w m w w It Is n fi 2.
Tide at Sag Harbor
LONG ISLAND SOUND
LONG ISLAND
FLANDERS
BAY
PECONIC
RIVER
Sc a -T 19
r
July 20, .1976 05:00
nx�
ATLANTIC OCEAN
Computed velocities in Peconic Bay on July 20, 1976 at hour 05:00.
I _ - 3E 2a
NP
Scale
I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50
Velocity (cm/sec)
f�
xl x1
ns,ay m. urx
Tide at Sag Harbor
LONG ISLAND . SOUND
LONG- ISLAND
FLANDERS
BAY
PECONIC
RIVER
July 20, 1976 11:00
ATLANTIC OCEAN
Computed velocities in Peconic Bay on July 20, 1976 at hour 11:00.
Source: Tetra -Tech, 1989 FIGURE 3.2-2b
to the north and south of Shelter Island can exceed 1.2 m/sec; to the north of Robins Island they
approach 0.9 m/sec; and near Jessup Neck they are about 0.8 in/sec. In the hydrodynamic model,
the maximum computed currents for the average July, 1984 tidal conditions were 0.566 msec north
of Shelter Island, 0.418 m/sec south of Shelter Island, 0.194 m/sec north of Robins Island, and 0.365
m/sec near Jessup Neck. Figure 3.2-3 presents the computed tidal ranges versus the observed tides
at each of the four tidal stations deployed by the MSRC.
Previous water quality studies, such as Weyl (1974), computed tidal amplitudes and phases
for the Peconic Bays system to estimate contoured distributions of water quality response to a
specified inflow of a conservative pollutant. These results conform to a number of past and present
water quality assessments for the system which show that degraded water quality is related to
flushing time in the system.
3.3 Ongoing Monitoring
Water quality monitoring prograins in the Peconic system are comprised of existing water
quality assessments that predate the appearance of the Brown Tide, and water quality studies which
were initiated as a result of the Brown Tide bloom. For certain water quality monitoring programs,
it was necessary to expand or enhance the program to include Brown Tide affected areas.
Monitoring programs for the Peconic system include those performed by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation fisheries and shellfish sanitation programs, New York
Ocean Science Laboratory (NYOSL, 1971-1979), Long Island University/Southampton College
(1968-1988); and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) (1976-1984). Since
1985, research and monitoring data have been available for the Brown Tide bloom from Suffolk
County (SCDHS) and the MSRC.
3.3.1 Federal/State Programs
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitors flow and water quality at gauging
stations on 21 streams and rivers on Long Island. Collected data is incorporated into the National
Water Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) which was established to provide an effective
means for releasing data to the public. The Peconic River gauge, operated by USGS, is a primary
source of information on stream flow and stream water quality in the Peconic River. The USGS
water resources data report contains information concerning various water quality parameters such
as conductivity, pH, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, coliform, and total hardness.
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is monitoring toxics, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and fish and shellfish populations in the
Sound to determine the relationship between these factors and water quality and the continued
health of finfish and shellfish. Long Island Sound is one of the boundary areas of the Peconic
3-40
2.0
1.5
1.0
0 0.5
-2.0
-2.5 TM
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 59 70 71 72 73 74 75
Time (hours)
Figure 30(a). Tides at Sag Harbor (T1).
w
i
-P
2.5
3 - New S4 01 il
I.
�- --- --•-- -••- - S1.men 4
2.0
I I
1.5 --
1.0
n_
c 0
O
v -0.5
w
-1.0
H
-1.5
-2.0
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 54 65 66 67 fib 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Time (hours)
Tides at New Suffolk (T3).
Source: Tetra -Tech, 1989
2 5
2.0
1.5
1.0
r 0.5
r
W
Time (hour S) J
Figure 30(b). Tides at Greenport (12).
p 0.5
C 0 r'
C
0
-0.5
W
-1.0
F
-2.0
-2 5
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 53 64 65 66 67 68 169 70 71 72 73 74 75
Time (hours)
Figure 30(d). Tides at Meetinghouse Creek (T4).
FIGURE 3.2-3
system and, therefore, plays a role in Peconic system water quality. Results of monitoring efforts in
eastern Long Island Sound will be particularly useful in characterizing regional water quality in the
Peconic system.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) compiles data gathered from
weather observation sites supervised by NOAA at the Riverhead Research Fame, Greenport Power
House, and at Bridgehampton. Although not a direct measurement of surface water quality, rainfall
that is directed to the land surface generates significant pollutant loadings to Peconic system surface
waters.
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a consortium of nine northeast universities which
manage .BNL under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. BNL- discharges sanitary
effluent, noncontact cooling water, and water treatment backwash near the headwaters of the
Peconic River. As part of its SPDES permit, BNL monitors for gross beta and alpha activity and the
more typical water quality parameters of temperature, pH, BOD, chlorine residual, coliform,
dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, and total phosphorus.
BNL has deployed in-situ fluorometers at two stations in the Peconic system (Flanders Bay
and Great Peconic Bay) which collect continuous chlorophyll and temperature data and provide an
estimate of phytoplankton biomass. The moored fluorometers reported data from mid-April to
December, 1989.
The Grumman Aerospace' facility is predominantly a U.S. Navy -owned facility operated by
Grumman. The Grumman Calverton sanitary sewage treatment plant (STP) discharges to surface
waters in the Peconic River system. Like all industrial and cominercial discharges, Grumman
discharge must comply with its State pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit (see
Section.6). .
-The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducts
shellfish sanitation surveys to determine the suitability of marine waters for the harvest of shellfish.
The surveys are performed as scheduling and weather permits. The sampling, -primarily for total
and fecal coliforms, .occurs -in relation to rain events. In order for marine waters to maintain their
National. Shellfish Sanitation Program status as approved growing areas, sampling for total and fecal
coliform bacteria must be conducted five times per year under adverse weather conditions (i.e.,
rainfall on an outgoing tide).
3.3.2 Suffolk County Programs
The ' most extensive water quality sampling effort in the Peconic system is conducted by
SCDHS. The SCDHS routinely monitors bathing beaches prior to and during the bathing season,
assists the NYSDEC. in conducting water quality surveys for shellfish growing areas, and initiates
3-42
special water quality -studies such as the special "208" -style sampling conducted in the Peconic
River and Flanders/Peconic Bays system.
The appearance of the Brown Tide bloom in the Peconic system in 1985 focused attention on
water quality monitoring efforts in the area. At that time, it became apparent that the cause(s) of the
bloom and its effects on the Peconic ecosystem could not be determined due to the lack of a
consistent water quality data set with which recent data could be compared. The information
collected within the SCDHS routine monitoring program was limited due to past personnel and
equipment limitations.
SCDHS conducted an . extensive surface water, and point source monitoring program,
including monitoring to assess the -geographic and seasonal distribution of the Brown Tide (see
Section 4). Between January, 1988 and -June, 1990, over 4,400 marine water quality samples were
collected and analyzed by the SCDHS pursuant to Brown Tide study. Samples were examined for a
broad spectrum of physical, chemical, .and biological data, including phytoplankton cell numbers,
macronutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and
depth of sunlight penetration as measured by secchi disk depth. The sampling program included
frequent, periodic sampling ata number of stations as well as occasional sampling runs immediately
preceding and subsequent to wet weather events at select stations and point sources. In addition,
routine point source monitoring occurred at a number of locations, including the Riverhead sewage
treatment plant, Meetinghouse Creek, the Peconic River, and Sag Harbor sewage treatment plant
(see Section 6). Other sampling activities included two comprehensive wet -weather runs to assess
the impacts of stonnwater runoff on the Peconic River (see Section 6). . '
3.3.3 Local Programs
Local municipalities have traditionally participated in water quality surveys with the
NYSDEC in an attempt to open shellfish growing areas that exhibit marginal water quality (see
Section 2.3.4 for a further description of these programs). Townships provide boat transportation
for NYSDEC personnel to and from the sampling sites and will also collect and deliver samples to
the NYSDEC lab at Stony Brook for analysis.
Additional local agencies and institutions which have been instrumental in sampling and/or
analysis include the Suffolk County Marine Education Learning Center (SCMELC; formerly
Suffolk Community College's Southold Marine Science Center) and Suffolk Community College.
The Suffolk County Cooperative Extension and the New York Sea Grant Institute have had also
been instrumental in providing guidance and support in establishing marine monitoring programs.
In the past few years, townships, have -taken an expanded role in monitoring of water quality
within their jurisdictions. In 1986, the Town of East Hampton began investigating stormwater
runoff, on-site septic systems, and boat . wastes that were suspected sources of bacterial
.3-43
contamination to surface waters. .Stormwater runoff emanating from drains, ditches, and culverts
are directly tested after rainstorms. Marinas and mooring areas are sampled during dry weather to
determine if vessel discharges are the cause of elevated bacteria counts. Discharges from on -site -
septic systems ,are monitored by means of downgradient observation wells and direct measurement
of adjacent surface waters. .
The Town of Southampton conducts an annual water quality monitoring survey of freshwater
wetlands within the Town. Water samples are taken from two to -seven sampling sites, twelve times
a year. The Town tests for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll -a, pH, and
turbidity. The Town's monitoring program is part of an overall wetlands management plan which
defines the watershed, identifies the associated flora, examines land use and zoning in the watershed
area, and investigates the relationship between nutrient inputs and wetland productivity.
Investigations -have included Wildwood Lake and Little River, Big Fresh Pond, and Silver Brook
Pond. Recent investigations have been performed for:
o Kellis Pond
o Little Fresh Pond
o Mill Pond
o Mallard (East) Pond
o Sagaponack Pond
o Poxabogue Pond
o Sherman Pond -
o Whiskey Hill Pond
-In addition to the freshwater monitoring -program, the Town of Southampton bay constables
provide boat transportation for NYSDEC personnel testing shellfish growing areas. Monitoring of
Mecox Bay salinity is also conducted by the Town of Southampton.
The Town of Southold assists the NYSDEC in their water quality sampling programs for both
conditional shellfish openings and ongoing water quality certification efforts by providing boat
transportation. At the time of report preparation, the Town was also considering the establishment
of a water quality monitoring program at the Suffolk Community College Southold Marine Science
Center.
The Town of Riverhead has no active water quality monitoring program but is willing to assist
'the NYSDEC in monitoring rainfall events if a conditional shellfish opening is established in
Riverhead Town -waters.
Shelter Island Town collected water samples for coliform bacteria analysis by NYSDEC from
1986 to 1989. This effort was part of the NYSDEC-'s existing water quality certification effort.
Additional efforts have been undertaken by municipalities in Southampton and Southold to
monitor stormwater -runoff that has resulted in closure of shellfish grounds in Cutchogue Harbor
(Southold) and Fish Cove (Southampton). Both townships are exploring options to direct road
runoff into catch basins and detention ponds.. Additional sampling has been -conducted at Fish Cove
3-44
to investigate potential contamination of surface waters resulting from the North Sea Landfill
leachate plume.
3.3.4 Water Quality Programs
Long-term water quality research programs in the Peconic system are conducted at Long
Island University in Southampton. Water quality data has been collected by Southampton College
from 1965 to the present. Stations are located from the navigable head of Peconic River to
Gardiners Bay and, since 1985, to Block Island Sound. The majority of the sampling data has been
obtained during the three summer months and measures temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
inorganic nutrients, phytoplankton biomass, and turbidity.
The Stony Brook Marine Science Research Center has conducted a number of short-term
research studies in the Peconic system from 1969 to 1988. These studies investigated temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, inorganic and organic nutrients, phytoplankton biomass, zooplankton
biomass, and turbidity.
Suffolk County has been monitoring water quality in the Peconic system since 1976, although
the frequency and extent of sampling was intensified with the onset of Brown Tide. The County
samples for a wide variety of parameters, including dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity,
inorganic and organic nutrients, phytoplankton biomass, zooplankton biomass, and turbidity.
Routine Brown Tide sampling and point source monitoring performed by SCDHS are discussed in
detail in Sections 4 and 6, respectively.
3.3.5 Intensive Surveys
Intensive water quality sampling was conducted by the County in the Peconic River and
Peconic/Flanders Bays system. on May 16, 1988 (dry weather), October - 18, 1988 (dry weather),
October 25, 1988 (wet weather), March 15, 1989 (dry weather), March 22, 1989 (wet weather), and
September 18, 1989 (wet weather). Samples were collected at eighteen bay and river stations at
high and low slack tides, and at ten point sources (nine tributaries and the Riverhead STP).
Intensive sampling run results are included in Appendix D. The data from these events has been
used to assess dry -weather conditions and wet -weather impacts and to provide inputs to the water
quality model.
Suffolk County collected a series of samples at the USGS gauge station on the Peconic River
during rainfall events on May 1 through May 2, 1989 and on October 31 through November 1,
1989. Rainfall measurements and water sampling occurred at regular intervals throughout the
duration of the storm to assist in the formulation of a pollutant loading profile for the system.
Constituents which were analyzed as part of the sampling run include colifonn bacteria, nitrogen,
3-45
phosphorus, metals, and total organic carbon. -The results of this survey are included in Appendix F;
stormwater runoff is further discussed in Section 6.2.
In mid-June of 1988, a high cell count of the Brown Tide organism was noted off Blue Point
in Patchogue Bay. Additional intensive sampling in late June by SCDHS in Great South Bay, from
Bay Shore east to Smith Point, showed widespread bloom conditions. Fourteen sampling stations
were utilized by SCDHS; four of the stations were west of the Captree Bridge in western Great
South Bay; four stations were in Town of Islip waters, with one of those stations in Fire Island Inlet;
and five stations were in eastern Great South Bay in the Town of Brookhaven. South Shore Bays
monitoring has continued on a periodic basis (see Section 4).
Historical Intensive Studies
While it was in existence, the New York Ocean Science Lab (NYOSL) conducted seasonal
water quality studies from 1971 to 1979 in Flanders Bay, Great Peconic, and Little Peconic Bay.
Water quality parameters measured in these sampling runs include temperature, salinity, oxygen,
inorganic nutrients, phytoplankton biomass, phytoplankton productivity, zooplankton biomass, and
turbidity.
3.3.6 Sediment Flux Studies
Recent investigations of estuarine and coastal water quality dynamics have documented the
significance of oxygen and nutrient fluxes across the sediment -water interface on primary
production and oxygen depletion within the water column (Seitzinger, 1988; Seitzinger et al., 1984;
Nixon, 1988; Hydroqual, 1987).
The exchange of nutrients and oxygen between the water column and the sediments has been
identified as a significant data gap for the Peconic system. To begin addressing this gap, SCDHS
contracted with Dr. Jonathan Garber of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory to measure sediment
nutrient and oxygen exchange during the July and October of 1989. -Dr. Garber's results are
discussed in Section 6. In brief, Dr. Garber's experiments demonstrated that siunmertime sediment
flux total nitrogen contribution to Flanders Bay is greater than all other point and non -point sources
of nitrogen contribution combined: However, this estimate is based on limited data and should not
be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment.
3.3.7 Research Studies
From 1985 to -1987, numerous projects related to Brown Tide and its effects on the Peconic
ecosystem' were authorized by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk County
Planning Department, New York Sea Grant Institute, New York State Department of Environmental
3-46
Conservation, Delaware Sea Grant, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the Long Island
Marine Resources Institute (See Table 3.3-1 for a breakdown of BTCAMP Research Projects).
The major commercial shellfish species impacted by the Brown Tide was the bay scallop.
Research efforts have focused on the effects of Brown Tide on bay scallop larval recruitment and
larval drift, as well as the monitoring of seasonal impacts on planted bay scallops.
The Brown Tide was a newly identified species of algae and information on its life history,
growth, and reproduction requirements were lacking. Research was undertaken to determine how
environmental parameters influence the growth rate of Brown Tide, and historical data was
examined to see if unusual climatic and oceanographic condition may have contributed to the onset
of the Brown Tide. Brown Tide research efforts are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.
Further research was funded to investigate the physiologic growth dynamics and requirements
of the Brown Tide organism and to establish the organism in artificial culture. Eelgrass beds have
been devastated by Brown Tide concentrations which reduced light transmission. Research efforts
have attempted to document the reduction in eelgrass distribution and abundance by utilizing aerial
photography and ground truth field measurements.
Research efforts are examining the impact of Brown Tide on feeding in blue mussels, the
distribution of larval fish within estuaries, and the possible changes in fish populations in response
to recurrent phytoplankton blooms. The Southampton College Marine Science Center was
contracted to provide the sorting, editing, and transfer of twenty years of existing water quality data
collected from the Peconic River, east to Block Island Sound, to a computer data base designated by
Suffolk County.
Since 1987, additional research studies have been undertaken by various individuals and
institutions. As discussed previously, sediment flux studies were performed by Dr. Garber to
determine sediment nutrient and oxygen exchange. Studies of nutrient inflow into Peconic Bay via
submarine groundwater inflow were performed by Drs. Schubauer and Capone. Training of Suffolk
County and MSRC personnel in the use of . the immuno-epifluorescent procedure for the
identification of the Brown Tide organism was provided by . Woods Hole, and Carbon 14
productivity data for three stations in the Peconic system is being provided by MSRC. Further
attempts to isolate the Brown Tide organism, as well as other phytoplankton and zooplankton from
waters affected by the Brown Tide, were made by researchers at Pace University.
3.4 Surface Water Quality Conditions - Conventional and Non -Conventional Pollutants
The water quality of the open waters of the Peconic system is controlled by a number of
factors, including nutrient input and flushing time. Overall, the water quality in the majority of the
areas continues to be good to excellent. However, in specific locations, such as at the heads of
3-47
Year
Project
1985
Effects of Algal Bloom on Larval
Recruitment of the Bay Scallop
1985
East End Algal Bloom -
Phase I Model of Larval
Drift and Algal Identification
1986
Algal Bloom of 1985 Identifi-
cation, Environmental Require-
ments of the Algae, and Possible
Cause of Bloom Formation
1986
1985 Algal Bloom in Suffolk
County Coastal Bays
w
co
1986
Influence of Marine Micro -
algal Metabolites from the
Long Island Sound Brown 'fide
on Feeding of the Blue Mussel
1986
Support for Research on the
Brown Tide
1986
Bay Scallop Landings of
1985/86 and Effects of
Algae Bloom on Scallop Larvae
1986
Blooms of Brown Tide
Phytoplankters in Long Island
Bays: Physiological
Characteristics
Table 3.3-1
BTCAMP Research Projects
1985-1989
Investigator(s) Institution
S. Siddall MSRC
S. Siddall MSRC
R. Wilson
M. Vieira
E. Carpenter MSRC
S. Siddall
M. Bricelj MSRC
W. Dennison
S. Siddall
N. Targett University
of Delaware
Start -End Sponsor
7/85-1/87 NY Sea Grant Institute
10/85-4/86 S.C. Planning Dept., NYSDEC
3/86-10/87 SCDHS
3/86-1087
7/86-1/87
D. Anderson Woods Hole 7/86-6/87
Oceanographic
Inst.
S. Siddall MSRC 8/86-7/87
E. Carpenter MSRC 8/86-1/87
E. Cosper
SCDHS
Delaware Sea Grant
Woods Hole, Sea Grant
SCDHS
NY Sea Grant Institute
Year
Project
1987
An Investigation of the Impact
S. Tettlebach
of the Brown Tide on Bay
C. Smith
Scallops and Blue Mussels
1987
Ecosystem Alterations due to
J. R. Welker
Brown Tide Algal Blooms:
Eelgrass vs. Phytoplankton
1987
Recurrent Blooms of Minute
Phytoplankton in Long Island
Coastal Waters
1987
Distribution of Larval Fish
Within Estuaries and Possible
o
Changes to Recurrent
Phytoplankton Blooms
1987
Brown Tide Algal Blooms:
Possible Long -Term Impact on
Eelgrass Distribution and
Abundance
1987
A Study of the Growth Physiology
of the Brown Tide Algae Isolated
from Long Island Bays
1987
Winter Burial in Bay Scallop
Populations
1987
Peconic System Data Retrieval
Project
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
BTCAMP Research Projects
1985-1989
Investigator(s) Institution Start -End Sponsor
M. Bricelj MSRC 7/87-3/88 LIMRI
W. Dennison MSRC 7/87-3/88 LIMRI
E. Cosper MSRC 7/87-2/88 LIMRI
E. Carpenter
C. Lee
R. Cowen MSRC 7/87-3/88 -
W. Dennison MSRC 8/87-7/88 SCDHS
E. Cosper
MSRC 8/87-7/88 SCDHS
E. Carpenter
S. Tettlebach
LI Univ. 9/87-4/88 NY Sea Grant Inst.
C. Smith
SC Sea Grant
Program
J. R. Welker
LI Univ. 12/87-4/88 SCDHS
Southampton
Marine Science
Table 3.3-1 (Continued)
BTCAMP Research Projects
1985-1989
Year
Project
Investigator(s)
Institution
Start -End Sponsor
1988
Isolation and Culture of
M. Levandowsky
Pace
2/88-1/891 --
Tide Organism and other Phyto
University
and Zooplankton
1988
14 C Productivity Data for
E. Cosper
MSRC
6/88-4/89 --
Reeves Bay, New Suffolk
and West Neck Bay
w
CD 1989
Sediment Flux Studies
J. Garber
U. of
7/89-10/89 SCDHS
Maryland
Chesapeake
Biological
Laboratory
(CBL)
1989
Nutrient Inflow. into Peconic
D. Capone
CBL
10/89-1991* SCDHS
via Submarine Groundwater
J. Schubaer
Discharge
* Final report not issued as of the preparation of this table
shallow, sluggishly circulating inlets and embayments and certain inshore areas, degradation of the
water quality has occurred. It is also in these areas that nutrient inputs can have their most visible
effects in increased plant and phytoplankton growth. In the bay system as a whole, the flushing rate
and extent of mixing acts to disperse contaminants thereby minimizing water quality impacts. The
sampling stations used to provide the data contained in this section are located on Figure 3.4-1,
"Peconic System Water Quality Sampling Stations" and Figure 3.4-2, "Flanders Bay Water Quality
Sampling Stations."
3.4.1 Conventional Pollutants
A total of approximately 3,120 pounds per day of nitrogen are contributed to the Peconic
River and Flanders Bay from point and nonpoint sources during summertime conditions (see
Section 6); this nitrogen loading to a poorly flushed area contributes to the elevated nitrogen levels
of 0.5 to 0.8 mg/l in western Flanders Bay and in the tidal portions of the Peconic River. From
Great Peconic Bay east, the nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic system are below the marine
nitrogen guideline of 0.5 mg/l, reflecting the oceanic flushing of the waters of Block Island Sound.
Average total nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as constituent levels, at SCDHS Brown Tide
sampling stations are shown in Figures 3.4-3, 3.4-4, 3.4-5, 3.4-5a, and 3.4-5b (see Figure 4.1-2 for
location of stations). SCDHS graphs and data regarding dissolved oxygen, which occasionally dips
below 5.0 mg/l, are contained. in Appendix H; the relationship between D.O. and nitrogen is further
explored in Section 7. Figure 3.4-6 presents average total and fecal coliform levels.
Peconic River
Although the total nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic River are very low (approximately
0.5 mg/l total nitrogen), due to the relatively high flow of the river, the Peconic River accounts for a
substantial component of the total nutrient and pollutant loading to Flanders Bay (see Section 6).
Total nitrogen concentration in the Peconic River in 1.988 and 1989 was 0.5 mg/l, less than the 1.0
mg/1 measured in 1976. Total phosphorus levels followed the same trends as total nitrogen for the
Peconic River, decreasing slightly to a 1988-89 level of 0.10 mg/1 for the Peconic River. The
Peconic River as a point source of pollution is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.
The Peconic River has exhibited significant coliform bacteria counts throughout its length;
however, these coliform levels are not atypical for freshwater systems. Fecal coliform levels were
usually far less than total .coliform levels, indicating that the organisms may have originated in the
soil and not from homoiothermic sources. Although total coliform concentrations are significant
throughout the length of the Peconic River, the fecal coliform concentrations appear to increase in
the downstream direction. This .data may represent increasing animal fecal contamination in the
river's downstream reaches.
The major known point sources of BOD enter the Peconic River in its lower reaches. Tetra
Tech (1976) theorized that inputs from point sources along the River could not account for the high
BOD concentrations observed in the normally occurring River flows, and that another possible
3-51
CaARD/NERS
BT-e� BAY
BT -7&
KEY
• NYOSL STATIONS
O MSRC STATIONS
♦ SCDHS BROWN TIDE
STATIONS
• LIU STATIONS
CATION LOCATIONS{{ APPROXIMATE .
I
Floure '1 4® 1
RIVERHEAD
RIVER
,•�P <26 •
KEY
O NYSDEC SHELLFISH SANITATION
STATIONS
• NYSDEC SURVEY STATIONS
SCDEC STATIONS
s LIU STATIONS
ALL STATION LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE
• s
O O
®•.O p • O
• O • • O O•
• O O• p
O 4 •
i• • 00 ®� p
•
p •0& O • o
• •
• O�
•o
O®
SOUTHAMPTON
• N
• o •
O 0 0
1®• •
�• . i "
FLANDERS BAY WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS Figure 3.4-2
0.04
0.03
0.02
cd
d
0.01
1 11
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1 2 3 4 5 6
West Brown Tide Sampling Stations
* Nitrogen levels averaged over years 1985 — 1991
8 7
ast
Figure 3.4-3
0.10
3M,
0.06
aU
c�
d 0.04
M U:
M MI
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1 2 3 4 5 6
West Brown Tide Sampling Stations
* Phosphate levels averaged over years 1985 — 1991
8 7
East
Figure 3.4-4
0.40
0.30
v 0.20
cd
N
d
0.10
MM
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1 2
3 4
5
6
West
Brown Tide
Sampling
Stations
* Kjelahl Nitrogen averaged over years 1985 — 1991
8 7
East
Figure 3.4-5
1.2
M:
0.4
Me
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1 2 3 4 5 6
West Brown Tide Sampling Stations
* Nitrogen levels averaged over years 1985 — 1991
8 7
ast
Figure 3.4-5A
w
00
1.5
1.0
0.5
,i e
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1 2 3 4 5
West- Brown Tide Sampling
* Nitrogen levels averaged over years 1985 — 1991
6
Stations
8 . '7
East
Figure 3.4-5B
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Average Total and Fecal Coliform Counts*
Average Coliform Count (mpn/100ml)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Total Coliform
+ Fecal Coliform
11 2
3
4
5
6
West
Brown
Tide
Sampling
Stations
* Coliform counts averaged over years 1985 - 1988
8 7
East
Figured 3.4-6
source, such as organic matter from the surrounding floodplain, may be a significant BOD
contributor.
In the tidal portion of the Peconic River, oxygen is characterized by a large variance, with
observations ranging from less than one to greater than 10 mg/1 during the summer of 1976 (Tetra
Tech, 1977). Data for the period 1985 to 1987, although not complete for this area, show nitrate
nitrogen levels approaching 90 ug at/l to occur (Welker 1988). The highest nitrate nitrogen data
tend to occur during a flooding tide, suggesting a bayward origin of nitrate into this area. SCDHS
sampling also indicate that high nitrogen concentrations (occasionally greater than 0.8 mg/l; see
Appendices D and E) tend to occur in this portion of the river. The shallow water column of the
Peconic River has a relatively high sediment oxygen demand and high chlorophyll biomass.
- In order to characterize the effect of precipitation and subsequent stormwater runoff on the
river, stormwater runoff sampling events were conducted on May 1 through 2, 1989 and October 31
through November 1, 1989. Summary reports regarding these events are contained in Appendix F.
In general, no significant increases in pollutant loadings were detected at either the USGS gauge or
Grangabel Park as a result of the stormwater runoff. Incremental pollutant loadings from the
Peconic River after a rainfall event are generally attributable to increases in flow rather than
dramatic pollutant inputs of pollution from stormwater.
Flanders BU
. Over a number of years, the northern sector of Flanders Bay at the mouth of Meetinghouse
and Terry Creeks provided excessive nutrient inputs to Flanders Bay due to prior duck farming
activity. Even with some dilution by tidal action in the bay, these sources combined with the
nutrient load contributed by the Riverhead STP and the Peconic River and the long flushing time
contributed to increased nutrient levels in the Flanders Bay area. Despite dramatic improvement in
Terry's and Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen concentrations, nitrogen levels in western Flanders Bay
still exceed the 0.5 mg/l marine nitrogen guideline. In addition, approximately 1,444 acres of
Flanders Bay (roughly 50% of the total bay) are currently closed to shellfish harvesting largely due
to bacterial contamination from stoma water runoff. Impacts of point and non -point source nitrogen
loads are further discussed in Sections 6 and 7.
Figures 3.4-3 and 3.4-5 clearly indicate that for most species of nitrogen that were monitored
in the Peconic system, the highest levels were found at station.BT-1 in Flanders Bay. Additionally,
the total phosphorus level is greatest in Flanders Bay at station BT -1 (see Figure 3.4-4). This is
expected as a result of significant loadings from the Peconic River, Meetinghouse Creek and
Riverhead STP to Flanders Bay and the long residence time of the water in this bay.
Dissolved oxygen levels vary with incident sunlight, photoperiod, and photosynthetic
production with generally acceptable levels at or near saturation. Long term data supplied by
c .I
Welker (1988) for this area suggest that some bottom waters have encountered depressed oxygen
levels less than 4.0 mg/l in past years (see Appendix H).
Great Peconic Bay
Point source inputs to surface waters in the Great Peconic Bay system are generally less
important contributors to overall system water quality than in Flanders Bay due to the reduced
volume of contaminants, increased tidal exchange with Gardiner's Bay and Block Island Sound, and
geometric and bathymetric characteristics., This portion of the study area incorporates the largest
area (surface value) of embayments evaluated in the present study. For the majority of the bay,
there is complete vertical mixing of surface and bottom waters resulting in nonstratified conditions.
Salinity in Great Peconic Bay ranges from approximately 24.5 to 29 ppt. The mixing process
is also reflected in similar surface and bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations as well. Coliform
bacteria counts in the Bay are usually within State standards. Local violations occur in the vicinity
of STP outfalls and in the developed, poorly flushed harbors such as Three Mile and Accabonac
Harbors.
The oxygen content of Little Peconic Bay is characterized by strong seasonal variability with
a winter maximum of approximately 12 mg/1 to a summer minimum of approximately 7 mg/l.
Oxygen saturation, however, is typically greater than 80% even during -summer (Bruno et al, 1980).
Within Great Peconic and Little Peconic Bays, the spatial distribution of nutrients, dissolved
oxygen, and chlorophyll are relatively uniform. High oxygen levels during the summer in Little
Peconic, Great Peconic and Flanders Bay _reflect negligible stratification over a well mixed water
column and tidal exchange with -the open ocean through Block Island Sound and Gardiners Bay.
Anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus do not significantly impact overall water
quality in Peconic/Gardiners Bays. Nitrogen levels in Great Peconic Bay generally are at very low
levels of less than 5 ug at/l although during ebb tide conditions higher nutrient laden waters from the
freshwater sources and Flanders Bay may cause spikes of higher nitrogen concentrations to occur.
Macronutrient distributions are characterized as well mixed vertically with relatively small spatial
gradients along the east -west axis of the bay. Seasonal variability results in the most dramatic range
of macronutrient concentrations. As is shown in Figures 3.4-3, 3.4-4 and- 3.4-5, the levels of
measured nitrogen and phosphorus decrease in relation to Flanders Bay, but the influence of the
waters from Flanders Bay can be seen, generally; in elevated values when compared to more
easterly stations.
3-61
Little Peconic Bay to Block Island Sound
The waters within these planning areas are generally well mixed. In addition, there--is-
generally only a slight horizontal gradient of most water quality parameters in the western portions
of the system to the eastern portion, which is influenced by oceanic processes. These waters are
characterized by excellent dissolved oxygen levels and low dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations (less than 5 ug at/1).
Localized areas of poorer water quality in this region are in areas near harbor mouths.. For
example, along the southern inshore edge of Little Peconic Bay . near North Sea Harbor, bottom
dissolved oxygen levels can experience levels at or below 4.0 mg/l. The western and central
portions of Gardiners Bay continue this horizontal gradient. Salinities in this area generally range
from 26-30 ppt with dissolved oxygen levels generally in excess of 6.0 mg/l.
As previously noted, the trend along the axis of the Peconic system has been shown to
indicate declining concentrations of nutrients from west to east (see Figures 3.4-3, 3.4-4 and 3.4-5).
3.4.2 Nonconventional Pollutants
Toxic contaminants in the water column and sediments of the Peconic Bay System have been
studied less thoroughly than other aspects of the system. The available information is summarized
in Table 3.4-1.
The majority of the information concerning toxic contributions to the system reflect private
water well and public water. supply information. Contaminants in the water column can occur in
both dissolved and particulate forms, which may have different levels of toxicity and different
environmental fates. Chemicals that are highly soluble (e.g., compounds such as salts and volatile
organics) are found primarily in the dissolved state (Paulson and Feely, 1985; Feely et al., 1986).
Concentrations of soluble contaminants tend to decline rapidly with distance from their sources as a
result of dilution. Most of these contaminants are ultimately transported out of the system into more
oceanic areas of Block Island -Sound and Long Island Sound.
Toxic contaminants in the water column are found mainly in the particulate phase (Dexter et
al., 1981; Paulson and Feely, 1985; Feely et al., 1986; Bates el al., 1987). These contaminants
include metals and organic compounds such as PCBs, PAHs, and chlorinated pesticides such as
DDT. Also, many substances initially in solution are "scavenged" by particles in the water, which
means that they leave the dissolved state to become associated with existing particles (Feely et al.,
1986). Particulate contamination from natural sources (e.g., metals in eroded soil) tends to vary
seasonally depending on erosion and river flow (Crecelius et al., 1975).
