Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Brown Tide Comp Assessment & Management Program Vol 2 11/1992
Y BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Volume H 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 H Robert J. Gaffney Suffolk County Executive Prepared by - Suffolk -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 has been financed in part with Federal funds provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under Contract C-002242. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and'policies of the United State Environmental Protection Agency or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 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 6.3.2 Existing Land Use and Land Use.Changes - Extended Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . 6-197 6.3.3 Land Available For'Oevelopment . . . . . . 6-203 6.3.4 Changes in Environmental Resources . . . 6-210 6.4 Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Summary . . . . 6-210 7.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVESAND 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 7.1.6.1 Ocean Boundary Impacts. ,. . . . . .. 7-24 7.1.6.2 No Man -Induced Pollution. . . . . 7-24 7.1.6.3 No Future Controls. . . . . . . . . 7-24 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 7.2.6.0 Marinas and Boating . . . . . . . 7-66 7.2.6.D Atmospheric Deposition. . . . . . . 7-71 7.2.7 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-72 ii 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.E 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 . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . 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 8.1.2 Committee Management Structure and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5 ]li 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 iv LIST OF TABLES VOLUME II Table No. Title Pacre 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 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 v Table No. Title Page 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 6.1-17A Meetinghouse Creek Sampling Data - Downstream of Corwin Duck Farm, 1990. . . . . . . . . 6-70 6.1-178 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 vi Table No. Title Paae 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 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 vii Table No. Title Page 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 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 VIII I Table No. Title Page 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 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 ix Table No. Title Pane 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 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 i. 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., 1988-1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . 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 x LIST -OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page 6.0-1 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 6.0-2 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading . . . 6-5 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 - Marsch 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 6-61 6.1-10B Meetinghouse Creek Coliform Data (April 1988 - March 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-62 xi Figure No. Title Page 6.1-11 Riverhead STP Coliform Data (April 1989 - March 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-63 6.1-12 Landfills in the Peconic System. . . . . . . . . 6-76 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 . . . . . . . . . 6-86 6.2-3 Relative On -Lot Wastewater Generation. . . . 6-113 6.2-4 On -Lot Sewage Disposal by Land Use . . . . . . 6-114 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 xii Figure No. Title Paae 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 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 6.0 SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS TO THE PECONIC SYSTEM 6.0 SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS TO THE PECONIC SYSTEM Introduction The aquatic environments of the Peconic system, including surface and groundwaters, fresh and marine waters, estuarine and oceanic waters, are stressed in varying degrees; these stresses are in large part attributable to anthropogenic activities which result in point and non -point source discharge of pollutants. " The sources and magnitude of the impacts of point and non -point sources, on the system are evaluated in this Section. To a great degree, the quantity and types offipollutants that impact the surface water environments of the Peconic system can be managed. A necessary step in the development of management options for achieving water quality objectives is characterizing the sources and quantities of pollutants entering the waters of the Peconic system. Such a characterization is necessary because a simple increase or alteration of a selected nutrient load into the system can contribute to altered species composition of the phytoplankton community in the system. It had been suggested that changes in species composition could be more important than increasing biomass as a result of the effects associated with eutrophication (Steele, 1974): While the causative relationships for the blooms of Aureococcus are at present unknown, a system -wide reduction of stress on the ecosystem will lead to improved water quality and will help to limit future algae blooms. Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint sources encompass those pollution sources which have no single identifiable point of entry for the contamination. One example of a nonpoint source is stormwater runoff which has historically been considered the major source of bacterial contamination to the surface waters of the Peconic system and which also can carry macro and micronutrients into the Peconic system along the coasts and the banks of creeks, streams and rivers. Sources of contamination which are often associated with contaminants included in stormwater runoff are animal waste and fertilizer runoff. Sediment/water column flux has been identified as a major source of nonpoint source pollution to the Peconic system. Groundwater contribution is another 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 coupled with actual quantitative groundwater contribution estimates which are based on data obtained from a USGS three-dimensional finite difference grid model. 6-1 I . Atmospheric deposition is another non -point source of pollution. Other nonpoint sources which are considered in this section are hazardous chemical leakage and spillage and marina, boating, and dredging activities. j j Point Sources Point sources of pollution are those which discharge materials to a water body from a fixed location or through,a single point of entry such as a a discrete pipe or ditch. One such group of point sources is landfills, which have ;the potential to contaminate groundwater andimpact surface water ecosystems in the study area. One documented example of adverse impacts associated with landfills is the North Sea landfill, which hasgenerated a plume of contaminants which reportedly may have adversely impacted the shellfish population in Fish Cove (Draft "North Sea Landfill Phase H Remedial Investigation Fish Cove Study," Town of Southampton and H2M Group, February, 1990). However, a recent USEPA press release (October 6, 1992) notes that the North Sea Landfill does not pose a significant threat to public health and environment via groundwater contamination, based on a program of remedial action. This program also calls for further monitoring of groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish Cove, and hard clam recruitment. Another point source of major c"oncern is wastewater treatment plants that receive and treat both domestic wastewater and wastewater generated by local commercial and industrial activities. Typically, these wastewaters can contain large amounts of nutrients and organic matter that may cause significant depletion of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waters. Heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons and other toxic substances may also be present, although selected compounds of the above are generally limited by the discharge permit to trace quantities. Commercial and industrial plants are another class of point sources. These facilities carry out diverse and complex manufacturing processes which may use solvents, catalysts, and other chemicals that contaminate discharged wastewater. Industrial contributors to a sewage treatment plant may be required to pretreat their wastes prior to discharge to the plant, and direct industrial discharges into the aquatic environment typically require some form of treatment prior to discharge. In addition, point source -discharges of over 1000 gallons per day are regulated through the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) by means of permit limitations for various effluent parameters to limit the pollutant load to the water body. These permit limitations are. designed to prevent toxic effects on the organisms in the system or, as noted in previous Sections of this report, prevent odors or water discoloration from occurring in the receiving waters. In general, there are no continuing permitted industrial discharges in the Peconic system that are suspected to have a significant impact on the surface waters of the system. However, historical discharges such as the contamination that occurred at the Rowe Industries iite in Sag Harbor have reached their discharge boundaries at surface waters. These discharges are discussed in greater detail in this section. Rivers and creeks that contribute, to the loading of a Bay system can also be considered as .i point sources. For example, the Peconic River west of the USGS gauge station was considered a r 6-2 point source because of the significant nitrogen loading of the river and the convenient location for flow monitoring and sampling, even though pollution upstream of the USGS gauge was caused by a combination of nonpoint sources such as fertilizer and sanitary waste contribution and point sources such as the Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory sewage treatment plants. In addition, Meetinghouse Creek was also represented as a point source, incorporating the duck farm waste contribution and any other upstream contributing sources such as stormwater runoff. Data Summary / Quantification The point source discharges to the system, and their respective loadings, have historically received considerable attention and documentation through programs of sampling and analysis. Nonpoint sources, which include a myriad of contributed materials, have historically been less well- documented and, thus, have required estimation of contribution (loading) into the Bay system. The methods used to estimate point and nonpoint source loadings for individual pollutant sources are discussed throughout this section. A summary of nonpoint source and point source nitrogen loading is presented in Figures 6.0- 1 and 6.0-2. These figures present the sources and distribution of pollutant loading to the Peconic system based on an analysis of nitrogen inputs for, the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region of the system. The figures show that the nonpoint source load contributed approximately 82% and point sources contributed 18% of the nitrogen pollution to the system during summer conditions: The sources of pollution considered in this nitrogen analysis were sediment flux, groundwater underflow, stream contribution as point sources, the Peconic River, Riverhead STP, Meetinghouse Creek, direct rainfall, and stormwater runoff. It should be noted that the estimate for sediment flux nitrogen contribution, which is the largest source of nitrogen to the system (2,350 pounds per Clay total nitrogen during summer conditions; 730 pounds per day total nitrogen on a year-round basis), is based on limited sampling data (see Section 6.2.8). A more detailed summary and analysis of this data is contained in Section 6.4: Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Summary . Quantitatively, the total estimated point source load to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay portion of the Peconic system was 680 pounds per day. The largest contributor of all the point sources was Meetinghouse Creek (360 pounds per day) followed by the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant (140 pounds per day) and the Peconic River (130 pounds per day). The smaller creeks around Flanders Bay comprised the remaining 6% of the point source load. Overall, the total nonpoint source load was estimated to be 3,100 pounds per day of nitrogen during summer conditions.. Most of the nonpoint source nitrogen load was.deternzined to be sediment flux (75% of nonpoint source nitrogen load), with.a significant amount of nitrogen also contributed from groundwater underflow (19% of nonpoint source nitrogen load). 3S] FIGURE 6.0-1 - POINT AND NONPOINT- SOURCE NITROGEN LOADING * LEGEND * ............................. ............................. ............................... 0 SEDIMENT FLUX' .................................... [2,350 Ib/day; 62%] 'Summer Conditions; ........................................ ......................................... ......................................... .......................................... .......................:................... ........................................... .............................................. based on limited data ............................................... ............................................... ................................................ ................................................. ................................................ ................................................ • • • ® OTHER NONPOINT .................................................... .................................................... SOURCES: . [770 Ib/day; 200/61 ........................................................ -Groundwater Underflow ....:::::::::::::::::.................................... .......................................: .......................................................... -Stormwater Runoff ............................................. ........ ' ' ' ' ' ' -Atmospheric Deposition ' .. .. :;: • • POINT SOURCES ::: • : .................................................. [680 Ib%day; 18%] • -Peconic River -Riverhead STP "" -Meetinghouse Creek -Other Creeks Based on Peconic River/Flanders Bay Data [1987 through 19901, ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- --------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -- =r= '------------------------ ==== � Although the nonpoint source nitrogen loading greatly exceeds the total nitrogen load for point sources, themanagement of point sources remains a primary concern in the Peconic Estuary system. 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 also determined 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 6.2.8). Dr. Capone's sampling tends to indicate that the groundwater contribution 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. In terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts, point sources 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. A comparison was also made between the coliform loadings of the three major point sources discharging to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system as they relate to the average coliform loading attributable to stormwater runoff, which has been estimated to be approximately 5.5 E12 MPN/day. In a relatively dry year (April 1988 -March 1989, 40.0 inches of rainfall at Riverhead), the combined, loading of the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek are an order of magnitude lower than the . average daily stormwater runoff coliform load, while in a wet year (April 1989 -March 1990, 60.5 inches of rainfall at Riverhead) the combined loading of the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek is much greater at about one-half of the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load. The Riverhead STP coliform load (1.8 E12 in a dryer year, 3.2 E12 in a wetter year; "E" denotes the base -10 expontial function) actually approaches the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay area. The estimated Riverhead STP loadings are based on SCDHS samples taken from the chlorination tank effluent weir, and are not necessarily representative of the loading at the actual outfall. Discharge monitoring reports submitted by the. Riverhead STP pursuant to its SPDES permit conditions'indicate that coliform levels as sampled from the manhole downstream of the chlorination tank may be less than those at the chlorination tank outlet. However, the coliform concentrations at the manhole are still high, routinely exceeding SPDES permit conditions. In the spring of 1991, Riverhead STP implemented measures, including process optimization and the installation of additional chlorine contact tanks to Cool improve disinfection, which are examples of positive efforts to control pollution to the Peconic system. Throughout the BTCAMP report in general and Section 6 in particular, land use is related to pollution contribution, where appropriate. Specific data describing land use quantification and analysis efforts is contained in Section 6.3: Land Use and Impacts. In terms of nonpoint source loading, examples of correlation between land use and pollutant loading include fertilizer nitrogen leachate from residential and agricultural land uses. Another prevalent source of pollution is sanitary system effluent 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, discharges in industrial land uses have been documented sources of contamination in the study area. Increases in sewage treatment plant waste generation can also be directly related to population growth and development proliferation. Given the strong correlation which has been established between many intensive land uses and environmental degradation, it is clear that the management of the remaining vacant and developable land in the study area is a matter of tremendous importance. This need for management is especially significant in light of the adverse environmental impacts which have already befallen the area despite its relatively rural character (27% and 23% of the land in the primary and extended study areas, respectively, is in the category of open.space as of 1989). Especially alarming is the projection for the potential for further development and pollution, with a substantial amount of land still vacant and open to development (38% and 48% of the primary and extended study areas, respectively, are vacant and developable as of 1989). Since the land use statistics were compiled, recent acquisitions have decreased the amount of developable land in the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area, and other acquisitions have been proposed as part of the draft Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) plan. 6.1 Point Source Loading Discharges from sewage treatment plants, the Peconic River,, Meetinghouse Creek, landfills, and active industries have been identified as contributors to pollutant loadings into the Peconic system and are presented in Figure 6.1-1. Where possible, comparisons have been made in this section to the data developed in 1976 as part of the L.I.208 Study so that pollutant trends and the effects of implemented recommendations from the 208 Study could be evaluated. It should be noted that point source pollutant loads are "end of pipe" loads and may not reflect natural -physical and chemical processes that occur as the loads are transported through the system. There are 11 municipally and privately owned sewage treatment plants (STPs) or scavenger waste facilities in the Peconic system (Figure 6.1-2), with only 10 discrete effluent discharge points M LONG ISLAND SOUND o� i BROOKHAVEN A�yl uORI LITTLE P BAY I C RIVERHEAD (� GREAT v ;0 PECONIC FLANDERS BAY BAY BAY 4 GARDINERS BAY AR RS S%T AN SLAN w7 � .! EAST HAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON / LEGEND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS * LANDFILLS PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DISCHARGES O ACTIVE DUCK FARM Ap� BLOCK ISLAND SOUND FIGURE 6. 1 -1 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE I N . THE STUDY AREA NO SCALE SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PBH - 3/92 LONG BROOKHAVEN SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE ISLAND SOUND LITTLE PECONIC BAY RIVERHEAD GREAT "0 4 FLANDERS BAY PBNIC AY 3 � ALT GARDINERS BAY AR RS AN 7 \ EAST HAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON BLOCK ISLAND SOUND HI NEC K gAv SEWAGE'TREATMENT PLANTS I.N BTCAMP STUDY AREA 1. Brookhaven National Lab NORICIA E5. BAY 2. Grumman Aerospace, 3. Heatherwood a Calverton OCEAN 4. Riverhead Town �tC 5. Sag Harbor V-Illege Aja AN 6. Shelter Island Heights Association 7. East Hampton Scavenger Wastes 8. Plum Island Animal Disease Center 9. Manor a Montauk 10. Rough Riders 9 Montauk FIGURE 6.1-2 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE STUDY AREA NO SCALE SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES P8H - 11/91 since the two wastewater facilities in Riverhead have a combined outfall. Of the 10 discharge points, six discharge directly to surface waters. The Grumman outfall flows into Swan Pond which is part of a tributary located in the west/central portion of the River, while Brookhaven National Laboratories discharges near'the Peconic River Headwaters. The Riverhead STP (including the Riverhead/Southampton Scavenger Waste Facility effluent) discharges to the tidal section of Peconic River/Flanders Bay. The other three STPs with surface water outfalls are Sag Harbor Village, Shelter Island Heights, and Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Heatherwood at Calverton has a groundwater discharge in the vicinity of the western Peconic River. Two of the other three groundwater discharges are in Montauk, while the last groundwater -discharging STP, East Hampton Scavenger Waste Facility, is located near the edge of the groundwater divide. In additional to sewage treatment plant discharges, there are five active industrial operations in the study area; 17 industrial operations are inactive with recently expired or soon to be discontinued SPDES permits in the Peconic system. Duck farms, historic point sources of nutrient - laden effluent, have also curtailed operations in the Peconic system. One remaining duck farm that reportedly no longer discharges processing waste to surface water is still in operation. In addition, nine operating or closed landfills have been identified as possible point sources of contamination. It is clear that the contribution of point source loading of nitrogen in the Peconic system has declined in the past decade and a half, due mainly to the cessation of direct duck farm discharge to Meetinghouse Creek. Nutrient loadings developed for the 208 Plan in 1976 showed loading from the three major point sources in the Peconic system, the Peconic River, Riverhead STP, and Meetinghouse• Creek, to be approximately 290 pounds. per day of phosphorus and 1,240 pounds per day of nitrogen. Recent phosphorus and nitrogen loading data for the same sources indicates that the phosphorus loading is approximately 75 pounds per day and the nitrogen loading is approximately 630 pounds per day for 1988 through 1990. Loading from other minor point sources in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system, such as creeks and the Broad Cove Duck Farm, also decreased from approximately 202 pounds in 1976 to 44 pounds in 1988 through 1990. The decrease in nitrogen loading between 1976 and 1988 in Meetinghouse Creek (61% decrease) and the Peconic River (32% decrease) was not observed in the Riverhead STP, which had a minor increase in loading due to slightly higher nitrogen concentrations. It should be noted that actual historical decreases in pollution to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay are certainly much more dramatic than observed between 1976 and 1990, since most of. the duck farms which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out of business by 1976. In addition, a laundry facility which discharged to the Peconic River had gone out of business by 1976; data regarding additional, direct commercial and industrial'discharges to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system prior to the SPDES permit program is scarce. Duck farming activity is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.4, and water quality impacts associated with duck farm discharges are analyzed in Section 7. 6-10 Point source loading comparisons are presented in Figures 6.1-3 (phosphorus) and 6.1-4 (nitrogen) as well as in Table 6.1-1. The Pollutant loading trends in Flanders Bay is of particular importance in light of the severity of the adverse environmental impacts which the Bay has suffered. As discussed in Section 3, the residence time of Flanders Bay is in excess of 56 days, which can cause accumulations of nutrients that significantly contribute to water quality degradation and eutrophication in this area. The data summarized in Figure 6.1-3 and Table 6.1-1 show that, although the point source loading reductions of nitrogen are dramatic, the point source loading of nitrogen remains above the nitrogen budget guideline developed for the 208 Plan. In the Peconic River, nitrate -nitrogen and organic -nitrogen are roughly equal constituents of the total nitrogen loading from the River. In contrast, the Meetinghouse Creek and the Riverhead STP nitrogen loading is primarily in the form of ammonia -nitrogen. Concentrations of nitrogen constituents for the major point sources which contribute to Flanders Bay is contained in Figure 6.1- 5. The principal sources of nitrogen loading in the Peconic River are considered to be from groundwater contributions and, to a lesser extent, two point source contributions (Grumman and BNL STPs). Other major point sources in the Flanders B ay system are the Riverhead STP and Meetinghouse Creek, which is related to a wastewater input. The major overall reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Peconic system from point sources appears to be the result of the cessation of duck farm discharges. Other point source inputs into the Peconic system, such as landfills and industrial discharges, have been shown to have adverselyimp acted groundwater and surface water ecosystems. An example of such an impact is the Rowe Industries site, which has generated a plume of organic chemical contamination which has reached its discharge boundary along Sag Harbor Cove. An additional example is the North Sea Landfill, which has generated a plume of contamination that has reached the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system at Fish Cove. For the most part, however, the investigation of the impacts of landfills and industrial discharges to date has been relatively local in nature and system -wide impacts resulting from these sources have not been detected. 6.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Review of data regarding sewage treatment plants (STPs) located in the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic Rivei/Peconic-Flanders Bays system was performed for the purpose of assessing the quality and quantity of STP effluent discharging directly via surface water discharge and indirectly via groundwater discharge to the surface waters of the system. General .information regarding the sewage treatment plants in the study area is contained in Table 6.1-2; a location map of the facilities was previously presented in Figure 6.1-2. 6-11 FIGURE 6.1-3 - Point Source Phosphorus Loading Peconic River/Flanders Bay Areas 230 . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 210 . . . . . . ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 .................. . ..................................... 170 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ----------- ------------------- b130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 120 - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d 110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a Y100 ------- ........... ...................................... 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... .................... 60 . . . . . . . . . ... . 50 .... . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 30 . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ............ . ............................. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 ... ... . ..... PECONIC RIVER MEETINGHOUSE CREEK RIVERHEAD STP OTHER SOURCES *LEGEND* o, . w FIGURE 6.1-4 - Point Source Nitrogen Loading Peconic River/Flanders Bay Areas 950 -- ------ 900--------- 850--------- 800--------- 750--------- 700--------- 650 •---•--- 600 - - - - - - - -- b 550 --------- / 500 - - - -- - - - d 450 - - - - - - - - - a y 400 --------- 350 - - - - - - - -- 300 - - - - - - -- 250 - - - - - - - -- 200 - - - -- 150 - 100 - 50 0 PECONIC RIVER *LEGEND* MEETINGHOUSE CREEK RIVERHEAD STP OTHER SOURCES TABLE 6.1-1 Point Source Nutrient Concentrations and Loadings 1976 vs. 1988-1990 * TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS Average Average Number of Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Avg Flow Samples (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) (5/88-3/90) 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90 PECONIC RIVER GAUGE 68 1.0 0.5 0.16 0.11 23.3 32.1 MEETINGHOUSE CREEK** 127 53.0 15.0 13.0 1.2 2.1 2.9 RIVERHEAD STP 68 19.0 23.0 5.1 3.0 0.7 0.7 ^ TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS `- Number of Samples (5/88-3/90) PECONIC RIV. GAUGE 68 MEETINGHOUSE CREEK** 127 RIVERHEAD STP 68 OTHER SOURCES *** 7 TOTAL LOADING **** Average Total Nitrogen (lb/day) 1976 1988-90 190 130. 930 360 120 140 200 44 1440 680 Average Total Phosphorus (lb/day) 1976 1988-90 31 30 230 28 31 17 63 8 350 80 Avg Flow (mgd) _ 1976 1988-90 23.3 32.1 'i 2.1 2.9 _ 0.7 0.7 ^ NOTES * 1976 data limited to three sampling dates in July, August, and September as noted in 1976 Tetra -Tech Water Quality Modeling Report. **- 4.5 cfs assumed for Meetinghouse. Creek based on limited flow data. Only low tide samples used for Meetinghouse Creek; 1976 estimates of 930 pounds per day is higher than estimates of 600 pounds per day as contained in LI 208 Section G., p. 61. Current Meetinghouse Creek sampling as reflected in this table began on April, 1987. *** Includes Terry's Creek, Sawmill Creek, Little River, White Brook, .Birch Creek, Mill Creek, Hubbard Creek, and Broad Cove Duck Farm. **** Minor arithmetic deviations in total loadings as the sum of individual loads are due to round -off of presented intermediate numbers. ^ As'of September 1991, Riverhead -STP flow has been estimated to be 0.7 mgd pending verification of recalibrated flow measurement device. 6-14 rn Ln 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 b 550 / 500 d 450 a y 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 FIGURE 6,1-5 - Comparative Nitrogen Constituent Loading * LEGEND * 1976 88-90 1976 88-90 1976 88-90 Peconic River Meetinghouse Creek Riverhead STP NAME OF SCDHS FACILITY # LOCATION Brookhaven 46 National Lab. 31 Brookhaven Permit #NY -0005835 Sequencing Grumman Aerospace 45 Swan Pond Permit #NY -0025453 Road O1 Permit #NY -0021814 i Calverton Riverhead Town 46 Permit #NY -0020061 filter Riverhead/Southampton 46 Scavenger Wastes Denitrification Permit #NY -0020061 Sequencing Shelter Island 47 Heights Assn. (July, 1988) O1 Permit #NY -0021814 i Aerated Lagoon Plum Island Animal 49 Disease Center Aeration Permit #NY -0008117 Extended. Heatherwood at 76 Calverton Denitrification Permit #NY -0080616 oxidation ditch Sag Harbor Village 105 Permit #NY -0028908 Denitrification Manor at Montauk 126 Permit #NY -0195944, plant Rough Riders at 127 Montauk denitrification Permit #NY -0195995 TABLE 6.1-2 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 1989 AVG. FLOW DESIGN FLOW (mgd) (mgd) 0.825 - 1.8 (outfall 1) * NA 0.068 (outfall 1) * Riverhead 0.7 ** Town Riverhead 0.04 Town Shelter Island 0.03 Plum Island '0.081 52A Wooded Way 0.027 Calverton Sag Harbor 0.057 Edgemere Rd. 0.006 Montauk (2 months) Flamingo Ave. not Montauk recorded East Hampton 129 Springs- 0.022 Scavenger Wastes Fireplace Rd. Permit #NY -0199079 Abrahams Path TYPE PROCESS Primary Settling/ Sand Filler Extended Aeration 1.3 Trickling filter 0.086 RBD's/ Denitrification --- Sequencing Batch Reactor (July, 1988) 0.148 Aerated Lagoon 0.068 Extended Aeration 0.15 Extended. Aeration 0.03 Denitrification oxidation ditch plant 0.032 Denitrification oxidation ditch plant 0.03 RBD's/ denitrification TYPE DISCHARGE/ OUTFALL LOCATION Surface waters-Peconic River ,(outfall 1) and Groundwater (outfalls 2-7) Surface waters -McKay Lake (man-made) to Swan Pond to Peconic River (outfall 1-3); Ground- water (outfalls 4-8) Surface waters Peconic River Riverhead STP Chlorine Contact Tank Surface waters -Shelter Island Sound Surface waters -Atlantic Ocean via harbor Groundwater Surface waters - Sag Harbor Bay Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater * All other outfalls consist of stormwater runoff and non -contact cooling water. Sanitary waste from Grumman outfall 1 has no SPDES permit limit. ** The Riverhead STP actually reported flow as 1.06 mgd, but recently revised this figure when it discovered defective flow measurement. The information derived from the STP assessment was collected as part of an extensive characterization of pollutant sources to the surface waters for use in the overall analysis and modeling of pollutant loading to these waters. Monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) required under the SPDES program were evaluated in summarizing discharge conditions. In addition, results of periodic SCDHS samples and inspections were collected as a supplement to the DMR data. Six wastewater treatment facilities discharge effluent directly to Peconic system surface waters. The most significant STP discharges in terms of volume of effluent discharged to surface waters of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay areas in 1989 were Riverhead STP (0.7 mgd), Brookhaven National Labs (0.82 mgd), and Grumman (0.058 mgd). The Riverhead STP effluent is combined with the scavenger waste facility effluent during chlorination prior to discharge. The scavenger treatment process contributed about 0.04 mgd_ of the total flow. In the 1988-1989 period, the Grumman STP was in compliance with SPDES permit conditions in all but one month while Brookhaven National Laboratories reported one radioactivity violation, one coliform violation, one suspended solids non-compliance, and a few iron, chlorine and pH noncompliances with SPDES effluent requirements. During the preparation of BTCAMP, the Riverhead facility was under a NYSDEC-stipulated moratorium forbidding new connections due to an inability to consistently meet SPDES effluent limitations for BOD, suspended solids, and coliform bacteria levels. Subsequent process improvements including a $10,000 upgrade of the trickling filter system and the installation of additional chlorination tankage which were effected to..remediate these deficiencies. In terms of surface water STP nitrogen loadings, the combined Riverhead STP/scavenger waste facility contributes 82% of the total direct discharge of nitrogen to Peconic system surface waters (see Table 6.1-3 for a comparison of surface water nitrogen loadings from STPs in the Peconic system). On the basis of nitrogen loadings and flow volumes, it is clear that the combined Riverhead discharge is the major surface water STP discharge into the Peconic system. It should be noted that this section is primarily intended to serve as a qualitative characterization of sewage treatment and disposal in the study area. Quantitative estimates regarding the Riverhead STP as it relates to the other major point sources which discharge to Flanders Bay, including Meetinghouse Creek and the Peconic River, are contained in Sections 6.1.3. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from the Riverhead facility to surface waters provide a major source of these nutrients to the western end of the system. There are, no nitrogen or, phosphorus limits normally placed on marine surface water dischargers like the Riverhead STP; effluent monitoring for nitrogen and phosphorus is not required by NYSDEC for surface water - discharging facilities in the study area. Samples taken for the Riverhead STP between January 1988 and December 1990 indicate that the scavenger waste treatment facility has not been removing 6-17 Table 6.1-3 Comparison of Surface Water Sewage Treatment Plant Nitrogen Loadings in the Peconic System Name of Avg. % of Total Nitrogen Loading Avg. TKN Avg. NO3N Avg. NH3N- Reporting Facility Flow (MGD)1 to the Peconic System 2 (lbs/per day) (lbs/per day) (lbs/per day) riod Brookhaven 0.70 14.0 2.8 21.6 0.58 7/31/89 & National Lab .11/13/89 Grumman 0.035 3.0 3.5 1.6 3.5 9/6/89 Aerospace Riverhead 0.7 - '82.0 123.0 7.6 106.0 /14/88- 6/14/88- 11/29/89 11/29/89 CO Shelter Island 0.019 <1 0.6 0.7_ N/A 9/28/88 - Heights 11/21/89 Plum Island 0.06 N/A N/A. N/A N/A N/A Sag Harbor 0.05 1.5 0.79 8.1 0.04 9/7/89 - Village 11/29/89 Total 2.0 - 130.0 40.0 110.0 - Discharge 1) Average flow taken from 1987 and 1988 SPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports 2) Totals do not add up to 100% due to rounding nitrogen from its process stream to the expected design specifications of 10 mg/l. In general, however, nitrogen concentrations in the combined effluent in this time period outfall appeared to be in the same general range of 20 to 25 mg/1 historically measured by SCDHS sampling efforts. The five other STP's which discharge to surface waters are BNL, Grumman, Sag Harbor Village, Shelter Island Heights, and Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Sag Harbor Village (0.057 mgd) experienced intermittent violations for flow, coliform bacteria, and suspended solids discharge levels. Shelter Island Heights (0.029 mgd), while experiencing problems in operations in 1987, has improved plant processes with the installation of a new sequencing batch reactor treatment process. The process stream of 0.081 mgd at the Plum Island facility is remote enough to be considered a minor influence on the Peconic system. Of the four groundwater -discharging sewage treatment plants, only Heatherwood at Calverton is in close proximity to surface waters in the western part of the Peconic River -Flanders Bay area. The Heatherwood plant, discharging 0.027 mgd, had three violations of suspended solids and two of BOD limits over the 1987-1989 period. Although the Heatherwood plant does not currently utilize a denitrification process because its average discharge is less than 30,000 gpd, the need for upgrading of the facility to accommodate denitrification will be assessed on the basis of an evaluation of groundwater quality data obtained from wells being installed on-site. The Manor at Montauk and Rough Riders at Montauk, both of which utilize an oxidation ditch denitrification process, experienced occasional nitrogen violations to SPDES permit requirements. However, the combined design flow of 0.062 mgd for these facilities is higher than the actual flow, which appears to be an insignificant volume with respect to pollutant. loading to the overall Peconic Bays system. Finally, the East Hampton Scavenger Waste facility (0.022 mgd) had some excessive nitrogen and coliform levels in its effluent prior to May 1988. However, the distance from this facility to the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system precludes the likelihood of any extensive affect on these surface waters. Sludge from the STP's in the study area is disposed of at Bergen Point or is ultimately landfilled. Only the East Hampton Scavenger Waste facility, which handles sludge from Manor at Montauk and Rough Riders at Montauk, disposes of sludge within the study area, at the East Hampton Landfill. Tables 6.1-4, 6.1-5 and 6.1-6 present operating data from the 10 discharging STPs in the system and the number of times the SPDES permit values were violated for 1987, 1988, and 1989, respectively. Data for these years provides the foundation for the following discussion, except where more recent data is specifically noted. 6-19 TABLE 6.1-4 STP DMR OPERATING DATA 1,2 EFF EFF FECAL TOTAL NAME OF SCDHS # DMR'S FLOW EFF SOLIDS BOD COLIFORM TOTAL CHLORINE NITROGEN NH3-N NO3-N FACILITY # EVALUATED (MGD) PH (ma 1) 1Wl) (MPN/100m11 COLIFORM (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) _(mg/1) Brookhaven Nat'l 31 10 .070 6.0-6.5 -- -- 485 2620 --- --- 2.0 --- Laboratory 1.8 5.8-9.0 2000 10000 --- Permit # 0 0 0 1 NY -005835 Grumman Aerosp. 45 11 .035 6.8-7.4 7 7 12 --- --- --= --- --- Permit # --- 6.0-9.5 30 .30 200 NY -0025453 --,- 0 0 0. 