3-62
Table 3.4-1
DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN
CONTAMINANTS IN THE PECONIC SYSTEM
Occurrence
Contaminant
Source
Water
Sediments
Tissue
Aldicarb
An insecticide previously
Soluble in water; not
Occurrence in ground-
Acts on the enzymes of
used on farms in eastern
detected in Peconic
water underflow to bay
the central nervous
Suffolk County to control
River and Flanders Bay
is unknown; sediment,
system by inhibiting
Colorado potato beetle;
tributaries.
levels of this compound
cholinesterase enzyme
marketed as "Temik".
are unknown.
activity.
Aldicarb
Breakdown product of
Levels of 2-5 ppb found
Unknown
Unknown
Sulfoxide .
addicarb.
in East Creek.
Aldicarb
Breakdown product of
Concentrations of 2-6
Unknown
Unknown
Sulfone
addicarb.
ppb in East Creek.
Carbofuran
An insecticide marketed
Soluble in water.
Unknown
Unknown
under trade name "Furadan".
Not detected in
Peconic River and
Flanders Bay
tributaries.
TBT
TBT (Tributyltin) is an
Levels of 0.1 to 0.12
Unknown
Readily bioaccumulates
organotin compound that is
ug/1 have been found in
in aquatic organisms,
used as a biocide in boat
Lake Montauk: , Highest
extremely toxic to
bottom paints. Recently
levels (1.7 ug/1) have
benthic populations.
banned by EPA on vessels under
been recorded on
25 meters.
Neguntatogue Creek in
the Town of Babylon.
Contaminant Source
PCBs PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
are synthetic organic chemicals
used in electrical components.
As insulation material may be
present near small power
stations within contributing
area near bay.
Lead Occurs in nature as well as
anthropogenic sources such as
automobile exhaust, urban run-
off and landfill leachate
landfills areas.
Cadmium Discharges from battery manu-
facturers have been notorious
for cadmium contamination of
bottom sediments. Also
found in municipal and
industrial wastewater.
Copper Occurs in nature, commonly used
in bottom paints as cuprous
oxide, found in municipal and
industrial waste and domestic
waste waters.
Zinc Found in nature, occurs in
municipal and industral efflu-
ents and domestic waste water.
Table 3.4-1 (continued)
Water
Unknown
Elevated lead,concentra-
tions in leachate from
North Sea landfill has
reached Fish Cove
waters.
As reported by EPA,
elevated cadmium concen-
trations in leachate
from North Sea landfill
has reached Fish Cove
Waters.
Unknown, possible copper
levels over background
may be present near ST r^
outfalls.
Status unknown in Peconic
system.
Occurrence
Sediments
Readily bind to soil.
Status unknown in
Peconic system. Common
in upper Hudson River
bottom sediments. '
Status unknown in Peconic
system. Has been found
to concentrate in
sediments.
Status unknown in Peconic
System. Has-been found
to concentrate in
sediments.
Cu concentration in
sediment is unknown; may
be present-. In benthic
deposit near STP outfalls
Unknown; natural
occurrence is probable.
Tissue
PCB concentrate in
the liver of fish.
Striped bass larger
than 18" taken
outside N.Y. Harbor
have PCB levels of 3
ppb.
At high concentrations
is capable of altering
benthic communities.
Found to accumulate in
blue crab/lobster
hepatopancreasin
Long Island Sound, and
winter flounder in the
New York Bight. High
consumption has been
linked to prostatic
cancer in men.
A natural component of
the blood of some
invertebrates.
Elevated Cu levels can
be toxic to aquatic
life.
Toxic at high
concentrations.
Particles and their associated contaminants eventually sink and become incorporated into the
sediments. The location where particulate contaminants from the water column reach the sediments
depends on the amount of transport provided by currents, the density and buoyancy of the particles,
and the depth of water column through which the particles must sink. Uptake of particles by
planktonic organisms can also accelerate their movement to the bottom (as the particles become
"packaged" in feces of zooplankton and higher level organisms). Contaminants introduced into the
system as particulates in the water column tend to settle and produce high sediment concentrations
close to the point of release, particularly in shallow areas with slow currents. This is because when
fine, organically rich particles in rivers and stormwater contact seawater, they tend to adhere to one
another and settle out more rapidly (a process known as flocculation). Typical estuarine flow
patterns that occur at the point of salt and freshwater mixing tend to prevent these settling particles
from being transported far from their source.
There are no water quality studies of measured concentrations of dissolved and particulate
toxicants in the water column of the Peconic system. Limited pesticide analyses of water have
occurred since 1985 at East Creek in Jamesport, Sawmill Creek and Little River in Riverhead, and
the Peconic River in Riverhead and Calverton." These results show that pesticides have been
detected in East Creek (see Table 3.4-2). Although detection rates for most organic chemicals were
relatively low, pesticide contamination was found to be common, especially in the North Fork
where the use of aldicarb was historically widespread. Average pesticide concentrations in the
region north of Flanders Bay, for example, were about 10 ug/1 in well samples.
Other possible sources of pollution were also addressed as part of the comprehensive
evaluation of potential sources of contamination in the study area (see Section 6). The sources
included landfills, the most significant of which was the North Sea landfill which generated a plume
of contaminants that has reached its discharge boundary at Fish Cove. Present and past toxic and
hazardous leaks, spills, and discharges were also researched, with emphasis on a Sag Harbor site
known as Rowe Industries from which a plume of organic solvents has leached. As noted in a 1984
SCDHS report, this plume has migrated to Sag Harbor Cove. In addition, inactive duck farms,
industrial discharges with SPDES permits, and major storage tank facilities were addressed, as were
major industrial (Grumman Aerospace) and institutional (Brookhaven National Laboratory) sources
of contaminants.
3.5 Summary of Assessment and Trends
Coliform bacteria data has been gathered in the Peconic system for the past twenty years.
From 1970 to 1980, 410 additional acres of shellfish grounds were closed. In the period from 1980
to 1990, 1,788 acres of underwater lands were closed to shellfish harvesting.
This may indicate a trend toward increased bacterial loading to the Peconic system. However,
other factors, such as a comparison of the frequency of sampling between the 1970s and the 1980s,
3-65
TABLE 3.4-2
Selected Pesticide Contaminants
in the Peconic Systems (ppb)
Source: SCDHS, 1991 1
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
3 -Hydroxy -
Location
Date
Aldicarb
Sulfoxide
Sulfone
Carbofuran
carbofuran
Oxamyl Carbaryl
1-Napthol
Methomyl
Peconic River
4/16/86
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
East Creek
6/26/90
<1
5
6
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
East Creek
6/25/91
<1
4
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
East Creek
10/21/87
<1
1
2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
w
•
i
o East Creek
9/16/86
<1
2
3
1
-<1
<1
<1
<1
East Creek
6/20/85
<1
3
4
<l
<1
<1
<1
<1
East Creek
5/1/80
<1
3
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Saw Mill Creek
5/1/80
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1 .
<1
Little River
5/7/80
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1 .
Peconic River
9/16/86
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
—
Source: SCDHS, 1991 1
need to be examined to determine if sampling frequency has increased in the 1980s. Additionally,
the interpretation of the data may have changed over time, to reflect changes in National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards, the concern over the outbreaks of shellfish related diseases
which occurred in New York State in the 1980's, and more frequent sampling during the worst
hydrographic conditions. While increased closure of shellfish areas continues to have serious
economic and social repercussions, the closures may not be a true trend but an indication of
increased inclement weather sampling and a more rigorous interpretation of water quality data.
In general, surface water quality in the eastern portions of the study area and in the freshwater
portions of the Peconic River is excellent with respect to the nitrogen guideline. Localized water
quality problems do exist, however, in areas such as Meetinghouse Creek.
Although the nitrogen guideline is exceeded in tidal portions of the Peconic River and in
western Flanders Bay, the overall system has not demonstrated characteristics of advanced
eutrophication (in terms of conventional nutrient over -enrichment) such as excessive algal blooms
(except for Brown Tide, which is apparently not triggered by conventional nutrients) and severe
depletion of dissolved oxygen. Thus, the Flanders Bay system currently may be near the limits of
the factors of safety incorporated in the determination of the nitrogen guideline, indicating that the
system could experience serious eutrophication and water quality degradation problems if pollutant
loading were to increase.
Overall nitrogen levels in the Peconic River in 1988 and 1989 were 0.5 mg/1, which may
represent an actual decrease from the 1.0 mg/1 measured in 1976 (based on three sampling dates in
1976). The decrease is fairly consistent with predictions of Tetra -Tech (1976) regarding water
quality improvements associated with the cessation of duck farming activity in the Peconic River,
which did in fact eventually subside (see Section 6). Nitrogen concentrations for Meetinghouse
Creek decreased more dramatically, over 70% lower during the same time period, from 53 mg/1 to
15 mg/l. Total phosphorus levels followed the same trends as total nitrogen for the Peconic River
and Meetinghouse Creek, decreasing slightly to a 1988-89 level of 0.10 mg/1 for the Peconic River
and dropping drastically to 0.9 mg/l for Meetinghouse Creek.
While total nitrogen inputs to Flanders Bay have decreased by 53% between 1976 and 1990
(see Section 6), Figure 3.5-1 shows that significant improvements in Flanders Bay water quality
with respect to nitrogen concentrations have not been observed. In contrast to nitrogen, apparent
improvements in water quality with respect to phosphorus have been noted in conjunction with a
77% decrease in total phosphorus loading to Flanders Bay (Figure 3.5-2). This phenomenon may be
partially explained by the higher degree of reduction of phosphorus input. However, the reliability
of an explanation of historical impacts is hampered by the absence of a fundamental understanding
of the temporal response of sediment flux (i.e., chemical exchange between sediments and water
column) to variations in point sources. Impacts of pollutant sources are further examined in
Sections 6 and 7.
3-67
2000
1800
1600
J
Cn
rn
1400
c
1200
a�
rn
0
L
1000
4-3
.r.,
Z
LO
800
rn ru
00 4J
600
400
0
200
• 0
FIGURE 3.5-1
Flanders Bay Stations only (no creeks)
1976 1977 19781979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Total Nitrogen Time -Series (Flanders Bay only)
- )ur Te' Tec • " 99`
0
0
0
0
0
0°
o
°
o
°
o
°
°
o®
CO
0
®
o°
o
CID
°o
°
° °
o
°o
0 0
�
°
am
c
ly
o�
®
CD
44
Cb
o 00
0
°
°
o
0 8
°
° °o
o
o
1976 1977 19781979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Total Nitrogen Time -Series (Flanders Bay only)
- )ur Te' Tec • " 99`
w
rn
FIGURE 3.5-2
Flanders Bay only (no. creeks)
300
250
J
CD
200
L
O
L
C3.
in
0
t
o_
co
0
F-
150
100
0
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19B9'1990
- Year
Source: .Tetra -Tech, 1991
TotalPhosphorus Time -Series (Flanders Bay only)
0
CO
CID
0
0
CID
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
o
o
O
Oo
0
CO
O
O
O]
O
0
0
O
O
o°oO
0
0
eS
g
g
o e
°°
0
°
0
°°
8°
go
g o
o
0°
g
0
g
°°
0
0
00
0
o
-o
$
0
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19B9'1990
- Year
Source: .Tetra -Tech, 1991
TotalPhosphorus Time -Series (Flanders Bay only)
The high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed, which has not undergone
drastic land use changes between 1976 and 1988 (see Section 6) has undoubtedly spared the river
system from the adverse impacts of anthropogenic pollution. Future water quality trends in the-
Peconic system are dependent on the land use in the groundwater and surface water contributing
areas. Land use is a factor in the types and relative amounts of development related pollution which
currently impact upon.surface waters and a barometer of relative amounts of future contamination if
vacant land is developed. Since most decisions on land use are made at the local level, the active
involvement of local municipalities in water quality planning efforts is crucial to the success of
future water quality programs. The significant extent of vacant and developable land remaining in
the study area, along with potential pollutant impacts associated with the development of this land,
are discussed in Sections 6 and 7.
The overall nutrient loading from point sources to Flanders Bay was estimated to have
decreased from levels estimated in 1976 for the Long Island 208 Study. In 1976, the total nitrogen
and phosphorus inputs from Meetinghouse Creek, the Riverhead STP, the Peconic River, and other
minor point sources were approximately 1400 and 350 pounds per day, respectively, as compared to
700 and 80 pounds per day for 1988 through 1989. This decrease is primarily attributed to the
termination of duck farm discharge from Meetinghouse Creek, although nitrogen and phosphorus
levels on the creek are still significant. Despite the decrease in nitrogen loadings, the most recent
estirnates still exceed the nitrogen budget guideline provided in the 208 Study for the area of the
Peconic estuary near the Riverhead STP.
The decline in duck farms in the study area should result in long-term reductions in nitrogen
and phosphorus loadings to the creeks that served as receiving waters. However, residual organic
material from discharges associated with duck farms are still considered significant sources of
nutrients in spite of mineralization of this material that might be expected to have occurred
following the cessation of duck waste discharging. Sediment flux study is discussed further in
Section 6.
The impact of pesticides on surface waters in the Peconic system is unknown. The limited
data available suggests that concentrations of aldicarb and carbofuran are low in Peconic River and
Flanders Bay tributaries, but are present in detectable levels in East Creek. The biocide Tributyltin
(TBT) is present in some Peconic system (Lake Montauk) water bodies. The USEPA ban on TBT
use in vessels under 25 meters will effectively cause a reduction of TBT inputs into the system as
.most boats using the Peconic system are smaller than 25 meters. Over the long-term, TBT
concentrations should decline in small boat harbors in the Peconic system. Pesticides, such as DDT,
have been banned and replaced by chemicals designed to be less persistent, require lower rates of
application, and to be more precise in attacking a given target. DDT and other organochlorines have
declined significantly in the tissues of fish, birds, and humans since the early 1970s. PCB
concentrations in Peconic system surface waters and sediments has not been investigated, but it is
3-70
known that PCBs commonly bind to the soil and have been found in high concentrations in upper
Hudson river sediments.
Other concerns include the localized impacts of the Rowe Industries organic chemical plume
on Sag Harbor Cove and the North Sea landfill leachate plume on Fish Cove. These areas are
discussed in greater detail in Section 6.
3-71
4.0 THE BROWN TIDE PROBLEM
4.0 THE BROWN TIDE PROBLEM
Exceptionally large algal blooms occurred in the Peconic Bays and South Shore Bays systems
of Long Island, New York for extended periods of time since the summer of 1985. These blooms
("Brown Tides") were particularly notable because of their duration and spatial extent and for the
extremely high concentrations of algal ,cells present.
In June of 1985, members of the Department of Health Services Marine Unit, during a
sampling operation in Great South Bay, noticed that the waters of the bay were discolored. While
this was not atypical (portions of the bay are often discolored by algal blooms), the extent of the
turbid, brown water was surprising. Microscopic analysis of the water samples collected revealed
that the discoloration was due to the presence of large numbers of a small, spherical, algal cell. It
was subsequently determined that similar blooms also occurred in Moriches Bay, Shinnecock Bay,
the Peconic system, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, and possibly Barnegat Bay, New, Jersey.
Researchers at the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, using electron
microscopy, placed the causative organism in a new genus and species, Aureococcus
anophagefferens.
The Aureococcus anophag_efferens bloom, popularly dubbed "Brown Tide," persisted in high
concentrations in the Peconic system for extended periods in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. It also
occurred in eastern Great South Bay, Moriches Bay, and Shinnecock Bay during this time. Peak
Brown Tide cell counts in the Peconic system often exceeded 1 million cells per milliliter (ml), as
compared with a normal, mixed phytoplankton assemblage concentration which would typically
range from 100 to 100,000 cells per inl. After virtually disappearing, elevated Brown Tide cell
counts were observed in July of 1990 in West Neck Bay, an enclosed embayment off Shelter Island,
and in western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays. Brown Tide also reappeared in high
concentrations in Shinnecock and Moriches Bays in the fall of 1990 and persisted into the early
winter.
Another intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the Peconic Estuary system in May, 1991 and
persisted in high concentrations through July, 1991; a Moriches and Shinnecock Bays bloom of
Brown Tide also began in May, but persisted in -significant concentrations through December, 1991.
In the summer of 1992, Browri Tide reappeared -in high concentrations in West Neck Bay, Great
South Bay, Shinnecock Bay, and Moriches Bay. In general, bloom conditions have been
consistently most severe in Flanders and West Neck Bays. However, the dynamics of the Brown
Tide bloom (i.e., concentration and timing of onset, persistence, and subsidence) in the main
Peconic Estuary system have often been radically different from those in West Neck Bay and the
South Shore Bays.
The uniqueness of the 'Brown Tide" blooms is the dominance of a single, particularly small,
and previously unknown species. Productivity rates were high -during the blooms but at levels
similar to earlier summers (Linley et at. 1983, Bruno et al. 1983). Although cell densities were
high, phytoplankton biomass (as ug chl/1) was not significantly different from pre -bloom years
4-1
(Cosper et al. 1987). Severe light attenuation in the bays resulted mainly from the scattering of light
by the numerous small cells (Cosper et al. 1987). Concentrations of inorganic nutrients were not
markedly different from pre -bloom years, and there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that
inputs of conventional macronutrients such as nitrate and phosphate are a direct cause of the Brown
Tide blooms. ..
The consequences of these blooms were catastrophic for several commercially important
species of shellfish and finfish; particularly affected by generalized anorexia were the filter feeding
animals, most notably the bay scallop Argopecten irradians, whose massive mortality nearly
eliminated the fishery. Additionally, the bloom has had a large impact on the distribution of
eelgrass (Zoster a marina) due to shading of the water column. The decimation of eelgrass beds may
have related repercussions to the shallow water habitats of the Peconic system. One of the more
serious effects is the loss of extensive eelgrass habitat that has served as a nursery environment for
many species of shellfish and finfish.
The tasks of identifying, culturing and studying the life cycle of the 'Brown Tide" organism,
identified as Aureococcus anophagefferens, are being addressed by the scientific community. Much
of this work has been supported by Suffolk County.
4.1 Spatial Extent of the Brown Tide Organism
Over the period 1985-1991 the Brown Tide has occurred seriously throughout temperate,
shallow estuarine systems in eastern Long Island and Narragansett Bay areas. The areas of
significant, confirmed occurrences of the Brown Tide organism are presented in Figure 4.1-1;
associated SCDHS sampling stations are shown in Figure 4.1-2.
4.1.1 Peconic Estuary
Since 1985 SCDHS has -collected water samples from 10 to 12 stations throughout the
Peconic system for the analysis of brown tide cell concentrations and various physical and chemical
parameters; the sampling has occurred on a weekly basis during periods of sampling activity. In an
attempt to provide continuity of data and ease of data comparison, some of the BTCAMP stations
mirrored earlier stations used during the Long Island 208 Study. Long term Brown Tide and water
quality monitoring at these locations will provide a valuable data base for future studies of the
Peconic system and serve as an ongoing mechanism for tracking the ecological health of the system.
The Brown Tide, or phytoplankton blooms that appeared very similar to the Brown Tide, have
been identified as occurring in the following areas and water bodies:
o Rhode Island - Narragansett Bay
4-2
\ \ NEW
GREAT SOUTH BAY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
GARDINERS BAY
FISHtRS
ISLAND
v LITTLE
ERS BAY PECONIC
BOUNDARY BAY
MOR SHI NNECOCK BAY TR BUT I G G RE NDPA TER
ICHES BAY A
® AREAS AFFECTED BY BROWN TIDE
FIGURE 4.1-1 AREAS OF BROWN TIDE OCCURRENCE ON LONG ISLAND
SOURCE& SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
NO SCALE
PBH - 3/92
LONG
BROOKHAVEN
ISLAND
RIVERHEAD
PECO
I
GREAT
PBAYNIC
SOUND BT
FLANDERS BAY Spp��p�0
LITTLE
PECONIC
h BAY /
r- B f-2
Aj � PNT � C
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
BT-S�
LT GARDINERS BAY AR RS
.AN BT -6. BT -7 AN
B -8
EAST HAMPTON
SOUTHAMPTON ` /
TOWN BOUNDARY
STUDY AREA
OCEAN
FIGURE 4.1-2
SCDHS
BROWN
TIDE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS NO SCALE
SOURCE& SUFFOLK
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH
SERVICES PBH - 3/92
o New York - Great South Bay, Moriches Bay, Shinnecock Bay, Peconic Bays system
o New Jersey - Barnegat Bay (never positively identified)
o Texas - Laguna Madre
In Narragansett Bay and the bays on Long Island, Brown Tide blooms first appeared in May,
1985 and persisted throughout the summer, dissipating by early fall. Coastal New Jersey waters
have regularly experienced blooms of brownish phytoplankton for the past decade, although the
phenomenon appeared to intensify in 1985, especially in the waters of Barnegat Bay. The bloom
reappeared with equal intensity and geographic range in Long Island and New Jersey waters in
1986, but not in Narragansett Bay, which experienced much less severe bloom conditions in 1986.
In 1987, the Brown Tide reappeared in Long Island embayments, and possibly in Barnegat Bay,
New Jersey (Olsen, 1988) but with much less severity and only in certain restricted, inshore
embayments and creeks of the Barnegat system.
Brown Tide counts measured by SCDHS in samples taken from the Peconic Estuary system in
July and August of 1985 were as high as 1.25 million cells per tnl. In 1986 in Long Island waters,
from its first appearance in the Peconic Estuary system in May, the concentration of the bloom built
rapidly to a June peak of over 2 million cells per tnl, persisted in significant concentrations (several
hundred thousand cells per ml) through July, and then gradually declined through August. Counts
were still above 100,000 cells per ml at Stations BT -1 and BT -2 in early September, but by the end
of September counts were below 50,000 cells per ml at every station. By October the event was
effectively over.
In 1987, the Brown Tide appeared in some areas (West Neck Bay on Shelter Island) in early
summer (over 700,000 cells per nil in early June), and developed in other areas such as Nicoll and
Patchogue Bays in Great South Bay during mid -summer. In the Peconic system in 1987 (exclusive
of the West Neck Bay station), Brown Tide was present at some concentration for the entire period
of May through December, but was only present at significant concentrations of over 100,000 cells
per ml between July and December.
In a very peculiar biological phenomenon, the Brown Tide persisted in the Peconic Estuary
system at concentrations of over 100,000 cells per ml throughout the winter of 1987 and into the
spring of 1988. In May of 1988, concentrations dropped to below 1000 cells per ml at all stations.
Concentrations then generally remained relatively low (i.e., well below 100,000 cells per nil) for the
remainder of 1988 and into 1989. In May, 1989, concentrations dropped to undetectable or nearly
undetectable levels and remained there until 1990.
After virtually disappearing, elevated numbers of Brown Tide cells were observed in July of
1990 in West Neck Bay and in western Shitmecock and eastern Moriches Bays; the Brown Tide did
4-5
not appear in significant concentrations in the main Peconic Estuary system at this time. The Brown
Tide bloom also reappeared in high concentrations in Shinnecock and Moriches Bays in the fall of
1990 and persisted into the winter, but did not appear in West Neck Bay . (except at low
concentrations) or the main Peconic Estuary system at this time.
Another intense bloom began in the Peconic Estuary system in May, 1991 and persisted in
high concentrations through July, 1991. Concentrations at several stations in June and July were
well over a million cells per ml. Aureococcus levels declined sharply by late July and August, but
persisted at significant levels (200,000 to 300,000 cells per ml) at a number of stations. In
September of 1991, concentrations dropped to below 10,000 cells per ml at all stations in the
Peconic system except West Neck Bay, which continued to have Aureococcus concentrations in the
tens of thousands of cells per ml through December (latest data available at time of writing), long
after the Brown Tide virtually disappeared from the rest of the Peconic system. The South Shore
Bays bloom during this timeframe is discussed in Section 4.1.2. A complete listing of available
Brown Tide data is contained in Appendix E.
Figure- 4.1-3 presents the average Brown Tide cell counts for stations BT -1 through BT -8
(Peconic Estuary stations) over the period of 1985 to 1988. In general, the highest average
Aureococcus concentrations occurred in Flanders Bay and decreased eastward in the system.
A presentation of maximum cell counts by month for the Flanders Bay station (Station BT -1)
from 1985 (limited sampling) through 1988 is presented in Figure 4.1-4. From January through
April, 1988, monthly maximum Aureococcus cell counts fluctuated at densities between 125,000
and 206,000 cells per ml. When this data is compared. with the monthly maximum counts for the
previous six months (July through December 1987), a decreasing trend in Flanders Bay.
Aureococcus cell counts is observed from July 1987 to June 1988. However, the Brown Tide
persisted in significantconcentrations through the winter of 1987-1988.
Maximum brown tide populations occurred in areas having limited flushing and considerable
terrestrial influence (Flanders Bay, West Neck Bay, Great South Bay; Nuzzi and Waters, 1988).
When present, the cells numbers usually were highest in Flanders and/or Great Peconic Bay,
declining eastward through Little Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. Samples collected during the
late summer (August and September) of 1988 were the only exception to this, and probably reflect
removal of the cells from the system by tidal flushing.
A peculiarity of Brown Tide onset, persistence, and cessation has been the clear variation of
its spacial distribution in three distinct areas; bloom dynamics in the main Peconic Estuary system
have often been radically different from conditions in West Neck Bay and South Shore Bays. The
above discussion referred to some of the differences in Brown Tide concentrations in these areas;
South Shore conditions are discussed further below.
4-6
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average Cell Count
Average Cell Count (Thousands/ml )
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2
3
4
5
6
8 7
West
Brown
Tide
Sampling
Stations
East
• Cell count averaged over years 1986 - 1988
Note: Stations 6 and 8 are approximately the same distance on an east -west axis.
Figure 4.1-3
ON
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Maximum Cell Count
by Month for Flanders Bay Station (Brown Tide Station 1)
1985 - 1988
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
M
Thousands
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
* Limited data
Figure 4.1-4
4.1.2 South Shore Bays
Sampling indicated elevated Aureococcus concentrations as high as several hundred thousand
cells per ml in Great South Bay in June and July of 1988; these cell counts diminished to non-
detectable levels by August, 1988. In 1989, cell counts in Great South Bay did not exceed 25,000
cells per ml and were often less than 1,000 cells per ml. In the eastern areas of the bay (from
Patchogue Bay to the Carmans River), concentrations remained low from January through August
of 1989, only increasing in September to levels greater than 2,500 cells/nil. At stations in the
central and western bay (from Sayville to Lindenhurst), cell counts increased from undetectable
during January, 1989, to peak levels during May and June that ranged from 5,000 to greater than
24,000 cells/ml. They declined thereafter, fluctuating at concentrations below 4,000 cells/nil. Other
picoplankton (small forms), primarily Nannochloris chlorella type cells, remained dominant in much
of Great South Bay (SCDHS).
A limited number -of sampling events were performed in Moriches and Shinnecock Bays in
1989; the highest counts were found at the stations on either side of Quantuck Bay, which lies
between eastern Moriches Bay and western Shinnecock Bay. In Moriches Bay, the counts ranged
from undetectable to 8,000 cells/ml during April and from undetectable to 68,000 cells/ml in July,
with counts as high as 130,000 cells per ml in August. On each date, densities increased from west
to east in the bay. 'Maximum Brown Tide concentrations were slightly lower in Shinnecock Bay,
where numbers ranged from undetectable to 4,000 cells/ml hi May, and from 100 to 23,000 cells/nil
in August, with western bay stations having the highest counts. Samples taken in Shinnecock Bay
in October and December, and in Moriches Bay in November and December, had low or
undetectable levels of Brown Tide.
Elevated Brown Tide cell counts of several hundred thousand cells per nil were again
observed in July of 1990 in western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays. The bloom subsided
somewhat in August and September of 1990, reappearing in high concentrations in the fall of 1990
and persisting into the winter before again subsiding.
No detections of Aureococcus above 10,000 cells per ml occurred in Great South Bay in 1991.
However, Moriches Bay experienced a Brown Tide bloom roughly concurrent with the Peconic
Estuary bloom, beginning in May, 1991. Unlike bloom conditions in -Flanders Bay, Moriches Bay
cell counts failed to subside, with cell counts persisting in the range of several hundred thousand
cells per ml through December, 1991 (the latest available data at the time of,this writing). Similarly,
in Shinnecock Bay, high Aureococcus counts of up to one million cells per ml were registered in
July, 1991 (no .June samples taken); concentrations were lower by August, but significant levels of
Aureococcus (over 100,000 cells per ml) persisted through December, 1991.
4-9
4.1.3 Physical Factors Affecting Brown Tide Abundance
In general, over most of the "Brown Tide years" of 1985-1987, increases in cell densities in
the main Peconic Estuary system were first noted to occur in die western reaches of the Peconic
system, specifically Flanders Bay. This phenomenon may have been a result of the relatively longer
flushing time as compared to other regions of the Peconic system. Vieira (1989) has hypothesized
that the onset and persistence of the Brown Tide bloom may be attributed, in part, to changes in the
seasonal pattern of flushing and tidal exchange within the Peconic system. Various physical,
climatological and offshore forcings are suggested as possible causal mechanisms that could result
in an increased residence time, resulting in physical conditions conducive to bloom formation within
the Peconic system.
The distribution of salinity along the axis of the Bay reflects freshwater inputs, tidal exchange
within Gardiner's Bay and the local residence tunes of regions of the Peconic system. In an analysis
of phytoplankton biomass and productivity of the Peconic system, Bruno et al. (1980) determined
that flushing and exchange of the Peconic system with Gardiner's Bay is a dominant factor (r
squared = 0.8) in the observed distribution of chlorophyll pigments associated with algal cells.
They concluded that tidal exchange and flushing is a major process that serves to substantially
reduce excessive accumulations of phytoplankton biomass in Flanders Bay despite high influx rates
of nutrients into the western regions of Flanders Bay. Based on the "pollution susceptibility"
indices computed by Weyl (1974; Figure 4.1-5), physical flushing via tidal exchange could have
been a factor in the distribution of the Brown Tide from 1985-1988.
A preliminary evaluation of the hypothesis that the interannual variability in residence time of
water masses in the Peconic system could be a factor in the occurrence or distribution of the Brown
Tide bloom was performed using salinity observations and Brown Tide abundance from 1985-1988.
Paired observations of Brown Tide abundance and salinity (by year) were used to plot the
abundance of the Brown Tide organism against this parameter. The data, shown cumulatively in
Figure 4.1-6, show that significant concentrations of Brown Tide occur at salinity levels between 25
to 29 ppt. As noted in subsequent report sections dealing with Brown Tide, laboratory research
indicates that Aureococcus growth is optional at higher salinities. This finding is contrary to field
observations showing highest Brown Tide counts in the relatively poorly -flushed and less saline
western areas of the Peconic system. The reasons for this phenomenon, whether related to tidal
exchange and mixing processes, nutrient input, or to some other characteristics of Flanders Bay
conducive to Brown Tide blooms, are not determinable based on current knowledge regarding the
organism.
Although physical transport may be a factor in the relative spatial distribution of the Brown
Tide bloom within the Peconic system, the causes for the onset of the bloom cannot be determined
from the present analysis. In addition, Brown Tide bloom patterns in West Neck Bay and South
Shore Bays deviate significantly from the blooms observed hi the main Peconic Estuary system. It
4-10
Steady -State Pollution Susceptibility (ppb-day/ton) [from Weyl 19741.
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Cell Count'
vs.
Salinity
Salinity (ppt)
32-
31
30
29-
28
9 2V ■ i f ■ • ■
■
27 ■■
■
26 •
25 '
24
23-
22
21
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Cell Count (Thousands/ml )
• Data presented for Brown Tide Station 1 only (1885 - 1988)
Figure 4.1-6
is hoped that results from ongoing research on the physiological characteristics of the Brown Tide
organism will provide insight into the causal factors related to its explosive growth in the natural
enviromnent.
4.2 Biology of the Brown Tide Organism
The Brown Tide organism, - Aureococcus anophagefferens, is a unicellular marine
phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are minute, single -celled plants that drift passively in marine and
fresh waters. They constitute an important element of the marine food web, utilizing carbon dioxide
and various nutrients dissolved in seawater for growth and propagation. These nutrients are then
passed along to other trophic levels, particularly the zooplankton and the community of filter -
feeding bottom -dwelling organisms.. Typically, seasonal cycles of phytoplankton abundance occur
in which blooms of individual species or groups of species are triggered by variation in
environmental parameters such as photoperiod, water temperatures, nutrient concentrations, and
internal mixing of the water column. A Brown Tide bloom clearly represents an aberration in the
normal cycle of phytoplankton abundance in that it involves the dominance of the phytoplankton
population by a single species, over a large area, for an extended period of time.
Although advances have been made regarding the identification and characterization of the
Brown Tide organism and its growth needs, the causal factors related to the Brown Tide bloom are
not known. The input of conventional inacronutrients such as -nitrogen and phosphorus is
apparently not the trigger of bloom onset. Chemicals which have been implicated by laboratory
research as potential contributors to Brown Tide's pervasiveness include specific organic nutrients,
chelators such as citric acid, and trace metals such as iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate and boron.
Viruses have been postulated as agents involved in ending the growth cycle of the Brown Tide.
Acrylic acid and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which may be produced by the Brown Tide, may play a
role in controlling the zooplankton population which would graze on Aureococcus, keeping its
numbers in check. Finally, there may be a relationship between meteorological and climatological
factors and the Brown Tide.