0 Riverhead Town 46 15 0.7* 6.9-7.6 33 44 40 --- 1.4 --- --- Permit # 1.3 6.0-9.0 40 40 200 700 2.0 NY -0020061 --- 0 3 7 4 --- 0 Shelter Island 47 15 .0073 5.6-6.6 152 127 -- --- --- --- --- --- .Heights Assoc. .03 6.0-8.5 30 30 Permit #0021814 0 7 11 12 Plum Island 49 4 .06 6.3-7.6 5 7 -- --- 1.0 --- --- --- Animal Disease Ctr. .148 6.0-9.0 30 30 2.0 Permit #0008117 0 0 0 0 0 Heatherwood at 76 14 .030 6.9-7.1 22.1 18 -- --- --- --- --- --- Calverton .068 6.5-8.5 -30 30 N Permit #NY -0080616 0 0 2 2 0 Sag Harbor Vill. 105 16 .05 7.2-7.7 14**, 6 160 120 --- --- --- --- Permit #NY -0028908 .15 6.0-9.0 30 30 200 700 0 0 0 0 1 0 Manor at Montauk 126 11 -- -- -- -- -- --- --- 17.2 9.2 5.2 Permit #NY -0195944 .03 10 -- 7 Rough Riders at, 127 5 -- -- -- -- -- --- - 9.4 0.9 7.5 Montauk .032 10 Permit #NY -0195995 -- 2. East Hampton 129 111 .016 6.1-7.5 21 25 >2400 --- --- 23.8 -- -- " Scavenger Wastes .03 6.0-9.0 30 30 200 10 Permit # NY -0199079 0 2 2 1 10 10 1. Data presented as: - average effluent value - SPDES permit limitation - number of violations 2. Data collected from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's January 1987 - July 1988) prepared by facilities pursuant to SPDES permits requirements. * The Riverhead STP actually reported flow as 1.06 mgd, but recently revised this figure when it discovered defective flow measurement. ** Settleable solids limitation exceeded seven times (Avg. = 1.1 ml/1; limit 0.03 ml/1) 1 TABLE 6.1-5 I 1 I I 1988 Sewage Treatment Plant SPDES Permit Violations , I I 1 <--------------------------------- SPDES Permit Violations - Facility Name ISCDHSI Flow I Nitrogen) BOD I -1 Sus. SollSett. Sol Fec Col I INo. i (mgd) i (mg/1) i (mg/1) (mg/1) i (mg/1)lmpn/100 ml I ---------------------------- 1Brookhaven National Lab. I ----- 131-- I ---------- I --------- I --------- I --------- ----------------- I I I #NY -0005835 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------------- IGrumman Aerospace I ----- 145 I I ---------- I -- -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- -- I I I -- -- I -- -- #NY -0025453 I I I I I I I 1----=----------------------- 1Riverhead Town 1---=-1--------- 146 -I--------- I -- -- I -- I -- I --------- Jan I 44 1 --------- Jan 46 ------------------ I I 1 -- -- 1 Aug >2400 1 #NY -0020061 I I I I Apr 43 I I I Sep 24000 I I I I I May 82 I I I Oct 700 Jun 76 I I I Dec 5500 I I I I I Jul I I I I I Aug 122 I I I I I I I I Sep 90 I I I I I I I I Oct 70 I I I I I I I I Dec 63 I I I ---------------------------- I-----1---------- 'IShelter Island Hghts. Assn. 1 47 I---=-----1- 1 Jul 0.0401 -- -- 1 -------- Mar I 113 1 --------- Jan 57 I -------- 1---------- 1 -- -- 1 May 1600 )I #NY -0021814 I I Aug 0.0411 I Apr 97 1 Mar 168 1 1 Jun 1600 'I I I Sep 0.0321 I Dec* 6 1 Aug 46 I 1 Aug 2400 I 1 1 1 1 *. (crbncs) 1 I I Dec 220 ---------------------------- II 1Plum Isl. Animal Disease ----- Ctrl 49 I----------I---------I---------1---------I--------1---------- I -- -- I -- -- I -- -- I -- -- I -- -- I Sep 230 1 #NY -0008117 I I I I I I I I---------------------------- 1Heatherwood at Calverton I-----1---------- 1 76 I I -- -- I -- I -- I -- I I Dec, 31-- I I I #NY -0080616 I I I I I I I ISagg Harbor Village ----- I*** ---------- I -- -- I --------- -- -- I --------- -- -- I --------- -- -- ------------------ I Mar 0.51 Jul 920 I.#NY-0028908 I I I I I I I Dec 1200 IManor at Montauk I*** I----------1--=------1---------I---------I--------1---------- 1 -- -- 1 May 17.61 -- -- I -- -- I -- -- I -- -- I #NY -0195944 I I I Sep 17.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dec 14.21 1 1 1 ---------------------------- IRough Riders at Montauk I I -----I 1*** I I ---------- 1 -- -- 1 Mar I 13.21 -- I -- 1 -- -- I I 1 -- -- 1 -- -- I #NY -0195995 I I I May 23.61 1 1 1 I I I I Jun 34.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aug -18.71 I I I I I I I Dec 12.61 1 1 1 I---------------------------- 1E. Hampton Scay. Wastes I-----I----------1---------I---------1---------I--------I---------- 1*** 1 Aug 0.0331 Feb 29.01 Mar 80 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Jan 2400 1 #NY -0199079 I I I Mar 27.01 Apr 175 1 I I Mar 1600 I I 1 Apr 20".01 May 200 1 I I Apr 2400 Tot Col mpn/100 ml Jan 3100 Apr .1925 Jul 4870 Aug >2400 Sep 13200 Oct 14700 Nov 920 May 1600 Jun 1600 Aug 2400 Dec 2400 Jul 2400 Oct 1200 Dec 1600' Chlorine (mg/1) Mar 0 2 Jul 0.1 Sep 0.1 Oct 0.1 May . 2 Sep 0 01 Oct 0. 01 --------> H (SU) May 5 6 Sep 5.7 Jun 5. 81 Aug 5. 81 Sep 5. 81 Oct 6. 01 Dec 6.31 --------I Jul 6.01 Aug 5.81 SeOct 6.01 Nov 6.21 Dec 6.31 rn i N N Facility Name Brookhaven National Lab. #NY -0005835 - ----------------------------II Grumman Aerospace #NY -0025453 ---------------------------- Riverhead Town #NY -0020061 Shelter Island Hghts. Assn. #NY -0021814 ---------------------------- Plum Isl. Animal Disease Ctr #NY -0008117 -------------------------- Heatherwood at Calverton --#NY_0080616 ---------------- Sagg Harbor Village --#NY-0028908 -------------------- Manor at Montauk #NY -0195944 ---------------------------- Rough Riders at Montauk #NY -0195995 II E Hampton Scay. Wastes I #NY -0199079 I Browr 7 CDHS o---1 31 III 45 -11, 46 •47-- •49-- •76-- .05 •26-- 127-- 129 Tide Compr .989 Sewage <---------- Flow l -- (mgd) I I ----------j -- - -I II TABI ehensive A Treatment Nitroenl (mg/Y) _ I III I I - !I I I Jan 19 11 Feb 24.81 Mar 33.01 Apr 15.51 Jun 13.31 Jul 21.01 Aug 19.71 l Sep 15.91 l Nov 11.811 I ----Jan 14 .7 Feb 15.0 Mar 19.6' Apr 12.6 May 26.0 Jun 25.0 Jul 13.3 jSe 24.2 24.2 I Oct 23.4 1 Nov 25.4 Feb 11.5 E 6.1-6 .ssessment Plant SPDE -- (BOD I Feb 180 I I Jun 35 I May .34 Sep 67 Jun 30 1 and Manage S Permit I -- SPDES E Sus. Soll (mg/1) - -I Sep 14.0 Jan 55 Apr 40 anent Proc 'iolation: 'ermit Vic Sett. Sol -- `mg/1) Sep 0.51 I I I I Jun 0. 51 Aug 0 41 'ram ,lations Fec Co. mpn/100 i Mar 16 Aug 4 Sep 16. Nov 7 Sep 24 Jan 12 Apr -_12 Tot Col mpn/100 ml' Jan 1600 Mar 1600 Apr 1600 May 1600 Jun 1500 Aug 2400 Sep 2400 Jan 900 Sep 24000 Jan 2400 Apr --2400 Chlorin) --`mg/1) Feb 0.09 Mar .006 May 0.1 -------> H (SU) Apr 5.5 May 5.4 -- -- Apr 6.3 Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL) Brookhaven National laboratory (BNL) was established in 1946, less than a year after the formation of Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI), a group of nine northeast universities which manage BNL under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. BNL carries out basic and applied research in the physical, biomedical and environmental sciences and in selected energy technologies on its 5,265 acre Upton site, the location of a former army training site for both World Wars. The physical plant contains about 300 buildings and other structures, and the facility employs: about 3,200 people. More information regarding conditions, operations, and pollution at BNL is contained in Sections 6.1.2, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and Appendix K (update). The SPDES permit for BNL specifies seven outfalls, only one of which is for the effluent from the STP. The STP discharges to surface waters near the headwaters of the Peconic, while the other six SPDES-permitted discharges are to groundwater. Sanitary effluent averaged 0.82 mgd in 1989 with a maximum SPDES limit of 1.8 mgd. Five of the other outfalls are noncontact cooling water with a total SPDES discharge limit of 5.01 mgd, with the final discharge consisting of water, treatment backwash which is limited to 0.007 mgd. Primary treatment of the sanitary waste stream to remove suspended solids is provided by a 950,000 liter clarifier. The liquid effluent flows from the clarifier onto sand filter beds (secondary treatment), from which about 83% of the water is recovered by an underlying tile field. This recovered water is then released into a small stream that formerly contributed to the headwaters of the Peconic River. In recent years, virtually all water -released to this channel has recharged to groundwater prior to reaching the site boundary. The balance, about 17%, was assumed to percolate to groundwater under the beds or evaporate. In the period of 1987 to 1988, SPDES permit violations for pH, chlorine, and coliform occurred. In addition, one violation of the 3.0 PCl/L Radium 226 limit was recorded. In 1987, one violation of total colifonn levels was noted in the monthly reports, while two SCDHS samples of the STP effluent also showed elevated coliform levels. In addition, violations of the Radium 226 limit of 3 PCl/1 occurred when an effluent level of 4.1 PCl/1 occurred in April, 1987. Effluent chlorine levels were,lower than specified in the SPDES permit for four months in 1988. These low chlorine levels are probably not serious as coliform levels were acceptable in 1988. Effluent pH was also lower than required for two months in 1988. In addition, chlorine and pH in the plant's discharge stream were in non-compliance with SPDES permit conditions in four months in 1989, with only one other permit violation (suspended solids) occurring in another month of that year. - 6-23 Table 6.1-7 presents additional effluent data for BNL and Grumman Aerospace. These two STPs are monitored for a variety of parameters not common to other STPs that handle primarily domestic wastewater. SCDHS samples of BNL STP effluent obtained in July and November, 1989, showed effluent nitrogen levels to be in the range of 2.7 to 5.3 mg/l. Based on these nitrogen concentrations and an average flow of 0.82 mgd on the sampling dates, the STP currently discharges approximately 27 pounds of nitrogen per day to the Peconic River. This discharge rate is relatively unchanged from 1976 conditions, where nitrogen was also discharged at 25 pounds per day (average of 3.1 mg/l, 0.95 mgd based on three sampling dates). Grumman Aerospace The Grumman Aerospace facility at Calverton is predominantly a Navy -owned facility operated by Grumman. At this site the final assembly, functional ground testing and flight testing of all of the aircraft manufactured or modified in Grumman's Long Island facilities is performed. The facility has been in operation since 1955 and, as of 1982, employed approximately 2,250 people. The facility is approximately 3,000 acres in size. Additional information regarding environmental pollution at Grumman is contained in Sections 6.1.2, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and Appendix L (update). The Grumman Calverton sanitary sewage treatment plant (STP) discharges to surface waters leading to the Peconic River. In 1989, when the average flow for the STP was approximately 58,000 gpd, there was one violation of SPDES permit conditions of BOD recorded. Industrial waste that is produced at Grumman Aerospace is pretreated prior to discharge. There are eight outfalls at Grumman that discharge to either surface water or groundwater. Three outfalls discharge to a man-made lake which feeds Swan Pond and, ultimately, the Peconic River. One outfall is from the extended aeration sanitary STP and averaged 0.036 mgd in 1988, while other outfalls consist of noncontact cooling water and stormwater runoff and have no flow limitations. One outfall has an oil and grease limitation, while another outfall is a collection of 16 small outlying septic facilities not connected to the main sanitary waste system. These four latter outfalls discharge to groundwater. No violations of Grumman's SPDES conditions were found in a search of SCDHS files. A commmutor malfunction was noted in a July 1987 SCDHS inspection of the STP. One SCDHS sample of Grumman STP effluent obtained in July, 1989, showed effluent. nitrogen levels to be approximately 18 mg/1..Based on this nitrogen concentration and an average flow of 0.058 mgd on the sampling date, the STP currently discharges approximately 8 pounds of nitrogen per day to the Peconic River. This discharge rate is significantly lower than 1976 conditions, where nitrogen was discharged at 72 pounds per day (average of 32 mg/l, 0.27 mgd based on three sampling dates). 6-24 TABLE 6.1-7 BROWN TIDE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1 ADDITIONAL DMR MONITORING DATA NAME OF FACILITY SCDHS 8 COPPER IRON LEAD SILVER ZINC RADIUM 226 STRONTIUM 90 TRITIUM Brookhaven Nat'l. 31 .07 .21 <.13 ND .07 2.4 6.5 10 3.63 — Laboratories 4 6 .75 .05 3 3 1 0 Permit #NY -005835 0 0 0 0 0 SCDHS CHROMIUM (hexaualent) CHROMIUM (total) IRON LEAD SILVER ZINC PHENOL OIL/GREASE A CYANIDE FLUORIDE CADMIUM' i< N Grumman Aerospace 45 <.1 <.5 <.1 <iO3 (.3 (.8 1 <. 3 <.0 .3 •.3 <. 1 --- 1 . Permit #NY -0025453 .4 1.5 0.3 .05 1.0 0 0 .00 0 .055 0 0 0 --- 0 0 0 0 1. Data represents: average value/SPDES permit limitation/ number of violations (1/87-7/88). All values in mg/1, except radium 226 (PCI/1), strontium 90 (PCI/1), tritium (NCI/L), and phenol (ug/1). Riverhead STP The Riverhead Town STP provides some treatment for the effluent of the Riverhead/Southampton scavenger waste treatment system, which is regulated under the same SPDES permit as the STP. The scavenger waste system effluent is combined with the STP effluent in the chlorine contact tank for disinfection just prior to a common discharge. Together, the STP and the scavenger waste facility discharge effluent at an average rate of 0.7 mgd as reported by the Town of Riverhead engineering consultant as of September, 1991. (Note: In the spring of 1991 the Riverhead STP discovered that its flow measurement was defective, and that actual flow is currently approximately 0.7 mgd rather than the 1.06 mgd which was previously reported.) The scavenger waste treatment plant contributes an average of approximately 0.04 mgd to the effluent stream_in 1989. At the Riverhead STP a bar screen followed by a gravity grit collector removes a percentage of the larger or heavier solids in the influent wastewater. Primary clarifiers are followed by trickling filters for removal of some solids and a large percentage of the ,biochemical oxygen demand components of the wastewater. Following the trickling filters are the final clarifiers which discharge to the chlorine contact tank. In the chlorine contact tank, effluent from the Riverhead STP and the Riverhead/Southampton Scavenger Waste Facility are combined and disinfected before discharging to the Peconic system. The scavenger waste facility employs a different treatment process than the Riverhead STP. Large solids are removed by a bar screen and grit :collector. Flow is equalized before being chemically treated and -flocculated to enhance solids and some BOD removal in the primary clarifier. Banks of rotating biological disks remove additional BOD and solids. After the final clarifier the process employs a denitrification filter that uses methanol before sending the effluent to the Riverhead STP chlorine contact tanks. Both facilities employ gravity sludge thickening followed by anaerobic digestion. Sludge is then dried and landfilled. The Riverhead Town STP has historically been plagued with monthly violations of total suspended solids, BOD, and coliform. In all, the plant exceeded SPDES permit limitations for BOD and/or solids in 14 months in the 1987-1988 period while maximum allowable coliform levels were surpassed in 12 separate months. Effluent BOD levels were as high as 122 mg/1 in August, 1988. Plant non-compliance with SPDES permit conditions prompted a NYSDEC moratorium on new hook-ups to the system pending the resolution of the operating difficulties. To remedy the SPDES non -compliances, the Town's new consulting firm implemented process modifications which include recycling the waste stream through the trickling filter for increased BOD and solids removal. The consultant has reported that, as a result of the process modifications, effluent BOD and solids have been below limits specified in the SPDES permit. In addition, monthly discharge monitoring reports for 1989 indicated only one settleable solids 6-26 violation, although several coliform non -compliances were reported. However, in the spring of 1991, Riverhead STP implemented measures, including process optimization and the installation of additional chlorine contact tanks to improve disinfection, which are examples of positive efforts to - control pollution to the Peconic system. Future upgrade -and expansion of the STP were originally planned to occur by July 1992; in 1990, the Town's consultant estimated ,that accommodating significant expansion in the Riverhead STP's service area to include new developments (e.g.