4.2.1 General Characteristics
Aureococcus anophagefferens is a small (2-3 micrometers in diameter) spherical cell that has
the general characteristics of the group of algae known as the chrysophytes. It is a member of the
smallest phytoplankton, the picoplankton. Discrimination between Aureococcus and other
phytoplankters of similar size and shape, including small diatoms and cyanobacteria, is difficult
with standard microscopic techniques. Figure 4.2-1 is a drawing of the organists based upon
transmission electron microscope photographs prepared by Sieburth et al. (1988). The development
and perfection of an immuno -fluorescent staining and examination technique (Anderson) has
allowed definitive identification of this organism in plankton samples.
4-13
L
Al, 3�7
MR,
0
4
J.
L
Al, 3�7
MR,
0
SCDHS began utilizing the immuno -fluorescent procedure in March, 1988, and sample
analysis prior to that time cannot be expected to be as precise. However, a cross -calibration of
Brown Tide samples analyzed with both the" new technique and the- older, conventional light
microscope counting method showed that the older method yielded results reasonably close to those
obtained with the newer method. Therefore, all Brown Tide cell count data collected by SCDHS
can be regarded as reasonably precise.
The "brown tide" organism was` isolated into culture during the summer of 1986, with
guidance of SCDHS, from water collected 'from Great South Bay (Cosper, 1987). From these
results it was determined that this microalgae is similar to that which occurred in high densities in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island in 1985 (Sieburth et al., 1986).
Due to its small size,- the structural components of Aureococcus must be examined with an
electron microscope. Using this technique the identifying characteristics of Aureococcus were
found to include an extracellular polysaccharide layer and cup -shaped chloroplast., The species
apparently has no flagellum and can" be irregularly shaped. Pigment analysis of cultured material
from Long Island waters indicates the organists to be an "aberrant" chrysophyte (Bidigare, 1989), a
small class of phytoplankters that only recently has begun to attract attention from marine scientists.
Aureococcus from Rhode Island waters was found to be consistently infected with viruses, whose
role, if any, in the growth dynamics of the organism are" presently unknown (Sieburth et al, 1988).
At no tune have Long Island isolates of Aureococcus been, observed to have associated viruses
(Cosper et al, 1989; see also Wise, 1986).
4.2.2 Growth Dynamics
Carbon-14 incubations in Great South Bay and the Peconic Bay system during peak summer
bloom conditions in 1986 indicated turnover tunes of 3-8 hours, but chlorophyll concentrations that
were not greatly" elevated (15-26 ug clil/1). Moreover, except for the- tremendous initial spurt of
growth in early June, phytoplankton biomass levels in bloom -infected waters of Long Island in 1986
were relatively constant until the decline began in late -July (Cosper et al., "1987). Variations in
estiunated carbon turnover times during the summer of 1987 appeared to relate to changes in bloom
densities, i.e., high cell densities which decreased to lower densities corresponded with fast turnover
rates (several hours) initially increasing to .longer turnover" rates (24 hours or greater). Possible
changes in nutrient inputs and concentrations, particularly organic nutrients, might correlate with the
above longer turnover rate. However, experimentation, using cultured stocks of Aureococcus, to
identify the environmental conditions required for the accelerated growth of this species has proven
to be difficult.
The species was successfully established in laboratory culture, although not axenic, by
scientists at MSRC in June, 1986. Rapid growth rates (three divisions per day) of the Brown Tide
isolates have been obtained in laboratory "cultures under optimum conditions, consistent with the
- 4=15 .
high productivity estimates for field populations. This microalgae grows minimally in standard
media used for culturing marine microalgae. However, similar media made from natural filtered
seawater (from bloom -affected areas) gives ma.xisnal growth rates (Cosper et al., 1987).
Substitution of sodium glycerophosphate (an organic phosphorus compound) for inorganic
phosphate at equivalent phosphate levels to the standard inedia enhanced growth to 70% of growth
in natural seawater media. This indicates that specific organic nutrients may be required for rapid
growth of this species. The possibility that specific organic nutrients in the bloom water are
conducive to the growth of the Brown Tide organism is.under evaluation.
The stimulation of growth by organic,phosphorous can be due to a variety of factors including
the use of the material as a carbon source as well .as a source of phosphate. Certain organic nutrients
may also serve as chelators (chemicals that combine with metals snaking them available for growth,
and/or nontoxic to organisms). Laboratory growth of Aureococcus has been shown to be stimulated
by various chelators, particularly citric -acid. Experimental data hint at a requirement for the
micronutrients iron and selenium as well. as vanadate, arsenate and/or boron. The organism has
been found to use nitrate, amino acids, and urea, but not ammonia, as sources of nitrogen.
Adaptation to salinity, temperature and fluctuating light probably also affect the spatial and
temporal distribution of the "Brown Tide" in Long Island bays.
Some of the trace elements identified as potential stimulants to Brown Tide onset have
possible anthropogenic sources in Long Island waters. For example, the chelator citric acid is an
additive in detergent. Arsenate is used in fertilizer and feed additives and was formerly used
extensively in pesticides; it is also is released from fossil fuel combustion. Vanadate occurs from
the burning of oil and coal, and boron is found in soap products. Iron is a, naturally occurring metal
which is found in Long Island groundwaters. The trace metals of concern generally have some
degree of natural occurrence in addition to potential anthropogenic sources. Researchers continue to
investigate the possibility of the effects of chelators and trace metals on the Brown Tide, with a
growing emphasis on field studies.
The inability to obtain Aureococcus in axenic culture remains a serious problem in the study
of the organism's physiology.
In addition to the theory that viruses may play some role in the cessation of the Brown Tide
bloom, the suggestion has been made that acrylic acid and - d methyl sulfide (DMS), which may be
produced by the Brown Tide, may be toxic to zooplankton grazers that might ordinarily prevent the
formation of bloom conditions. Preliminary SCDHS sampling results show a correlation between
elevated dimethyl sulfide (DMS) concentrations in surface waters and the Brown Tide bloom.
4-16
4.2.3 Habitat Requirements
Aureococcus blooms have appeared in the summer after extended periods of dry weather.
The organism seems to prefer high salinities and temperatures, growing best in the laboratory at a
salinity of 30 ppt and a temperature of 25 degrees C, but is apparently adaptable to a wide range of
both salinity and temperature. Figure 4.1-5 presented the comparison of salinity versus cell counts
for collections by Suffolk County Department of Health Service at Brown Tide Monitoring Stations
over the period 1985-1988; extensive numbers of the alga were collected between 25 and 29 ppt
salinity. In addition to field data, laboratory studies with Brown Tide cultures indicate a severe
reduction in growth rate at a salinity of 25 ppt (25 parts per thousand) as compared to growth at 30
ppt, indicating that elevated salinities in the bays might have been conducive to the growth of the
species. However, analysis of Brown Tide abundance versus salinity at 12 stations throughout die
Peconic Bays system and Great South Bay on August 12, 1986 showed the opposite trend. Highest
cellular concentrations were at 26 pot and the lowest at salinities greater than 30 ppt. In 1987 the
same trend of increased Brown Tide abundance with decreasing salinity, although not as well
correlated, was found on June 30 and July 28 at similar areas throughout both bay systems. "
The most recent culture work has shown that when sodium glycerophosphate is substituted for
the inorganic phosphate in the growth medium, growth at the lower salinities is enhanced. These
results may reflect the relationship between nutrients and saliuuty and help to explain the dichotomy
between laboratory findings and field data. Evaluation of growth over a broad range of
temperatures indicated the best growth may occur between 20 and 25 degrees C. Good growth over
a wide temperature range can occur if Aureococcus anophaaefferens is given enough time to adapt
so that even at 5 degree C cell doubling times of 10 days are realized.. Such growth rates 'at low
temperatures would be enough to maintain populations during the winter months in the minimally
flushed bays on Long Island. The ability to adapt to variations in temperature was dramatically
illustrated by the Brown Tide persistence throughout the winter of 1987-88, when cell numbers
were in excess of 100,000 per milliliter at water temperatures below 0 degrees C.
Measurements of growth ata wide range of light intensities' (Carpenter and Cosper 1988)
indicate a typical growth curve with little photoinhibition at levels consistent with full sunlight. The
photoadaptive characteristics of this species are - quite broad and might give it a competitive
advantage over less tolerant species in the environment.
4.2.4 Trophic Level Interactions
As a beginning investigation of other potential interactions, Cosper et al. (1987) tested the
possible excretion of substances by -the "brown tide"' which could inhibit the growth of other
potentially co-occurring species in Long Island bays. A filtrate of the media used to grow the
"brown tide" alga was added at concentrations from 0.1% to _100% to fresh enriched media. For all
five species (Thalassiosira pseudonana, Prorocentrum minimum, Di lura brig_htwellii,
4-17
Nannochloris 5p. and Aureococcus) tested the growth was either enhanced or there was little effect.
At only 10% of its own filtrate taken from a senescent culture, the "brown tide" was growth
inhibited.
Among the organisms that graze (feed) on inshore phytoplankton assemblages are
zooplankton. The zooplankton are a diverse group of organisms including tiny protozoa,
crustaceans, and the larvae of many benthic animals. There is speculation that one trigger for the
Brown Tide phenomenon may lie in a disruption of the grazing pressure exerted on picoplankton
like Aureococcus by micro-zooplankton (small flagellates, ciliates, and tintinnids). Field work in
Narragansett Bay in 1985 indicated a relative absence of these zooplankters at the time the
Aureococcus bloom began in that region. Laboratory studies of the grazing by zooplankton on
Aureococcus have begun at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (Caron et al. 1988). Their results
show that Brown Tide supported rapid growth of a heterotrophic microflagellate (Monas sy.) and a
pleuronematid ciliate, but supported slow growth (a bodonid microflagellate and a hypotrich ciliate)
or no growth (an unidentified scuticociliate) for the other three species. These experiments
indicated an ability of at least some protozoa to tolerate, and perhaps utilize, brown tide biomass.
Grazing experiments and microbial population estimates (bacteria, heterotrophic and
phototrophic nanoplankton, heterotrophic picoplankton,, brown tide) were conducted on water
samples collected from several sites in the Peconic Bay system and Great South Bay system on
three separate dates throughout the summer of 1988. High densities of bacteria were generally '
observed in water samples with high concentrations of brown tide, but nano- and picozooplankton
densities were more variable. Fluorescently-labeled algae (a chlorophyte similar in size and
morphology to the brown tide), and fluorescently-labeled bacteria were used to investigate grazing
in these samples. Heterotrophic dinoflagellates (>10 um in size) were the major consumers of
fluorescently-labeled algae in samples containing moderately high densities (0.05-0.1 million per
ii -l). Ebridian flaggellates, where present, also ;consumed significant numbers. The presence of
these consumers may be one of the reasons that moderate densities of the brown tide were
maintained throughout most of the summer of 1988. An examination of grazing rates indicated that
the presence of the brown tide in coastal waters did not inhibit all microbial grazing.
In terms of use of the Brown Tide organism as food, source studies by Fisher et al. (1988)
noted levels of the essential fatty acids in Aureococcus are comparable to those of microalgae
known to support good growth of bivalves. These results indicate that starvation of bivalves during
"brown tide" blooms may not readily be attributed to .a nutritional deficiency associated with this
type of food organism.
Tide.
Researchers continue to explore the relationship between trophic level interactions and Brown
4-18
4.3 Effects
The effects of the blooms in 1985 through 1988 were both immediate and far reaching. No
causative link for the blooms has been discovered yet, so prevention, reduction, or control
mechanisms for the Brown Tide bloom cannot yet be developed or initiated. However,
conventional water quality problems such as nitrogen and coliforms, are addressed in subsequent
sections of this study; a general program of management practices for the Peconic system might
reduce those factors that may have an effect on initiating, or maintaining, bloom events.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The Brown Tide organism has had a number of effects upon the Peconic system. The loss of
eelgrass has been at least partially attributable to the attenuation of light by high densities of
Aureococcus during blooms. Other plants and algae were probably affected to varying degrees;
research in this area is incomplete. Losses initially in the scallop fishery were, in part, attributable
to the small meat size of adult scallops. The small size of adult bay scallops appears to be the result
of an inability to ingest an adequate food source during Brown. Tide blooms when other, more
nutritionally valuable plankton species were reduced or suppressed by the Brown Tide.
Additionally, the devastation of the scallop population is related, in part, to the loss of the
eelgrass and its relation to the life cycle of the scallop. The loss of eelgrass also affected the
progeny of other aquatic organisms that rely on the eelgrass meadows as a nursery habitat for the fry
or juvenile cohorts. The suppression or reduction of competing plankton species that are of higher
nutritional value may have impaired the vitality or viability of grazers of the Brown Tide. However,
complete suppression of feeding at bloom densities, perhaps as a result of the polysaccharide
exocellular secretions, may also be related to the small meat size of the scallops. Hard clams landed
subsequent to the Brown Tide bloom also showed a decrease in meat weight.
Loss of the scallop fishery resulted in increased shellfishing for hard clams. The effect of this
increased fishing pressure on hard clam populations as a result of the transference has not been
examined. In addition to a significant economic impact caused by the loss of the scallop fishery,
there were indirect effects on other seasonal businesses in the Peconic system, including marine
industries and tourism. While tourism might be expected to rebound in the absence of future brown
tide blooms, it might still suffer as a result of decreased fisheries. However; the longer term
economic loss of the scallop fishery, and the decline of other fisheries related to poor reproductive
viability and recruitment resulting from the blooms; is more dramatic for baymen and fishing -
related industries.
4-19
4.3.1 Primary and Secondary Effects
The primary effects of the blooms of Aureococcus anophaeefferens on the Peconic system are
as follows:
o Devastation of the-Arggvecten irradians (bay scallop) fishery.
o Reduction in normally available light to aquatic plants at depth during bloom periods.
o Severe reduction of the density and distribution of Zostera marina (eelgrass) throughout the
ecosystem.
o Potential reductions or suppression of competing species in similar niches during the bloom
periods.
Most of these primary effects, had adverse secondary impacts or interrelated cumulative
effects on almost all aquatic species and resident users (including humans) that occur or live in the
Peconic system.
Secondary effects of the blooms included:
o Economic losses from the devastation of the bay scallop fishery.
o Increased pressure on other fisheries to supplant the lost bay scallop fishery.
o Economic losses from reduced levels of tourism and recreational uses.
o Losses of the progeny of marine organisms, most notably bay scallops, as a result of habitat
impairment, primarily through competition and the reduction of eelgrass habitats.
Other more positive aspects which can be attributed to the Brown Tide phenomenon include:
o Increased funding at .local levels for research into the blooms and the health of the
ecosystem.
o Increased publicity concerning the environment and the East End of Long Island.
o Increased levels of planning and concern for environmental management of the Peconic
system.
4-20
o Development and implementation of the water quality management planning for the
system.
4.3.2 Effects on -the Fisheries Resources
The Atlantic coastal fishery, in general, has seen a decline in the tons of fish landed over the
past few years. Data presented in Section 2 show the reported landings of shellfish and flounder for
the Peconic system for the years 1976 to 1985. These data tend to mirror that of the Atlantic coastal
fishery, in general. Unfortunately, from 1985 to 1989 the landings for the Peconic system were
lumped into the Atlantic landings for all of Long Island. As a result, critical data needed to
characterize and quantify the impact of the -blooms on the fmfishery of the Peconic system is not
available during the years of the Brown Tide proliferation. In mid -1989 this system was revised.
The Peconic system data is now being maintained separately from the Atlantic Long Island landings
data.
Filter feeders in the Peconic system that were most affected by the blooms were -primarily
mollusks. Zooplankton grazers may or may not have been affected in a similar fashion as the
mollusks. Those zooplankton that -relied on Aureococcus anophagefferens, due to the abundance of
the organism and suppression of other phytoplankton species, may have been "malnourished." If so,
the effect of this was probably two fold:
o A loss of body weight of the grazing zooplankton population and possible increase in the
mortality of zooplankton cohorts.
o A possible decrease in the reproductive success and survivability of the progeny.
Sampling and laboratory data indicate that, for unexplained reasons, zooplankton grazers were
not able to.suppress or shorten Brown. Tide blooms despite being able to consume large quantities of
Aureococcus and to reproduce as fast or faster than measured Aureococcus reproduction rates.
Normally, ingestion of algae at bloom density results in a delayed, but explosive reproductive
response by zooplankton that then equals or exceeds the biomass of the phytoplankton and, thus,
eliminates the bloom. Why this did not occur during the brown tide blooms should be the subject of
additional research.
Research efforts are needed to investigate and analyze the full impact of a Brown Tide bloom
on the lower trophic levels of the- Peconic fishery; the starvation of the adult scallop and clams may
be an indicator of the potential effect on zooplankton populations. Cumulative effects on grass
shrimp and the fry of the finfish may have occurred related to their feeding efficiency. A reduction
in grass shrimp and zooplankton body weight and/or populations would adversely impact smaller
adult fish and the developing juvenile of larger species directly. Detritus feeders, crustaceans, and
scavenger adult species also may have been less directly affected.
4-21
Another effect on the fisheries of the Peconic system is due to the loss of eelgrass that serves
as a protective habitat for the progeny of indigenous and migratory species.. The impact of the
Brown Tide blooms on the eelgrass meadows is discussed more fully in later sections. However,
the extensive loss of eelgrass in the Peconic system is expected to take many years to recover. For
example, the full recovery of eelgrass habitat in the 1930's from a "wasting disease" took decades.
The effect .on reproductive efficiency and survivability cannot be quantified at this time.
Research undertaken by Alice Weber of NYSDEC on the juvenile fish populations of the
Peconic system is characterizing the range and dispersion of populations, but this work was begun
in 1985, the year of the first bloom, so there is no historical data upon which comparisons can be
made to characterize the effect of diminished eelgrass habitat on juvenile fish in the system. One
interesting aspect of her results is the nearly nonexistent catches of bait fish. Continued research in .
this field, however, will provide information on population size and distribution that may be
correlated to future eelgrass density.and distribution.
The data to quantify the overall effect on the fishery of the Peconic system is incomplete.
Data exist for historic landings of adult fish but not for landings during the bloom years. NYSDEC
is reported (Siddall et al., 1986) as stating that the size and numbers of summer flounder or fluke
(Paralychthys dentatus) were uniformly reduced during the blooms. Research on juvenile fish in the
system was started in the year of the first bloom without an historical data base for comparison. The
apparent severe reduction in bait fish, without an historical reference point, inhibits the analysis of
this work. In the future, continued research on juvenile fish and re-establishing the fish landings
data base for the system will provide a valuable resource to monitor the health of the fishery.
Additional research will be needed to quantify ecosystem losses. Information related to the
suppression of phytoplankton species that appear to be more valuable to the fishery as a food source
would prove to be valuable in characterizing the causes of indirect impacts on the higher trophic
levels within the Peconic system.
4.3.3 Brown Tide Effects on Eelgrass Habitat
Eelgrass, Zostera marina, is a common amarine flowering plant that is the dominant seagrass
from Hudson Bay. to North Carolina. The biological productivity of Long Island in -shore bays and
estuarine environments is prolific due, in large part, to the presence and benefits of substantial
eelgrass habitat. Eelgrass communities provide:
o A nursery habitat for the progeny of fish and marine invertebrates
o Bountiful nutrients for herbivores, and in tum, predator species
o An area that enhances and facilitates sediment deposition and stability
4-22
o A substrate for bay scallop larvae and many other epiphytic organisms
o A key biological component associated with the cycling of nutrients and oxygen cycling of
the shallower bays and estuaries
The value of eelgrass to the life cycle of the bay scallop in the Peconic system has not been
quantified; however, the decline of eelgrass and bay scallops in the Peconic system as a result of the
Brown Tide blooms has been dramatic (see Table 4.3-1). Efforts towards re-establishing the bay
scallop fishery through stocking programs have been directed to those areas of the system where
eelgrass meadows remain so that reproduction of the remnant stock can have the greatest
opportunity for survival and long-term viability. The viability of eelgrass beds - can then be
considered as one indicator of the overall biological health of the Peconic system.
During Brown Tide blooms the normal depth of light penetration was greatly reduced as a
result of high cell densities of Aureococcus, which caused scattering of available light. A secchi
disc treasures the depth of light penetration in an aquatic environment, and is used as an easily
discernible indicator of water clarity and light penetration. Averages of light depth penetration
compared to cell concentration is presented in Figure 4.3-1, and Figure 4.3-2 compares secchi disk
depth to the average cell concentration at the Brown Tide stations. During blooms secchi disc
depths often decreased to less than one teeter. This attenuation of light affected the growth, overall
biomass levels, and depth distribution of eelgrass in the Peconic system.,
Die -backs of eelgrass have occurred in previous years due to other factors. In the 1930's the
"wasting disease" affected large communities of eelgrass all along the North Atlantic coast. More
recently, smaller outbreaks of the "wasting disease" and an infestation by a slime mold have been
implicated in other eelgrass die -back episodes. Eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay also has been
associated with eelgrass die -back, with a concomitant stimulation of epiphyte and phytoplankton
growth. Epiphytes block incoming light of the blades of eelgrass while phytoplankton "compete"
for available light through absorption of incident and reflected light in the water colui nn. Increases
in phytoplankton biomass and epiphyte growth are often indicators of eutrophication in an aquatic
system. The use of the density and distribution of eelgrass as a measure of eutrophication and
health of the marine environment has been suggested.
Research on eelgrass by Dennison et al. (1989) has utilized historic and recent aerial
photographs to attempt to determine the extent of its distribution. This was supplemented by field
investigations to determine densities within the communities. Both density and distribution of
eelgrass showed a marked decline following the years Iin which the blooms occurred. Table 4.3-1
shows the extent of reduction of eelgrass beds in Long Island waters.
The extent of eelgrass in the Peconic system was not characterized by the aerial surveys and
historical pictures; however, based upon literature reviews and discussions with baymen and
4-23
Location
Hempstead Bay
South Oyster Bay
Great South Bay
Moriches Bay
Shinnecock Bay
Peconic Bays
Gardiners Bay
TOTAL
Table 4.3-1
Distribution of Zostera marina Expressed as Area and as
Percent of Bay Bottom Covered by Eelgrass*
1967b
Total
Eelgrass Area
km and (%)
Pre -bloom
1977-78c
Post -Bloom
1988*
Area a
Area
% of
Area
% of
Area
% of
fkok
a,
Bay Bottom
ikaJ
Bay Bottom
Llai,
Bay Bottom
62.7
3.4
5.5
-
-
0.8
1.3
44.3
27.1
61.1
12.9
29.1
8.4
19.0
234.3
88.2
37.6
67.3
28.7
41.1
17.5
45.4
4.9
10.9
--
-
8.8
19.4
42.5
3.0
7.0
-
-
5.5
12.9
159.0
-
-
-
-
0
0
334.5
-
-
-
-
13.5
4_0
932.0
-
-
-
-
78.1
8.4
*Source: Dennison et al., 1989
a Total area of bays does not include marsh islands.
b Based on color aerial photographs (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation) and Burkholder and Doheny (1968).
c Jones and Schubel, 1980.
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Cell Count •
vs.
Depth of Light Penetration (Secchi)
Secchi Depth (Feet)
10-
8--
6-
4--
2--
0-
0
086 4 2 00 500 1000 1500 2000
Cell Count (Thousanas/ml )
• Data presented for Brown Tide Station 1 only (1985 - 1988)
Figure 4.3-1
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Brown Tide Aureococcus anophagefferens Average Cell Count'
vs.
Depth of Light Penetration (Secchi)
Average Cell Count (Thousands/Ml) Secchi Depth (Feet)
300 12
• Cell Count T Secchi Depth
250--
200--
150--
100--
50+
5020015010050
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
West Brown Tide Sampling Stations
- Cell count averaged over years 1985 - 1988
Note: Stations 6 and 8 are approximately the same distance on an east -west axis.
10
IM
M
M
2
i 0
7
East
Figure 4.3-2
residents of the area, the Peconic Bays are known to have had extensive beds of eelgrass, even in
deeper portions of the Bays. In 1988, after the Brown Tide bloom had abated, Dennison found no
eelgrass beds in the Peconic Bay.
The lack of historical information in the Peconic system has made quantification of the effect
of the bloom impossible. However, data for other bays (Hempstead Bay, South Oyster Bay, Great
South Bay) indicate a loss (not always directly attributed to Brown Tide) of between 35% to over
50% when comparing 1988 data to historic data. The increase in Moriches and Shinnecock Bay
eelgrass communities during this time is considered atypical and is most likely the result of greater
flushing of those systems.
The extent of eelgrass beds in South Oyster Bay and Great South -Bay also indicate a
reduction from 1967 to 1977-78 that' is independent of Brown Tide blooms. One reason suggested
for this loss is the advent of the effects of eutrophication in these systems. Some degree of long-
term reduction of eelgrass populations by eutrophication may have occurred in the Peconic system.
However, long-term water quality data discussed in Sections 3 and 7 indicate that water quality in
the Peconic sysiem may, indeed, have improved as compared with historical conditions, at least in
terms of conventional measures of cultural eutrophication such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
The timing of the blooms in the first two years, 1985 and 1986, coincided with the peak
growing season for eelgrass. Eelgrass growth is highest in early spring (approximately mid-March)
through the end of May or early June. In- 1985 and 1986 the blooms began in May and lasted
through the summer. This is when the blooms are considered to have had the greatest effect on the
eelgrass populations: For 1987 and 1988' the blooms occurred later in the summer and the
comparative effect on the eelgrass was less dramatic, largely because the eelgrass beds had already
been devastated.
During diving studies other benthic algae were observed to be occupying areas that have
experienced eelgrass die -backs. Codium W. was observed to be free floating and loosely attached in
areas of eelgrass die -back. It has been suggested that the lower light compensation point for
Codium growth allowed for better survivability during blooms (Dennison et al., 1989). Another
abundant alga observed in the diving studies was Gracilaria 5p., a red alga. Gracilaria sp. was also
reported to have been present in the Niantic estuary after the die -back attributed to the "wasting
disease" of the 1930s.
The species composition and abundance of finfish in Great South Bay, NY were studied by
Shima & Cowen (1988) to determine the degree of dependence (preference) finfish had on eelgrass.
Paired stations with and without eelgrass were sampled for eggs and larvae during the period May -
August of 1987.
4-27
A statistically verified preference for eelgrass was noted for larvae of Bay anchovy, Anchoa
mitchilli and Pipefish, Cysnanthus fuscus. Their concentrations were noticeably greater within
eelgrass. For such species as A. mitchilli (an important forage fish) the devastating effects of brown
tide blooms on eelgrass pose a potential threat to annual recruitment. Studies of densities over the
four year period of 1985-1988 suggest that the finfish populations have not suffered any effects due
to the blooms but it does not rule out the possibility of future problems associated with the A.
mitchilli population.
The loss of eelgrass in and of itself has no direct economic impact on humans. However, the
loss of eelgrass populations is more significant in relation to the habitat it provides. Scallop
populations are expected to have a difficult struggle to re-establish a pre -bloom size population due
to the diminished nursery habitat. A similar loss of habitat for a variety of marine organisms may
have long-term consequences for the entire Peconic ecosystem and fishery. Based on the slow
recovery periods previously observed for other earlier eelgrass die -back events, the rate of recovery
may take many years or even decades to accomplish. The slow habitat recovery will suppress the
recovery of habitat -dependent organisms. Monitoring of the eelgrass distribution and densities in
the Peconic system and research on methods to enhance eelgrass recovery will facilitate the
reestablishment of pre -bloom conditions.
4.3.4 Effects on Shellfish
Aureococcus had the greatest effect during the bloom years 1985 and 1986 on the vitality and
survival of the bay scallop, Argonecten irradians. In 1982, bay scallop catches from the Peconic
System accounted for approximately 28% of the United States landings of this species and
commercial fishery dockside landings were worth $7.3 million (1982 dollars). By 1987 and 1988,
after the onset of the Brown Tide bloom, the pre -Brown Tide scallop harvest of 150,000 to 500,000
pounds per year had dropped to only about 300 pounds per year. Subsequent blooms, which were
less severe in densities and duration, were not as catastrophic for the bay scallop in the sense that
the remnant population of surviving bay scallops was insignificant, and any effect of these later
blooms on the remnant populations was not noticeable.
The several mechanisms that have been suggested to explain the impact of the Brown Tide on
larval, juvenile, and adult shellfish include:
o Poor retention of small particles by the filter feeding apparatus of shellfish
o Inefficient feeding and low absorption efficiency at high algal concentrations
o The nutritive quality of Aureococcus is insufficient to sustain shellfish growth
o Toxin is produced by Aureococcus that inhibits shellfish feeding
4-28
o Aureococcus possesses structural features which impair digestion by mollusks and
other filter feeders
These mechanisms may be operating independently or simultaneously (theories summarized
by Wise, 1986).
Other shellfish species were also affected by the blooms. Although oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) populations were already severely limited by overfishing, disease and predation prior to
the Brown Tide bloom, in 1985 the oyster crop was nearly eliminated in the Peconic system
(Siddall, 1986). Hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) were not as adversely affected as the other
two mollusks. However, clams that were harvested during the years of the blooms were observed to
have reduced abductor muscles, or meat weight and quality (Siddall, 1986). In Narragansett Bay
blue mussels, Mytilus edilus experienced an estimated 95% mortality rate (Cosper et al, 1987). The
overall impact attributable to the Brown Tide blooms on shellfish in the Peconic system has resulted
in the near elimination of two species of mollusk (scallops and oysters) and possibly a third
(mussels). There is a brief reference to severely reduced numbers of whelks in the 1988 NYSDEC
305b report, but no other information has been generated on this scavenger and shellfish consumer.
Scallops and oysters historically have been the principal shellfish harvested in the Peconic
system. In terms of total pounds landed annually, usually over 80% and often as high as 95% of the
amount of shellfish harvested each year was attributable to these two mollusks. When relating the
dollar value of the Peconic system dockside landings of shellfish, normally over 90% of the dollar
value of harvested shellfish is attributable to the scallop and oyster harvest. Following the Brown
Tide blooms the total annual pounds harvested and dollar value of the harvest for both scallops and
oysters fell to less than 4% of the total shellfish harvest. The shellfish harvest has been sustained by
the transference of the fishery to the hard clam, which historically accounted for 5% to 10% of the
annual landings and dollar value. Subsequent to the bloom, clams have accounted for over 90% of
the landings and dollar value of the annual shellfish harvest. This data reflects a significant shift to
greater use of secondary species to support the Peconic fishery as a result of the Brown Tide
blooms.
The Brown Tide event of 1985 in Narragansett Bay produced massive mortality (in some
areas greater than 95%) of blue mussels, Mytilus edilus (Wise, 1986; see also Sieburth et at, 1988).
In the Peconic system, blue mussels have experienced approximately a tenfold decline in the.pounds
landed annually.
Direct, acute impacts of the Brown Tide' blooms on adult shellfish generally appeared to be
temporary in nature; however, such was not the case with bay scallop larvae. - The proliferation of
the Brown Tide in the Peconic system caused almost total mortality of larval bay scallops in 1985
and 1986. This may reflect a greater ability of adults to sustain starvation for a longer period than
larvae. However, the actual mechanism that resulted in larval mortality has not been fully
elucidated.
4-29
Adult scallop mortality rates coincident with the bloom have not been determined. Bay
scallops generally experience mass natural mortality during mid -winter of their second year. Adult
survivors of the 1985 bloom showed a delay in the period of natural mortality, allowing a higher
than usual percentage of the adult population to spawn again in 1986. On the other hand, hard
clams live and spawn over a number of years. Therefore, clam populations have been able to "wait
out" the blooms and maintain recruitment at or above viability levels to sustain the fishery.
The few adult scallops that spawned in 1985 and survived to spawn again in 1986 died. No
observable spawning of bay scallops took place in the Peconic system in 1987. While remnant _
populations of bay scallops existed in small areas of the Peconic system not heavily impacted by the
Brown Tide, their numbers appeared to be very low..
One aspect of the scallop life cycle that has been severely impacted that will continue to affect
the scallop population as it tries to re-establish itself is the significant die -back of eelgrass in the
Peconic system. Eelgrass has provided an ideal and bountiful substrate upon which larval scallops
can attach as they grow to juvenile size. Additionally, there are other features of eelgrass that
enhance the quality of life for developing scallops, and other marine organisms that use this habitat
as a nursery. It may be that the loss of eelgrass, which may take many years to recover, will be one
of the most significant factors in re-establishing the scallop fishery.
Despite the potentially grim prognosis for the bay scallop in the Peconic Estuary system, a
recent, limited harvest and a reportedly successful juvenile in 1991 set have spawned hope that
scallops may be rebounding. A number of scallop reseeding efforts have been made to try to
accelerate scallop repopulation; these efforts, are noted in Section 4.7 Recent quantitative data
regarding scallop harvests was not available at the time of report preparation. However, anecdotal
information indicates that, after an abysmal 1989 scalloping season, minimal catches occurred in
1990 with slightly more substantial harvests in the fall of 1991, albeit nowhere near pre -1985 levels.
Especially encouraging is the fact that the Brown Tide bloom of summer, 1991 apparently did not
last long enough to decimate existing scallop populations. In addition, a late scallop set was
observed in the fall of 1991, evidencing at least a partially successful spawning of the existing
scallops.
Several theories have been set forth regarding the causal relationship between Brown Tide and
scallop starvation. As previously noted, the theory that Brown Tide is intrinsically non-nutritive
may be countered by the findings that the levels of the essential fatty acids in Aureococcus appear to
be comparable to those of microalgae known to support good growth of bivalves (Fisher et al.).
Another hypothesis which has not been substantiated is that the Brown Tide, or some substance
produced by the Brown Tide, is toxic to shellfish. These theories of toxicity and insufficient
nutritional value continue to be pursued by scientists. In addition, researchers have hypothesized
that Brown Tide is effectively nutritionally deficient because of mechanical characteristics of the
4-30
Brown Tide and/or "shellfish that prohibit the shellfish from productively utilizing the Brown Tide as
a food source.
Work to date has indicated that adult bay scallops may be poor retainers of Aureococcus when
compared to blue mussels, which are - more effective at retaining small particles (Bricelj, 1986).
However, work at the EPA Environmental Research lab in Narragansett indicates that the feeding
rates of mussels were greatly depressed upon exposure to high cell concentrations of Aureococcus.
Similar effects were not observed with other, similarly -sized algae isolated from the Narragansett
bloom. Absorption efficiencies of bay scallop larvae declined 20 to 30% when larvae were fed
Minutocellus polymorphus, a diatom similar in size to Aureococcus, as compared to Isocbasis, an
alga frequently used to sustain laboratory cultures of larval shellfish.
Generally, phytoplankton of the size and biomass observed during blooms of Aureococcus
have a carbon to nitrogen [C:N] ratio (a measure of the nutritional content of a food source)
sufficient to support dietary requirements of filter feeders. While researchers have not presented
data on the C:N ratio of the Brown Tide bloom, there are indications that the nutritive value of
Aureococcus may be related to the retention efficiency and/or the absorption efficiency of filter
feeders at the high concentrations associated with a bloom.
The feeding of adult bay scallops and mussels on the Brown Tide organism was measured in
relation to retention efficiencies, clearance rates, and absorption efficiencies (Bricelj, 1986). Studies
have shown that bay scallops were not as efficient at retaining Aureococcus as were blue mussels.
Clearance rates for both mollusks exhibited a ten -fold decrease when, fed Aureococcus than when
the diatom Thalassisosira weisfloQii was used. In terms of absorption, the efficiency of bay scallops
was shown to be greater than 85% when low densities of Aureococcus were used. This research
indicates that a portion of the adverse impact on adult scallops by the Brown Tide organists may be
a result of reduced feeding and absorption rates at high densities of cells, as well as poor retention of
the organists by the scallops.
An abundant exocellular polysaccharide -like material produced by the organism appears to be
siinilar to a polysaccharide mucilage common in blue green algae that has been associated with a
defense to feeding and grazing pressures. It is possible that -the polysaccharide material clogged
feeding apparatus and/or acted as a toxin that made the organism unappetizing and/or caused a
paralysis -like reaction on the feeding apparatus of filter feeders (Sieburth, et al., 1987).
Other research concerned with trophic interactions of zooplankton on Aureococcus could not
adequately explain why grazing by zooplankters did not contain the bloom in density and duration
as might be expected. One suggestion as to why Aureococcus did not succumb to grazing by
zooplartkters in the Peconic system is that "... a substance(s) that reduces or eliminates grazing by
planktonic micro-organisms..." was produced (Caron, D. et al., 1989). It is possible that filter
feeding mollusks experienced a similar reaction and that the polysaccharide -like exocellular
4-31
material is, in part, responsible for this toxin -like effect. As previously mentioned, it is possible that
acrylic acid and/or dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which may be produced by the Brown Tide, may play a
role
Research regarding all potential causes, toxic, mechanical, and poor nutrition, of the Brown
Tide impacts on shellfish should continue. Considering the severe reduction of eelgrass meadows,
bay scallops and other mollusk populations, it is unclear at this time what the long-term effect on the
Peconic ecosystem will be, even without additional Brown Tides.
4.3.5 Socioeconomic Effects
A discussion of the effects of the Brown Tide bloom on the human populace cannot be limited
to the Peconic system, but must consider regional influences as well. The socioeconomic effects are
intertwined to such a degree that neither the social nor economic aspects can, for the most part, be
totally separated.
Examples of the direct economic impacts which have been ascribed to the Brown Tide
phenomenon include the loss of revenues and income on a personal and industry -wide basis due to
the following factors:
o The decline of the scallop fishery
o The effect on tourism, marinas and boating, and recreational fishing
o The adverse impact on seasonal rentals and house sales
These socioeconomic impacts affect not only direct revenues, but also indirect income
associated with secondary and tertiary support industries (restaurants, retail, etc.). Additionally,
these socioeconomic effects resulting from the bloom go far beyond the study area. For example,
impacts on the fishery have affected regional prices and fishing pressures as a result of the bloom.
In addition, the harm to the local recreation, tourism, and primary and secondary support industries
has a ripple effect to persons (e.g., suppliers and investors) far outside the study area.
Social impacts arising from the bloom include:
o Lifestyle changes for baymen as well as for people involved in secondary and tertiary
support services
-Reduced job satisfaction
-Increased hardships and personal and familial stress
o Reduced recreational fishing and shellfishing for year-round and seasonal populations
4-32
o Reduced enjoyment of the Peconic system and its resources
o Public perception that the environment of the East End has been degraded
o Increased public anxiety in relation to past and future blooms
o Increased scientific curiosity about the Peconic" ecosystem
o Increased media coverage of the blooms and resulting effects that contribute to -many of the
other social and economic effects
Investigations into the economic impact of the bloom are- easily documented for the bay
scallop fishery. Section 2 presented tables and figures that showed dramatic decreases in landings
and the dockside value of the catch. However, there has been less information generated on the
effect on secondary and tertiary support services.
Early research and discussions on just the economic impact of the.bloom on the Peconic
system identified the following direct and indirect economic impacts (Kahn, 1988):
o Losses related to recreational fishermen
o Losses suffered by commercial fishermen
o Losses related to recreational resource users and property owners
o Losses suffered by providers of goods and services to the above groups
In a study for New York Sea Grant and NYSDEC (Kahn, 1988) it was estimated that
recreational fishing in Rockland, Westchester, NYC, and Long Island resulted in expenditures of
approximately $800 million. It was estimated that between 40% to 45% of households in this study
area that fish recreationally are on Long Island; however, the percentage of this directly attributable
to the Peconic system was not calculated. Additionally, this economic impact does not take into
account the known effect on the commercial fishing industry.
In an unrelated study, it was estimated that, for a significant portion of the Peconic system,
participation in recreational shellfishing was as great or greater than commercial shellfishing
(MSRC COSMA Program, 1985). The economic impacts related to recreational fishing and
shellfishing are linked to the seasonal real estate market, boat and motor sales and service, and other
recreational support and supply businesses (marinas, restaurants, etc.). It is apparent that the Brown
Tide bloom has had a far reaching effect on the socioeconomic structure of the Peconic system that
has not been adequately investigated or quantified.
4-33
An estimate of the value of marina and boating in the Peconic system to the local economy
was provided by the Association of Marine Industries (AMI). According to an analysis of a 1987
survey conducted by the AMI, annual gross revenue for the marinas in the Peconic Estuary system
is estimated to be 115 million dollars, with overall direct revenues which are derived from boaters
exceeding 229 million dollars.
4.3.6 Effects on Local and Regional Agencies
The blooms of the Brown Tide organism have had a diverse and immediate effect on the
ecosystem, economy, and planning aspects of the Peconic system. Extensive regional publicity
from television, radio, and newspapers about the aesthetic, ecological, and economic impacts of
these occurrences significantly increased environmental awareness of an apparent degradation of the
water quality of the Peconic system. The publicity also increased public attention to the livelihood
and endangered lifestyle of East End baymen.
NYSDEC and Suffolk County have monitored the environmental conditions of the Peconic
system for a number of years. When the Brown Tide first appeared in sufficient densities to be
noticed, SCDHS initiated and coordinated investigations and research into the appearance and
subsequent recurrence of the organism. After the initial investigations failed to elucidate a direct
cause for the bloom, Suffolk County took the lead in supplying resources, including funding, for
investigations and research on the Brown Tide organism and the environmental health of the
Peconic system. Additionally, managerial oversight, focus, and coordination were provided by
SCDHS as other governmental agencies were beginning to initiate similar responses to the problem.
Funding was directed to Long Island laboratories for research and studies of the problem.
Local university marine science programs, SUNY - Stony Brook's Marine Science Research Center
(MSRC) and the Marine Science Center at the Southampton campus of LIU, provided historical
data on the Peconic system. MSRC provided significant time and manpower to the research effort.
The information and research provided by SCDHS, and the other local research efforts, have proven
fruitful in generating data useful in the planning and management efforts to preserve and enhance
the Peconic system.
Coordination provided by SCDHS with NYSDEC, EPA, NMFS, NOAA, other researchers,
local towns and public interest groups allowed for: data dissemination to all researchers at local,
state and federal levels; interfacing amongst governmental levels in order to alleviate problem areas
while directing the focus of ongoing efforts; and providing information to the media and the public.
Additional efforts in this area resulted in the 1988 international symposium on Brown Tide, an
international research effort, held at SUNY - Stony Brook.
The effects of -the Brown Tide blooms in the waters of the Peconic system also resulted in
federal participation and input to the research and planning effort. The 1986 Brown Tide bloom in
4-34
Narragansett Bay was investigated by EPA and resulted in a working relationship with SCDHS on
the similarities of the two events and research into the causes of the blooms. NOAA laboratories
became involved in the research effort through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
University 'research on the Brown Tide phenomenon has been conducted at the Marine
Sciences Research Center (MSRC) of the State University of New York at Stony Brook through its
Living Marine Resources Institute, the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of
Oceanography (URI), the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and the College of
Marine Studies at the University of Delaware (CMS). Major sponsors of this research have been the
Sea Grant programs in New York, Delaware, and Woods Hole, Suffolk County, and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. Monitoring programs to track the abundance and
distribution of the Brown Tide are conducted on Long Island by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services and in New Jersey by the State Department of Environmental Protection. Through
the combined efforts of agency and university scientists, an understanding of the causes, impacts,
and potential control of the causes for blooms may be developed.
Another indirect effect resulting from the blooms was the collection of water quality data for
the Peconic system which became part of a planning and management effort that has been put forth
to preserve and protect the system (BTCAMP).
4.4 Eutrophication
Eutrophication is a process whereby surface waters become enriched with nutrients through a
natural aging process. Pollution is an "unnatural" acceleration of this process, and is also known as
cultural eutrophication; it is the over -enrichment of a surface water system with nutrients, especially
nitrogen and phosphorus, attributable to human -related activities. Due to strong tidal exchange and
good flushing, much of the Peconic estuary has not suffered from an over -abundance of nutrients.
However, portions of Flanders Bay and the Peconic River suffer from poor flushing and heavy
pollutant loading and have, thus, suffered from a degree of cultural eutrophication (see Section 3,
Surface Water Quality).
The environmental impacts of cultural eutrophication are well-documented, and may include
excessive algal blooms and plant growth, increased BOD and, solids loading, and diminished
visibility and light penetration. The impacts of cultural eutrophication extend far beyond a loss of
aesthetic characteristics. Cultural eutrophication may ultimately result -in reduced species diversity,
less viable habitat, and oxygen depletion due to BOD and sediment oxygen demand as well as
diumal algal respiration.
Eutrophication is often discussed as an indicator of overall health of aquatic systems. In the
Peconic system, eutrophication has been associated with high organic' loads of nitrogen and
phosphorus from both point and nonpoint sources. Typically these loads can be transported into the
4-35
system from sources such as sewage treatment plant effluents, commercial and industrial discharges
such as duck farming effluent, stormwater runoff of fertilizers and animal wastes, and groundwater
inputs from'on-lot sewage disposal systems or land-based waste disposal areas.
Initially, the Brown Tide bloom was considered to be similar to the explosive algal blooms
often associated with eutrophic conditions. While some factors which are related to eutrophication,
such as loadings of macronutrients and specific pollutants, may be involved in the development of
Brown Tide blooms, research to date indicates that bloom development has not been found to be
correlated with eutrophication. As previously discussed, the input of conventional macronutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus are apparently not the direct trigger of the onset of the Brown Tide
blooms. This observation is substantiated by field observations, which show that Brown Tide has
been found on Long Island only in the "cleaner" east end waters, while the numerous North Shore
and western South Shore embayments that have considerably higher nutrient concentrations have
not experienced the bloom. However, the possibility that some specific organic nutrient(s) or trace
metal(s), possibly related to human pollution, may play a role in Brown Tide onset will continue to
be investigated.
Even though Brown Tide is apparently not caused by excessive eutrophication, nutrient
modeling has been an integral research tool used in the BTCAMP study for the comprehensive
management of the surface water system. Investigations into point and nonpoint source inputs of
nutrients to the system have been performed and are discussed in Section 6. Results of modelling,
which assesses impacts and evaluates alternative management schemes, are presented in detail in
Section 7.
4.4.1 Eutrophication Modeling
. Estuarine systems are typically areas of high nutrient input, high primary production, great
biological diversity, and high biomass. Part of the BTCAMP study involved the use of a
mathematical model as part of a computer simulation of the major features of eutrophication of the
Peconic system. The objectives of the eutrophication modelling include:
o Determination of important biological, physical, chemical and geochemical interactions that
influence oxygen depletion,, nutrient cycling and eutrophication of the Peconic System
o Evaluation of water quality and biological responses to natural and anthropogenic point and
nonpomt source nutrient loading over both the short-term transient (Flanders Bay) and
longer term seasonal/interannual (Peconic System) time scales
o Assessment of the efficacy of point and nonpoint source nutrient management control
options in relation to eutrophication of the Peconic System
4-36
The structure of the mathematical model is based on a set of equations representing transport,
biological, chemical, and sediment/benthos submodels. The transport submodel is externally
computed on a subtidal time scale with a one-dimensional link -node hydrodynamic model. The
sediment/benthos submodel is empirically represented as temperature dependent biological and
geochemical boundary forcing functions of nutrient and oxygen mass fluxes across the sediment -
water interface. The linear and nonlinear interactions between the biological and chemical
submodels are designed to represent the major dynamic processes that reflect_ natural and
anthropogenic loading of carbon and nutrients.
The computations are performed using an enhanced version (WASP5/EUTRO5) of an
existing numerical model for hydrodynamics (DYNHYD4) and water quality (WASP4/EUTRO4).
The hydrodynamic computations are performed over a subtidal time scale, while the water quality
mass balance computations are carried out on the basis of both a short-term transient and a long-
term seasonal time scale. These models have been obtained from, and are supported by, the EPA
Athens Center for Water Quality Modeling in Athens, Georgia (Ambrose et al., 1988).
The development of the current model, known as "WASPS," involved the utilization and
enhancement of the EPA -supported WASP4 model, and also resulted in the addition of new
parameters and the discovery and rectification of WASP4 program flaws.
Additional improvements in the current model (WASPS) over the 1976 model (WASP4) are
summarized as follows:
- Provides greater coverage of surface water area.
- Includes atmospheric deposition source term.
- Includes multi -species phytoplankton submodel.
- Accounts for zooplankton grazing impacts on
macrophyte and shellfish terms .
- Runs multi -seasonal simulation over an entire year.
nutrient recycling and incorporates
There are three primary phases or steps in the model' development strategy. In Step 1, the
basic (total biomass) version of the model is being applied to historical (pre -Brown Tide) conditions
of the mid-1970s. In Step 2, the basic version was applied to the current (1985-1988) Brown Tide
bloom conditions to allow evaluation of gross nutrient budget/eutrophication response and
assessment. In Step 3, the modified (imultigroup) version of EUTRO4 was applied to the 1988/1989
conditions to provide a more detailed evaluation of the eutrophication processes.
The first and second "steps of the analysis are based on the application of the existing version
of WASP5/EUTRO5 to historical and current water quality and loading conditions. The intent is to
develop mass balance -based carbon, nutrient, and oxygen budgets for the historical water quality
4-37
conditions of the mid-1970s, and the current water quality conditions during the Brown Tide blooms
of 1985-1987.
The variables available for the existing version of WASP5/EUTRO5 are as follows:
o Ammonia -N o BOD
o Nitrate+Nitrite-N_ o Dissolved Oxygen
o Orthophosphate -P o Organic N
o Phytoplankton (total biomass) o Organic P
Although the existing version of the model does not enable an assessment of the factors
related to the dominance of the Brown Tide organism over the more typical phytoplankton
assemblage of the Peconic System, its application provides an estimate of a nutrient budget for the
Brown Tide bloom conditions. The existing version also provides insight into the relative
importance of physical factors (i.e., tidal mixing and flushing) and natural and anthropogenic
nutrient loading on eutrophication and allows an analysis of conventional pollutant concerns (i.e.,
storm water runoff, sewage treatment plant discharges, coliform bacteria) in the western end of the
Peconic system.
In order to address the causal factors related to the onset and persistence of the Brown Tide
bloom conditions, in addition to other water quality concerns for the Peconic system,
WASP5/EUTRO5 was modified to incorporate the following additional variables:
o Phytoplankton #1: nanoplankton
o Phytoplankton #2: netplankton
o Phytoplankton #3: picoplankton
o Sediment exchange rates
(N, P, Si, 02)
o Silicate
o Salinity
o Coliform bacteria
o Eelgrass respiration and photosynthetic production
The modified -version of WASP5/EUTRO5 was applied for analyses of current (1988-89)
water quality and loading conditions. Chlorophyll and productivity data, collected under the
BTCAMP program, allowed testing of the multiple phytoplankton group model with current water
quality conditions. An important additional feature of the modified version was the sediment
submodel to empirically account for the important nutrient cycling processes between the water
column and sediment bed.
WASPS is an invaluable tool in terms of allowing an evaluation of the causal factors relating
to water quality degradation as measured by conventional parameters such as dissolved oxygen,
nitrogen, and coliforms. However, since the causes and growth kinetics of the Brown Tide
organism are not yet fully understood, the model cannot "predict" Brown Tide bloom onset,
4-38
intensity, or duration. Future modelling of Brown Tide will depend on results of research activities
currently underway.
In addition to adding parameters to nun a Brown .Tide model, other, improvements which
should be made to the model include the following:
- Improve understanding of zooplankton distribution and grazing rates
- Increase understanding of benthic algae and macrophytes.
- Couple WASP5 with a more sophisticated model to account for gyres.
- Incorporate hourly model simulations to improve diurnal dissolved oxygen prediction.
- Include sediment submodel which predicts benthic fluxes as a function of sedimentary
particulate organic matter decay along with the mass transport and kinetics of dissolved
nutrients.
- Consider the addition of multiple vertical layers in the Peconic River to account for known
vertical gradients of salinity.
Other aspects of computer modelling are discussed in Sections 1.5.2, 3.2.2 and 7.
4.4.2 Nutrient Levels versus Brown Tide Abundance
When point and nonpoint sources are combined, over 2,000 pounds per day of nitrogen are
contributed. to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay during the summer. With the exception of
sediment flux, point sources have been found to have the most significant impact in terns of
conventional nutrient contribution to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay system (see Section 7).
The overall point source nutrient loading in the Peconic system is' estimated to have decreased from
levels estimated 'in 1976 for the "L.I. 208 Study". For example, in 1976, the total nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings from the three major point sources to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system
(the Riverhead sewage treatment plant, Meetinghouse Creek, and the Peconic River) were
approximately 1400 and 350 pounds per day, respectively, as compared with 700 and'80 pounds per
day for 1988 through 1989. This decrease was due mainly to the cessation of direct duck farm
discharge to Meetinghouse Creek, although levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the creek remain
significant. Actual historical decreases in nutrient loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay
are certainly much more dramatic than observed between 1976 and 1990, since most of the
numerous duck farms which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out
of business by 1976. Earlier accounts from the 1800's identify several additional industries,
including numerous fish -processing plants throughout the estuarine system and several mills (grist
mill, saw -trill, fulling .mill, woolen mill, etc.) and - an iron forge on the Peconic River. Pollution
contribution is discussed in detail in Section 6.
Although the nitrogen loading has -apparently decreased, the most recent estimates still exceed
the nitrogen budget guideline provided in the "LI 208 Study" for the area of the estuary in the
4-39
vicinity of the Riverhead STP. In addition, typical non -creek total nitrogen concentrations are as
high as 0.8 mg/1(and occasionally slightly higher) in Flanders Bay and the tidal Peconic River, thus
exceeding the recommended nitrogen guideline of 0.5 mg/1(see Section 7). Despite the reduction of
total nitrogen inputs to Flanders Bay between 1976 and 1990, significant improvements in Flanders
Bay water quality with respect to nitrogen concentrations have not been observed in this time
period. However, the reliability of an explanation of historical impacts is hampered by the absence
of a fundamental understanding of the temporal response of sediment flux (i.e., chemical exchange
between sediments and water column) to variations in point sources; scientists are seeking to refine
the understanding of these sediment phenomena.
Although. the nitrogen guideline is exceeded in tidal portions of the Peconic River and in
western Flanders Bay, the system has not demonstrated characteristics of advanced eutrophication
(in terms of conventional nutrient over -enrichment) such as excessive algal blooms (except for
Brown Tide, which appears not to be triggered by conventional nutrients) and severe depletion of
dissolved oxygen. In addition, nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic Estuary system are generally
significantly lower than most other Long Island embayments. The available data indicate that the
Flanders Bay system currently may be near the limits of the factors of safety incorporated in the
determination of the nitrogen guideline, indicating that the system could experience serious
eutrophication and water quality degradation problems if pollutant loading were to increase. With
respect to the nitrogen guideline, water quality in surface waters east of Flanders Bay is generally
excellent.
No conclusive evidence exists linking initiation and/or progression of the Brown Tide to
anthropogenic eutrophication or contamination of impacted waters. Field work in 1985 in
Narragansett Bay by URI scientists found the abundance of the Brown Tide organism to be
negatively correlated with nutrients and other measures of eutrophication (Smayda). Available data
on water column concentrations of such inorganic nutrients as nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate from
the Peconic Bays system do not indicate abnormally high levels of these compounds. Much higher
concentrations of these nutrients frequently occur on a sustained basis in other coastal embayments
around Long Island in water bodies that have not experienced the Brown Tide. Thus, enrichment of
coastal bays with traditional inorganic nutrients does not seem to be a causal factor in the
development of the Brown Tide. This suggests that some unidentified micronutrient (vitamin, trace
metal, etc.) may play a role in the onset and maintenance of the Brown Tide or, as recent work at
MSRC indicates, some organic compound(s) may be capable of stimulating growth of Aureococcus.
Research indicates that Aureococcus can use normally measured dissolved sources of nitrogen
effectively, except anunonia-nitrogen. However, field sampling shows very little positive
correlation between cell densities and in-situ levels of nitrates, nitrites and ammonia. In. fact, the
highest levels of these three nitrogen compounds measured in the Peconic system are associated
with the lower cell densities as presented. in Figures 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3.
4-40
0.14
0.12
0. 10
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
a
0.06
s
d
0.04
0.02
mm
0 500000 1000000 1500000
CELL COUNT/ML
* Data presented for all stations (1985-1991)
2000000 2500000
Figure 4.4-1
0.03
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A.---,,,,,,.,-- ,.,.,.,l,or.nffo,+ario Aisnrnrra Call Oniint *
z
NMI
0 500000 1000000 1500000
CELL COUNT/ML
* Data presented for all stations (1985-1991)
2000000 2500000
Figure 4.4-2
0.10
mm
BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
5wowl !
c�
0.04
z
0.03
11-j
0.01
mm
0 500000 •1000000 1500000
CELL COUNT/ML
* Data presented for all stations (1985-1991)
2000000 2500000
Figure 4.4-3
4.5 Brown Tide Research Efforts
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Bureau of Marine Resources, has been
monitoring the geographic and seasonal distribution of the Brown Tide in the system since the
summer of 1985, and has collected data on phytoplankton cell numbers, chlorophyll -a,
macronutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and
depth of sunlight penetration. While these data have been valuable in formulating hypotheses for
Brown Tide occurrence, additional research continues to be necessary to better understand the
Brown Tide phenomenon.
Recognizing that the ability to grow the Brown Tide organism in the laboratory would provide
insight into its environmental requirements, the County contracted with researchers at the Marine
Sciences Research Center (MSRC) of the State University of New York at Stony Brook to culture
the organists and to carry out experiments aimed at determining its growth requirements. Isolation
and culture proved difficult, and attempts at determining specific factors that trigger bloom events
have not met with success.
Other research that has been funded by the County includes investigations into the mode of
action of the Brown Tide on shellfish and shellfish larvae, the distribution of eelgrass in Brown Tide
affected areas, a comparison of pre and post -bloom meteorological data, and the computerization of
historical data collected in the system by LIU MSC at Southampton.
A final report, "A Study of the Growth Physiology of the Brown Tide Alga Isolated from
Long Island Bays," has been received from Drs. Cosper and Carpenter of MSRC, Stony Brook. The
report discusses findings concerning the growth requirements of Aureococcus. According to the
researchers, organic and possibly inorganic micronutrients (trace metals), along with unusual
physical conditions, may be responsible for the explosive growth in the natural environment.
The inability to obtain Aureococcus in axenic (bacteria -free) culture remains a potentially
serious problem in that physiological responses obtained in the laboratory may be confounded by
the presence of contaminating organisms.
Another report, "The Effect of an Algal Bloom Isolate on the Growth and Survival of Bay
Scallop (Argopectin irradians) Larvae," prepared by Nelson and Siddall of MSRC, suggests "that an
algal bloom which replaces an existing phytoplankton assemblage is capable of causing a bay
scallop recruitment failure by reducing the growth rate of young scallop larvae." The microai.ga
used in this study was not Aureococcus but the diatom, Minutocellus polymorphus.
4-44
The following is a brief synopsis of the other research efforts:
o Sediment -water column flux studies have been performed by Dr. Jonathon Garber, formerly
of the University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL). The first
sampling to measure the fluxes of dissolved oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, dissolved
reactive phosphate and dissolved reactive silicate took place during July. A second
sampling to assess cold water conditions began the week of October 23, 1989.
o Studies of nutrient inflow into the Peconic Bay System via submarine groundwater
discharge were undertaken by Drs. Douglas Capone and Joseph Schubauer of CBL, and
also began the week of October 23, 1989.
o Dr. Creighton Wirick of Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL) has deployed in situ
fluorometers at two stations in the Peconic System (Station BT 1, Flanders Bay and Station
BT 2, Great Peconic Bay). The fluorometers collect continuous chlorophyll and
temperature data. Chlorophyll measurements provide an estimate of phytoplankton
biomass. The first two data sets were received, and cover the period late -April through
December 1989. This data set includes chlorophyll, tidal height, water temperature and
meteorological data collected by the BNL Meteorology Division (wind direction, wind
speed, sunlight, precipitation).
o Dr. Donald Anderson of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) was
contracted by Suffolk County to provide training to SCDHS staff in the use of the
immunofluorescent procedure for the study of Aureococcus. Personnel from Dr. Cosper's
laboratory (MSRC) were invited to take part in the training.
o Dr. Cosper (MSRC) was contracted to provide' Carbon-14 productivity data for three
stations (Reeves Bay, New Suffolk and West Neck Bay) in the Peconic System. Data were
collected weekly from'June through October 1988 and May through June 1989. Biweekly
values were obtained from November 1988 through April 1989.
o Dr. William Dennison performed studies describing the eelgrass populations in areas
affected by the Brown Tide in the system.
o Dr. Michael Levandowsky (Haskins Lab; Pace University) isolated picoplankton from
waters affected by Brown Tide. None of the isolates obtained by Levandowsky, and
analyzed by the SCDHS laboratory using immunofluorescence, proved to be Aureococcus.
o Dr. Levandowsky is also investigating - the use of satellite -based remote sensing for
monitoring the Brown Tide phenomenon.
4-45
4.6 Comparison to Other Bloom Events
Water discoloration associated with algal blooms is not a new phenomenon to this region, but
key differences between the Brown Tide phenomenon and other bloom events are the spatial
distribution and longevity of the Brown Tide blooms. A species similar to A. anWhag_efferens,
Pelagococcus subviridis, has been isolated from the Pacific (Lewin et al., 1977) and has recently
been reported in Norwegian waters (Throndsen and Kristiansen, 1985). Red tides caused by blooms
of various phytoplankton (mostly dinoflagellates) species have occurred periodically in estuarine
and coastal waters of the metropolitan area, eastern seaboard, and in various areas around the world.
Of nuisance blooms in general, Smayda (1989) notes that "there is a globally significant increase in
their frequency of occurrence accompanied by regional spreading and involving more species."
Dense green blooms occurred in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay, Long Island in the early
1950s. Causative organisms were Nannochloris sp. with smaller numbers of Stichococcus sp.,
together reaching concentrations in mid -summer exceeding ten million cells per ml, but persisting at
bloom proportions throughout the year (Ryther, 1988). At that time cause of the blooms was the
development of a large duck farming industry along the tributaries to Moriches Bay together with
the closure of Moriches Inlet to the Atlantic Ocean, reducing circulation and flushing of the bay
system. In contrast, to diatoms and other more typical estuarine phytoplankton, the dominance of
the Nannochloris-Stichococcus community was believed to be due to their rapid growth in summer
in the tributaries to Moriches Bay at low salinities, high temperatures and in reduced forms of
nitrogen, enabling them to deplete all nitrogen from, the tributaries and adjacent waters of Moriches
Bay. Usually localized, these blooms have recurred annually since the early 1960s. Fortunately,
none of the species were of the acutely toxic varieties, although there were occasional fislikills due
to anoxia when blooms collapsed (Ogren and Chess, 1969; Young, 1974). Gon ay ulax tainarensis,
causative agent of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in the northeast U.S. and Canada, has been
found in the region but in low numbers and with limited toxin production .(Nuzzi and Waters, 1991).
A few blooms of Prorocentrum micans, however (most extensively in 1968), were associated with
mild respiratory discomfort to bathers (Mahoney and McLaughlin 1977). Nuzzi and Zaki (1982)
noted a similar situation in Suffolk County where, in June 1976, another prorocentrum species (P.
minimum) was evident in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay during a period of unusually high
numbers of respiratory irritation complaints. In response to the 1968 event, State and Federal
agencies initiated an investigation of the problem. In 1969, the Interagency Committee on Marine
Plankton Blooms was formed and has functioned to coordinate government response in the event of
serious blooms (see USEPA, 1978-88 inclusive).
As reported by Olsen (1988) a conspicuous yellow-brown water discoloration due to blooms
of a minute coccoid alga has recurred throughout the Bamegat Bay barrier island system in recent
years. Sampling for phytoplankton cell counts and pigment analysis from locations encompassing
the length of Bamegat Bay (about 30 miles) was conducted from May to November, 1987. The.
dominant species (cells mostly 2-3 microns in diameter) under light microscopy strongly resembled
4-46
that identified in the brown tides as Aureococcus anopha efg ferens by Sieburth et al. (1986), but it
could not be distinguished from Nannochloris atomus '(Butcher) which has been identified as
dominant in the Hudson/Raritan estuary and adjacent New York Bight at least since 1962. Other
similarities to the Long Island brown tides, both in species and pigment composition, were seen in
the Barnegat Bay material. Bloom initiation occurred in two separate areas with minimal flushing
near opposite ends of Barnegat Bay, the southern area characterized by less restricted tidal flow and
a somewhat higher (18-34 ppt) salinity regime than in the northern area. Bloom presence in
intervening areas appeared more dependent on wind and tidal patterns. In the southern area, bloom
peaks occurred earlier and over a longer period (mid-July to early October), with higher cell
densities (to 1,200,000/ml) of the dominant species which extended into adjacent areas of the bay.
Maximum chlorophyll levels were not coincident with maximum cell counts of the dominant
species; phytoflagellates and diatoms apparently contributed to a higher chlorophyll maximum
(>33.0 ug chl/1) in the northern area.
Sporadic bloom events of a number of different species were noted along the New Jersey
coast over the 1988-1989 period and are presented on Table 4.6-1.
4.7 Bay Scallop Seeding Efforts
Elevated Brown Tide concentrations affected a number of bivalve species to varying degrees.
Hard clam populations did not suffer appreciable losses, although landings in the Great South Bay
reported a reduction in average weight and quality of clam meats. A market oyster crop in Peconic
Bay was reportedly destroyed by the Brown Tide organism. The species that was most severely
impacted by Brown Tide was the bay scallop. Researchers at MSRC determined that in 1985 adult
bay scallops had 75% lower adult muscle weights than in the previous year (Wise, 1986).
Additionally, the Brown Tide bloom caused total mortality of larval bay scallops in 1985 and 1986.
The few adult bay scallops that spawned in -1985 and. 1986 died. Remnant populations of scallops
were reported from isolated areas in the. eastern portion of the Peconic system.
The almost complete obliteration of a commercially valuable shellfish species led to the
initiation of efforts to enhance bay scallop productivity by creating spawner sanctuaries in the
Peconic system. Suffolk County negotiated with the Long Island Green Seal Committee and the
New York State Urban Development Corporation- over the technical aspects of bay scallop
restoration work. Bay scallop seed was purchased from two hatcheries and planted in various
harbors. After some initial setbacks, it was discovered that at least some of the newly set scallop
seed at Northwest Harbor could be traced, using electrophoretic enzyme analysis, to the offspring of
scallops planted by Green Seal during the fall of 1988. The three sites chosen for a late fall 1989
planting were Northwest Harbor, Orient Harbor and Flanders Bay. (See Table 4.7-1 for a
breakdown of the scallop rehabilitation sites.).
4-47
Table 4.6-1
Recent Algal Blooms in New Jersey Waters
Date Organism/Effect
May 1989 Misc Diatoms
June 1989 Phytoflagellate
bloom
June 1989 Misc Diatoms
July 1989 Nannochloris
July 1989
July 1989
July 1989
Aug 1989
Aug 1989
Aug 1989
Murky water
Nannochloris sn
Bright Green Water
Dinoflagellate
bloom
Green tide
Gymnodinium
bloom
1988 Algal Bloom
1985-1989 Misc Green Tides
in estuaries and
shallow embayments
Source: Dvirka & Bartilucci, 1990.