-, western portion of Route 58 corridor) could increase future flow to the facility to a level of 2 to 3 mgd. A more moderate expansion plan was subsequently proposed; currently, the recalibration of flow measuring device has obviated the need for any immediate expansion (in terns of flow) of the plant's capacity. The status of the facility's SPDES permit, and the need for -additional treatment, in terms of nutrient removal, is discussed in detail in Section 7. Since the Riverhead STP discharges to a surface water, no nitrogen limitation on plant effluent was imposed. However, the Town's engineering consultant has been monitoring the scavenger waste effluent prior to its combination with the treated STP waste.stream. The results of the sampling conducted between January, 1988 and January, 1989 show effluent TKN (ammonia and organic nitrogen) levels of up to 32.4 mg/1 with nitrate concentrations as high as 59.5 mg/l. In this time frame, in which final denitrification (nitrate -nitrogen removal) was generally not occurring at design levels due to problems with the operation of the denitrification filters, ten of thirteen months exceeded 10 mg/1 nitrate. Elevated (>10 mg/1) ammonia concentrations were also encountered in four months as alkalinity control problems generally led to an ineffective conversion of ammonia to nitrate in the January, 1988 through January, 1989 time period. The Town's new consultant has reported that process optimization has resulted, in improved performance of the denitrification filters. However, total nitrogen in scavenger waste treatment plant effluent was still greater than 10 mg/l for much of the time period of February, 1989 through December, 1990. Even though these nitrogen concentrations often exceeded 10 mg/l, it should be noted that, based on 1990 figures -supplied by the Town engineering consultant (see infra Table 6.1- 9b), the scavenger waste facility total nitrogen loading (7 lb/day: 0.04mgd at 22mg/1) was only approximately 5 per cent of the combined outfall total nitrogen loading. Additional sampling of the combined outfall has been done on a weekly basis by.the SCDHS between June and July of 1988 and between December, 1988 to the present time (December, 1990 results available at time of report preparation). In this time period, nitrate -nitrogen levels are, with minor exceptions, consistently at or below approximately 2 mg/1 while TK,N (ammonia -nitrogen plus organic -nitrogen) and ammonia -nitrogen -are above 15 mg/l. Total dissolved phosphorus concentrations were generally in -the range of 2 to 3 mg/1, with total phosphorus concentrations at slightly higher levels. Both SCDHS data and information supplied by the engineering consultant for CI] the Town STP show that 1990 total nitrogen discharge levels are still generally in the historical range of greater than or equal to 20 mg/1 total nitrogen. - Occasional samples of both the scavenger waste outfall prior to chlorination and the combined outfall have also been taken by the SCDHS. Results from these sampling events are available for June of 1987, May and October of 1988, and March of 1989. For the combined outfall, TKN values were again greater than 15 mg/1 with significantly lower nitrate -nitrogen concentrations of generally less than 2.5 mg/1. On five of six events, the scavenger waste outfall nitrate -nitrogen ranged from - 16-33 mg/1, with TKN registering between 3.7 and 8.0 mg/1 except for March 15 ,and 22, 1989, when TKN was as high as 28 mg/l. Scavenger waste effluent nitrate -nitrogen in March ranged from 6.5 to 24 mg/1, considerably higher than the monthly level of less than 0.13 mg/1 reported by the Town consultant. - On June 22, 1987, the scavenger waste effluent combined nitrate -nitrogen and ammonia -nitrogen concentration was about 2.3 mg/1. For comparison purposes, Table 6.1-8 presents the nitrogen loading attributable to the Riverhead STP and the contribution from the scavenger waste facility for four months in 1989 when the denitrification filter was reported to have been optimized. SCDHS sampling data for the Riverhead STP for 1990 is presented on Table 6.1-9a; additional SCDHS sampling data dating back . to June, 1988 is contained in Appendix G. Data on the the combined' STP effluent and on the Riverhead/Southampton Scavenger Waste Facility effluent waste stream for the time period 1988 through 1990 is presented on Table 6.1-9b. Riverhead STP nitrogen loading is further discussed in i f Section 6.1.3 ("Major Point Sources"), and the facility's coliform. loading is examined in Section 6.4 --' ("Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Sununary" ). Shelter Island Heights Association The Shelter Island Heights STP operated utilizing primary settling until its conversion to a sequencing batch reactor system by July 1988. The average 1989 flow was reported to be 0.029 mgd.' The facility discharges to the surface waters of Shelter Island Sound. j In 1987, effluent BOD and total suspended solids concentrations exceeded SPDES permit limits every month. Several violations of coliform and settleable solids also occurred. Since the start-up of the new sequencing batch reactor treatment system, SPDES-regulated parameters which have exceeded allowable SPDES permit limitations in 1988 have been flow (July, August, and September), suspended solids (46' mg/l in August), and coliform (August and December). In 1989, the plant discharge was in violation -for three months for -BOD and suspended solids concentrations. Preliminary data indicate that the plant has generally been successful in removing total nitrogen to near or below a level of 1O.mg/l. However, the low effluent nitrogen concentrations may largely be attributable to relatively low influent concentrations of nitrogen (12 to 29 mg/1). Table 6.1-10 i presents 1988 and 1989 data for this STP. - 6-28 r 1 Monthly averages 2 STP data includes contribution from scavenger waste facility Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Note:- Actual STP loadings (lb/day) are about two-thirds of reported values due to defective flow measurement at the -time of reporting. Table 6.1-8 Riverhead STP Point Source Effluent Nitrogen Datal Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant2 Month Flow TKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N 1989 mgd mg/.1 ##/d mg/1 ##/d mg/1 ##/d mg/1 February 1.02 22.1 188 20.1 171 .07 0.6 0.3 2.6 March 1.05 22.6 198 21.5 188 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.9 April 1.09 21.4 195 20.9 190 0.13 1.2 <0.01 <0.9 May 1.12 19.8 185. 20.2 189 0.09 0.8 1.4 13.1 Riverhead - Southampton Scavenger Waste Facility N ' Month Flow TKN NH3-N NO2-N, NO3-N 1989 med mg/1 #/d mg/l ##/d m�/1 ##/d mg/1 February 0.019 9.1 1.4 1.3 0.21 0.02 <0.1 0.09 <0.1 March 0.025 12.7 2.6 10.4 2.37 0.01 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 April 0.035 14.0 4.11 8.4 2.5 1.15 0.3 <0.01 <0.1 May 0.046 .7.6 2.9 4.0 1.5 1.04 0.4 .1.92 0.7 1 Monthly averages 2 STP data includes contribution from scavenger waste facility Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Note:- Actual STP loadings (lb/day) are about two-thirds of reported values due to defective flow measurement at the -time of reporting. Note: Reported flow is incorrect due to facility's defective flow measurement. Actual flow is approximately 0.7 mgd. TABLE 6.1-9A " SCDH.S Riverhead STP Combined Effluent -Sampling Data 1990 Date Time Temp Tot Flow Inst. TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N' NO3-N T..Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. TSS (Deg. C) Prev. 24 -Hr Flow PO4-P (NPN/100 ml.) (mg/1) mgd) (mgd) <-------------------- =--(mg/1) ------------------------- > 1/2 1220 7.0 0.9'45 1.425 23.0 21.0 18.0 0.096 0.8 2.26 2.97 160,000 30,000 --- 1/8 1050 11.0 1:020 1.550_ 25.0 20.0 16.0 0.052 0.8- 2-.79 3.09 20 20 --- 1/16 1305 13.0 0.989 1•.350 •26.0 25.0 21.0 0.063 0.2 2.91 3.17 >160,000 160,000 --- 1/24 1.320 13.0 1,066 1.400, 28.-0 26.0 23.0 0,069 0.'2 2.60 3.10 >160,000 11,000 --- 1/30 ,1330 11.0 1.259 1.300 23.0 20_.0 17.0 0.082 0•.8' 1.94 2.52 >160,000 160,000 --- 2/8 1320 13-.0 1.116 1.400 26.0 23.0 20.0 0.045 <0.2 2.69 3.29 110,000• 4,3.00 --- 2/14, 1245 14.0 1.089 1.325 24.0 21.0 1.9.0 0..125 0.3 2.35. 2.58 >160,000 30,000 --- 2/20 .1230 12.0 1.030 1.300 18.0 19.0 19.0 0:115 0.5 0.59 0.735 >160,000 13,000 --- 2/28 1320 11.0 1.079 1.300 27.0 26.0 22.0 0.080 0.3 2.67• 3.13 >160,000 160,000 --- 317 -0930 --- 1.043 1.250 22A 20:.0 17.0 0.203 '1.'0 2.18 3.01 > 16,000 > 16,000 --- CD 3/13 1229 13.0 1._073 1.400 26.0 24:0 22.0 0.285 2.1 2.69 2.94' >160,000 13,000 --- 3/21 1232 14.0 1.071 1.300 22.0 22.0 20.0 0.331 2.0 2.45 2.69 90,000 50,000 --- 3/26 1145 14.0 0.941 1.325 24.0 22':0 19.0 0.143 0.6 2.58 2.96 2160;000 2160,000- 4/5 1320 13.0 1.242 1.356 21.0 19.0 16.0 0.181 1.7 2.08. 2.35 --- --- --- " 4/11 1140 14.0 1..220 1.400 20.0 19.0 17.0 0.088 0.6 2.47 2.77 160,000 50,000 --- 4/18 0940 15.0 1.14'5 1.375- 18.0 16.0 15.0 0:52 2.4. 2.80 2.70 -2160,000 2160,000 --- 4/26 1010 16.0 1.094 1.450 27.0 26.0 22.0 0.061 1.1 3.22 3.58 160,000 5,000 --- ,5/4 1110 17.0 1.059 1.500' 26.0 23:0 19.0 0.186 1.9 2.87 3.36 >160,000 160,000 --- 5/9 1155 19.0 1.064 1.450 26.0 24.0 22.0 0.744 4..4 3.02 .3.51 >160;000 90,000 --- 5/17 1110 18.0 1.166 1.475. 17.0 15.0, 15.0. 0.108 3.2 2.25 2.55 >160,0.00 2,400 --- 5/24 1345 18.0• 1-.066 1.325- 24.0 23.0 22..0 0.221 2.2 3.26 3.7 5,000 5,000 --- 5/30 1150 19.0 1.244 1.400 20.0 18.0 15.0 0.260 3.0 2.05 2.51' 700 230 --- Note: Reported flow is incorrect due to facility's defective flow measurement. Actual flow is approximately 0.7 mgd. TABLE 6.1-9A (cont..) Date Time Temp Tot Flow Inst. TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N - NO3-N T. Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. TSS (Deg.`C) Prev. 24 -Hr Flow PO4-P (MPN/100 ml) (mg/1) (mgd) (mgd) < ------------------------ (mg/1) ------------------------ > 6/6 1320 20.0 1.031 1.350 26.0 24.0 18.0 0.224 2.5 2.86 3.32 160,000 13,000 --- 6/14 1400 23.0 1.039 1.270 --- --- 19.0 0.176 1.7 2.99 3.43 50,000 5,000 --- 6/21 1300 23.0 1.089 1.400 25.0 24.0 21.0 --- --- .2.79 3.69 --- --- --- 6/29 0755 24.0 1.090 1.100 20.0 19.0 15.0 0.242 0.8 2.85 3.11 30,000 1,300 --- 7/23 1145 26.0 0.951 1.500 23.0 23.0 24.0 0.138 1.2 2.83 3.09 30,000 2,300 --- 8/8 1245 .25.0. 1.117 1.40 25.0 23.0 22.0 0.073 0.9 3.43 4.06 160,000 24,000 --- 8/16 1320 25.0 1.06 1.60 25.0 23.0 22.0 0.079. 1.0 .3.22 3.61 17,000 2,300 --- 9/5 1340 24.0 1.05 1.30 24.0 23.0 20.0 0.093 1.0 3.34 3.66 160,000 17,000 --- 9/12 0920 24.0 1.04 1.20-'- 22.0. 20:0 19.0 0.070 1.3 3.02 3.40 160,000 30,000 --- .' 9/18 1225 22.0 0.99 1.25 26.0 24.0 21.0 0.031 1.1 3.08 3.52 3,000 500 --- . 9/24 1155 20.0 0.88 1.25 27.0 26.0 20.0 0.218 1.9 3.55 3.54 >160,000 160,.000-- 10/1 1115 21:0 0.86 .1.45 22.0 20.0 17.0 0.228 4.8 3.36 3.67 >160,000 _90,.000 --- 10/9 1010 21.0 1.00 1.20 25.0 23.0: 18.0 0.064 0.8 3.40 3.79 >160,000 24,000 10/15 1230 23.0 '0.926 1.30 26.0 25.0 20.0 0.113 0.8 3.60 4.03 --- --- 10/22 1210 20.0 0.797 0.50 25.0 24.0 20.0 0.117 0.8 3.40 3.79 >160,000 50,000 --- 11/1 0800 18.0 0.980 1.15 26.0 26.0 21.0 0.281 1.4 5.11 5.04 >160,000 24,000 --- 11/5 0900 19.0 0.811 1.25 26.0 24.0 18.0 0.120 0.8 4.83 6'.25 >160,000 50,000 36.0 11/13 0830 16.0• 0.833 1.10 22.0 21.0 17.0 0.614 1.7 2.79 3.30 >160,000 24,000 6.0 11/19 0900 15.0 0.840 1.20 24..0 --- 18.0 0.133 1.4 --- 3.81 50,000 13,000 19.0 11/26 1010 15.0 0.8139 1.25 21.0 --- 20.0 0.359 1.5 --- 3.13 50,000 30;000 23.0 12/4 1400. 14.0 0.971 1.33 22.0 --- 20.0 0.066 0.3 --- 3.14 2160,000 160,000 4.0 12/10 1055 13.0 0.828 1.28 26.0 --- 20.0 1.149 2.8 --- 4.02 160,000 13,000 30.0 12/18 1230 13.0 0.918 1.40 26.0 --- 21.0 0.127 0.9 --- 4.57 2160,000- 24,000 40.0 12/27 1240 13.0 0.942 1.45 22.0 --- 20.0 0.120 1.1 --- 3.30 2160,000 160,000 28.0 Table 6.1-9b 1990 COMBINED EFFLUENT SUMMARY DATA RIVERHEAD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT RIVERHEAD SOUTHAMPTON SCAVENGER WASTE PLANT 1990 FLOW mgd BOD mg/I TSS mg/1 TKN mg/I NH3-N mg/I NO3-N mg/I NO2-N mg/I TOTAL -N mg/I JANUARY 1.063. 23.5 32.3 21.3 18.3. 0.6 0.12 22.0 FEBRUARY 1.072 22.6 19.4. 21.4. 18.8 1 0.16, 22.8 MARCH 1.051 18.7 15.3 21.7 19.2 1.5 0.28 23.5 APRIL 1.11 14.41 18.9 18.91 16.4 1.5 0.35 20.8 MAY 1.072 19.2 1.7:8 19.1 17.8 1.5 0.33 21.5 JUNE 1.049 11.7 18.1 22 18.2 1.5 0.31 23.8 JULY 1.076 12. 