Location
Sandy Hook Bay
Raritan and Sandy
Hook Bay
Spring Lake, NJ and
later northward to
Asbury Park
Barnegat Bay
Ocean off Island and
Long Beach Island.
Ocean off Beach Haven
to Brigantine
Southern New Jersey
(Cape May County)
Ocean City, NJ
Atlantic City to
Ocean City, NJ
-Ocean off Sandy Hook
to Cape May County and
intermittent in Great
Bay to Upper Barnegat
Bay, New Jersey
Sandy Hook Bay
New Jersey
4-48
Remarks
Low dissolved oxygen
associated with bloom
Yellow brown
300,000 cells/ml
Nannochloris
Organism unknown
30,000 cells/ml
1-2 miles off
coast
Red Tide species
Katodinium rotundatum
and Porocentrum
redfield also
common during event
Fishkill
Table 4.7-1
Urban Development Corporation/Suffolk County/Green Seal Bay Scallop
Restoration Project
Incomplete data, additional sites were used to plant bay scallops.
4-49
No. of Scallops
Sampling
Year
Location
Planted
Method
Results
Fall, 1986
Northwest Harbor
900;000
free planted
High mortality at
Orient Harbor
Flanders Bay and
Flanders Bay
Orient Harbor
due to siltation
or other
environmental
factors, slight
mortality at
Northwest Harbor
Fall, 1987
Orient Harbor,
580,000
free planted
Total mortality
Northwest Harbor
due Harbor to
predation
reportedly from
Spider Crabs and
whelks
Fall, 1987
Flanders Bay
100,000
grown in
Total mortality by
cages
March of 1988,
cause(s) unknown
Fall, 1988
Northwest Harbor -1
400,000
free planting
Approximately 30%
Orient Harbor
mortality from
Spider Crab
predation
Fall, 1989
Northwest Harbor
100,000
free planting
Results pending
Orient Harbor
100,000
free planting
Results pending
Flanders Bay
67,000
free planting
Results pending
New Suffolk
109,000
free planting
Results pending
Incomplete data, additional sites were used to plant bay scallops.
4-49
Work done by the Green Seal Committee, while not providing consistently demonstrable
success in recruitment of juvenile bay scallops to the system, has shown that under appropriate
environmental conditions, seed scallops cangrow to spawning size as they did in 1987 at the
Northwest Harbor planting site. The experience gained from previous scallop seeding efforts may
prove useful if the Brown Tide organism again has a detrimental impact on scallops.
Anecdotal information indicates that, after an abysmal 1989 scalloping season, minimal
catches occurred in 1990 with slightly more substantial harvests in the fall of 1991, albeit nowhere
near pre -1985 levels. As discussed previously, the Brown Tide bloom of summer, 1991 apparently
did not last long enough to decimate existing scallop populations; a late scallop set observed in the
fall of 1991 evidenced at least a partially successful spawning of the existing scallops.
4.8 Summary and Prognosis for the Future
Between 1987 and June, 1990, Brown Tide cell counts declined and virtually disappeared in
the Peconic system, raising hopes that the bloom was but an isolated anomaly. Blooms in West
Neck Bay in July, 1990 and in the entire Peconic system in 1991; as well as additional blooms in the
South Shore Bays system and subsequent blooms in 1992, were ominous reminders that, given the
current information and understanding of the organism, it cannot be accurately predicted when or
where it may reappear in bloom concentrations.
Monitoring and research programs have provided promising leads. However, there are
important questions regarding the possible causes of the Brown Tide which remain unanswered.
Nuzzi (1986) and Cosper et al. (1987) have theorized that organic and perhaps certain inorganic
inicronutrient compounds and/or chelators critical to the rapid growth of the Brown Tide organism
enter the bays through freshwater runoff or groundwater inputs, causing higher productivity levels
and increased biomass in coastal embayments. Vieira (1989) hypothesized that the onset and
persistence of the Brown Tide bloom may be partially attributed to changes in the seasonal pattern
of flushing and tidal exchange within the Peconic system.
The ability of the Brown Tide organism to outcompete all other phytoplankton species, and
persist throughout the summer,' may be related to its nutrient uptake capabilities, nutrient needs,
and/or photoadaptive capabilities (Cosper et al. 1989). In 1985, Narragansett Bay was another
water body that experienced a Brown Tide bloom. Research discovered a relative absence of
zooplankton, a diverse group of organisms that graze on phytoplankton. There is speculation that
one trigger for the Brown Tide phenomenon may lie in the disruption of the normal grazing pressure
exerted on the picoplankton by such micro-zooplankton as flagellates, ciliates and tintinnids;
scientists also speculate that dimethyl sulfide and acrylic acid, which may be produced by the
Brown Tide organism, may be toxic to zooplankton. The role of viruses in the subsidence of the
Brown Tide bloom also needs to be investigated.
4-50
Enrichment of coastal bays with the more traditional inorganic nutrients does not appear to be
a major factor in Brown Tide development. Prior to and during the Brown Tide bloom nitrate,
nitrite and phosphate levels were not elevated. In recent studies certain chemical elements (the
chelator citric acid, iron, and the trace metals arsenate, vanadate, boron, and selenium) were found
to stimulate Brown Tide growth; many 'of these chemicals may have anthropogenic sources.
Nuzzi (1988) noted that the geographic extent of the Brown Tide phenomenon has suggested
climatological events as being a factor in bloom stimulation. Various physical, meteorological and
offshore forcings (decreasing mean sea level) are also suggested as possible causal mechanisms.
Higher than average salinities in the bay due to reduced rainfall may have led to the initial growth of
the Brown Tide organism (or suppression of its competitors and zooplankton grazers). Although
subsequent blooms of Brown Tide have not strictly followed dry weather periods, precipitation as it
relates to the triggering, sustaining, and terminating of the Brown Tide bloom needs to be
investigated in greater detail. For example, the relationship of the acidity of rainfall to the transport
of nutrients through runoff, groundwater, and surface waters should be examined.
Decreased flushing and mixing of coastal embayments caused by changes in the exchange
between bay and ocean waters is an additional mechanism by which the Brown Tide organism may
have been introduced to, and flourished in, the Peconic estuary. The passage of meteorological
systems force water up on the continental shelf, raising tidal elevations for as long as a week in bays
and harbors. A long period exchange is superimposed on the normal astronomically driven tidal
exchange between the ocean and coastal waters. The frequency of these storm events would
decrease during droughts, leading to a reduced exchange between bay and ocean and decreased
current velocities within the bays (Wise, 1987).
The abundant Peconic Bay scallop population was virtually eradicated by the onset of the
Brown Tide; the causes of this impact may be related to toxic, mechanical, and/or poor nutritional
aspects of the Brown Tide organism. The recent, limited harvest and a reportedly successful
juvenile set in the fall of 1991 have spawned hope that scallops may be rebounding, having survived
the summer, 1991 bloom of Brown Tide.
The loss of a commercially harvestable marine species may have a ripple affect as fishermen
turn to other, less utilized species, or leave the fishery entirely. The relationship between bay
scallop and hard clam landings during the Brown Tide bloom years may reflect this relationship.
Bay scallop landings approached zero from 1986 to 1989. In the same period, hard clam landings
nearly doubled, suggesting a possible turn to hard clams by former bay scallop harvesters. This data
suggests that in part, the ability of the bay scallop fishery and bay scallop harvesters to weather a
Brown Tide bloom may depend on the availability of other commercially harvestable species.
Therefore, one should view the spectrum of harvestable finfish and shellfish in the Peconic system
as a series of interrelated units, where the decline of one species may affect all species. .
4-51
Eelgrass beds have been substantially reduced by the Brown Tide in the Peconic system.
Preliuninary estimates on loss of eelgrass habitat is estimated at 16,000 acres (Wise, 1987). The
period in which the Brown Tide had exhibited the highest densities had coincided with the peak
eelgrass growing season. The loss of eelgrass beds may have long-term impacts on the Peconic
system due to the effects of eelgrass on the diurnal oxygen range, nutrient cycling, sedimentation,
and the progeny of fmfish that utilize eelgrass as nursery habitats. Additionally, eelgrass beds serve
as principal setting areas for bay scallop larvae and the absence of eelgrass may hamper bay scallop
transplant programs. Current eelgrass research is focusing on the extent of eelgrass loss in the
Peconic system. Additional information is needed on rates of natural eelgrass recovery in areas
devastated by Brown Tide, and the technical and cost feasibility of transplant and seeding
techniques.
In summarizing the prognosis for Brown Tide occurrence in the future the words of Slobodkin
(1988) reflect a certain wisdom: "The goal of naive bloom research is to find a cure that can be
added to the water and make blooms go away. There is not now, nor will there ever be, this sort of
'magic bullet' cure. However reversal of eutrophication and alterations of flow pattern may be
practical solutions."
The Brown Tide bloom events are consistent with the long-term experience that summer
phytoplankton dynamics, species dominance, and bloom events are highly unpredictable. Whether
or not these blooms will recur in future years is impossible to predict at present. However, the fact
that they occurred three years in succession and then reappeared on several subsequent occasions
indicates that the chances are good for their recurrence at some time in the future.
4-52
5.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
ASSESSMENT
5.0 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
This Section characterizes the groundwater quality in the groundwater -contributing area to
the Peconic River and Peconic/Flanders Bays system. Data discussed in this section are used as a
basis for analysis in Section 6 regarding the relationship between land use, -non-point source
pollutant loading, and groundwater quality as it relates to surface waters. Section 6 ultimately
utilizes information in this section to project, as a computer model input, the overall nitrogen
loading from groundwater -to surface waters of the Peconic -system. Management alternatives in
Section 7 subsequently assess the impact of groundwater contribution on surface waters and
evaluate the effectiveness of various groundwater management alternatives. Latter portions of this
section discuss groundwater programs, classifications, and standards to provide a comprehensive
overview of current groundwater management in the study area. Finally, geology, hydrogeology,
and expected locations of fresh/salt water interfaces in the study area are presented in Appendix I.
5.1 Brief Summary of Groundwater Quality Characterization and Implications
Data presented in this section indicate that North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastern
Peconic River regions, which are heavily influenced by agricultural (fertilizer) and residential
(fertilizer and sanitary waste) nitrogen loadings, have groundwater nitrogen concentrations which
are substantially elevated (5 to 7 mg/1). Western and central Peconic River, with their vast expanses
of open space that have undoubtedly spared the river system from the adverse impacts of
anthropogenic pollution in recent years, have relatively low total nitrogen concentrations (1 to 1.5
mg/1) indicating excellent groundwater quality.
Although groundwater contamination by most organic chemicals does not appear to be
widespread, pesticide contamination of private water supply wells is common in the eastern Peconic
River, North Flanders Bay and North Fork regions (6.4 to 14.4 ppb avg.), where agricultural
chemical usage was historically prevalent. Detectable pesticide levels in East Creek (up to 8 ppb;
see Section 3) indicate that pesticide contamination has, to some degree, reached surface waters of
the study areas.
Color, computer -digitized maps showing profiles of average total. nitrogen and pesticide
concentrations in the various regions of the study area are on file at SCDHS. Small -versions of
these color maps were not available to include in this section, but have been included in the
BTCAMP Summary document. It should be noted that information on the maps, and the data in this
section in general, is not intended to be precisely quantitative with regard to groundwater conditions
in specific areas. Rather, the assessment was performed to obtain a generalized characterization of
groundwater conditions in various regions of the study area so that problem areas could be
identified and reasonable pollutant loading estimates could be generated for use in the management
alternative evaluation:
5-1
For the sake of perspective, the reader should know that the following report sections
establish that the intensity of land usage in given areas is directly related to nitrogen loading and
groundwater quality degradation (Section 6). Both residential and agricultural land uses are
responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in the -eastern Peconic River and northern Flanders Bay
regions (Section 6).
Section 6 establishes than groundwater contributes approximately 580 pounds per. day of
total nitrogen to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay downstream of (east of) the USGS gauge
utilized for Peconic River point source sampling. This projection is based on groundwater nitrogen
characterizations contained in this section and USGS estimates of groundwater underflow (13.5
mgd in the Peconic River East region, east of USGS Gauge point source sampling station; 5.7 mgd
in the North Flanders Bay area; and 8.9 mgd to South Flanders Bay, with relatively. minor
contributions to better -flushed surface waters east of these regions). However, Sections 6 and 7
subsequently determine that the apparent significance of groundwater nitrogen contribution to the
Peconic River and Flanders Bay is tempered by surface water quality data, computer modelling,
and groundwater infiltration sampling which indicate that groundwater nitrogen contribution is not
having a significant impact on the Peconic River and the major bays in the study area. Additionally,
the portions of the study area -east of Flanders Bay do not appear to bd negatively impacted by
groundwater nitrogen contribution due to greatly increased flushing from the seaward boundary of
the system as well as a much lower rate of groundwater infiltration into the system.
Although mitigation of existing groundwater conditions does not appear to be a priority with
respect to surface water quality improvement, the prevention of substantial future degradation to
existing groundwater quality is an important goal. This goal is especially critical in the Peconic
River area, where degradation of excellent groundwater conditions would result in significant
adverse impacts on Flanders Bay (see Section 7).
In general, BTCAMP concludes that groundwater monitoring programs and the study of
surface water impacts of groundwater should be continued, especially with respect to areas with
known contamination (e.g., North Sea Landfill and Rowe Industries site, see Section 6). In
addition, estimation of groundwater inflow and its pollutant contribution to surface waters should be
performed for' -the areas east of Flanders Bay and further refined in -the western study -area. Pesticide
contamination related to agricultural practices is an area of special concern which warrants further
monitoring and evaluation.
5.2 Groundwater Quality Conditions
5.2.1 Methodology and Presentation of Results
In order to characterize groundwater quality in the groundwater -contributing area to the
Peconic River and Peconic/Flanders Bays system, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
5-2
(SCDHS) sampling data for monitoring wells, public water supply wells, and private water supply
wells were analyzed with respect to nitrogen, organic chemicals, and pesticides. All available data
in SCDHS files were analyzed for monitoring wells and public supply wells, with data ranging in
time from 1975 (where available) to 1988. Private well data were analyzed in the Peconic
River/Flanders Bay regions for nitrogen from 1973 to 1988 and for organic chemicals from 1977 to
1988. Eastern Peconic Bay regions were evaluated with respect to nitrogen and organic chemicals
using 1987 to 1988 data. A pesticide database containing the results of SCDHS sampling of private
wells between 1980 and 1988 was used to characterize pesticide concentrations in private wells in
the study area. When samples contained concentrations which fell below laboratory detection
limits, a value of zero was assumed for purposes of averaging regional contaminant levels.
In this task, monitoring and private supply wells were grouped into several groundwater
quality analysis regions to facilitate data analysis. These regions are shown in Figure 5.2-1;
regional boundaries are essentially the same as those used to organize land use data (see Section
6.3). Descriptions and abbreviations of these regions are. listed in Table 5.2-1.
SCDHS methodologies for the analysis of data from monitoring, public water supply and
private water supply wells, along with a graphical representation of results, are discussed in brief in
the following subsections. This section contains only a condensed summary of the methodology
and results of the SCDHS groundwater characterization. The complete report, which contains all
tabulations and summaries performed pursuant to this task, is on file at SCDHS.
5.2.1.1 Monitoring Wells
The most recent nitrate -nitrogen and ammonia sampling results (1986-1988) were tabulated
and mapped over the Peconic River/Peconic Bays system to indicate current water quality
conditions. For comparative purposes, nitrate -nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen data were also
recorded, tabulated, and mapped for the time periods 1980 to 1982 to correspond to the LIRPB
"Land Use -1981," and data from 1975 to 1977 to correspond to the "LI 208 Study." The data from
the three time ranges is presented in tabular format on Table 5.2-2, and the maps of the data are on
file at SCDHS. In general, the data did not reveal any striking system -wide trends in temporal water
quality changes over the the 12 year period evaluated.
All detections of organic chemicals and pesticides were also tallied and mapped for the time
periods 1986 to 1988, 1980 to 1982, and 1975 to 1977, respectively; this data is discussed in the
appropriate sections of this report. Pesticide data and data from monitoring wells screened at a
depth of greater than 100 feet below the water table were also analyzed and are discussed
throughout this subsection.
5-3
LONG ISLAND SOUND
PR_W PR -M RIVERHEAD NF -1
ECO 1;E fLANC
PR— PR—E
SF_
H
SF—c
BROOKHAVEN '
So�`o Lr -N
GP -N LITTLE
PECONIC
h BAY
GREAT V
PECONIC
BAY BAY
'%, GP -c
NI `N�j 1 C
GB—N
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
SMELT GARDINERS BAY tAN
S
slaSHEL MONT
FLP—S
SOUTHAMPTON
0�ENN
FIGURE 5.2-1 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSIS REGIONS
SOURCE& SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
LEGEND
PR -H PECONIC RIVER HEADWATERS
PR -W PECONIC RIVER WEST
PR -M PECONIC RIVER MID
PR -E PECONIC RIVER EAST
NF -I NORTH FLANDERS BAY -INLAND
NF -C NORTH FLANDERS BAY -COASTAL
SF -I SOUTH FLANDERS BAY -INLAND
SF -C SOUTH FLANDERS BAY -COASTAL
GP -N GREAT PECONIC BAY -NORTH
GP -S GREAT PECONIC BAY -SOUTH
LP -N LITTLE PECONIC BAY -NORTH
LP -S LITTLE PECONIC BAY -SOUTH
GB -N GARDINERS,BAY NORTH
GB -S GARDINERS BAY SOUTH
SHEL SHELTER ISLAND
MONT MONTAUK
NO SCALE
PBH - 3/92
TABLE 5.2-1
Groundwater Quality Analysis Regions
The following regions are bounded on the north and/or south by the Peconic River/Peconic
Bays System and the divide for groundwater flow into the Peconic River/Peconic Bays system.
Peconic River - Headwaters (PR -H)
Bounded on the east by Schultz Road and Wading River Road. Includes portions of Ridge and
Upton.
Peconic River - West (PR -W)
Bounded on the east by Edwards Avenue and the Long Island Expressway and on the west by
Schultz Road and Wading River Road. Includes portions of Manorville and a smaller part of
Calverton.
Peconic River - Mid (PR -M)
Bounded on the east by Mill Road south to the Peconic River, extending south to the
groundwater divide via a straight line passing through the LILCO right-of-way; and on the west
by Edwards Avenue and the L.I.E. Includes a part -of Calverton.
Peconic River - East (PR -E)
Bounded on the east by Cross River Drive, CR 104 and CR 31, and on the west by Mill Road
south to the Peconic River, extending south to the groundwater divide via the LILCO right-of-
way. Includes a large part of Riverhead. . -
North Flanders Bay - Inland (NF -I)
Bounded on the east by the Jamesport/Laurel divide (parallel to and just east of Herrick's Lane),
on the west by Cross River Drive, and on the south by Route 25. Includes portions of
Aquebogue and Jamesport.
5-5
TABLE 5.2-1 (cont.)
North Flanders Bay - Coastal (NF -C)
Bounded on the east by the Jamesport/Laurel divide (parallel to and just east of Herrick's Lane),
on the west by Cross River Drive, and on the north by Route 25. Includes South Jamesport, most
of Aquebogue, and portions of Jamesport.
South Flanders Bay - Coastal (SF -C)
Bounded on the east by an unnamed road just east of Red Creek Pond, on the west by Cross
River Drive, and on the south by Route 24, Red Creek Road, and Upper Red Creek Road.
Includes portions of Flanders.
South Flanders Bay - Inland (SF -I)
Bounded on the east by Red Creek Road (Squiretown Road), on the west by Cross River Drive
and CR 104, and on the north by Route 24, Red Creek Road, and Upper Red Creek Road.
Includes portions of Flanders.
Great Peconic B ay. - North (GP -N)
Bounded on the east by the Peconic/East Cutchogue divide and on the west by
the Jamesport/Laurel divide. Includes portions of Cutchogue, Laurel, Mattituck, Nassau. Point,
and New Suffolk.
Great Peconic Bay - South (GP -S)
Bounded on the east by Water Mill Towd Road and a line extending north to Little Peconic Bay,
and on the west by Red Creek Road (Squiretown Road) and an unnamed road just east of Red
Creek Pond. Includes portions of North Sea, Hampton Bays, Shinnecock Hills and
Southampton.
Little Peconic Bay - North (LP -N)
Bounded on the east by the Greenport-Stirling/East Marion Divide, and on the west by the
Peconic/East Cutchogue divide. Includes parts of Greenport, Peconic and Southold.
5-6
TABLE 5.2-1 (cont.)
Little Peconic Bay - South (LP -S)
Bounded on the east by Sag Harbor Turnpike north to Edwards Hole Road, to Northwest Creek,
and on the west by Water Mill Towd Road and a line extending north to Little Peconic Bay.
Includes large portions of Sag Harbor, North Haven, Noyack, and parts of Bridgehampton.
Gardiners Bay - North (GB -N)
Bounded on the west by the Greenport-Stirling/East Marion Divide and on the east by Plum Gut.
Includes parts of East Marion and Orient.
Gardiners Bay - South (GB -S)
Bounded on the east by a line extending south from Napeague' Harbor to Beavershead Street, and
on the west by Sag Harbor Turnpike north to Edwards Hole Road, to Northwest Creek. Includes
parts of Bridgehampton, East Hampton, Amagansett, Napeague, and Springs.
Montauk (M)
Bounded on the west by a line extending south from Napeague Harbor to Beavershead Street.
Includes part of Montauk.
Shelter Island (SI)
Includes all of Shelter Island.
5-7
TABLE 5.2-2
Monitoring Well Historical Nitrogen Data
Well
(NO3-N)
+ (NH4-N)
in (ppm)
Category
Current
Total #
Total
Changes
Region
Number
1975-
1980-
1986-
Quality
Category
of Wells
in Water Quality
Region
Abbrev.
(S -#Z •
1977
1982
1988
Change
(1986-1988)
In Region
Improved
Worsened
Peconic River
PR -H
47226
0:19
<0.56
0.18
0
ambient
1
0
.0
Headwaters
Peconic River
PR -W
47227
0.13
<0.53
<0.13
0
ambient
4
0
0
West
47228
0.06
0.16
0.05
0
ambient
4722y
i.G
i.3
"u .o
0
a��ii en'.
51591
0.53
0.6
0.26
0
ambient
Peconic River
PR -M
47488
--
--
0.31
0
ambient
5
2
0
Mid
47553
0.78
<0.16
0.28
0
ambient
47754
0.57
<0.15
0.09
0
ambient
51576
8.3
4.3
3.8
+
good
73357
--
10.4
0.38
+
ambient
Peconic River
PR -E
47230
<0.06
<0.08
<0 07
0
ambient
3
0
0
East
51573
0.53
0.41
0.14
0
ambient
52449
3.4
4.4
3.7
.0
good
North Flanders
NF -I
51581
13.4
15.0
3.3
+
good
6
2
0
Bay Inland
51588
12.3
12.4
10.4
0
poor
v,
51589
9.7
9.5
2.7
+
good
71572
--
8.2
9.9
0
marginal
00
71573
--
--
11.0
0
poor
71576
--
<0.4
<0.4
0
ambient
North Flanders
NF -C
47321
0.67
1.8
2.4
-
good
1
0
1
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
SF -C
--
--
--
--
n/a
n/a
0
0
0
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
SF -I
48582
2.6
4.6
3.2
0
good
1
0
0
Bay Inland
Great Peconic
GP -N
53227
13.1
7.9
3.0
+
good
5
3
0
Bay North
53329
8.4
10.2
6.1
+,
marginal
53332
4.1
7.8
8.7
0
marginal
53334
8.1
12.2
0.33
+,
ambient
53537
--
9.3
7.0
0.
marginal
Great Peconic
GP -S
47232
0.6
0.52
0.83
0
ambient
6
0
0
Bay South'
48432
<0.03
0.11
0.12
0
ambient
48481
<0.25
0.08
<0.07
0
ambient
58957
2.6
3.4
1.4
0
good
58957
0.1
<0.07
0.24
0
ambient
59992
--
•<0.3
0.1
0
ambient
TABLE 5.2-2 (continued)
Monitoring Well Historical Nitrogen Data
Well
MEN)
+ (NH4-N)
in (ppm)
Category
Current
Total #
Total
Changes
Region
Number
1975-
1980-
1986-
Quality
Category
of Wells
in Water Quality
Region
Abbrev.
(S-#)
1977
1982
1988
Change
(1986-1988)
In Region
Improved
Worsened
Little Peconic
LP -N
47234
5.9
4.0
0.6
+
ambient
4
1
0
Bay North
53328
0.78
7.3
2.7
0
good
53335
17.3
13.8
20.0
0
poor
53539
2.7
5.0
3.2
0
good
Little Peconic
LP -S
48437
0.22
<0.44
<0.07
0
ambient
13
2
1
Bay South
48438
1.6
1.2
0.27
+
ambient
48517
<0.22
<0.44
<0.09
0
ambient
48521
0.39
3.1
1.4
-
good
51184
1.25
1.4
0.45
+
ambient
51185
0.22
0.26
0.41
0
ambient
51186
5.6
5.0
2.9
0
good
Little Peconic
52695
--
5.9
5.9
0
good
Bay South
58959
2.5
--
2.5
0
good
58960
0.51
<0.44
0.37
0
ambient
58961
<0.08
0.07
0.6
0
ambient
59795
--
12.4
--
0
poor
73999
0.09
--
0.09
0
ambient
Gardiner's Bay
GB -N
53330
10.1
11.1
10.0
0
poor
1
0
0
v, North
1° Gardiner's Bay
GB -S
46518
--
--
13.4
0
poor
7
0
1
South
47235
0.2
0.92
0.31
0
ambient
47236
<0.23
1.6
2.4
--
good
48578
5.2
3.04
3.4
0
good
48580
0.62
8.2
0.11
-/+
ambient
58924
<0.08
0.11
1.1
0
good
58925
0.12
0.15
0.32
0
ambient
Montauk
MONT
48519
2.9
2.6
1.5
0
good
4
0
0
48579
0.8
1.0
0.79
-/+
ambient
58922
0.58
1.3
0.54
-/+
ambient
70262
--
0.8
0.11
0
ambient
Shelter Island
SHEL
51169
1.8
1.5
1.3
0
good
19
4
1
51170
0.28
0.38
'0.15
0
ambient
51171
5.9
5.8
3.6
0
good
51172
10.1
7.8
1.6
+
good
51173
--
1.8
0.22
+
ambient
51174
1.9
2.1
1.4
0
good
51175
4.5
9.3
1.3
-/+
good
51176
1.9
1.6
2.1
0
good
51177
0.52
0.4
<0.07
0
ambient
cn
i
0
TABLE 5.2-2 (continued)
Monitoring Well -Historical Nitrogen Data
Well
(NO3-N)
+ (NH4•-N)
in (Ppm)
Category
Current
Total #
Total Changes
Region Number
1975-
1980-
1986-
Quality
Category
of Wells
in Water Quality
Region Abbrev. (S-#)
1977'
1982
1988
Change
(1986-1988)
In Region
Improved Worsened
Shelter Island 51178
1.2
1.6
0.61
+
ambient
51179
0.22
0.21
0.2
0
ambient
51180
1.8
3.6
1.48
0
good
51181
10.0
5.5
3.6
+
good
51182
0.41
0.26
0.13
0.
ambient
51183
0.54
0.38
0..1
0
ambient
52050
5.6
22.5
1.72
-/+
good
52084
0.45
0•.7
1.73
-
good
83924
--
1.7
1.7
0
good
75441
--
--
<0.22
0
ambient
TOTALS
80
14 4
Categories:
0-1 ppm nitrogen = ambient
>1-6 ppm.nitrogen good
>6-10 ppm nitrogen = marginal
>10 ppm nitrogen = poor
Symbols:
+ = net improvement in categories
- = net worsening n categories
0'= same category
-/+ = worsening, then improvement to same initial category
5.2.1.2 Public Water SupRly Wells
Public well fields in the Peconic River/Peconic Bays system groundwater -contributing area
were identified and mapped and sampling data were evaluated. While no pesticides were detected
in these wells, nitrate -nitrogen occurrences of over 6 ppm and all organic chemical detections were
tabulated and mapped, and are discussed in appropriate portions of this section. Public supply wells
which drew water at a depth of greater than 100 feet below the water table were also identified and
included in the tabulation of deep monitoring wells (see infra, Table 5.2-13).
5.2.1.3 Private Water Supply Wells
Private water supply data were analyzed with respect to nitrogen and organic chemicals over
a the time periods 1987 to 1988, 1984 to 1986, and 1973 to 1983. Data were evaluated over the entire
Peconic River/Peconic Bays system for 1987 to 1988, while prior data focused on the Peconic
River/Flanders Bay region. Data were then tabulated for total nitrogen and organic chemical
occurrence, and average total nitrogen concentrations were mapped on the basis of street locations
of the private wells. Regional averages of nitrogen data are presented on Figure 5.2-2; a color map
is included in the BTCAMP Summary. The region of the Peconic River Headwaters was the only
region in which samples just outside of the Peconic groundwater -contributing areas were used due
to the lack of data in this small region.
+U In addition to the regional groundwater quality map for nitrogen, graphic representations
were prepared to demonstrate overall and comparative nitrogen concentrations and chemical
detection. Figure 5.2-3 depicts total nitrogen data for 1987 to 1988, and Figure 5.2-4 shows a
comparison by time periods. Figure 5.2-5 depicts organic chemical detection data for 1977 to 1988,
lland Figure 5.2-6 shows a comparison by time periods.
Private well pesticide data was analyzed utilizing a SCDHS database covering the time
Qrange 1980 through 1988. Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) Sections were used to obtain a rough
approximation of pesticide concentrations in small subregions of the study area. Where only a
portion of the SCTM Section was in the study area, an appropriate proportioning factor was applied
to the number of samples in that Section iii -accounting for overall number of samples and overall
concentrations in groundwater quality regions. A map was then prepared showing approximate
concentrations of pesticides based.on the tax map sections (see Figure 5.2-7). Graphs were also
constructed to depict relative average pesticide concentrations (see Figure 5.2-8) and exceedances of
drinking water guidelines (see Figure 5.2-9).
Mapping criteria for organic chemicals and nitrogen generally followed procedures used in
the "Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan" (SCDHS, 1986). Organics were grouped
into classifications of 0-5, >5-30, >30-50, and >50 ppm, while nitrogen was tallied in classes of 0-1
(ambient), >1-6 (good), >6-10 (marginal), and >10 ppm (poor).
5-11
01
N
LONG
ISLAND
RIVERHEAD
GARDINERS
SOUND
LITTLE
PECONIC
BAY
GREAT BMW
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
AR RS
AN
.l
FLANDERS BAY BAY
\ EAST HAMPTON `
SOUTHAMPTON
NITRATE LEGEND
BROOKHAVEN
®
1 .0-1 .5 p p m
BAy
NI NEC K
2.0-3.0 ppm
yo RICHE
BAY
p�Ep,N
5.0-6.5 Ppm
NOTE, Montauk and Shelter Island
regions have lose than 25 samples
FIGURE 5.2-2
PRIVATE WELL AVERAGE
TOTAL
NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS NO SCALE
SOURCE) SUFFOLK
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
PBH — 3/92
w
cn
FIGURE 5.2-4
PR -H PR -W PR -M PR -E NF -1 NF -C SF -C SF -1
Region
Private Well Average Total Nitrogen Data by Region
Source: SCDHS Comparison -by Time Periods
LEGEND
Comparative
Time Periods:
0
1973 - 1983
®
1984. - 1988
1987 - 1988
Cumulative
(1973 - 1988)
Detections (percent)
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FIGURE 5.2-5
PR -H
Source: SCDHS
PR -W PR -M PR -E NF -1 NF -C SF -C
Region
Private Well
Organic Chemical Detection Data by Region
1977 - 1988
SF -1
rn
FIGURE 5.2-6
Detections (percent)
PR -H PR -W PR -M PR -E NF -1 NF -C SF -C SF -1
Region
Source: SCDHS
Private Well
Organic .Chemical Detection Data
Comparison by Time Periods
LEGEND
Comparative
Time
Periods:
0
1973 - 1983
®
1984 - 1988
1987 - 1988
Cumulative
(1973 - 1988)
LONG
BROOKHAVEN
UOR1
ISLAND SOUND
BAY
• f .2-4 ;i -::`x•
a.
i
�I
:r.
SOUTHAMPTON
FIGURE 5.2-7 PRIVATE WELL PESTICIDE DATA
SOURCES SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
H
D
BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
AR RS
AN
EAST HAMPTON
PESTICIDE LEGEND
INSUFFICIENT
DATA
®
< 1 ppb
>= 1 and < 7
ppb
®
>= 7 and < 15
ppb
>= 15 and 30
ppb
30 ppb
NO SCALE
PBH - 3/92
00
FIGURE 5.2-8
PR -W PR -M PR -E NF -1 NF -C GP -N GP -S LP -N LP -S GB -N TOTAL
• Note: regions with ) 50 samples Region•
not included on chart
Average Pesticide Concentrations in
Private Water Supply Wells
Source: SCDHS 1980 - 1988
LEGEND
Total
® Aldicarb
Carbofuran
w
Percent Above Guidelines
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
'0.0
FIGURE 5.2-9
PR -W PR -M PR -E NF -1 NF -C GP -N GP -S LP -N LP -3 GB -N TOTAL
Region •
• Note: regions with <50 samples
not included on chart
Source: SCDHS
Pesticide Detections Above Drinking Water
Guidelines in Private Water Supply Wells
1980-1988
LEGEND
® Aldicarb
;(Guideline
ppb)
Carbofuran
(Gu1delb e
pp
Pesticides were mapped using a sum of aldicarb and carbofuran concentrations in a given tax ?
map region. Categories of pesticide mapping were 0-<7 ppb, 7-<15 ppb, 15-<30 ppb, and >30 ppb.