19.7 19.3 16.61 1.3 0.19 20.8 AUGUST 1.081 11.5 13.7 19.8 17.5 1.4 0.151 21.4 SEPTEMBER 0.987 9.3 , 16.5 23.4 20.1 1.6 0.12 25.1 OCTOBER 0978 7.2 20.5 22.7 20.4 1.1 0.13 23.9 NOVEMBER 0.931 14.4 15.1 24.6 20.6 0.8 0.35 25.8 DECEMBER 0.933 18.3' 24.1 22.3 19.5 0.75 0.44 23.5 11,990AVERAGES: 1.034. 15.2 19.3 21.4 18.6 1.2 0.24 22.9 1990 EFFLUENT SUMMARY DATA RIVERHEAD SOUTHAMPTON SCAVENGER WASTEPLANT Note: Actual combined STP effluent flow is about two-thirds of reported values due to defective flow measurement at time of reporting. Source:..Malcolm Pirnie,-Inc. 6-32 FLOW mgd . TOTAL BOD mgA -TSS mg/1 " TKN mg/I INH3-N mg/I NO3_ -N mg/I NO2-N mg/I TOTAL N - mg/1 JANUARY 0.0253' 34 .46 33.3 28.8 15.6 0.5 49.4 FEBRUARY 0.0194 18 32 22.0 20.0 17.6 2.2 41.8 MARCH 0.0319 24 10 5.4 3.8 28.0 5.41 38.8 APRIL 0.0309 22 25 3.0 1.1 14.1 3.9 21.0 MAY 0.0432 42 69 5.1 2.6' 4.5 1.8 11.4 JUNE 0.0500 11 5 11.1 10.0 2.8 0.4 '14.2 JULY 0.0574 8 13 7.3 12.1 5.2 0.2 12.8 AUGUST 0.0572 14 17 8.5 7.3 6.9 0.2 15:6 SEPTEMBER 0.0438 5 4 6.2 4.8 12.0 0.3 18.5 OCTOBER 0.0269 19 26 7.0 6.6 6.7 1.3 15.0 NOVEMBER 0.0270 16 22 7.61 7.4 6.3' 0.6 14.5 DECEMBER 0.0274 11 13 8.0 8.2 6.7 0.5 15.2 1990 AVERAGES: 0.037 19 23 10.4 9.4 10.5 1.4. 22.3 Note: Actual combined STP effluent flow is about two-thirds of reported values due to defective flow measurement at time of reporting. Source:..Malcolm Pirnie,-Inc. 6-32 TABLE 6.1-9B (cont.) Riverhead Sewer District and Riverhead - Southampton Scavenger District Effluent Nitrogen Data Scavenger Facility Month Flow TKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N 1989 gpd <---------- all data is in mg/i---------- > February 19,400 9.1 1.3 0.2 0.09 March 24,500 12.7 10.4 0.01 0.02 April 34,800, 14.0 8.4 1.15 <0.01 May 46,400 7.6 4.0 1.04 1.92 Month Flow <---------- Monthly Averages, mg/l------- > 1989 mgd Org N NH3-N NO3-N NO2-N June 0.063 5.6 4.4 1.9 A.-2 July 0.058 4.8 2.9 2.3.9 0.3 August 0.057 3.6 3.7 5.9 .0.7 September 0.040 5.2 3.4 0.6 0.2 October 0.041 2.8 8.1 0.15 0.07 November 0.034 5.0 11.4 0.72 1.35 December 0.028 10.0 38.3 10.9 0.77 Source: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 6-33 1 7 days of .sampling 1 17 days,of sampling * Source: H2M Table 6.1-9B (cont.) RIVERHEAD SCAVENGER WASTE FACILITY SUMMARY OF DATA* Influent Avg. (Location 2) 48.5 Flow BOD5 - Date (GPD) MEL - 1/88 22,00'0 2363 2/88 22,000 3625 3/88 29,000 4160 m4/88 37,800 5400 w x'5/88 47,000 4250 6/88, 49,250 4198 7/88 $8,323 3408 8/88 63,000 2018- 9/881 46,000 1703 10/882 40,000 1449 11/88 29,300 2326 12/88 '29,500 15815 1/89 N/A .2900 1 7 days of .sampling 1 17 days,of sampling * Source: H2M Table 6.1-9B (cont.) RIVERHEAD SCAVENGER WASTE FACILITY SUMMARY OF DATA* Influent 48.3. (Location 2) 48.5 68.5 Total Ammonia S.S Nitrogen (NH3) mg/l mg/l mg//l 1745 104- 57.5 3295 164 74.3 3042 140 53.0 5723 156 76.5 3210 .69.3 32.-3- 2734 97.3 40.0 3280 146.0 66.5 4400 111.4 47.4 2622 106.2 47.7 3.87 115..1 47.0 2188 222 80.0 2093 145 58.0 2540 98 34.0 Denite Influent Location' 7 - Nitrate Ammonia BOD5 (NO3) (NH3) mg/l m9/1 mg/l Nitrate Ammonia Effluent (Location 8) Nitrogen (NO3) ' 48.3. 34.3 48.5 68.5 0.76 62.0, 30.5 1.8 35.,0 23.8- 3.4 47.0 16.8 1.9 100.4 21:02 1.3 24.1 46.8 0.98 23.0 45.0 2.7 28.6 42.0 1.8 60.5 44.6 10.2 41.0 56.0 13.4 Nitrate Ammonia Effluent (Location 8) Nitrogen (NO3) ' - (NH3) TKN mg/l mg/1 mg/l 10.1 17.8 12.3 27.4 20.4 26.5 45.2= 28.8 32.4 59.5 2.1 5.'5 22.0 2.6 4.4 17.7 4.8 7.0 7.1 4.4 8.6 15.0 3.0 5.7 47'.2 . 1.6 4.0 45.0 1.0 3.3 27:6 1.4 6.6 5.4 7.6 '19.0 0.3 10.0 19.0 (N) mg/l lbs/c 22.4 4.] 53.9 9.9 77.6 18.F 65.0 ` 20.5 26.4 10.' 11.8 4.F 15.7 7.E 20.7 10.9 51.3 19.7 48.3 16.] 34.0 8.3 24.0 5.9 19.0 N/7 Table 6.1-10 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Shelter Island Heights STP Data DATE <-------- Influent (mg/1)---------> <------- Effluent (mg/1)-------=> " BOD -5 TSS TKN NO3-N Total N BOD -5 TSS TKN NO3-N Total N 9/28/88 i 140 160 13 0.5 13.5 I 5 -9 4.2 1.9 6.1 11/16/88 I 94 56 25 <0.5 25 I 1.3 <4 1.4 8.6 10 1/4/89 I 100 55 21 <0.5 21 I 1 <4 1.8 2.5 4.3 2/7/89 I I 280 135 29 <0.5 29 I I 8.7 <5 2.2 8.9. 11.1 cn L 3/8/89 I 110 69 19 0.65 20 I 2.2 <5 1.6 8.5 10.1 4/3/89 I 67 60 17 0.6 18 I 7.2 4 1.6 4.9 6.5 5/11/89 I I 120, 180 11 0.8 12 I 4.3 <5 2 2.7 4.7 6/26/89 I 150 54 13 0.7 14 I 67 <4 3.2- 2.2 5.4 7/7/89 260_ --- --- --- --- I 2.3 --- --- --- --- 7/24/89 I 145 130 20 <0.3 20 I 4.2 10. 7.2 1 8.2 9/7/89 I I 230 310 16 <0.5 16 I 1 23 12- <0.5 12 9/25/89 I I 72 110 21 <0.5 21 I I 5.3 13 20 <0.5 20 11/21/89 I I 50 81 20 <0.5 20- I 2.5 4 1 5 6 Sag Harbor Village Discharging to Sag Harbor Bay, the Sag Harbor Village STP uses an extended aeration treatment process. The average 1989 flow was 0.057 gpd. The plant had one reported coliform violation in 1987. The STP also reported various violations for four months in 1988 including suspended solids (March), and coliforms (July, October, December)..In addition, coliform (January, April) and settleable solids (August) were hon -compliances reported for three months in 1989. Available effluent data for 1990 for this STP is presented on Table 6.141; additional data is contained in Appendix G. Plum Island Animal Disease Center The Plum Island Animal Disease Center STP discharged approximately 0.081 mgd to surface waters in 1989. The treatment system consists of primary settling. In the 1987-1988' period, the plant effluent exceeded allowable coliform levels in September, 1988 (230 mpn) and had chlorine levels below permitted standards in September and October of the same year. Meanwhile, in 1989, BOD non -compliances were reported in May and September, with SPDES violations of coliform occurring in January and September. Heatherwood at Calverton The Heatherwood at Calverton extended aeration STP had an average effluent flow of 0.027 mgd in 1989. The system discharges to groundwater... The plant was in violation of SPDES permit conditions, with respect to suspended solids and BOD twice in 1987. Suspended solids were'also over the permitted limit once in 1988, while settleable solids and BOD non -compliances were each reported once in 1989. Four SCDHS samples in 1987 showed one violation of SPDES suspended solids limits. In the winter and spring of 1988, SCDHS inspection reports revealed that effluent was overflowing from leaching pools onto the surface of the ground." The plant also had comminutor problems, and was cited for a need for vents. Because'the average effluent flow is less than 30,000 gpd, denitrification for the Heatherwood at Calverton STP has been temporarily waived. However, three monitoring wells (one upgradient, and two downgradient) are being installed at the facility to determine whether groundwater, degradation has occurred as a result of the STP discharge. The sampling results from these wells will be evaluated to determine whether denitrification requirements will be imposed in the facility's renewed SPDES permit. Manor at Montauk The Manor at Montauk groundwater -discharging facility in Montauk is designed for 0.03 mgd. Flow figures have not been reported due to flowmeter difficulties. Effluent nitrogen 6-36 f- TABLE 6.1-11 Sag Harbor STP Weir Outlet Sampling Data 1990 Date, Time Temp. Tot.Flow Inst.Flow TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N T. Dis. T.PO47P T. Coli. F. Coli. TSS (Deg.C) (MGD) (MGD) PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) (mg/1) <-------------------------- (mg/1)---------------------- > 1/2 1100 10.0 0.016 0.030 3.4 2.3 <0.1 <0.002 12.0 2.41 2.58 20 20 --- 1/8 0915 10.0 0.022 <0.005 4.0 2.8 <0.1 <0.002 15.0 2.95 3.20 900 50 --- 1/16 1115 9.0 0.022 0.025 4.0 3.0 0.3 <0.002 18.0 2.63 2..76 < 20 < 20 --- 1/24 1055 10.0 0.045 0.025 6.8 5.7 2.4 0.009 16.0 2.55 2.86 4 < 2 --- 1/30 1145 10.0 0.059 0.090 4.2 2.3 <0.1 <0.002 9.7 2.10 2.44 50 30 --- 2/8 1000 10.0 0.040 0.025 3.5 2.0 <0.1 <0.002 12.0 1.90 2.28 9 < 3 --- 2/14 1010 11.0 0.047 0.075 2.9 1.2 <0.1 <0.002 11.0 2.06 2.12 4 < 2 --- 2/20 0845 11.0 0.039 0.025 6.9 6.1 3.9 0.005 3.9 0.567 0.793 4 4 --- 2/28 1140 11.0 0.033 0.020 3.6 2.6 0.1 <0.002 14.0 1.77 2:29 2 < 2 --- °1 3/7 0745 10.0 0.034 0.015 2.6 2.6 0.1 <0.002 8.8 1.64 1.78 240 50 --- w V 3/13 1014 11.5 0.041 0.050 7.4 6.2 2.6 0.006 4.0 2.05 2.45 4 2 --- 3/21 0950 12.5 0.041 0.050 6.8 5.9 3.7 0.038 4.7 2.06 2.81 < 2 < 2 -=- 3/26 1005 12.0 0.048 <0.001 12.0 11.0 8.5 0.253 1.2 1.72 2.03 Z 1,600 Z 1,600 --- 4/5 1140 12.0 0.010 0.075 4.1 2.9 1.1 0.007 12.0 2.44 2.96 4, < 2 --- 4/11 1000 12.0 0.044 0.050 6.5 6.1 2.3 0.006 8.4 3.0 3.33 23 S --- 4/18 0815 13.0 0.047 0.065 2.3 1.4 <0.1 <0.002 17.0 3.95 3.79 < 2 < 2 --- 4/26 0830 13.0 0.053 0.045 6.6 -4.3 <0.1 0.003 15.5 3.61 4.08 < 20 < 20 --- 5/4 0900 16.0 0.056 0.075 8'.5 7.4 _ 2.8 0.017 4.1 2.67 3.0 13 8 --- 5/9 0930 17.0 0.042 0.060 10.0 8.2 6.6 --- --- 2.95 3.36 30 4 --- 5/17 0845• 17.0 0.050 0.075 2.4 1.6 <0.1 <0.002 10.0 3.32 3.5 < 2 < 2 --- 5/24 1200 17.0 0.061 0.050 4.2 4.1 2.0 0:071 10.0 2.78 2.58 < 2 < 2 --- 5/30, 0815 18.0 0.071 0.075 18.0 17.0 14.0- 0.068 1.2 2.50 2.57 4 < .2 --- Date Time Temp. (Deg. C) 6/6 1200 19.0 6/14 1000 6/21 0930 6/29 1225 -8/'8 1110 8/16 1125 9/5 1120 9/12 1115 9/18 1005 9/.24 0925 rn w 10/1 0935 00 10/9 -1335 10/15 ---- 10/2'2 1035 11/1 .1050 11/5 1150 11/13 1200, 11/19 1140 11%26 1215 12/4 1135 12110 1400 12/18' 1035 12/27 1050 22.0 22.. 0 23.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 21.0 22.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 18.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13:0 12.0 11.0 (TABLE. 6.1-11 (Coat.) Tot.Flovv' Inst.Flow TKN DEIN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N T. Dis. T..PO4-P T. Coli F. Coli TSS. (MGD) (MGD) PO4-P (mpn/100,ml) (mg/1) <-------------------------- .(mg/1)-------------------------- > 0.063 0.060 20.0 18.0 16.0 0.122 1.7 2.88 3.17 < 2 < 2 --- 0.067 0.070 20.0 16.0 16.0 0.171 0.2 2.825 3.189 80 8 --- 0.083, 0.075 6.2 4.4 2.1 --- --- 3.76 4.08 < .2 < 2 --- 0.070 0.0- 9.4 6.5 2.5 0.256 18.0 4.96 4.98 80 < 2 --- 0.074 0.110' 18.0 16.0 13.0 0.203 28.0 4.29 4.63 50 23 --- 0.068 0.125 20.0 18.0 16.0 0.065 5.4 4.86 4.31 80 23 --- 0.061 0.040 17.0 16.0 14.0 0.147 3.6 4.77 4.72 < 20 < 20 --- 0.054 0.075 5.35 4.62 3.2 <0.002 20.0 4.62 4.68 < 20 < 20 --- 0.053 0.080 3.2 1.9 <0.1 -0.002 21.0 3.67 4.23 < 20 < 20 --- 0.053 0.065 4.3 2.0 <0.1 <0.002 11.0 3.33 3.80 < 20 < 20 --- 0.051 0.050 12.0 12.0 10.0 0.052 0.3 3.83 4.12 20 20 --- 0.056 0.060 - 7.7 5.3 2.8 .0.014 3.5 2.59 3.07 20 < 20 --- 0.061 0.050 5.6 5.4 2'.3 0.009 3.4 2.86 3.07. > 1,600 > 1,600 --- 0.027 0.060 3.0 1.9 <0.1 <.002 7.2 2.68 3.00 < 20 < 20 --- 0.058 0.040 3.3 2.5 <0.1 <.002 12.0 3.20 3.68 < 20 < 20 --- 0.059 0.075 5.1 4.1 1.2 .006 6.6 3.16 3.28 40 20 --- 0.093 0.080 2.7 2.3 <0.1 <.002 11.0 1.90 2.14 <_ 20 < 20 --- --- --- 3.6 --- <0.1 <.002 13.0 --- 2.22. < 20 <. 20 --- 0.016 0.120 5.6 --- 1.2 <.002 8.2 --- 2.13 < 20 < 20 6.0 0.074 0.100 2.4 --- <.1 <.002 15.0 --- 2.38 < 20 < 20 2.0 0.065 0.080 4.7 --- <.1 <.002 17.0 --- 2.93 < 20 < 20 20.0 0.058 0.075 2.5 --- <.1 <.002 15.,0 --- 2.35 < 20 < 20 13.0 0.053 0.080 2.9 --- <.1 <.002 18.0 --- 2.78 < 20 < 20 17.0 concentrations ranged from 14.2 to 17.6 mg/1 on May, September, and December, 1988. In 1989, all nine monthly nitrogen reports in SCDHS files exceeded the SPDES limit of 10 mg/l. Values reported for effluent pH in 1988 were frequently below levels specified by the facility's permit. Rough Riders at Montauk The Rough Riders at Montauk oxidation -ditch treatment process in Montauk, designed for 0.062 mgd, did not report flow due to flowmeter problems. The oxidation ditch treatment process was only sporadically effective in removing nitrogen from the seasonally -fluctuating flow in 1988, with five monthly reports between March and December showing effluent nitrogen levels of greater than 10 mg/1: Meanwhile, all eleven monthly reports filed in 1989 were in non-compliance with SPDES limits because of excessive effluent nitrogen concentrations. Values reported for effluent pH in 1988 were frequently below levels specified by the facilities' SPDES permit. East Hampton Scavenger Waste The denitrification filters for the groundwater -discharging East Hampton Scavenger Waste facility started up in September, 1987. The operation of the facility in 1987. resulted in numerous monthly coliform and nitrogen violations of SPDES permit conditions. According to SCDHS records of monthly STP reports, however,, excessive coliform and nitrogen levels ceased after April, 1988, except for one nitrogen concentration of 11.5 mg/1 in February, 1989. The average plant flow through the plant in 1989 was 0.022 mgd, and the discharge point is near the southerly edge of the groundwater divide a relatively great distance away. from the Peconic Bays system. 