The water quality data are more useful on both quantitative and qualitative bases when evaluated in
conjunction with land use data.
In analyzing private well data, nitrogen and organics data were processed by hand while
pesticide data management was performed utilizing computer database capabilities. While efforts
were made to eliminate -consideration of obvious duplicate samples and re -samples of nitrogen and
organics from the same wells within given time ranges of analysis, some duplication of sampling
data may have occurred. 'However, for the most part, nitrogen and organics data reflects the number
of sampled wells rather than the total number of samples. In contrast, with respect to private well
pesticide data, raw data was managed completely by computer analysis and reflects the total number
of samples rather than the total number of wells.
- It should be noted that the groundwater quality evaluation, including the private well data
analysis, is intended to be a generalized characterization of groundwater pollution in the study area
rather than a precise quantification of site-specific groundwater conditions. The overall objectives
of this. assessment are to provide credible estimates for pollutant loadings of nitrogen for use in
computer modeling and. analysis and to obtain an understanding of problem areas with respect to
organics and pesticide groundwater contamination.
Significant observations regarding the water quality analysis for nitrogen, organic chemicals,
and pesticides are discussed in the following sections.
5.2.2 Discussion of Results. - Nitrog_en
5.2.2.1 Monitoring Well Nitrogen Data
A summary of monitoring well nitrogen data is shown in Table 5.2-3. Monitoring well
historical nitrogen data is profiled in Table 5.2-4. As shown in Table 5.2-4, all monitoring well total
nitrogen � (total nitrogen equals total nitrogen sampled, nitrate -N plus ammonia -N) data in the
Peconic River regions (PR -H, PR -W, PR -M and PR -E) for 1986 to 1988 were "ambient", with the
exception of two monitoring wells with "good" water quality. Six wells in the entire study area
showed "poor" water quality. Of these wells, four occurred on the North Fork (two in region NF -I),
one in region LP -N and one in GB -N), while two occurred on the South Fork (one in region LP -S
and one in region GB -S). Four other. North Fork wells were "marginal" (one in region NF -I and
three in region GP -N), while none of the South. Fork wells were "marginal." Five of the six wells in
the North Flanders Bay Inland regions showed high (>8 ppm) nitrogen levels at some point in time,
with the lone exception being a deep well.
5-20
Region
Peconic River -
Headwaters
Peconic River -
West
Peconic River -
Mid
Peconic River -
East
North Flanders
Bay - Inland
Table 5.2-3
Summary of Monitoring Well Nitrogen Data
Number of
Samples Date
No. of w/nitrogen Sample
Samples >10 mg/1 Collected
39 0 6/30/87
Concentrations Detected
Nitrate -N Ammonia -N
(mg/1) (mg/D
<0.05 0.18
47227
Depth of
Well
Well Screen
Well No. Depth
Below Water
(S-#) (ft)
Table ft
47226 30.17
22.17
Number of
Samples Date
No. of w/nitrogen Sample
Samples >10 mg/1 Collected
39 0 6/30/87
Concentrations Detected
Nitrate -N Ammonia -N
(mg/1) (mg/D
<0.05 0.18
47227
103.25
95.25
28
0
6/29/87
<0.05
0.08
47228
103.50
98.50
36
0
6/30/87
0.05
<0.02
47229
28.75
22.75
33
0
6/30/87
0.2
0.59
51591
29.42
24.42
23
0
7/1/87
7.05
0.26
47488
39.00
9.00
1
0
5/22/73
0.3
0.01
47753
102.00
85.00
37
0
4/9/87
0.28
<0.02
47754
41.00
25.00
40
0
4/9/87
0.09
<0.02
51576
69.17
30.17
22
0
6/17/87
3.7
0.14
73357
337.00
296.00
7
0
8/17/85
0.3
0.08
47230
35.67
23.67
13
0
8/6/87
<0.05
<0.02
51573
90.00
75.00
20
0
6/16/87
0.1
0.04
52449
40.42
25.42
22
0
6/16/87
3.7
<0.02
51581
45.42
24.42
22
0
6/2/87
3.3
<0.2
51588
60.08
33.08
36
9
6/4/87
9.3
1.1
3/23/87
10.0
1.2
6/12/86
9.3
0.65
6/21/83
13.6
-
5/20/82
11.8
-,
5/17/82
11.4
-
1/21/81
11.8
-
1/30/80
11.0
-
11/15/76
13.0
-
10/16/75
12.2
-
51589
43.42
25.42
25
0
6/21/87
2.7
<0.02
71572
56.00
16.00
2
0
8/28/84
9.9
-
71573
75.00
38.60
1
1.
8/29/84
11.0
-
71576
199.00
154.00
1
0
12/22/81
<0.02
<0.02
Table 5.2-3
(continued)
Summary
of Monitoring
Well Nitrogen Data
Depth of
Number of
Well
Well Screen
Samples
Date
Concentrations Detected
Well No.
Depth
Below Water
No. of
w/nitrogen
Sample
Nitrate-N
Ammonia-N
Region
(S=-#)
ft
Table ft
Samples
>10 ma/l
Collected
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
North Flanders
47231
42.75
21.75
21
0
6/4/87
2.3
0.05
Bay - Coastal
South Flanders
48582
105.00
23.00
15
0
10/14/87
3.2
<0.02
Bay - Inland
South Flanders-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bay - Coastal
Great Peconic
53327
43.95
24.75
19
5
5/28/87
1.9
1.1
Bay - North
3/16/87
12.0
<0.03
6/19/86
12.0
<0.02
3/21/84
11.9
<0.04
9/1/83
11.6
-
N
9/16/75
13.1
-
N
53329
70.00
51.00
28
3
3/12/87
6.1
<0.02
8/24/82
10.0
<0.04
3/3/81
10.0
0.75
1/28/82
10.1
0.04
53332
44.50
26.50
18
0
6/1/87
8.7
0.1
53334
52.58
25.58
14
0
5/28/87
0.08
0.25.
53537
66.00
43.00
11
0
3/12/87
0.15
6.9
Great Peconic
47232
59.29
45.29
17
0
10/8/87
0.11
0.72
Bay - South
48432
67.00
26.00
21
0
1/5/87
0.09
0.03
48581
76.00
23.00
17
0
10/8/87
<.05
<.02
58956
43.00
40.00
11
0
1/5/87
1.3
0.03
58957
203.00
28.00
10
0
10/6/87
0.24
<.02
59992
283.50
264.50
3
0
10/1/82
<.2
0.12
Little Peconic
47234
30.00
32.00
20
0
5/21/87
0.55
0.05
Bay - North
53328
40.83
24.83
14
0
5/21/87
2.7
<0.02
Ui
N
LO
Table 5.2-3
(continued)
Summary
of Monitoring
Well Nitrogen Data
Depth of
Number of
Well
Well Screen
Samples
Date
Concentrations Detected
Well No.
Depth
Below Water
No. of
w/nitrogen
Sample
Nitrate -N
Ammonia -N
Region
(S-#)
(ft)
Table ft
Samples
>10 me/1
Collected
(mg/1)
(mg/D
Little Peconic
53335
36.50
26.50
33
18
5/20/87
20.0
<0.02
Bay - North
3/20/87
23.0
<.02
6/26/86
21.0
0.03
12/16/86
20.0
0.05
1/21/86
19.0
0.04
8/13/85
15.0
0.05
7/29/85
16.0
0.02
8/23/84
11.1
<.02
6/27/84
10.0
<.02
3/12/84
11.0
<.05
3/2/83
11.0
0.1
8/23/82
13.8
<.04
6/17/82
10.4
<.04
6/23/80
11.8
<.04
10/5/79
11.0
0.04
1/16/78
16.0
<.05
2/4/77
16.0
0.07
7/17/75
17.3
<.2
53539
36.50
26.50
19
0
5/19/87
3.2
<0.02
Little Peconic
48437
72.50
22.50
9
0
7/30/87
<.05
<.02
Bay - South
48438
81.42
32.42
19
0
8/5/87
0.19
0.08
48517
70.50
29.50
24
0
7/24/87
<.05
0.04
48521
75.00
25.00
19
0
.7/29/87
1.3
0.1
51184
32.00
23.00
18
0
8/4/87
.45.
<.02
51185
33.00
26.00
23
0
8/4/87
0.39
0.02
51186
42.00
22.00.
21
0
8/5/87
2.9
<.02
52695
-
11.00
3
0
3/22/82
5.9
<.04
58959
202.50
32.50
1
0
10/28/77
2.5
0.001
58960
164.00
54.00
3
0
10/5/87
0.35
0.02
58961
131.70
14.70
5
0
10/13/87
<.05
0.6
59795
118.00
106.00
4
1
3/23/82
8.3
4.1
73999
597.00
509.00
1
0
11/28/77
0.03
0.06.
Region
Gardiners Bay -
North
Gardiners Bay -
South
Montauk
TABLE 5.2-3 (continued)
Summary of Monitoring Well Nitrogen Data
46518
47235
47236
48578
48580
58924
58925
48519
48579
58922
70262
25.08
60.75
32.00
46.00
139.00
92.00
82.00
66.00
62.00
168.00
19.08
28.75
23.00
22.00
38.00
31.00
22.00
30.00
16.00
120.00
Number of
Depth of
Well
Well Screen
Well No. Depth
Below Water
(S-#) lot
Table ft
53330 50.50
33.50
46518
47235
47236
48578
48580
58924
58925
48519
48579
58922
70262
25.08
60.75
32.00
46.00
139.00
92.00
82.00
66.00
62.00
168.00
19.08
28.75
23.00
22.00
38.00
31.00
22.00
30.00
16.00
120.00
Number of
Concentrations Detected
Samples
Date
No. of
w/nitrogen
Sample
Samples
>10 mgjl
Collected
12.0
15
8
5/18/87
11.1
<.04
3/2/87
<.05
13.0
6/23/87
10.0
0.1
12/18/86
1.4
11.0
6/10/82
<0.05
0.31
2/25/81
1.0
12.0
1/12/78
11.0
0.56
2/7/77,
18
2
4/3/84
0.32
<.02
8/8/83
15
0
7/29/87
13
0
7/27/87
20
2
4/3/84
8/8/83
17
0
7/27/87
11
0
-7/23/87
9
0
7/28/87
20
0
9/21/87
18
0
1/14/87
12
'0
7/20/87
2
0
4/2/85
Concentrations Detected
Nitrate -N
Ammonia -N
(mg/1)
(mg/D
10.0
<0.02
12.0
0.12
12.0
0.05
14.0
<.02
11.1
<.04
10.0
<.05
13.0
0.28
10.0
0.1
12.0
1.4
11.0
0.56
<0.05
0.31
2.4
1.0
12.0
1.4
11.0
0.56
0.9
0.02
0.34
0.73
0.32
<.02
1.5
0.03
0.76
0.03
0.54
<.02
0.09
0.02
TABLE 5.2-3 (continued)
Summary of Monitoring Well Nitroeen Data
Depth of
Number of
Well
Well Screen
Samples
Date
Concentrations Detected
Well No.
Depth
Below Water
No. of
w/nitrogen
Sample
Nitrate -N
Ammonia -N
Regio (S -#)ftp
Table ft
Samples
>10 mg/1
Collected
(mg/11
(mg/1
Shelter Island 51169
56.00
30.00
13
0
2/5/87
1.3
0.15
<.02
<.02
51170
33.00
27.00
15
17
0
0
2/5/87
2/9/87
3.6
<.02
51171
51172
55.00
37.00
29.00
22.00
16
1
2/17/87
1.6
0.002
2/14/77
10.0
0.08
51173
51.00
21.00
15
0
2/4/87
0.22
0.02
51174
63.00
23.00
13
0
2/4/87
1.4
<.02
51175
60.00
26.00
17
0
2/9/87
1.3
<.02
51176
59.00
25.00
13
0
2/18/87
2.1
<.02
51177
39.00
26.00
15
0
2/19/87
<.05
<•02
51178
47.00
23.00
17
0
2/25/87
0.61
<.02
51179
67.00
55.00
19
0
2/19/87
0.2
<.02
51180
51.00
23.00
15
0
2/10/87
1.4
0.08
51181
74.00
25.00
12
1
2/3/87
3.6
<.02
4/15/75
10.0
0.01
51182
76.00
25.00
11
0
2/3/87
.13
<.02
51183
51.00
21.00
17
0
2/17/87
0.1
<.02
52050
64.00
22.00
17
0
2/18/87
1.7
0.02
52084
74.00
50.00
14
0
2/10/87
1.6
0.13
73924
40.00
8.00
1
0
7/16/82
1.7
<.1
75441
33.00
13.00
1
0
9/12/85
<.2
<.02
Coastal
South Flanders Bay
Coastal
South Flanders Bay
Inland
Great Peconic Bay
North
Great Peconic Bay
South
Little Peconic Bay
North
Little Peconic Bay
South
48582
2.6
TABLE 5.2-4
3.2 - - - - - -
53327
Brown
Tide Comprehensive
Assessment and Management
Program
8.4
10.2
Monitoring Well Historical Data Profile
53332
4.1
7.8
8.7 - - - - - -
53334
8.1
12.2
REGION
WELL
(NO3-N)+(NH4-N)(mg/1) Organics Detected
9.3
Pesticides Det
47232
NUMBER
1975- 1980- 1986- 1975- 1980-
1986-
1975- 1980- 1986
<0.03
(S-#)
1977 1982 1988 1977 1982
1988
1977 1982 1988
Peconic River
47226
0.19 <0.56 0.18 - -
-
- - -
Headwaters
58957
0.1
<0.07
.0.24 - - - - - -
Peconic River
47227
0.13 <0.53 <.13 - -
-
- - -
West
47228
0.06 0.16 0.05 - -
-
- - -
7.3
47229
1.0 1.3 0.8 - -
-
- - -
20.0 - - - - XXX -
51591
0.53 0.6 0.26 - XXX
XXX
- - -
Peconic River
47488
- - 0.31 - -
-
- - -
Mid
47753
0.78 <.16 0.28 - -
-
- - -
<0.44
47754
0.57 <.15 0.09 - -
-
- - -
1.4 - - - - - -
51576
8.3 4.3 3.8 - -
-
- XXX -
51185
733-57
- 10.4 0.38 - -
-
- - -
Peconic River
47230
<.06 <.08 <.07 - -
-
- - -
East
51573
0.53 0.41 0.14 - -
-
- - -
2.5 - - - - - -
52449
3.4 4.4 3.7 - -
-
- - -
North Flanders Bay
51581
13.4 15.0 3.3 - -
-
- XXX -
Inland
51588
12.3 12.4 10.4 - -
-
- XXX -
-
51589
9.7 9.5 2.7 - -
-
- XXX -
71572
- 8.2 9.9 - -
-
- XXX -
71573
- - 11.0 - -
-
- XXX -
71576
- <0.4 <0.4 - -
-
- - -
North Flanders Bay
47231
0.67 1.8 2.4 - -
-
- - -
Coastal
South Flanders Bay
Coastal
South Flanders Bay
Inland
Great Peconic Bay
North
Great Peconic Bay
South
Little Peconic Bay
North
Little Peconic Bay
South
48582
2.6
4.6
3.2 - - - - - -
53327
13.1
7.9
3.0 - - - - XXX -
53329
8.4
10.2
6.1 - - - - xx -
53332
4.1
7.8
8.7 - - - - - -
53334
8.1
12.2
0.33 - - - - xx -
53537
-
9.3
7.0 - - - - - -
47232
0.6
0.52
0.83 - - - - - -
48432
<0.03
0.11
0.12 - - - - - -
48581
<0.25
0.08
<.07 - - - - - -
58956
2.6
3.4
1.3 - - - - - -
58957
0.1
<0.07
.0.24 - - - - - -
59992
-
<0.3
0.1 - - - - - -
47234
5.9
4.0
0.6 - - - - - -
53328
0.78
7.3
2.7 - xx - - - -
53335
17.3
13.8
20.0 - - - - XXX -
53539
2.7
5.0
3.2 - - - - - -
48437
0.22
<0.44
<0.07 - - - - - -
48438
1.6
1.2
0.27 - - - - - -
48517
<0.22
<0.44
<0.09 --
48521
0.39
3.1
1.4 - - - - - -
51184
1.2
1.4
0.45 - - - - - -
51185
0.22
0.26
0.41 - - - - - -
51186
5.6
5.0
2.9 - - - - - -
52695
-
5.9
5.9 - - - - - -
58959
2.5
-
2.5 - - - - - -
58960
0.51
<0.44
0.37 - - - - - -
58961
<0.08
0.07
0.60 - - - - - -
59795
-
12.4
- - - - - - -
73999
0.09
-
0.09 - - - - - -
5-26
REGION
Gardiner's Bay
North
TABLE 5.2-4 (continued)
WELL <-NO3-N + NH4-N (mg/1)-> Organics Detected Pesticides Det.
NUMBER 1975- 1980- 1986- 1975- 1980- 1986- 1975- 1980- 1986-
(S-#) 1977 1982 1988 1977 1982 1988 1977 1982 1988
53330 10.1 11.1 10.0 - - - - - -
Gardiner's Bay
46518
-
-
13.4
South
47235
0.2
0.92
0.31
47236
<0.23
1.6
2.4
48578
5.2
3.04
3.4
48580
0.62
8.2-
0.11
58924
<0.08
0.11
1.1
58925
0.12
0.15
0.32
Montauk
48519
2.9
2.6
1.5
48579
0.8
1.0
0.79
58922
0.58
1.31
0.54
70262
-
0.8
0.11
Shelter Island
51169
1.8
1.5
1.3
51170
0.28
0.38
0.15
51171
5.9
5.8
3.6
51172
10.1
7.8
1.6
51173
-
1.8
0.22
51174
1.9
2.1
1.4
51175
4.5
9.3
1.3
51176
1.9
1.6
2.1
51177
0.52
0.4
<0.07
51178
1.2
1.6
0.61
51179
0.22
0.21
0.2
51180
1.8
3.6
1.48
51181
10.0
5.5
3.6
51182
0.41
0.26
0.13
51183
0.54
0.38
0.1
52050
5.6
22.5
1.72
52084
0.45
0.7
1.73
73924
-
1.7
1.7
75441
-
-
<0.22
XXX = detected within
given time ranee
xx = detected one year outside
of given time
range.
5-27
As shown in Table 5.2-4, of the eighty monitoring wells in the study area, 14 have shown
net improvements in water quality categories while 4 experienced deterioration of water quality.
Notable improvements (>5 ppm) took place in 8 cases (one in region PR -M; two in region NF -I;
two in .region GP -N; one in region LP -N; and two wells on Shelter Island), while notable
worsenings (>5 ppm) did not occur.
Of the six monitoring wells screened deeper than 100 feet below the water table, two
showed significantly high nitrogen levels (see infra, Table 5.2-14). One well (S-73357) located in
the Peconic River - Mid region (PR -M), had greater than 10 ppm nitrogen in the 1980 to 1982
period but had less than 1 ppm in the 1987 to 1988 time frame. This well is screened in the
Magothy aquifer. The elevated nitrogen concentration may have been a result of agricultural
activities in the area. The other elevated nitrogen concentration occurred in a well (S-59795)
located in the Little Peconic Bay - South region (LP -S), possibly as a result of residential activities,
in the 1980 to 1982 time range. Despite its depth, the well is screened in the glacial aquifer: No
sampling data was available for this well in the other time ranges of the study.
5.2.2.2 Public Supply Well Nitrogen Data
A summary of public water supply well nitrogen data is .shown in Table 5.2-5. Of the 21
public well fields in the study area, nitrate -nitrogen was found in concentrations of over 6 ppm in
two well fields: South Harbor Lane well field in the Little Peconic Bay -North (LP -N) regions and
New York Avenue well field in the Shelter Island (SHEL) region. Both well fields contain shallow
wells (less than 50 feet). Forty-seven of 58 samples at the South Harbor Lane well field (in region
LP -N) showed nitrate -nitrogen levels of greater than 6 ppm with values as high as 19.3 ppm, while
the New York Avenue well field (in region SHEL) had one sample at 6.6 ppm nitrate -nitrogen in
1987. The Greenport Water District contains other well fields which suffer from water quality
problems, but these well fields fall outside of the groundwater -contributing region (region LP -N) to
the Peconic Bays system. None of the deep wells in the study area showed elevated nitrogen
concentrations except for the Middle Road well field in Riverhead (in region PR -E) which had 3.9
ppin total nitrogen in the 1987 to 1988 time range.
5.2.2.3 Private Supply Well Nitrogen Data
A summary of private well total nitrogen data for the time period 1973 to 1988 is shown in
Table 5.2-6. A total of 1247 samples were evaluated for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay regions
(inner or western Peconic Bay system) for this time period. The relatively undeveloped Peconic
River -West (PR -W) and Peconic River -Mid (PR -M) regions of the PecoWc River corridor had the
fewest samples (48 to 74 samples), while the South Flanders Bay -Inland (SF -I) and North Flanders
Bay -Coastal (NF -C) regions had significantly more sampling activity (95 to 437 samples,
respectively). While this sampling database does not facilitate strict interpretation of groundwater
contaminant levels, it does allow for the rough estimation of contaminant levels in these regions and
5-28
*Range of dates detected and respective concentrations >6 ppm
Number of
Samples
Concentration
TABLE 5.2=5
ippal
--
3.9
--
Summary of Public
Water Supply Well
Nitrogen Data
--
<0.1
--
<0.2
Well
Sample
--
Region
Well
Well
Depth
Date
Region
Abbrev.
Field
Number
ft.
Range
Peconic River
PR -E
Middle Rd.
66685
254.5
1987-1988
East
0.2
Osborne Ave.
30271
721
1987-1988
34732
392
1987-1988
Pulaski St.
7261
140
1987-1988
Great Peconic
GP -S
Edge of
69511
268
1987-1988
Bay -South
Woods
Little Peconic
LP -S
Division St.
24323
174
1987-1988
Bay -South
38917
174
Jermain Ave.
184
138
1987-1988
Little Peconic
LP -N
South Harbor
169
60
10/7/64 -
Bay -North
Ln.
8/14/87*
4163
44
10/15/69 -
8/17/85*
Shelter Island
SHEL
New York Ave.
197
27
--
200
1.2
6/24/87
Bay St.
199
16
--
Summerfield
198
198
1987-1988
Montauk
MONT
Fairmount Ave.
18762
--
1987-1988
Farrington Av.
30208
175
1987-1988
Flanders Rd.
30207
177
1987-1988
S. David Ave.
51275
--
1987-1988
*Range of dates detected and respective concentrations >6 ppm
Number of
Samples
Concentration
>6 aam
ippal
--
3.9
--
<0.2
--
<0.2
--
<0.1
--
<0.2
--
0.8
--
0.8
--
<0.4
32 of 40
6.3 - 12.1*
15 of 18
7.4 0 19.3*
1 of 12
6.6
--
0.7
--
0.5
--
0.9
--
0.7
--
0.2
TABLE 5.2-6
Summary of Private Well Total Nitrogen Data
1973-1988
North Flanders
Bay Inland
North Flanders
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
Bay Inland
Flanders Bay -Region
Total
Cumulative
NF -I
1973-1983
Region
Time
Region
1987-1988
Abbrev.
Period
Peconic
River
PR -H
1973-1983
Headwaters
1987-1988
1984-1986
Cumulative
SF -C
1973-1983
1987-1988
1984-1986
11
1987-1988
Cumulative
Peconic
River
PR -W
1973-1983
West
11
1987-1988
1984-1986
Cumulative
9.4
6
1987-1988
2
1
0
Cumulative
Peconic
River
PR -M
1973-1983
Mid
0
1.8
1984-1986
24
15
7
1987-1988
0
2.2
11.3
Cumulative
Peconic
River
PR -E
1973-1983
East
1.1
9
1984-1986
2
0
0
1987-1988
11.3
48
30
Cumulative
Peconic
River
Corridor
1973-1983
Total
41
1984-1986
3
1
2.0
-1987-1988
North Flanders
Bay Inland
North Flanders
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
Bay Coastal
South Flanders
Bay Inland
Flanders Bay -Region
Total
Cumulative
NF -I
1973-1983
Number
1984-1986
Number of Samples
1987-1988
Conc.
Cumulative
NF -C
1973-1983
Spam)
1984-1986
Samples
1987-1988
1=-6
Cumulative
SF -C
1973-1983
9.0
1984-1986
11
1987-1988
1
Cumulative
SF -I
1973-1983
32
1984-1986
11
1987-1988
0
Cumulative
1973-1983
1984-1986
1987-1988
Cumulative
Avg.
Max.
Number
Number of Samples
Conc.
Conc.
of
in ppm range
Spam)
J22MI
Samples
>1
1=-6
>6-10
>10
1.7
9.0
27
11
15
1
0
1.2
7.7
32
20
11
1
0
2.3
9.4
6
3
2
1
0
1.5
9.4
65
34
28 -
3
0
1.8
8.5
24
15
7
2
0
2.2
11.3
15
8,
4
2
1
0.4
1.1
9
7
2
0
0
1.7
11.3
48
30
13
4
1
1.5
14.4
57
41
12
3
1
2.0
8.1
13
9
3
1
0
0.4
1.1
4
3
1
0
0
1.5
14.4
74
53
16
4
1
4.8
20.4
126
39
43,
21
-.23
4.9
25.1
31
10
11
5
5
6.2
21.2
34
5
4
-3
3
5.1
25.1
191
54
58
29
31
3.4
20.4
234
106
77
27
24
2.7
25.1
91
47
29
9
6
3.3
21.2
34
18
0
4
3
3.2
25.1
359
171
115
40
33
6.7
31.2
105
5
47
30
23
5.2
17.0
34
7
13
10
4
6.6
15.5
15
3
4
4
4
6.4
31.2
.154
15
64
44
31
5.2
24.0
311
47
156
70
38
5.8
33.8
97
19
34
28
16
4.7
11.9
29
6
10
11
2
5.3
33.8
437
72
200
109
56
2.8
56.2
143
78
50
7
8
1.4
7.7
15
26
16
2
0
1.5
13.3
16
-14
0
1
1
2.6
56.2
174
118
66
10
9
2.1
16.7
66
35
26
3
2
2.3
7.7
15
5
9
1
0
2.7
17.0
14
7
4
1
1
2.2
17.0
95
47
39
5
3
4.6
56.2
624
165
279
110
71
4.4
33.8
190
57
62
41
20
4.0
17:0
74
30
18
17
8
4.5
56.2
888
252
369
168
99
5-30
does demarcate clear comparative trends. ' For example, relatively high average total nitrogen
concentrations of 5.1, 5.3, and 6.4 ppm were encountered in the Peconic River -East (PR -E), North
Flanders Bay -Coastal (NF -C), and North Flanders Bay -Inland (NF -I) regions (1973-1988 data).
Total nitrogen levels in all other Peconic River/Flanders Bay regions were significantly lower.
Private well total nitrogen data for the period of 1987 to 1988 are summarized in Table 5.2-7
for the entire study area (both western and eastern Peconic Bays system regions). In the western
Peconic Bay system regions, the North Flanders Bay -Inland (NF -I) region registered the highest
average total nitrogen at 6.6 ppin, and the highest percentage of samples exceeding 10 ppm at 27%.
In addition, the Peconic River -East (PR -E) region had an average total nitrogen concentration of 6.2
ppm, and 20% of all samples exceeding 10 ppm total nitrogen. The total nitrogen loading in the PR-
E region as well as the North Flanders Bay -Coastal (NF -C) region (average total nitrogen of 4.7
ppm) may be the result of a combination of residential lawn fertilizer, septic systems, and some
agricultural fertilizers, while the NF -I region loading is probably more exclusively a result of
agricultural activity. The Peconic River -Headwaters (PR -H), West (PR -W), and Mid (PR -M)
regions were low in average total nitrogen concentrations, with levels of 2.3; 0.5 and 0.4 ppm,
respectively. South Flanders Bay, meanwhile, was only slightly higher, with levels of 1.5 and 2.7 in
coastal and inland regions, respectively.
As shown in Table 5.2-7, nitrogen data were also collected over the eastern Peconic Bays
system regions for 1987 and 1988. As in the case of the western or inner Peconic Bays system
regions, while strict interpretation of data (584 samples) in this region is not possible due to a
limited number of samples, trends can be interpreted. In general, these eastern Peconic regions
followed trends set in Flanders Bay, with North Fork total nitrogen levels significantly higher than
South Fork concentrations. While Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic Bay, and Gardiners Bay North
(GP -N, LP -N, and GB -N) regions averaged 5.7, 5.2, and 6.2 ppm, respectively, the corresponding
South regions (GP -S, LP -S, and GB -S) averaged 2.6, 2.8, and 1.3 ppm. The communities with the
highest total nitrogen concentrations were Laurel (9.5 ppm, 22 samples), Peconic (8.3 ppm, 20
samples), East Marion (6.3 ppm, 45 samples), and Orient (6.0 ppm, 39 samples).
As mentioned earlier, private well total nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic
River/Flanders Bay system (inner or western Peconic Bays system regions) were graphed over three
different time ranges (1973 to 1983, 1984 to 1986 and 1987 to 1988) for illustrative purposes (see
Figure 5.2-4). In addition, private well total nitrogen data for the time period 1987 to 1988 was
graphed for the entire study area including both western and eastern Peconic Bays . system regions
(see Figure 5.2-3). Figure 5.2-3 shows that during the 1987 to 1988 period, the highest nitrogen
concentrations were found in the Peconic River - East (PR -E), North Flanders Bay-h-dand (NF -I),
North Flanders Bay -Coastal (NF -C), Great Peconic Bay -North (GP -N), Little Peconic Bay -North
(LP -N), and the Gardiners Bay -North (GB -N) regions. Figure 5.2-4 reveals that for each of the time
periods graphed, the PR -E, NF -I, and NF -C. regions consistently had, the highest nitrogen
concentrations in groundwater.
5-31
TABLE 5.2-7
Summary of Private Well Total Nitrogen Data
Peconic Bays System Regions
1987-1988
Avg. N Max. N Number Percent of Samples
Region Conc. Conc. of in ppm range
Region Abbrev. Saoml (aom) Samples >1 1=6 >6-10 >10
Peconic River PR -H 2.3 9.4 6 50 33 17 0
Headwaters'
Peconic River PR -W 0.5 1.1 9 78 22 0 0
West
Peconic River PR -M 0.4 1.1 4 75 25 0, 0
Mid
Peconic River PR -E 6_2 21.2 15 33 27 20 20 i
East
PECONIC RIVER CORRIDOR 3.3 21.2- 34 53 26 12 9 -
TOTAL
North Flanders NF -I 6.6 15.5 15 20 27 27 27
Bay Inland
-North Flanders NF -C 4.7 11.9 29 21 34 38 7 ?
Bay Coastal
South Flanders SF -C 1.5 13.3 16 88 0. 6 6
Bay Coastal
South Flanders SF -I 2_7 17.0 14 50. 29 7 7
Bay Inland
FLANDERS BAY REGION 4.0 17.0 74 41 24 23 11
TOTAL
Great Peconic GP -N 5.7 23.8 145 20 43 19 18
Bay North
Great Peconic GP -S 2_6 21.4 39 62 21 20 8
-Bay South
GREAT PECONIC REGION 5.0 23.8 184 29 39 17 16 -
TOTAL
Little Peconic LP -N 5.2 18.5 102 15 50 20 16
Bay North
Little Peconic LP -S 2_8 21.4 117 52 31 10 7 .
Bay South
LITTLE PECONIC REGION 3.9 21.4 219 35 40 15 11
TOTAL
Gardiner's Bay GB -N 6.2 28.9 84 13 44 26 17.
North
Gardiner's Bay GB -S 1_3 12.5 77 66 26 6 1.
GARDINER'S BAY REGION 3.9 28.9 161 39 35 17 9
TOTAL
Shelter Island SHEL 1.6 3.8 17 53 47 0 0'
Montauk MONT 0.2 0.2 3 100 0 0 0
5-32
Additional data for the South and North Forks are available in the "South Fork Supplemental
Water Resources Study" (SCDHS, 1986), and the "North Fork Water Supply Plan" (SCDHS, 1983).
The South Fork Study identified the bulk of the South Fork groundwater -contributing area to the
Peconic Bays system as being ambient (less than 1 ppm nitrate) or unclassified due to a lack of data.
The significant regions of good (1-6 ppm nitrates) water quality with respect to nitrogen occurred in
the northeast area of Fireplace (within the Gardiners Bay -South region), in the North Haven area
(within the Little Peconic Bay -South region), and in the Shinnecock region (within the Great
Peconic Bay -South region). Other small occurrences of good, marginal, and poor water quality with
respect to nitrogen were noted. The North Fork Plan, meanwhile, cited extensive nitrogen
contamination throughout the North Fork, with 42% and 47% of samples in the Towns of Riverhead
and Southold, respectively, exceeding 7.5 ppm nitrates.
5.2.3 Discussion of Results - Organic Chemicals
5.2.3.1 Monitoring Well Organic Chemical Data
A summary of monitoring well organics and pesticides data is shown in Table 5.2-8 (see
Section 5.2.4 for discussion of pesticides data. Organic chemicals were detected in six of the eighty
monitoring wells in the study area. Concentrations of over 30 ppb organics occurred in four wells
(one well in region PR -W; one in region LP -N; one in LP -S; and one in region GB -S). Of these
wells, only the well in region PR -W was sampled positively for organics (dichloroethane - 80 ppb)
in the 1986 to 1988 time period (see Table 5.2-4 for temporal data presentation). None of the deep
monitoring wells showed detectable levels of organic chemical contaminants.
5.2.3.2 Public Supply Well Organic Chemical Data
A summary of organics data for only those public water supply wells that had detectable
levels of organic chemicals is shown in Table 5.2-9. Of the 21 public well fields in the study area,
organic constituents were detected in three well fields listed in the figure: South Harbor Lane (in
region LP -N), New York Avenue (in region SHEL), and Bay Street (in region SHEL). All three
fields contain shallow wells (less than 50 feet); none of the deeper wells sampled positively for
organic chemical contamination. All organic constituents detected in the shallow wells were below
10 ppb, except for chloroform present at 18 ppb at the Bay Street well field (in region SHEL) during
the 1979 to 1981 period.
5.2.3.3 Private Supply Well Organic Chemical Data.
A summary of private well organic chemical data for the time period of 1977 to 1988 for the
entire study area (both western and eastern Peconic Bays system regions) is presented in Table 5.2-
10. A total of 814 samples were evaluated for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay regions (western or
5-33
TABLE 5.2-8
Summary of Monitoring Well Organics and Pesticides Data
Organics Detected
(ppb)
Pesticides
Detected
(ppb)
1;1,1
1,2
Methyl-
Tri-
Di-
Tetra- Tetra -
'Well
Date
Chloro- lene
chloro-
chloro-
chloro- chloro-
Total
Aldicarb
Aldicarb
Region
Number
Detected
form Chloride
ethane
ethane
ethene ethene Xylene
Pesticides
Aldicarb
Sulfoxide
Sulfone
Carbofuran Oxamvl
Peconic River
-
-
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
Headwaters
Peconic River
51591
4/7/86
- -
-
80
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
West
1/13/81
- -
-
100
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
10/29/80
- -
-
120
- - -
-
-
--
Peconic River
51576
7/13/82
- -
-
-
- - -
9
-
2
3
4 -
Mid
7/22/83
- -
-
-
- - -
50
-
33
11
6 -
Peconic River
--
--
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
East
North Flanders
51581
7/30/84
- -
-
-
- - -
67
-
28
31
8 -
Bay -Inland
12/6/83
- -
-
-
- - -
91
-
40
39
12 -
8/18/83
- -
-
-
- - -
114
-
47
54
13 -
6/1/83
- -
-
-
- - -
118
-
50
47
21 -
5/5/83
- -
-
-
- - -
220
-
92
87
41 -
2/24/83
- -
-
-
- - -
117
-
39
40
38 -
�;'
9/2/83
- -
-
-
- - -
88
-
38
40
10' -
w
8/3/82
- -
-
-
- - -
61
-
24
25
12 -
51588
7/26/84
- -
-
-
- - -
48
-
17
21
10 -
8/16/83
- -
-
-
- - -
89
-
38
40
11 -
6/23/83
- -
-
-
- - -
91
-
40
38
13 -
2/23/83
- -
-
-
- - -
46
-
20
21
5 -
9/2/82
- -
-
-
- - -
33
-
14
14
5 -
51589
5/10/83
- -
-
-
- - -
203
-
75
49
89 -
8/16/83
- -
-
-
- - -
2
-
-
-
2 -
6/4/83
- -
-
-
- - -
23
1
7
5
10 -
3/4/83
- -
-
-
- - -
151
1
69
33
48 -
9/2/82
- . -
-
-
- - -
107
1
64
19
23 -
8/2/82
- -
-
-
- - -
97
2
59
16
20 -
71572
2/12/82
- -
-
-
- - -
65
65
-
-
- -
71573
7/1/82
- -
- .
-
- - -
1.3
1.3
-
-
- -
North Flanders
--
--
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- -
Bay Coastal
TABLE 5.2-8 (continued)
Summary of Monitoring Well Organics and Pesticides Data
Organics Detected (ppb) Pesticides Detected (ppb)
1,1,1 1,2 1,1,2
Methyl- Tri- Di- Tetra- Tetra -
Nell Date Chloro- lene chloro- chloro- chloro- chloro- Total Aldicarb Aldicarb
Region Number Detected form Chloride ethane ethane ethene ethene Xylene Pesticides Aldicarb Sulfoxide Sulfone Carbofuran Oxamvl
South Flanders -- -- — -- -- -- -- -- --
Bay Inland
South Flanders -- -- -- -- — -- -- -- --
Bay Coastal
Great Peconic 55527 9/1/83 -- -- -- — -- — -- 15 — 5 4 1 5
Bay North 3/23/82 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 -- -- --
53329 11/25/85 -- -- -- — — -- -- -- -- -- -- — --
8/27/84 -- -- -- -- -- — -- 2 -- -- 2 -- --
12/5/83 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- 3 — --
11/16/83 -- -- — -- -- -- -- 2 -- — 2 -- --
11/3/83 -- -- -- -- -- -- — 3 -- — 3 -- —
10/15/83 -- — -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- 3 -- —
9/7/83 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- 2 — —
8/30/83 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- --
8/16/83 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 — --
53334 8/23/83 -- -- -- -- -- — -- 3 -- — 3 — --
6/29/83 -- -- -- — -- — -- 13 — — 13 — --
Cn 3/5/83. -- -- -- -- --
-- — 10 -- — 10 -- --
Great Peconic -- -- — __ —
Bay South
Little Peconic 53328 8/30/84 17 5 11 — -- -- -- 7 -- -- 7 — --
Bay North 3/19/84 -- -- 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- — 22 -- — -- -- —
9/11/83 -- -- — -- --
53335 8/24/82 -- -- 11 -- -- — -- --
Little Peconic 48517 2/27/79 -- -- -- -- 54 -- — -- -- -- -- -- --
Bay South
Gardiners Bay -- -- -- -- — -- -- -- —
North
Gardiners Bay 48578 4/20/81 -- -- -- - -- -- 10 — -- -- -- -- --
South 2/23/79 -- -- -- -- 37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
48580 8/10/81 13 -- -- — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —
2/22/79 -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Montauk-- -- -- -- — -- -- -- --
-- — -- --
Shelter Island 51181 2/3/82 -- -- 3 -- -- 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TABLE 5.2-9
Summary of Public Water Supply
Well Organics Data
*Ranges of dates and concentrations detected
Organics
Detected and Concentration (ppb)
Number of
Bromo-
Chloro -
Region
Well
Well
Depth
Date of
Samples
Bromo-
-dichloro-
dibromo-
Region
Abbrev.
Field
Number
(ft.)
Detection
Detected
form
methane
methane Chloroform
Little Peconic
LP -N
South Harbor
169
60
6/6/79 -
3
3-9*
--
-- —
Bay North
Ln.
9/15/86*
4163
44
7/1/86
1
5
—
--
7/1/86
1
--
--
3 —
Shelter Island
SHEL'
New York Av.
197
27
8/19/86
1
2
--
-- --
8/19/86
1
--
1
--
8/19/86
1
--
—
2 —
Bay St.
199
16
6/12/79 -
3
--
--
-- 5-1.8*
7/24/81*
7/24/81 -
3
--
—
2-4* —
8/19/86*
7/24/81 -
2
2-2*
—
-- --
8/19/86
7/24/81 -
2
—
1-4*
--
8/19/86*
*Ranges of dates and concentrations detected
TABLE 5.2-10
Summary of Private Well Organic Chemical Data
5-37
Total
Number of
Samples in
Given Range
(ppb)
Region
Time
Number of
Number of
Sing: 'NO
5
5-30
30-50
50
Re4ion
Abbrev.
Period
Samples
Detections
Tot: ND
>5-10
10
>60-1
>100
Peconic River
PR -E
1977-1983
19
3
16
0
3
0 .
0
Headwaters
1984-1986
21
0
21
0
0
0
0
1987-1988
9
2
7
2
0
0
0
Cumulative
49
5
44
2
3
0
0
Peconic River
PR -W
1977-1983
14
0
14
0
0
0
0
West
1984-1986
17
1
16
0
1
0
0
1986-1988
13
1
12
0
1
0
0
Cumulative
44
2
42
0
2
0
0
Peconic River
PR -M
1977-1983
48
2
46
2
0
0
0
Mid
1984-1986
19
1
18
1
0
0
0
1986-1988
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
70
3
67
3"
0
0
0
Peconic River
PR -E
1977-1983
85
11
74
3
6
0
2
East
1984-1986
29
2
27
1
1
0
0
1986-1988
15
2
14
0
1
0
0
Cumulative
129
14
-115
8
8
0
2
PECONIC RIVER CORRIDOR
1977-1983
166
16
150
5
9
0
2
TOTAL
1984-1986
86
4
82
2
2
0
0
1987-1988
40
4
36
2
2
0
0
Cumulative
292
24
268
9
13
0
2
North Flanders
NF -I
1977-1983
38
5
33
1
4
0
0
Bay Inland
1984-1986
31
4
27
3
7
0
0
1986-1988
17
3
14
3
0
0
0
Cumulative
86
12
74
7
5
0
0
North Flanders
NF -C
1977-1983
136
13
123
3
5
1
4
Bay Coastal
1984-1986
104
3
101
0
3
0
0
1986-1988
34
2
32
2
0
0
0
Cumulative
274
18
256
5
8
1
4
South Flanders
SF -C
1977-1983
54
2
52
0
2
0
0
Bay Coastal
1984-1986
32
1
31
0
1
0
0
1987-1988
15
2
13
1
0
1
0
Cumulative
101
5
96
1
3
1
0
South Flanders
SF -I
1977-1983
32
4
28
1
2
0
1
Bay Inland
1984-1986
17
1
16
1-
0
0
0
1986-1988
12
1
11
1
0
0
0
Cumulative
61
6
55
3
2
0
1
FLANDERS BAY REGION
1977-1983
260
24
236
5
13
1
5
TOTAL
1984-1986
-184
9
175
4
5
0
0
1987-1988
78
8
70
7
0
1
0
Cumulative
522
41
481
16
18
2
5
Great Peconic
GP -N
1977-1983
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Bay North
1984-1986
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1987-1988
153
11
142
8
3
0
0
Cumulative
153
11
142
8
3
0
0
Great Peconic
GP -S
1977-1983
--
--
--
--
—
--
—
Bay South
1984-1986
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1987-1988
53
8
45
8
0
0
0
Cumulative
53
8
45
8
0
0
0
GREAT PECONIC
REGION
1977-1983
—
--
—
- --
--
--
--
TOTAL
1984-1986
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
1987-1988
206
19
187
16
3
0
0
5-37
TABLE 5.2-10 (continued)
Summary of Private Well Organic Chemical Data
5-38
Total
Number of
Samples in
Given Range
(ppb)
Region
Time
Number of
Number of
Sing: NO
<5
5-30
>30-50
.>50
Region
Abbrev.
Period
Samples
Detections
Tot: NO
>5-10
10-60
>60-100
>100
Little Peconic
LP -N
1977-1983
—
—
—
—
—
—
Bay North
1984-1986
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
1987-1988
98
14
84
14
0
0
0
Cumulative
98
14
84
14
0
0
0
Little Peconic
'LP -S
1977-1983
--
--
--
—
—
__
Bay South
1984-1986
—
1987-1988
94
12
82
10
2.
0
0
Cumulative
94
12
82
10
.2
0
0
LITTLE PECONIC
REGION
1977-1983
TOTAL
1984-1986
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
1987-1988
192
26
166
24
2
0
0
Cumulative
192
26
166
24
2
0
0
Gardiners Bay
GB -N
1977-1983
--
—
—
—
—
—
~
North
1984-1986
—
--
~
—
—
--
—
1987-1988
40
14
26
4
4
2
4
Cumulative
40
14
26
4
4
2
4
Gardiners Bay
GB -S
1977-1983
South
1984-1986
--
—
--
--
—
--
—
1987-1988
82
7
75
7
0
0
0
Cumulative
82
7
75
7
0
0
0
GARDINERS BAY
REGION
1977-1983—
TOTAL
1984-1986
--
—
—
—
—
—
1987-1988
122
21
101
11
4
2
4
Cumulative
122
21
101
11
4
2
4
Shelter Island
SHEL
1977-1983
—
1984-1986
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
1987-1988
17
5
12
3
2
0
0
Cumulative
17
5
12
3
2
0
0
Montauk
MONT
1977-1983
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1984-1986
--
—
--
—
--
--
--
1987-1988
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
Plum Island
--
1977-1983
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
1984-1986
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
1987-1988
6
2
4
0
1
0
1
Cumulative
6
2
4
0-
1
0
1
5-38
inner Peconic Bays system regions) between 1977 and 1988. The relatively undeveloped western
(PR -W) and middle (PR -M) regions of the Peconic and the South Flanders - Inland (SF -I) region
had the fewest samples (44 to 70 samples), while the Riverhead area and the other Flanders Bay
regions had significantly more sampling activity (86 to 274 samples). Organic chemical detection
rates in this area were all relatively low, ranging from 4% to 15%. Detections of organic chemicals
of greater than 30 ppb occurred in the Peconic River - East (Mill Road - Trichloroethane), North
Flanders Bay - Coastal (Fourth Street - Trichloroethane; Circle Drive - Benzene and derivatives;
Peconic Bay Blvd. - Methylene Chloride; and Center Street - Trichloroethane), South Flanders Bay -
Coastal (Bay Avenue - Benzene and derivatives), and South Flanders Bay - Inland (Brookhaven
Avenue - Benzene and derivatives) regions.
Over the eastern Peconic Bays system regions (Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic Bay,
Gardiners Bay, Shelter Island, and Montauk), 540 samples were evaluated for the 1987 to 1988 time
period. Organic chemical detection rates in this area were also low, except for the Gardiners Bay -
North area, where numerous detections of trichloroethane, dichloroethane, and dichloroethylene in
the area of Old Orchard Street in East Marion inflated the detection rate to higher than 35% over 40
samples. No other detections of over 30 ppb were noted for the Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic
Bay, and Gardiners Bay regions. Organic -chemical detection data in the time period 1973 to 1982
has been tabulated for communities located entirely or partially in the study area for purposes of
reference.
Additionally, organic chemical data for the North and South Forks are available in the
"South Fork Supplemental Water Resources Study" (SCDHS, 1986),. and the "North Fork Water
Supply Plan" (SCDHS, 1983). This South Fork study identified the bulk of the South Fork
groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic Bays system as having non-detectable levels of
organic chemicals or as being unclassified due to a lack of data. Other small localized occurrences
of poorer water quality with respect to organic chemicals were noted. The North Fork report,
meanwhile, noted numerous occurrences of agricultural chemicals, including dichloropropane.
5.2.4 Discussion of Results - Pesticides
5.2.4.1 Monitoring Well Pesticide Data
A summary of monitoring well pesticides and organics data was previously presented in
Table 5.2-8. Ten of eighty monitoring wells were positive for pesticides at some point in time. Of
these wells, nine are located in regions on the North Fork including North Flanders Bay - Inland (5
wells), Great Peconic Bay - North (3 wells), and Little Peconic Bay - North (1 well). Only one well
located near the northern edge of the groundwater divide in Calverton in the Peconic River - Mid
region (PR -M) is not on the North Fork. This well contained 50 ppb of total pesticides in a sample
obtained in 1983. Individual pesticides detected included aldicarb sulfoxide and sulfone, and
carbofuran. As mentioned above, five of the wells are located in the Jamesport/Aquebogue area
5-39
north of Route 25 in region NF -I with total pesticide concentrations ranging from 1.3 to 220 ppb.
Four of these wells contained levels greater than 50 ppb. Individual pesticides detected included
aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and sulfone, and carbofuran. The only monitoring well in this region
which did not show pesticide contamination was a deep well near- Manor Lane. Three of the
monitoring wells located in the Mattituck/Cutchogue region just north of Route 25 in the Great
Peconic Bay - North (GP -N) region registered between 1 and 15 ppb total pesticides. Individual
pesticides detected included aldicarb sulfoxide and sulfone, carbofuran, and oxamyl. The final well
in which pesticides were detected was in Southold (near Jockey Creek), located in region LP -N,
where 7 ppb of aldicarb sulfone was recorded in 1982. None -of the deep -monitoring wells showed
pesticide contamination.
5.2.4.2 Public Supply Well Pesticide Data
No pesticides were detected in public water supply wells in the study area.
5.2.4.3 Private Supply Well Pesticide Data
To date, the pesticides of greatest concern in Suffolk County groundwater have been
aldicarb and carbofuran, which were withdrawn from sale in 1979. The initial testing for these
constituents in 1979 to 1980 revealed plumes of contamination to be limited to within 1,500 feet of
farm fields. Since the initial testing, the concentrations of these pesticides in many contaminated
wells nearest agricultural areas have decreased, while wells farther from the points of pesticide
application have been impacted. Lateral movement of the pesticide is estimated to be in the order of
one-half to one foot per day. Data to date indicate that in-situ degradation of the pesticide is not
occurring at any appreciable rate.
The SCDHS pesticide database contained approximately 36,000 pesticide sample results,
about 23,600 of which fell into the eastern towns which comprise the study area. The elimination of
samples outside of the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River/Flanders Bays system
(western or inner Peconic Bays system regions) and samples lacking identifying SCTM numbers
left over 9,500 samples in the study area. Sampling on the North Fork comprised approximately
95% of the 9,555 samples in the study area, with the greatest concentration of samples occurring in
the Great Peconic Bay - North (GP -N) region, which includes Laurel, Mattituck, Cutchogue, and
part of Peconic.
Table 5.2-11 summarizes the private well pesticide data in the study area. Pesticide
concentrations and detection rates of aldicarb and carbofuran were significant in most of the areas in
which frequent sampling occurred. Average pesticide concentrations (aldicarb plus carbofuran) in
the western and middle portions (regions PR -W and PR -M) of the Peconic River corridor ranged
from 10.1 to 14.4 ppb, with a concentration of 6.4 ppb in the more residentially -developed eastern
portion (region PR -E) of the corridor. Corresponding detection rates were 34%, 41%, and 27%,
5-40
TABLE 5.2-11
Summary of Private Well Pesticide Data
1980-1988
5-41
Average
Total
Percentage in
Concentration
Range (ppb) -
Region
Number
of Pesticide
>0 to
>10 to
>50 to
Region
Abbrev.
Samples jpob)
ND
<=10
<=50
<=100
>100
Peconic River -Headwaters
PR -H
1
0.0
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Peconic River -West
PR -W
52
10.1
65.8
12.0
16.4
4.6
1.5
Peconic River -Mid
PR -M
142
14.4
59.0
16.4
14.4
6.4
3.4
Peconic River -East
PR -E
138
6.4
72.7
12.8
9.7
3.5
0.8
North Flanders Bay -Inland
NF -I
625
9.9
55.9
22.3
16.8
3.9
1.2
North Flanders Bay -Coastal
NF -C
1664
9.7
58.1
21.8
15.0
3.7
1.5
South Flanders Bay -Inland
SF -I
6
0.0
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
South Flanders Bay -Coastal
SF -C
2
0.0
100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Great Peconic Bay -North
GP -N
4162
9.7
62.0
17.4
15.4
3.8
1.3
Great Peconic Bay -South
GP -S
75
2.4
80.9
10.8
8.0
0.3
0.0
Little Peconic Bay -North
LP -N
1452
8.4
65.9
18.5
10.9
2.6
1.9
Little Peconic Bay -South
LP -S
315
5.3
57.2
25.7
16.9
0.4
0.0
Gardiners Bay -North
GB=N
847
7.0
76.5
12.2
8.4
1.4
1.5
Gardiners Bay -South
GB -S
29
1.4 .
87.7
'3.9
8.4
0.0
0.0
Montauk
MONT
45
9_3
57.4
15.7
22.6
4_7
0_0
OVERALL TOTALS
9555
9.0
63.0
18.3
14.0
3.3
1.4
* Average total pesticide
concentration
(ppb) is the sum
of the
averages of the
following
constituents:
aldicarb, carbofuran,
oxamyl,
carbaryl,
and methomyl.
5-41
respectively. Average pesticide levels in the North Flanders Bay - Inland (NF -I), North Flanders
Bay - Coastal (NF -C), and Great Peconic Bay - North (GP -N) regions, respectively. Detection rates
dropped similarly from west to east, with rates of 43% and 38% in the North Flanders Bay and
Great Peconic Bay - North regions and 35% and 24% in the Little Peconic Bay - North and
Gardiners Bay - North regions. Aldicarb concentrations consistently comprised between 75 and
90% of the total pesticide concentrations.
Sampling on the South Fork side of the study area was much more limited, with virtually no
samples occurring in the South Flanders Bay area (SF -I and SF -C regions) due to the lack of
agricultural activity. The Great Peconic Bay - South (GP -S) and Gardiners Bay - South (GB -S)
regions had average pesticide concentrations of 2.4 and 1.4 ppb and detection rates of 19% and
12%, respectively. Little Peconic Bay - South (LP -S) had a higher detection rate at 43%, with an
average pesticide concentration of 5.3 ppb. In general, most of the more extensive pesticide
contamination which has occurred on the South Fork has thus far been found to have resulted from
agricultural activities south of the groundwater divide.
Pesticide sampling was also conducted for two North Fork creeks which drain into Flanders
Bay: Sawmill Creek and East Creek. Sawmill Creek was free from pesticide contamination on the
four occasions it was sampled. East Creek, however, had pesticide concentrations ranging from 3
to 7 ppb aldicarb; the surface water sampling is discussed in greater detail in Section 3. East Creek
is just south of an agricultural area which may have contributed pesticide via groundwater
infiltration and stormwater runoff.
As shown in Table 5.2-12, aldicarb detection above drinking water limits (7 ppb) was
greater than 20% in the Peconic River - West (PR -W), Peconic River - Mid (PR -M), North Flanders
Bay - Coastal (NF -C), North Flanders Bay - Inland (NF -I), and Great Peconic Bay - North (GP -N)
regions. Approximately 15% of samples in the Peconic River East region were above aldicarb
limits. The Little Peconic Bay - North (LP -N) and Gardiners Bay - North (GB -N) regions had 17
and 12% of the samples in contravention of drinking water limits for aldicarb, respectively.
Carbofuran concentrations exceeding limits (15 ppb) ranged from approximately 2 to 4% in most
North Fork regions with the exception of approximately 7% exceedance in the Peconic River - Mid
(PR -M) region.
Other constituents_ routinely sampled in the private well pesticide program include oxamyl,
carbaryl, and methomyl. The overall detection rate of these pesticides in the study area was
approximately 1% for oxamyl and much less than 1% for carbaryl and methomyl. Oxaimyl was
introduced in 1980 as a substitute for aldicarb and carbofuran. Usage of oxamyl ceased in 1983
after residues were detected in drinking water sources. Carbaryl has been used extensively for the
control of gypsy moths. Because of the low carbaryl detection rate and the fact that resaimples were
negative, it is suspected that positive carbaryl results may have resulted from taking samples from
outside contaminated hose bibs. Unfortunately, records on methomyl usage are lacking.
5-42
TABLE 5.2-12
Summary of Private Well Pesticide Data by Individual Constituents
1980-1988
Percent Detection ALDI
ALDI CBRF OXAM CRBL METH 07
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30.4 23.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 21.8
36.1 32.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 22.7
25.0, 14.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 14.7
41.0 31.6 1.8 0.3 0.9 22.0
39.7 20.3 0.8 0.2 0.4 '21.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.0. 25.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 21.0
15.8 5.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 8.6
32.6 19.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 •16.7
40.2 29.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 18.5
22.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.1
11.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4
42.6 34.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4
Percent Above Limits**
CRBF OXAM CRBL METH
>15 (>50) 050 (>50)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
OVERALL TOTALS 9555 7.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.5 23.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 19.4 .2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
* Parameters: ALDI = Aldicarb; CRBF = Carbofuran; OXAM = Oxamyl; CRBL = Carbaryl; METH = Methomyl
** Drinking water -limits: ppb
Number
Average Concentration (ppb)
Region
of
of Parameters
Detected*
Region
Abbrev.
Samples
ALDI
CRBF
OXAM
CRBL
METH
Peconic River -Headwaters
PR -H
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Peconic River -West
PR -W
52
8.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Peconic River -Mid
PR -M
142
10.7
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
Peconic River -East
PR -E
138
5.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
North Flanders Bay -Inland
NF -I
625
7.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
North Flanders Bay -Coastal
NF -C
1664
8.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
South Flanders Bay -Coastal
SF -C
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0..0
South Flanders Bay -Inland
SF -I
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Great Peconic Bay -North
GP -N
4162
8.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
Great Peconic Bay -South
GP -S
75
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
Little Peconic Bay -North
LP -N
1452
7.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
�n
w Little Peconic Bay -South
LP -S
315
4.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gardiners Bay -North'
GB -N
847
5.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gardiners Bay -South
GB -S
29
1.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montauk
MONT
45
6.4
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Percent Detection ALDI
ALDI CBRF OXAM CRBL METH 07
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
30.4 23.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 21.8
36.1 32.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 22.7
25.0, 14.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 14.7
41.0 31.6 1.8 0.3 0.9 22.0
39.7 20.3 0.8 0.2 0.4 '21.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.0. 25.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 21.0
15.8 5.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 8.6
32.6 19.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 •16.7
40.2 29.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 18.5
22.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.1
11.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4
42.6 34.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4
Percent Above Limits**
CRBF OXAM CRBL METH
>15 (>50) 050 (>50)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
OVERALL TOTALS 9555 7.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.5 23.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 19.4 .2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
* Parameters: ALDI = Aldicarb; CRBF = Carbofuran; OXAM = Oxamyl; CRBL = Carbaryl; METH = Methomyl
** Drinking water -limits: ppb
5.2.5 S nv opsis
The SCDHS analysis of groundwater quality data indicated that relatively high average total
nitrogen concentrations of 5.1 to 6.4 ppm (1973 to 1988) occurred in the private well samples in the
Peconic River - East (PR -E) and North Flanders Bay - Inland (NF -I) and Coastal (NF -C) regions.
Eastern North Fork regions also showed high levels of average total nitrogen, ranging from 5.7 to
6.2 ppm (1987 to 1988).. All other regions were considerably lower in average total nitrogen
concentration, averaging between 1.5 and 2.8 ppm. Areas with elevated nitrogen concentrations
corresponded with residential areas, which generate on -lot sanitary waste and fertilizer pollution,
and agricultural areas, which have been a historic source of fertilizer nitrogen pollution.
The frequency of organic chemical detection in private wells was relatively low, with a
detection rate of 4 to 15 percent in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay (western study area) region
(1977 to 1988). Organic chemical detection rates were similar in the eastern study area regions
(1987 to 1988), except for the Gardiners Bay - North (GB -N) areas where a localized organic
chemical problem elevated the overall detection rate. Detections of over 30 ppb for organic
chemicals were noted in Riverhead, Jamesport, Flanders, and East Marion.
Pesticide contamination of private supply wells was common, especially throughout the
North Flanders Bay and North Fork areas where agricultural chemical usage was historically
prevalent. Average total pesticide levels, reflecting both aldicarb and carbofuran concentrations,
ranged from 6.4 to 14.4 ppb in the North Fork groundwater quality regions. Detection rates in the
same regions averaged between 24% and 43%. Samples in the Peconic River/North Flanders Bay
(western study area) regions showed average levels of pesticides of 9.7 to 14.4 ppb except for the
Peconic River - Headwaters region (PR -H), which contained insufficient data, and the more
residentially -developed Peconic River - East region (PR -E), which averaged 6.4 ppb total pesticides.
Aldicarb concentrations consistently comprised between 75 and 90% of the total pesticide
concentrations. Pesticide samples taken in East Creek, a North Fork creek which contributes to
Flanders Bay, had between 3 and 7 ppb aldicarb, indicating pesticide contamination has to some
degree affected surface waters. Sampling on the South Fork side of the study area was much more
limited, with lower average pesticide concentrations.
Of eighty monitoring wells, six contained total nitrogen levels of greater than 10 ppm during
the most recent sampling. Two of these wells were in the North Flanders Bay - Inland (NF -I)
region, while the remainder were in eastern Peconic (LP -N and LP -S) and Gardiners (GB -N and GB-
S) regions. Four other North Fork wells, one in the Flanders Bay (NF -I) system and three in the
Great Peconic (GP -N) system, were of marginal quality with respect to total nitrogen (>6-10 ppm).
Only one monitoring well in the study area, in the Peconic River - West (PR -W) region, was
sampled positively for organics in the 1986-1988 time frame. Pesticides were detected in ten of the
monitoring wells, all of which were on the North Fork in regions NF -I , GP -N and LP -N, except for
5-44
one in the Peconic River - Mid (PR -M) region. Four of the five wells in the 7amesport/Aquebogue
area in region NF -I showed the highest pesticide levels detected in monitoring well samples,
registering over 50 ppb total pesticides.
Occurrences in public water supply wells of organic chemical detections and nitrate -nitrogen
levels of over 6 ppm were localized to the wellfields at South Harbor lane in region LP -N (Little
Peconic - North), and New York Avenue and Bay Street in region SHEL. These fields contain
shallow wells, all of which are less than 50 feet deep.
While a qualitative assessment of overall groundwater quality on a regional basis was
possible using primarily private well data, this assessment is only intended to be a rough
characterization, as is the regional tabulation of organic chemical and pesticide detections. Private
well data consist mainly of sampling results from wells which are screened at a depth of less than
one hundred feet below the water table. Thus, private well data is indicative of the water quality in
the shallow glacial aquifer. This estimation of groundwater contaminant. levels is probably
conservatively high if applied to the overall groundwater contribution to the Peconic River/Peconic
Bays system, as water quality generally tends to improve with increasing depth in the aquifer.
In an effort to characterize water quality at a greater depth, monitoring well and public well
data were collected for wells in the study area which were screened at a depth greater than 100 feet
below the water table (Table 5.2-13 and 5.2-14). While the data was insufficient to draw firm
conclusions, there were no -organic chemical or pesticide contaminants detected in any of the deep
wells in the study area. Only two of the wells, one in region PR -E (in Riverhead; screened in
Magothy aquifer) and one in region LP -S (in North Haven; screened in glacial aquifer), showed
significant nitrate contamination. This contamination may be the result of agricultural and
residential activities, respectively.
As previously noted, the groundwater characterization prepared by SCDHS for BTCAMP is
not intended to be precisely quantitative with respect to conditions in specific areas. Rather, the
assessment was performed to obtain a general characterization of problem areas and to generate
pollutant loading estimates for use in evaluating management alternatives. The unabridged
groundwater characterization documentation is on file at SCDHS.
5.3 Groundwater Programs
On the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), a unit of. the Department of the Interior, have major roles in
groundwater management.
The USEPA is the major federal agency responsible for the administration of several federal
programs which provide regulatory safeguards against groundwater contamination. EPA policy is
5-45
Table 5.2-13
Deep Monitoring and Public Supply Wells
Well # Well Location, Community Aquifer Well Water Well Screen
Depth Depth Below Water
(ft) (ft) (ft)
MONITORING WELLS
S-59795 NIS Palltne Smnry Rd., W/O Glacial 118 12" . 106
5-46
19 264
48 120
43 445
42 263
88 762
9 500
5 1017
Sunset Beach Ave, N. Haven
S-59992
W/S Majors Path, SIO Noyack.
Magothy
283
Rd., N. 'Sea
S-70262
S/O Montauk Pt. State Pkwy,
Glacial
168
W/O Overlook Path, Montauk
S-71576
Manor La, 4700 ft SIO Sound
Magothy
448
Ave, Jamesport
S-73357
S/S Middle Rd, E/O Deep Hole
Magothy
305
Rd, Riverhead
S-73999
SIS Club Rd, E/O Wlwd Rd,
Magothy
850
Noyack
S-77436
E/S Dirt Rd, Opp Bellows Pond
Magothy:
509
Rd, N/O Rt 24, Hampton Bays
S-82938
Indian Islnd Prk, 114 ft ,W/O
Lloyd
1022
Rest Rm, 80 ft N/O Entr, Rvrhd
PUBLIC
SUPPLY WELLS
S-184
Jermain Ave, Sag Harbor
Glacial
138
S-18762
Fairmount Ave, Montauk
Glacial
167
S-24323
Division St., Sag Harbor
Glacial
174
S-30207
Flanders Rd, Montauk
Glacial
•177
S-30208
Farrington Ave, Montauk
Glacial
176
S-30271
Osborne Ave, Riverhead
Magothy
721
S-34732
Osborne Ave., Riverhead
Magothy
392
S-38917.
Division St., Sag Harbor
Glacial
174
S-51275
S. Davis Ave., Montauk
Magothy
175
S-6.6685
Middle Rd., Riverhead
Glacial
244
S-69511
Edge of Woods, Southampton
Glacial
268
S-7261
Pulaski St., Riverhead
Glacial
140
5-46
19 264
48 120
43 445
42 263
88 762
9 500
5 1017
Table 5.2-14
Groundwater Data from Deep Monitoring and Public Supply Wells
(Greater than 100 feet below water table)
WELL #/
REGION
TOTAL NITROGEN
ORGANICS
PESTICIDES
WELLFIELD
CONCENTRATION *
DETECTED
DETECTED
75-77 80-82
87-88
(ppm)
(ppb)
(ppb)
MONITORING WELLS
5-73357
Peconic River - Mid
--- 10.4
0.38
ND
ND
S-71576
N. Flanders Bay - Inland
--- <0.4
<0.4
ND
ND
5-59992
Great Peconic Bay -
South
--- <0.3
0.1
ND
ND
5-59795
Little Peconic Bay -
South
--- 12.4
---
ND
ND
S-73999
Little Peconic Bay -
South
0.09 ---
0.09
ND
ND
S-70262
Montauk
--- 0.8
0.22
ND
ND
PUBLIC SUPPLY
WELLS
Middle Rd.