6.1.2 Industrial/Commercial Discharges The two largest active industrial discharges to the Peconic system are Brookhaven National Laboratory and Grumman Aerospace; the most recent available environmental data regarding these facilities is contained in Appendices K and L. Numerous other active and inactive discharges are also discussed in this section of the report. Brookhaven National Laboratory (Source: Miltenberger et al., 1988, etc.) Brookhaven National Laboratory discharges industrial noncontact cooling water and waste treatment backwash into the groundwaters within the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic system. Whether from point source discharge, atmospheric transport and deposition, or runoff across the grounds of the laboratory site, radionuclides have been found in,the waters of the Peconic River. As has been shown, tritium, strontium 90 and radium 226 have been tested for, and in the case of radium 226, the STP effluent has exceeded permit limits for the radioactive material. The April 1987 Draft Peconic River Study Report prepared by NYSDEC discusses radionuclide data measured in the Peconic River by BNL. The conclusion of the discussion states that all measured 6-39 concentrations were below applicable standards for radionuclides. and that the measured levels decrease the further away from the .outfallmonitoring occurs. Elevated gross beta and tritium concentrations have been found on-site adjacent to the STP sand filter beds and the Peconic River. The observed levels are attributed to water losses from the the collection field underlying the sand filter beds and the recharge of the Peconic River in these areas. In 1987, on-site gross beta and tritium concentrations were 27% and 19%, respectively, of the New York State regulations. Adjacent to the Peconic River at the site boundary, the annual average gross beta concentration was 3% and the annual average tritium concentration was 20% of the New York State regulations. Additionally, at a surveillance well, downstream of the previous locations, the annual average gross beta concentration was 10% and the average tritium concentrations were 7% of New York State Standards, thereby indicating dispersion of radionuclides down the River from BNL. J . Based upon concern regarding radioactive contamination of the Peconic River, radionuclide measurements were performed by Brookhaven National Lab on surface water samples collected from the Peconic River at several locations. The Peconic River sampling stations are identified in Figure 6.1-6. Sampling points include HM, the location of the former site boundary approximately 225 meters downstream of the discharge point; Ht, location approximately 10 km downstream from the discharge point; HC, located approximately 11 km downstream from the discharge. point; HW, located approximately 18 km downstream from the discharge point; HR located 21 km downstream from the discharge point, and the Station HH, a control station located on the Carmens River, which I is not influenced by BNL liquid effluent. No samples. were collected at the site boundary weir because there was no flow leaving the BNL site. The data indicates that there has been no I measurable flow at the site boundary since 1983 and no measurable flow (volume too small) at Station HM since 1984. Since 1985, water levels at Station HQ have been below the conduit which a transports water from the BNL site to -the weir at Station HQ. The gross. alpha, beta, tritium, and strontium -90 data indicate that only gross beta, tritium, and strontium -90 are present above ambient levels in BNL effluent waters at Station HM. Gamma spectroscopy results indicate that cesium -137, due to weapon test fallout, and naturally occurring, potassium -40 were detectable at off-site, stations., Several other environmental problems which may be related to point source discharge have been identified at Brookhaven National Laboratory. By analyzing samples taken from 100 monitoring wells placed around the Lab site, BNL has detected several regions of contaminated groundwater, that contain small amounts of radioactivity or chemicals. The most significant location was discovered in 1984: a plume of chemicals located in the southeast quadrant of the Lab traveling a southerly direction. Because -of the levels and location, in 1986 BNL began a program to clean up the water before it traveled beyond the site boundary. 1 6-40 li FIGURE 6.1-6 O LAKE 1 PANAMOKA • DONAHUE'S 11 p �1i POND PECONIC I RIVER \ N. TRIBUTARY ® TSWAN POND 1 RIDGE I ; WARTIST 1. CRANBERRY LAKE I BOGS ORVILLE I ® HM �� 1 BNL HQ CARMANS RIVER i 1 SHIRLEY \ I T- _ MORICHES 1 RIVE i — MUSSEL HR / BEDS PECONIC LAKE i / O 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS - BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY Peconic River Sampling Stations Source: "1987 Environmental Monitoring Report," R.P. Miltenberger, B.A. Royce, and J.R. Naidu, Editors, Brookhaven National Laboratory Safety and Environmental Protection Division, April 1988. Tritium, a radioactive isotope .of hydrogen, has also been detected in the groundwater in the eastern and southeastern portions of the Lab. BNL is watching the movement and concentration of tritium to deterniine what, if any, cleanup is required. Water samples taken from monitoring wells at the boundaries of BNL show that radiation and chemical concentrations are well -within all guidelines. The tritium comes primarily from the Lab's two landfills. In the Lab's early years, limited amounts of low-level radioactive waste were permitted to be disposed of in the landfills. BNL stopped that practice in 1977. In the case of the chemicals, most of the pollution has been caused by commonly -used degreasing agents such as trichloroethane and trichloroethylene. It is suspected that the organic plume that BNL is cleaning up comes from use of these solvents during earlier periods when their disposal was not regulated. More information regarding the chemical plume of contamination is contained in Section 6.2.4. Additional information regarding environmental pollution at Brookhaven National Laboratory is contained in Section 6.1.1, 6.2.4,'6.2.5 and Appendix K (update). Grumman Aerospace Coro. (Source: Dvirka and Bardlucci, 1982) Of the industrial wastes produced at the Grumman facility, the majority consist of noncontact cooling water and process wastes that cannot be recycled. These wastewaters are treated before dischargeto surface and groundwater. As a result of production activities, quantities of waste are produced which are defined as hazardous under the USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and NYSDEC Part 360 Solid'and Hazardous Waste Law. There are two -operations at the facility which are involved in hazardous waste collection, treatment and storage. These operations include the collection and treatment. of rinse water which may be a hazardous waste due to chromium contamination and the storage of drums containing hazardous waste. The industrial wastewaters produced at Grumman are predominantly the result of aircraft paint stripping and cleanup and contain, chromium and phenol from the paint and organic solvents from the stripping and cleaning operation. Chromium concentrations can periodically exceed the 5.0 mg/l maximum concentration limit of the EP Toxicity test; therefore, the wastewater is identified as a hazardous waste. The industrial wastewater from various stripping and cleaning operations connected with the Paint Shop is pumped into two tanks located north of the Paint,Shop. These tanks can hold the industrial wastewater for collection by tank truck or the wastewater can bepumped directly to the Industrial Waste Treatment Facility (IWTF) receiving tank. Wastewater is also produced in the Delivery and Preparation (Del. Prep.) building where a touch-up painting and paint stripping operation was set up. The industrial wastewater from this operation is collected in transfer tanks. 642 The wastewater is then transferred to the IWTF by tank truck or is pumped through a temporary aboveground force main directly to the IWTF receiving tank. The industrial wastewater in the receiving tank is then pumped into one of four fiberglass waste treatment tanks for oxidation of phenols and synthetic organics and the reduction and precipitation of chromium. Each of the treatment tanks has a capacity of 6000 gallons and is set up for treatment in a batch mode. The industrial sludge from this process are transported to the Grumman, Bethpage facility where it is dewatered by vacuum filter at the industrial waste treatment facility. The dewatered sludge is disposed of along with the Bethpage facilities' sludge in a secure landfill. The treated wastewater is then discharged to an on-site sanitary sewerage system. The industrial waste treatment facility and associated collection system treats only on-site waste and is presently operating under a New York State SPDES Permit. Additional information regarding conditions, operations and environmental pollution at Grumman is contained in Section 6.1.1, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and Appendix L (update). Other Active Industrial Discharge's In addition to the above two facilities, five facilities in the Peconic system presently have SPDES discharge permits. These facilities are presented on Table 6.1-12. All discharges are to groundwater except for Additive Products which can discharge to ground or surface waters. No monitoring is required for the LILCO Riverhead Operating Center (sanitary, drains and noncontact cooling water), and the Southampton Town Police Garage has not been discharging from its permitted oil -water separator. Discharge from the Suffolk Agway results from a semiannual boiler blow down, while the New York State DOT is permitted for discharge of 750 gpd for an oil -water separator and 1650 gpd for sanitary waste. Additive Products Division on West Lane in Aquebogue, located near the northern edge of the groundwater divide, is the only active industrial discharge, other than Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory, in the study area. This facility produces printed circuit boards as part of site operations. Additive Products conducts on-site reclamation of trichloroethane and methylene chloride, and trucks treated industrial process effluent to the Greenport sewage treatment plant (which discharges to Long Island Sound). In 1988, the average process flow was reported to be 11,800 gpd, just below the SPDES limit of 12,000 gpd of process wastes. Meanwhile, the facility is permitted for 0.9 mgd of cooling water, a limitation which was frequently violated with an average cooling water flow of over 1.1 mgd..NYSDEC and SCDHS samples of the Additive Products sanitary pool have shown high levels of trichloroethane, while SCDHS sampling has also shown significant levels of toluene, dichloroethane, and methylene chloride. Recently, organic chemical rIMIK Table 6.1-12 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Active Industrial SPDES permits in Study Area Facility Name (SPDES #: Exp. Date) Discharge* Location Comments Additive Products Div.** SW/GW West Lane Printed circuit board mfg. Treated process effluent to (#NY4075957; 2/1/89) Aquebogue Greenport STP. On-site reclamation of trichloroethane and methylene chloride. Limits: process wastes -12,000 gpd; cooling=0.9 mgd; sanitary -6000 gpd. 1988 avg. flow: process -11,800 gpd; cooling -1.16 mgd (violation). 12/87 NYSDEC sanitary sample showed 1500 ug/l trichloroethane. 8/87 SCDHS sanitary pool sample showed 1600 ug/l trichloroethane, 810 ug/l toluene, 360 ug/l dichloroethane, 66 ug/1 methylene chloride. LILCO Riverhead_Op. -Ctr. GW N/W Side Sanitary; roof/floor drains, noncontact cooling water. (#NY -0108880; 12/1/93) Doctor's Limits: 2725 gpd (sanitary) and 1500 gpd (cooling water). Path/Middle Rd. No monitoring required. Biocides, slimicides, etc. Riverhead forbidden. New York State DOT GW CR 58 Oil/water separator; flood drains and steam cleaning. (#NY -0137495; —) SCTM: Limits: 750 gpd, 15 mg/l o/g, 100 ug/l hydrocarbons. 600-2-118-4 Sanitary waste limit: 1650 gpd. No DMR's in SCDHS file. Riverhead Southampton Police Garage, GW 110 Old Oil/water separator; no discharge since July, 1989. (#NY -0206156; —) Riverhead Rd. Limits: 25 gpm, 15 mg/l o/g, 50 ug/l toluene/xylene. Hampton Bays Sanitary flow limit: 90 gpd. No DMR's in SCDHS file. Suffolk Agway Corp. Inc. — 1093 Pulaski St. Boiler blow down semiannually. No DMR's in SCDHS file. (#NY -0110400; 11/1/90) Riverhead Limit 15.0 gpd and 8.5 pH on occurrence. *SW = surface water; GW = groundwater **SPDES process water limits: 150 Ib/day COD, .25 lb/day Cr, 1.5 lb/day Cu, 100 ug/l dichloroethane, 11.3 lb/day fluoride, 1.28 lb/day Fe, 0.65 lb/day pB, .49 lb/day Ni, 8.5 max pH, 17 lb/day SS, .15 day Sn, 100 ug/l trichloroethylene. contamination allegedly resulting from operations at the Additive Products site has been found in private drinking water supply wells. Inactive Industrial Sites Several facilities in the study area no longer have active SPDES permits or were not required to obtain permits during their period of operation. Information for these facilities is scarce. Operations conducted at these facilities included furniture stripping, duck research, laundering, and fish processing. The known inactive industrial facilities are presented on Table 6.1-13, as former dischargers. One industrial operation which was identified as a source of significant groundwater contamination is Rowe Industries. From March to October, 1984, the SCDHS Groundwater Resources and Reclamation Section defined a plume of 'contaminated groundwater in the area of Noyack originating from the site. The plume of contamination, approximately 500 feet in width, extended northwest from its point of origin approximately 1/2 mile to a discharge boundary along Sag Harbor Cove. A buried source of contamination approximately 350 feet east of Sag Harbor Turnpike was determined to have been caused by industrial operations and disposal. Wells which were immediately upgradient of the Rowe Industries industrial property were free of detectable contamination, confirming the absence of other possible alternate sources of contamination further south of the site. The Rowe Industries site, located east of Sag Harbor turnpike and north of Lily Pond Road, was vacant from 1975-1980 and was purchased by Sag, Harbor Industries in 1980. From 1966 to 1975, the site was used for the manufacture of small electric motors for model vehicles under the name of Rowe Industries, operating for Nabisco from 1971-1975 and for Aurora Corporation from 1966-1971. Reports from former workers employed at Rowe Industries during the 1970's indicated that several types of organic solvents were used for degreasing in the manufacturing process, and that spent solvents were discharged into drains leading east from the building. These drains discharged either into cesspools or directly onto the land surface or into a small pond further east. Reports indicate that spent solvents were discharged in such a manner as to facilitate movement to groundwater. The resulting plume has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor Cove and is characterized by high concentrations of trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene. The plume of contamination defined by SCDHS, shown on Figure 6.1-7, included high concentrations of trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene, indicative of industrial discharges. Monitoring well results showed concentrations as high as 10,500 ppb total volatile organic compounds (VOC's). More detailed information regarding the Rowe Industries site is contained in the "Noyack Investigation Report" (SCDHS, 1984). This report recommended site excavation and removal of contaminated material and soil, as well as continued monitoring of groundwater. In addition, the MR Bulova (Plating - Sag Harbor)— Plock Fish Processing — — — Rowe Industries (Sag Harbor) — -- — Shelter Island Oyster — - — Deletion/expiration date as per SCDHS records. -- - - - - __J Table 6.1-13 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Inactive or Former Industrial Dischargers : Expiration/ SPDES # Deletion Facility #NY- . Town Community . Date East Hampton DPW _ 0135518 East Hampton East Hampton 7/1/82 Lighthouse Laundry 0197963 East Hampton Montauk, 3/1/91 Mobil Sag Harbor Term. 0108669 East Hampton Sag Harbor 7/1/86 Multi-Aqauculture System. Inc. 0104167 East Hampton Amagansett 1/31/88 Agrico Farm Centers 0110400 Riverhead Riverhead 11/1/90 Hazeltine Riverhead Plant_ 0136867 Riverhead Riverhead 7/1/83 Long Island Ice & Fuel 0007552 Riverhead Riverhead 12/1/83 Suffolk County Micrographics 0101567 Riverhead Riverhead 4/26/83 ' Moeller H.W. Pilot Plant 0107661 Shelter Island Shelter Island 5/1/85 Both Forks Furniture Stripping 0136816 Southampton Hampton Bays 8/16/83 Graphics of Peconic, Inc. 0136824 Southampton Riverhead 8/2/83 LILCO-Bridgehampton 0108901 Southampton Bridgehampton 12/1/87 Long Island Duck Research Labs 0098779 Southampton Eastport 9/23/87 Mastyr Furniture Stripping 0137049 Southampton WM 10/18/83 Suffolk Laundry Services 0086011 Southampton ? 