Peconic River -East
--- ---
3.9
ND
ND
(5-66685)
Osborne Ave
Peconic River -East
--- ---
<.2
ND
ND
(5-30271)
(S-34732)
Pulaski St.
Peconic River -East
--- ---
<.1
ND
ND
(S-7261)
Edge of Woods
Great Peconic Bay -
South -
--- ---
<.2
ND
ND
(5-69511)
Division St.
Little Peconic Bay
- South
--- ---
0.8
ND
ND
(S-24323)
(5-38917)
Jermain Ave
Little Peconic Bay
- South
--- ---
<.4
ND
ND
(S-184)
Fairmount Ave
Montauk
--- ---
0.5
ND
ND
(5-18762)
Farrington Ave
Montauk
--- ---
0.9
ND
ND
(5-30208)
Flanders Rd
Montauk
--- ---
0.7
ND
ND
(5-30207)
S. Davis Ave.
Montauk
--- ---
0.2
ND
ND
(5-51275)
Summerfield
Shelter Island
--- ---
0.7
ND
ND
(S-198)
*
Nitrogen data broken down into time ranges 1975-1977, 1980-1982, and 1987-1988
5-47
to delegate certain programs to the States upon request and upon completion of the appropriate
legislation, and to provide a flexible framework from which States can implement the plans and
policies contained in their groundwater programs. The EPA also oversees each State's performance
in carrying out the delegated federal programs, which involves federal grant monies, and provides
research and technical assistance to the States.
The U.S. Geological Survey plays a critical role in Long Island groundwater management.
USGS groundwater monitoring programs have historically provided much of the available data on
groundwater resources. The USGS maintains a subdistrict office in Syosset, Nassau County, and
conducts resource evaluation activities through cooperative agreements with County and State
agencies in the area.
The federal government has delegated several groundwater management programs to New
York State. Of particular importance are those programs delegated under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to the NYSDEC, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act delegated to .the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). State
legislation mirrors the authority provided under the federal acts, and the delegated programs provide
the necessary funding support to States' programs for solid and hazardous waste management and
water pollution control.
Suffolk County has a variety of agencies which deal directly and indirectly with
groundwater management programs. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)
is the principal local regulatory agency addressing groundwater concerns. The SCDHS performs
the majority of activities required to administer groundwater management and protection programs
as provided by local law or by delegated authority from the NYSDEC or NYSDOH.
New York State granted to the towns and villages the authority for land use and zoning
controls, and this gives these entities an important role in groundwater management. Furthermore,
local governments, by their operation of water supply companies, management of landfills and
sewage treatment plants, and administration of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
help to fulfill major functions related to groundwater management. See Table 5.3-1 for a summary
of the existing groundwater management programs conducted by government agencies.
5.3.1 Federal Programs
National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards promulgated by the USEPA
cover all public water systems and list maximum contaminant levels ' (MCLs) for specific
constituents as measured at the consumer's tap (except turbidity, which is measured at the entry to
the distribution system).
5-48
Url
/
TABLE 5.3-1
Summary ofExisting Programs Related to Major Groundwater Management Agencies
PROGRAM AREA
Resource Management
Standards and c|aovinoanona
Planning and Review
Monitoring, Data Collection and Manipulation
Environmental Review (nsoF\Sole Source)
Regulatory Program Direction
Source Control
Hazardous Material Storage/Handling
Industrial/Commercial and Hazardous Waste
Municipal Solid Waste
Sewage Treatment
muumnaxCommomiu|Nmatewam,
On -Site Sanitary Waste
Zoning and Land Development Controls
Water Supply
Well Permits and Driller Registrations
Public Water Supply
Response and Remediation
ountaminoxiunnvspnnno/Suporfunu
Contaminated Aquifer Management
Well Head Treatment
omwo,ino
Regionhl Water Distribution and Importation
Public Education and Participation
Research
Regulatory Enforcement
NYSDOHINYSDOT
Water
LEGEND:
6 Primary Program Role ED Participating poommRole Ll Little mwoRole
30UrC8: Draft L.I. Groundwater Management Program Summary
During the 1970s and early 1980s, the USEPA supported several long-range water quality
planning efforts via grants to states, regional agencies, and local municipalities. On Long Island,
these included the LIRPB's 208 Study and 208 Plan Implementation Project, ,the NYSDEC's Long
Island Groundwater Management Program, and several other projects addressing specific concerns,
e.g., the Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Consumer Products Study,
and Non -Point Source Management Handbook. These projects received funds provided under
Section 208 of the WPCA (PL 92-500) and CWA (PL 95-217). In 1984, subsequent to the
termination of Section 208 funding, the LIRPB received a USEPA grant under Section 205Q) of the
1981 amendments (PL 97-117) to conduct the Special Groundwater Recharge Area Implementation
Project.
The USEPA maintains a water quality data base management system known as STORET.
The system is nationwide in coverage and receives -its data by batch duplication from many local
agencies, as well as direct data entry by the USEPA itself and some'agencies which have no data
processing systems of their own.
Under Section 311 of the Federal Clean Water Act, the USEPA must ensure the preparation
and maintenance of Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plans for facilities storing
petroleum products that would, if spilled, enter the navigable waters of the United States. The
regulations apply to storage facilities with 42,000 gallons underground capacity and/or 1,320
gallons total aboveground capacity and/or 660 gallons aboveground as any individual tank.
The USEPA administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
under the Federal . Clean Water Act. This program regulates the treatment and disposal of sewage,
and industrial and commercial wastewaters to the nation's surface waters, but does not cover
discharges to groundwater.
Since 1972, when the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) was passed,
the USEPA has been required to address the issue - of "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" in its evaluation of pesticides proposed for registration. Registrants are required to
submit, on a continuing basis, information obtained concerning unreasonable adverse effects.
USEPA staff isrequired to frequently review the available literature and conduct research on
registered products. The USEPA has authority to cancel a registration if a pesticide has
unreasonable adverse effects.
The USEPA also has a hazardous spill response capability, and can respond if requested by a
state or local government. Such authority has existed for several years under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act, but both the scope of the authority and the available funds have been limited.
The USEPA conducts research and provides grants for research related to a range of
environmental issues, including water and wastewater treatment technology. Recent local examples
5-50
of research grants. received from the USEPA are the Brookhaven National Laboratory groundwater
project entitled "Assessing Aquifer Impacts from Diverse Surveillance Data" and the SCDHS
project "Evaluation of Methods for the Removal of Agricultural Chemicals from Drinking Water!'
The USGS has been a key participant in several recent planning projects, including the L.I.
208 Study, Flow Augmentation Needs Study, National Urban Runoff Program, Long Island
Groundwater Management. Plan, and the present study. .Their activities vary according to the
project, but generally involve regional and - subregional groundwater quantity modelling, data
evaluation, sampling, and report preparation and review.
The USGS collects and maintains extensive geologic, hydrologic, and water quality
databases through its subdistrict office. These include basic types of historical data, such as stream
flow, groundwater levels, public and observation well water quality, and the stratigraphy and
hydraulic properties of the major aquifer units. Site-specific studies are also conducted.
The USGS supplies technical assistance to the NYSDEC's - Region I office for the
administration of the Long Island Well Permit Program. This includes hydrogeologic review of
permit applications, modelling to predict future' impacts, and participation in permit application
reviews, meetings, and hearings.
The published reports of the numerous studies conducted by the USGS provide a substantive
body of information available to the public. Bulletin 62 "An Atlas of Long Island's Water
Resources," published in, 1.968, is still considered a valuable basic primer on the- subject. Over the
last several years, the USGS Long Island office has been involved in extensive regional and
subregional groundwater quantity modelling efforts.
5.3.2 State Programs
The Department of Environmental Conservation has the responsibility for administering a
full array of environmental quality and natural resource programs, several of which have direct
relationships to groundwater. Principal among these are the department's water quality and water
resource programs currently administered by the Division of Water. However, they also include
programs in areas such as solid waste and hazardous wastes management, pesticide regulation,
mineral resources, oil and gas regulation, and others.
The NYSDEC is specifically charged with the "coordinated management of water resources"
(ECL Article 3 and ECL Article, 15), the control of water pollution, ,,and_ the maintenance of
reasonable standards of purity of the state's waters, both ground and surface (ECL Article 17).
Major elements of the department's water program that are integral to Suffolk County
groundwater management include:. water resources planning;- water quality standards and
5-51
classifications; water quality monitoring - and surveillance; municipal and industrial wastewater
discharge permits (SPDES);. and, programs which .provide for the development, operation, and
maintenance of municipal wastewater facilities. In addition, the NYSDEC's Long Island Well
Permit Program constitutes the only currently existing statutory authority and program for quantity
management on Long Island.
NYSDEC has been designated by the USEPA as the agency responsible for Statewide 208
and 201 Water Quality Planning. Under the Environmental Conservation Law, the NYSDEC is the
designated planning agency for the management (quality and quantity) of the state's water
resources, including groundwater (ECL Article 15), and prevention of water pollution (ECL Article
17). The federally funded project to develop the Long Island Groundwater Management Program is
considered by the NYSDEC as the most important example of its involvement in planning for
groundwater.
The 1983 Petroleum Bulk Storage Act (L.1983, c.613) empowered the NYSDEC to regulate
storage facilities of more than 1,100 gallons. The act also provided for an advisory council to work
with the NYSDEC 'in developing regulations. Draft regulations call for the. registration of storage
facilities, establish methods for preventing leaks and spills, and set minimum construction standards
for new- or substantially modified storage facilities. Through specific formal interagency
relationships, the NYSDEC delegates major elements of its programs for Suffolk County to the
SCDHS. This is usually accomplished under Local Assistance Programs administered by the
NYSDEC which partially reimburse the SCDHS for costs incurred. Nonhazardous solid wastes are
regulated by the NYSDEC under the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360, which outlines NYSDEC
responsibilities for the transfer, processing, recovery; reclamation, and disposal of all municipal
solid wastes. As part of NYSDEC policy (1979), and as a result of a 1983. state. law, there is a
general prohibition on new landfills, and a mandated phasing out of existing landfills in deep
recharge areas. Utilizing funds provided by the 1972 State Environmental Quality Bond Act
(EQBA), the NYSDEC has made available 175 million dollars, statewide, for grants to local
governments to build resource recovery, source separation, and waste management projects.
The- Federal NPDES program has been delegated to the NYSDEC through the New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). SPDES is a program for the issuance of
permits and regulatory control- of discharges of sanitary, industrial, 'or commercial wastes with
appropriate treatment into the surface or groundwaters of the state. It is intended to be a
comprehensive program for protecting water quality, encompassing effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and, for existing discharges not yet meeting effluent limitations, a schedule for
achieving compliance. SPDES goes beyond NPDES in that it includes regulation of discharges to
groundwater. -
The NYSDEC regulates the registration, commercial use; and application of pesticides
through the Pesticide Control Program. This program is administered in accordance with the
5-52
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the state program, pesticides
must be registered, and a commercial permit is required for the distribution, sale, or offer -for -sale of
"restricted use" pesticides, as defined by the NYSDEC. A purchase permit is also required for the
purchase, possession, or use of these products. All commercial applicators must be certified. The
primary emphasis of the program on Long Island is on the certification of pesticide users and on the
issuance of permits to distributors of "restricted use" products.
Control over the use of pesticides for turf or home use is also provided via several
mechanisms. First, all pesticides must be registered by the NYSDEC. Second, retail outlets selling
these chemicals must keep records of all "restricted use" pesticides sold. Third, all applicators of
restricted use pesticides must be registered, and two of the various categories of applicators are
those that apply pesticides to home lawns. Another method of control over pesticide use is via
labeling and the inclusion of instructions for all products sold, which must be done in accordance
with NYSDEC regulations.
Basic statutory authority relating to the regulation of groundwater withdrawals on Long
Island is contained in Article 15 of the ECL. The Long Island Well Permit Program is currently
administered by the NYSDEC Region 1 office in Stony Brook. Where applications are for public
water supplies, separate Water Supply Permits are required and are reviewed jointly with the New
York State Department of Health. NYSDEC approval is required for all wells where the installed
pumping capacity of such wells, singly or in the aggregate, or the total installed pumping capacity of
old and.new wells on one property, is in- excess of 45 gallons per minute.. Fire wells to which no
pumping equipment is permanently attached are exempted; the exemption for new agricultural wells
was eliminated in 1986.
All well drillers must be registered with the NYSDEC. Before drilling, a driller must file a
preliminary report with the NYSDEC, and, on completion of drilling, a report giving the well log
and other pertinent information on the size and capacity of the well must be filed.
The NYSDOH, under the Public Health Law, is responsible for the protection of public
health and, more particularly, for the assurance of a safe, potable supply of drinking water for the
state's citizens. The NYSDOH is also. responsible for the assurance of proper disposal of sanitary
wastes via on-site disposal systems.
The NYSDOH prepares and administers standards and regulations for public water systems
under Part 5 and Part 170 of the State Sanitary Code. These requirements cover planning, design,
operation, and surveillance of public drinking water. The NYSDOH participates in long-range
planning programs related to water resources. In the past, funds were provided by the NYSDOH to
Nassau and Suffolk Counties to prepare comprehensive water supply plans.
5-53
In its central office in Albany, the NYSDOH maintains data files on all public water supply
systems in New York State. Furthermore, the NYSDOH, through its field laboratory in Stony
Brook, has provided analytical capability to local health departments for volatile organic analysis of
samples taken from public water supplies. Since 1978, this laboratory has performed volatile
organic analyses on 800 to 1,200 samples per year. Through delegation to the SCDHS, the
NYSDOH provides funding for monitoring and surveillance of public water supplies, and review
and approval of individual on-site sewage disposal systems.
Under the Public Health Law and Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code, the NYSDOH
administers a major program to assure that all public water supply systems in the state are properly
operated and maintained, and that all consumers are assured delivery of a safe and adequate supply
of water. This program includes .a variety of activities relating to regulation of public water supply
facility design and construction; periodic monitoring of the quality of waters delivered to the tap;
periodic inspection and evaluation of all public water systems; emergency response to water supply
systems experiencing critical water quality and quantity problems; laboratory certification; training
and certification of water supply operators; watershed protection rules and regulations; and,
establishment and enforcement of State Drinking Water Standards. As mentioned previously, much
of the program for Suffolk County has been delegated to the SCDHS.
Research is being conducted by the NYSDOH to evaluate alternative water treatment
processes for the removal of organic chemicals. It has also.provided funding to Nassau and Suffolk
Counties to study water treatment.
The New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island was
established in 1980 by the NYS Legislature (L.1980, c.50) to recommend legislative or
administrative actions that may be required to preserve and protect groundwater resources for future
use. Major accomplishments include passage of laws pertaining -to the prohibition of landfills in
deep flow recharge areas (L.1983, c.299); regulation of hazardous materials in primary groundwater
recharge areas (L.1983, c.951); SPDES notification requirements to water suppliers (L.1983, c.662
and c.663); and, municipal establishment of water quality treatment districts (L.1984, c.662).
5..3.3 Regional Agency Programs
As the designated agency for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the LIRPB directed the
preparation of the L.I. 208 Study. The LIRPB also managed two subsequent projects funded by
Federal Section 208 grants -- the 208 Study Implementation Project and the L.I. NURP. In 1984, it
initiated the Special Groundwater Protection Area Implementation Project, which is supported by
Federal Section 2050) funds.
. -
A responsibility of the LIRPB is to update the Comprehensive Development Plan (1970) by
incorporating relevant aspects of other programs, including 208 Studies, Coastal Zone Management
5-54
Planning, Census, and other population, land use, and environmental -studies. Examples of recent
studies with groundwater implications are the "Industrial Location Analyses: 1980" and the Pine
Barrens Planning Council activities.
The LIRPB- maintains data on land use, population, zoning, environmental parameters, and
transportation. The LIRPB has had vigorous public participation and education efforts for some
time. The formation of a very active citizens advisory committee for the L.I. 208 Study represented
a prime example of a well organized and effective program. The numerous publications prepared
by the LIRPB are also useful public education. materials.
5.3.4 Suffolk C2gM Agency Prog ams
At the request of local municipalities, the Suffolk -County Planning Department (SCPD)
conducts special land use development planning studies that take potential groundwater impacts into
consideration. Other planning services are available upon request.
The SCDHS has been responsible for several county -wide and local groundwater planning
projects. These include the CPWS-24 and, more recently, the North Fork Water Supply Plan,
FANS, and South Fork Water Resources Study, among others. Planning functions of the SCDHS
entail considerable involvement in important regional projects, such as the LIGWMP, 208 Study,
NURP, etc.
As one of the activities delegated by the NYSDEC, the SCDHS reviews all Section 201
Construction Grants Studies conducted by local municipalities from a county perspective.
Comments and concerns of the agency reflect SCDHS experience, criteria, regulations, and
monitoring data.
The SCDHS has a very comprehensive groundwater resources monitoring program.
Information gathered includes water quality, water levels, stream flow, geologic, and meteorological
data. Several hundred wells have been installed by the SCDHS in recent years, mainly with its own
well drilling equipment and staff. Monitoring is done for several purposes: to assess changes in
overall groundwater ambient conditions, for surveillance of known or suspected contamination
sources; plume delineation; special studies (e.g., FANS, Aldicarb, Consumer Products, etc.); and,
for potential groundwater reclamation projects. Additional resource management information is
provided by public supply well monitoring and the extensive private well sampling programs of the
SCDHS. Groundwater and water supply data bases, as well as information on municipal and
industrial discharges and underground fuel storage tanks, are maintained as part of the SCDHS's
computer data processing services. The SCDHS is actively involved in SEQRA review activities,
especially for Type I proposed projects directly affected by SCDHS code regulations (e.g.,
residential and industrial subdivisions and developments). Through formal Local Assistance
5-55
Programs with the NYSDEC and NYSDOH, its own statutory authority, and informal contacts with
other county and local agencies, the SCDHS conducts groundwater management activities.
Although there has been little or no delegation of federal or state hazardous wastes
programs, the SCDHS has one of the foremost local control programs in the country as a result of
Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. By authority of Article 12, the SCDHS requires
permits to construct and operate storage and handling facilities for toxic and hazardous materials as
well as wastes. -The SCDHS routinely inspects facilities for compliance; and oversees testing of
underground fuel storage tanks. In addition, the SCDHS maintains its own tank testing equipment,
and performs the tests for county -owned facilities. Article 7 empowers the SCDHS to restrict or
prohibit storage of certain toxic or hazardous materials in deep recharge -areas.
Acting as an agent for the NYSDEC through delegation, the SCDHS is responsible for a
major portion of the regulatory activities under the SPDES program. These responsibilities include
review of permit applications, assistance in drafting permits, inspecting facilities, conducting
surveys to identify possible wastes sources, effluent and groundwater monitoring, and preparing
background material for enforcement cases.
The delegation agreement with the NYSDOH provides the SCDHS with the authority to
approve all new individual on -lot sewage disposal systems. Standards for the approvals are set by
the New York State Sanitary Code and by more detailed standards adopted by the county. All
individuals who wish to construct an on -lot system must file plans with the SCDHS, and these plans
are reviewed and approved in accordance with state and local standards. Municipalities cannot
issue a building permit until approval for the proposed sewage system for the dwelling has been
given by the SCDHS.
The SCDHS, as stipulated in Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, regulates the
maximum allowable density of on-site systems according to 208 Hydrogeologic Zones. New
housing cannot be constructed in Zones III or VI at densities greater than one dwelling unit per acre
without centralized collection and treatment of sewage. At lower housing densities, individual on-
site system may be used: For other zones, two dwelling units per .acre is the maximum allowable
density for 'on-site systems.
Suffolk County has also enacted a local law by which the SCDHS controls the sale and use
of all cesspool additives. This law, which is. somewhat more stringent than a similar state law,
effectively bans all cesspool additives containing organic chemical solvents.
Articles 4 and 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code assign authority to the SCDHS for
approving public water supplies before any construction takes place .within a subdivision or
development. Under Article 4 and through delegation from the NYSDOH, the SCDHS is
empowered to review water supply applications, inspect construction, inspect public supply
5-56
systems, certify water treatment plant operators, sample public water supplies, prescribe treatment
requirements, and require monitoring by purveyors. Because of the heavy reliance on private wells
in Suffolk, the SCDHS has a program of private well sampling and analysis, and when water quality
problems are discovered, the SCDHS provides the homeowner with advice on how to rectify the
situation.
The SCDHS has been involved in a number of activities concerning contaminated aquifer
segment management, including the delineation of plumes, participating in the selection and
implementation of response measures, and water reclamation. Several contaminated groundwater
segments have been investigated by the SCDHS through sampling private wells and the installation
of monitoring wells. These affected segments have been associated with landfills, hazardous
materials spills, industrial discharges, and agricultural areas.
The SCDHS has carried out research associated with groundwater programs for many years.
A number of these studies have been unique in the fields of water pollution control, water treatment,
and groundwater resource management. Past projects include the study of nitrogen removal in
modified on -lot sewage disposal. systems, an investigation of organic chemical solvent cesspool
cleaner impacts on groundwater, and a study of pesticide transport in groundwater. Other
investigations include a study on water treatment systems for the removal of agricultural chemicals,
and continued research on alternative methods for removing nitrogen in on -lot sewage disposal
systems.
Enforcement activities performed by the SCDHS are required for responsibilities delegated
by the NYSDEC and NYSDOH, and for ensuring compliance with Suffolk County Sanitary Code
provisions. Following the detection of a violation, the SCDHS regulatory enforcement procedure
consists of notification of the violation, informal hearings to encourage voluntary compliance, and
formal hearings to issue an administrative consent order. In the event that additional action is
necessary, the SCDHS refers cases that are in violation of state regulations (e.g., SPDES) to the
NYSDEC regional attorney. For violations of the County Sanitary Code, cases are referred to the
County Attorney. In both instances, the SCDHS .is called upon for the preparation of background
case material.
The Sanitation. Division of the SCDPW has very important functions related to sewage
collection, treatment and disposal. _ The SCDPW is directly responsible for assuring adequate
treatment at the wastewater facilities it operates. Because industrial/commercial establishments are
included in some of the county districts (especially the SWSD and Port Jefferson), the SCDPW has
conducted an industrial pretreatment program in order to determine. necessary pretreatment
operations for firms discharging to the municipal sewers. Part of the responsibilities of the SCDPW
is to enforce the pretreatment requirements.
5-57
SAA
The towns and villages of Suffolk
responsibilities due to the authority bestowed
use regulation. Moreover, as owners and ope
treatment plants, and by their active involvem
functions related to groundwater management.
Towns and villages may prepare and
development. All current Section 201 Facil
implementation. Essentially, all towns are cu
planning boards review all subdivision plans
including provisions for storm water disposal.
development, or proposed projects of a local mu
status:
The Town of Riverhead, and the Villi
treatment facilities. These municipalities are a
Plans that include provisions for upgrading those
Some towns have made zoning chan
impacts on groundwater quality by minimb
Section 201 facilities plans that have prov
required to establish a septic system manage
scavenger wastes treatment and disposal. By
intended to decrease system failures as a possi
unty have important groundwater, management
in them by New York State Law for overall land
rs of water supply facilities, landfills, and sewage
in SEQRA, towns and villages fulfill other major
periodically update master plans for land use
ties Plans in Suffolk are in various stages of
rently involved in solid waste planning. Local
:o assure conformance with zoning regulations,
For almost all SEQRA actions concerning land
icipality, the town or village assumes lead agency
of Greenport, operate sewage collection and
involved. in Section 201 Wastewater Facilities
in major areas that will have long-term positive
the density of on -lot sewage systems. All the
as for scavenger wastes treatment facilities are
nt district as a condition for receiving funds for
tituting routine pump -outs for on -lot systems, it is
cause of groundwater contamination.
East Hampton and Southampton have inkituted regulations. for "Aquifer Recharge Overlay
Areas" that include restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide use for other than agricultural purposes.
Brookhaven, as part of the zoning regulation c anges for industrial uses, mandates size limits on
landscaping and turf areas, and restricts the types of shrubbery, grasses, etc. so as to minimize the
demand for fertilizers and pesticides. A comprehensive assessment of all local regulations is
beyond the scope of BTCAMP; however, many East End Towns and municipalities are in various
stages of planning initiatives which may offset groundwater, including the preparation of GEIS's,
local waterfront revitalization plans, and updated master plans.
New York State law gives towns, villal
within their respective Jurisdictions. Zoning is
prescribe the actual use of land, and regulate
there remain large areas where land use coni
and cities exclusive authority to designate zoning
fundamental means by which towns and villages
density and intensity of use. In Suffolk County,
is considered the primary means for protecting
groundwater quality, and as discussed previously, several of the towns have enacted important
zoning changes.
The only town or village facility that has any extraordinary treatment is the Greenport Water
District, which has installed granular activated carbon filters at the wellhead in order to remove
aldicarb.
Water supply issues in general have been receiving much attention from towns and villages.
Water distribution and importation from abundant areas to water deficient areas are specific subjects
of much concern to local municipalities. In recent years some town governments have been actively
involved in promoting public water extensions to residents in areas of poor water quality.
Extending water to proposed development, however, has met with opposition in some cases. The
opinion has been expressed during town SEQRA review actions that providing public water,
especially in water deficient areas, may stimulate undesirable growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. There has also been controversy over plans to preserve the central Pine Barrens as a possible
future source of water supply for parts of the region.
5.4 Groundwater Classifications and Standards
One of the critical components of Long Island's groundwater management programs is the
system of best usage classifications and the corresponding water quality standards. The
classifications and standards provide legally enforceable limits on water quality. Public water
supply purveyors who exceed standards are required by public health officials to take corrective
action. Conversely, drinking water guidelines are nonenforceable limits.
The basis for establishment of drinking water standards is the Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974 (public law 93-523). New York State has incorporated federal drinking water standards
into the State Sanitary Code and has primary responsibility for implementation of the program.
On Long Island and in New York State, in general, the best usage of all fresh groundwater is
for drinking water supply. The "best usage" classification may refer to a single- designation but in
reality the water may be used for other purposes. -"Best usage" represents the most desirable public
use of the waters. If such groundwaters are of such quality as to support their best use, then these
waters will also support other uses that require water of lesser purity.
5-59
5.4.1 Groundwater Classifications
There are three groundwater classes recognized in the system:
Class "GA" - The best usage of Class "GA" waters is as a source of potable water supply. Class
"GA" waters are fresh groundwaters found in the saturated zone of unconsolidated deposits
and consolidated rock or bedrock.
Class "GSA" - The. best usage of Class "GSA" waters is as a source of potable mineral waters, for
conversion to fresh potable waters, or as raw material for the manufacture of sodium chloride
or its derivatives or similar products. Such waters are saline waters found in the saturated
zone.
Class "GSB" - The best usage of Class "GSB" waters is as a receiving water for disposal of wastes.
Such waters are those saline waters found in the saturated- zone which have a chloride
concentration in excess of 1,000 milligrams per liter or a total dissolved solids concentration
ui excess of 2,000 milligrams per liter.
Fresh groundwaters in New York State are all classified as "GA". This is a reflection of
State policy that the best usage of fresh groundwater is as a source of drinking, water: No discharge
is allowed which would preclude the best usage of Class "GA" waters.
5.4.2 Groundwater Standards
As discussed in Section 5.3, three major agencies have responsibility for groundwater
quality standards by virtue of statutory requirements for ambient standards (NYSDEC) or legal
responsibility for drinking water standards (NYSDOH AND USEPA). Ambient standards apply to
naturally occurring groundwater in the environment while drinking water standards are applicable to
water within a distribution system.
Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code included maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for public
water supplied for a number of chemical constituents and physical parameters. The 1986
amenchnents to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to establish MCLs for 83 contaminants by
1989 and at least 25 more by 1991. NYSDEC revised its groundwater classification (6NYCRR,
Part 703) in 1978 to prevent contamination of groundwater and protect potable groundwater
supplies. Table 5.4-1 presents a listing of New York State drinking water standards and guidelines.
The establishment of maximum contaminant levels at the source (well) of public supplies is
addressed by Part 170 of the NYS Sanitary Code (10 NYCRR, Part 170). Maximum contaminant
levels are established for certain inorganic and organic chemicals, microbiological contaminants and
radioactive substances. Monitoring and sampling requirements are also addressed. These
5-60
SABLE 5.4-1
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
JANUARY 1990
NYS Standard
Carbonate Pesticides
Limit
total coliform .<2.2 -or <1'/100ml. aldicarb-
7 ppb
specific cond
- umhos/cm carbofuran
15ppb
pH
-
oxamyl
50 ppb
nitrate
10•.0 mg/l
carbaryl
50 ppb
free ammonia
- mg/l
methomyl"
50 ppb
chloride
250:0 mg/l
Organic Pesticides
sulfate
250.0 mg/l
endrin
0.2 ppb
iron
0.3 mg/1*
lindane
4 ppb
manganese
0.3 mg/1*
methoxychlor
50 ppb
copper
1.0 mg/l
toxaphene
5 ppb
sodium
- mg/1+
2, 4 D
50 ppb
zinc-
5.0 mg/l
2, 4, 5 TP (Silvex)
10 ppb
cadmium
10.0 ppb
Physical Parameters
lead
50.0 ppb
color
15 units
MBAS-detergents
- mg/l
odor
3 units
-
corros.ivity
non-corr
turbidity (mon. avg.)
1 Tu
turbidity (2 day avg.)
5 Tu
* Iron & manganese combined should not
exceed 0.5 milligrams.per liter.
+ Moderately restricted
sodium diet
should not exceed 270 mg/1.
Severely
restricted sodium diet
should not exceed
20 mg/1.
NYS'.
NYS
Standard
Standard
vinyl chloride
-2.
2 chloroethylvinyle"ther
5.
methylene chloride
5.
benzene
5•
1,1 dichloroethane• -
5.
toluene
5.
trans dichloroethylene
5.
chlorobenzene
5.
chloroform
100.*
ethylbenzene
5.
1,2 dichloroethane
5.
o -xylene,
5•
1,1,1 trichloroethane
5.
m -xylene
5•
carbon tetrachloride,
5.
p -xylene
5.
1 bromo.2 chloroethane
5.
total xylene
5.
1;2 dichloropropane
5.
o-chlorotoluene
5.
1,1,2. trichloroethylene
5.
m-chlorotoluene
5.
chlorodibromomethane
-
100.*
p-chlorotol'uene
5.
1,2 dibromoethane (EDB)
0.1
total chlorotoluene
5.
2 bromo 1 chloropropane-
5.
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
5.
bromoform
100.*
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
5.
tetrachloroethylene
5.
m, p -dichlorobenzene
5.
cis dichloroethylene
5.
o -dichlorobenzene
5.
freon 113
5.
p-diethylbenzene
5.
dibromomethane
5.
1,2,4,5 tetramethylbenzene
5.
1,1 dichloroethylene
5.1,2,4
trichlorobenzene
5.
bromodichloromethane
100.*
1,2,3 trichlorobenzene•
5.
2,3 dichloropropene
5.
ethenylbenzene (styrene)
5.
cis dichloropropene
5.
1 methylethylbenzene (cumene)
5.
trans dichloropropene
5.
n-propylbenzene
5.
1,1,2 trichloroethane
5.
tert-butylbenzene
5.
1,1,1,2 tetrachlorethane
5.
sec-butylbenzene
5.
s -tetrachloroethane ,
5.
isopropyltoluene (p-cymene)
5.
1,2,3 trichloropropane
5.
n-butylbenzene
5.
2,2 dichloropropane
5.
hexachlorobutadiene
5.
1,3 dichloropropane
5.
1,2 dibromo 3-chloropropane
5.
* Limit established for
total trihalomethanes is 100 ppb.
Radiological +
Limit
radium 226 and 228
5 pCi/L +Total man-made organicnuclides.
gross alpha
15 pCi/L not to exceed 4 millirems
per year.
gross beta -
50 pCi/L
Tritium
20,000 pCi/L
Strontium
8 pCi/L
5-61
requirements must be met by public water supply purveyors to insure a safe potable drinking water ,
supply.
The protection of public health and the environment is dependent on the establishment of
adequate standards related to waste discharge regulations. Due to the increasing presence 'of
synthetic organic chemicals in groundwater the SPDES program has come under increasing
pressure to have the - standards - setting process keep pace with the expanding -number of toxic
chemicals. Development of standards for new chemicals is a time consuming process that is
resource intensive.
Besides the standards already listed in part 703.5, Class "GA" waters are required to attain
the most restrictive MCLS for drinking water set forth by the New York State Commissioner of
Health in 10 NYCRR, Subpart 5-1, Public Water Supplies. In addition, Class "GA" waters must
meet both the MCL levels for drinking water issued by the USEPA administrator under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the raw water quality standards promulgated by NYS Commissioner of
Health in 10 NYCRR 170, Sources of Water Supply. Provisions relating- to collection of water
samples, analytical methods to be used in determining, compliance, and authority to require
monitoring and/or discharge information is outlined in Part 703.
National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards measure specific constituents at
the consumers tap, with the exception of turbidity which is monitored at the entry point to the
distribution system. The standards cover all public water systems and list maximum contaminant
levels. The Primary Drinking Water Standards are based on the protection of public health and
address limits on certain organic chemicals in organic chemicals, turbidity and indicator bacteria.
Secondary Standards focus on protection of the public welfare and contains limits for taste, color,
odor and appearance of the water. :-
5-62