4/l/83-, Suffolk Life 0199397--- Southampton Riverhead . 3/15/85 American Furniture Strippers 0109452 Southold Mattituck 9/1/84. Long island Oyster Farms 0034894 Southold + East' Marion 12/15/88 Mobil Greenport - McCallum Oil, 0108707 Southold Greenport' 8/11/86 Bulova (Plating - Sag Harbor)— Plock Fish Processing — — — Rowe Industries (Sag Harbor) — -- — Shelter Island Oyster — - — Deletion/expiration date as per SCDHS records. -- - - - - __J i Li . o q `'0 C3 o Q N.7 d [] e o� o o �--- - ❑ ` SAG HARBOR CONE Llaoaq M �p a8 O �3a ❑ o C1 o p d 75 �'� N-19 N]e N: 3'7' ; GN - rO�.CA AD 7. y, W7 lJ (1 To 41 L1 a N� OG 9� CG V rr dD ZOO CIA q q� y AO -9 G N -T - 1 • ,N-10 N -,l N-11 �il 037 0� 0 ie !,e 872 9c `O N -,e qy p�,T a rte PAD .o. �1 LEGEND ILEI FOR NOuEOWNER,WELLi S A EXCEEDS G=ELINE 1T■ TRACES 150 NONE DETECTED ALv.FDR.QRQUI49V LTER PIIQf ILE WELLS NBA. EXCEEDS GUIDELINE N 1e(f-TRACES N -1T.)- NONE DETECTED a/17/88 . WELLS THAT WERE PULLED/PAVED OVER ■ WELLS THAT ARE PRESENT BUT LOCATION UNOETERNUNEO ■ WELLS THAT WERE LOCATED t FIGURE 6.1-7 SCALE: -100' Rowe Industries Organic Plume , NOYACK INVESTIGATION PLATE 1 Source: "Noyack Investigation Report", SCDHS Groundwater Resources and Reclamation Section, December, 1984. 6-47 l7 Ne L L n LAN • 7s • BAG HARBOR INDUSTRIES ( FORNERLV ROWE INDUSTRIES) DO ❑ \�) j• N-15 N 1/• / o N-17 p .w. 1I 111 / it report detailed the extension of public water to residents with affected water supplies. Currently the Rowe Industries site is still on the Superfund list with remedial action pending. Other commercial enterprises, in the study area discharge to cesspools or sewage treatment plants with the exception being the illegal discharges found or reported to SCDHS. For example, one fast food restaurant, McDonald's, has been cited by SCDHS for discharging directly to the Peconic River. Such discharges may be individually insignificant, but taken cumulatively during the peak summer season, these illegal discharges could contribute to the degradation of water quality, especially in poorly flushed areas. 6.1.3 Major Point Sources: Peconic River, Meetinghouse Creek, and Riverhead STP For the purposes of BTCAMP, both the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek were considered to be point sources of nutrients and pollutants to the Peconic system, although both sources obtain loadings from both point and nonpoint source inputs. These two water bodies and the Riverhead STP comprise the three largest and most significant point sources in the Peconic system. This section discussed the relative pollutant loading from these three sources in detail. Additional data regarding sampling data for the Riverhead STP is contained in Section 6.1.1 (see Tables 6.1-9a and 6.1-9b); extensive Meetinghouse Creek data is presented in Section 6.1.4, which deals exclusively with duck farms (see Tables 6.1-17a and 6.1-17b). Total point source nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loadings have generally decreased between the sampling conducted in 1976 for the LI 208 study and the 1988-89 BTCAMP study. The primary reason for the magnitude of lower loading levels is the reduced nitrogen concentration in Meetinghouse Creek; Peconic River loading levels also appear to have decreased, although much less dramatically. A summary of the loading and concentration comparisons for the three point sources evaluated in this Section have been presented in Table 6.1-1; nitrogen concentrations and loading are finther broken down by constituent for the three point sources in Table 6.1-14. The decrease in nitrogen loading between 1.976 and 1988 from 1440 to 680 pounds per day was due mainly to a drop in loading associated with the cessation of duck farm discharges (930 to 360 pounds per day nitrogen; 61% decrease). While the Peconic River apparently experienced a moderate decrease in nitrogen loading (190 to 130 pounds per day of nitrogen; 32% decrease), the Riverhead STP nitrogen loading remained substantially unchanged, increasing from 120 to 140 pounds per day. It should be stressed that actual historical decreases in pollution loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay are certainly much more dramatic than observed between 1976 and 1990, since most of the duck farms which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out of business by 1976. In addition, a laundry facility which discharged to the Peconic River had 6-48 TABLE 6:1-14 Comparison of Nitrogen Concentrations: 1976 vs. 1988-1990 * Comparison of: -Nitrogen Loadings: 1976 vs. 1988-1990 * Number of Number of Nitrate -Nitrogen Ammonia -Nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Avg. Flow (lb/day) Samples (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) 1976 1988-90 (4/88-3/90) 197-6 1988-90 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-89 1976 1988-90 PECONIC RIVER GAUGE 68 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.06 0.4 0.24 23.3 32.1 MEETINGHOUSE CREEK 127 7.0 6.4 44.0 7.8 2.0 0.5 2.1 2.9** RIVERHEAD STP 68 3.3 1.2 14.5 18.1 1.2 3.6 0.7 0.7*** * 1976 data limited to three samples in July, August-, and September, as noted in 1976 Tetra -Tech "Peconic River Water Quality Modelling" report. ** 4.5 cfs assumed for Meetinghouse Creek based on limited flow data. -A Comparison of: -Nitrogen Loadings: 1976 vs. 1988-1990 * Number of Nitrate -Nitrogen Ammonia -Nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Avg. Flow Samples (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) - (mgd) (4/88-3/90) 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90 1976 1988-90 PECONIC RIV. GAUGE 68 90 50 20 20 80 60 .23.3 32.1 MEETINGHOUSE CREEK 127 120 160 770 190 40 10 2.1 2.9** RIVERHEAD STP 68 20 10 90 110 10 20 0.7 0.7*** * 1976 data limited to three samples in July, August, and September, as noted in 1976 Tetra -Tech "Peconic River Water Quality Modelling" report. ** 4.5 cfs assumed for Meetinghouse Creek based on limited flow data. *** The Riverhead STP actually reported flow as 1.06 mgd, but recently revised this figure when it discovered defective flow measurement. gone out of business by 1976; data regarding additional, direct commercial and industrial discharges to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system prior to the SPDES permit program is scarce. Duck fanning activity is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.4, and water quality impacts associated with duck farm discharges are analyzed in Section 7. Although the nutrient loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay is lower than in 1976, contributions of nutrients and other contaminants into the Peconic River are still significant and continue to exceed LI 208 guidelines, and nitrogen concentrations in the tidal portions of the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay exceed the recommended nitrogen guideline (see Section 7). Average loading from the Pecoinic River, Meetinghouse Creek and the Riverhead STP in the 1988-1990 period was 130, 360, and 1401b/day total nitrogen and 30, 28, and 201b/day total phosphorus, respectively. Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading measured at the Peconic River Gauge and at Meetinghouse Creek showed a similar pattern when compared to 1976 data, with 1988- 90 loading dropping measurably for the Peconic River and drastically for Meetinghouse Creek. Both loadings were lower, due not only to concentration reductions, but also to decreased flow as measured in the Peconic River and measured and estimated at Meetinghouse Creek. -Riverhead STP total phosphorus loadings decreased and nitrogen loading increased, but not substantially. Loading from other minor point sources in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system, such as creeks and the - Broad Cove Duck Farm, also decreased from approximately 202 pounds of nitrogen in 1976 to 44 i pounds in 1988 through 1990. _F The SCDHS has been conducting weekly sampling of the Peconic River. The results of this sampling for 1990 are presented in Table 6.1-15a; prior data are contained in Appendix G. In addition, USGS monitoring data for the Peconic River was evaluated for the period of October 1976 through September 1986. Trends indicate that nitrogen loading decreased between 1977 and 1985 which is consistent with SCDHS data for the period (See Figure 6.1-8a). It should be emphasized that 1976 data was limited to three sampling events, and that USGS data does show significant variability. Observations over a limited time period are not definitive with respect to historical trends, since nitrogen loading from the river is quite variable, fluctuating between 20 pounds per day (4/24/89) and 500 pounds per. day (10/4/89) between December, 1988 and March, 1990. Furthermore, since Peconic River nitrogen concentrations rarely exceed 1 mg/1, the river's nitrogen loading is heavily dependent on flow and, thus, temporal climatological trends. However, the data do support the hypothesis that there may, indeed, be moderate water quality improvements in the Peconic River. This improvement may be due to the cessation of operation of three duck farms on the Peconic River (see Section 6.1.4) and the decrease in nitrogen loading from the Grumman sewage treatment plants due to decreased flow at the facility.. SCDHS has also sampled the Peconic River downstream of the USGS gauge at the Grangebel Park spillway, which demarcates the last non -tidally influenced portion of the Peconic River. The 6-50 TABLE 6.1-15A * Sampled at USGS gauge station Peconic River Gauge 1990 * Date Time Temp Cond. Flow TKN DEIN NH3-N NO2 + O-PO4-P T. Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. (Deg. C) (umho) (cfs) NO3-N PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) <----------------------------(mg/1) ------------------------ > 1/2 1310 2.0 120 63.9 0.20 <0.05 0.15 0.58 0.036 <0.010 0.050 500 130 1/8 1155 3.2 100 57.9 0.27 <0.05 0.09 0.50 0.020 0.035 0.064 900 240 1/16 1340 4.4 --- 61.9 0.26 <0.05 0.074 0.48 0.022 0.062 0.082 80 23 1/24 1225 5.2 102 61.9 0.18 0.17 0.04 0.50 0.023 0.050 0.083 70 50 1/30 1430 6.2 --- 83.4 <0.05 <0.05 0.04 0.40 0.024 0.050 0.066 350 110 2/8 1230 5.3 86.2 79.0 <0.05 <0.05 0.024 0.36 0.023 0.057 0.081 1,100 23 2/14 1120 6.8 94.2 78.8 <0.05 <0.05 0.028 0.37 0.021 0.068 0.098 130 80 2/20 1200 3.5 92.5 70.1 0.17 <0.05 <0.02 0.34 0.024 0.062 0.078 300 30 2/28 1350 5.4 105 70.1 0.18 <0.05 0.02 0.30 0.017 0.043 0.057 500 50 rn 3/7 1015 1.6 --- 65.9 0.21 <0.05 0.022 0.31 0.014 0.068 0.096 500 80 j 3/13 1317 12.0 112 68.0 0.23 <0.05 <0.02 <0.2 0.010 0.030 0.073 300 240 3/21 1348 11.1 100 70.1 0.32 <0.05 0.02 0.29 0.012 0.068 0.149 500 300 3/26 1235 8.8 --- 61.9 0.27 <0.05 0.03 0.30 0.025 0.059 0.111 900 130 4/5 1350 7.8 --- 78.8 0.66 0.28 0.070 0.38 0.025 0.042 0.071 900 500 4/11 1220 11.0 --- 78.8 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02 <0.2 0.015 0.059 0.080 900 17 4/18 1030 9.8 91 78.8 0.24 <0.05 <0.02 <0.2 0.009 0.044 0.077 1,600 300 4/26 1100 14.2 93.2 74.4 0.37 0.15 0.028 <0.2 0.020 0.062 0.088 900 300 5/4 1215 17.0 105 65.9 0.80 0.66 <0.02 0.21 0.027 0.054 0.097 300 300 5/9 1250 17.4 101 63.9 0.63 0.78 <0.02' 0.21 0.038 0.129 0.150 220 90 5/17 1205 18.2 96 83.4 0.58 0.23 0.09 0.29 0.047 0.051 0.073 1,600 300 5/24 1430 18.2 106 70.1 0.29 0.21 0.07, 0.23 0.042 0.057 0.089 130 50 5/30 1245 15.8 91.4 78.8 1.13 0.75 0.07 <0.2 0.038 0.055 0.096 900 170 * Sampled at USGS gauge station TABLE 6.1-15A (cont.) Date Time Temp Cond. Flow TKN DKN NH3-N NO2 + O-PO4-P T. Dis. (Deg. C) (umho) (cfs) NO3-N PO4-P < ---------------------------- (mg/1) --------------- T. PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. (mpn/100 ml) 6/6 1430 19.6 88.5 78.8 0.45 0.32 0.03 0.22 0.045 0.056 0.089 300 80 6/21 1430 23.0 97 65.9 1.21 0.97 0.03 <0.2 0.063 0.094 0.125 500 300 6/29 0730 23.8 101 50.4 --- --- 0.085 0.186 0.078 0.094 0.112 110 110 7/23 1243 24.7 100 46.8 0.40 0.39 0.065 0.088 0.045 0.054 0.077 500 240 8/8 1340 22.4 111 43.4 1.05 0.79 0.091 0.121 0.064 0.094 0.149 900 300 8/16 1405 23.8 110 46.8 0.26 <0.05 0.020 0.040 0.033 0.052 0.060 170 70 9/5 1435 22.4 109 36.9 0.28 <0.05 0.005 0.046 0.022 0.032 0.054 80 40 9/12 0820 22.2 100 33.9 <0.05 <0.05 0.007 0.088 0.020 0.041 0.073 --- --- 9/18 1335 16.4 119 33.9 0.69 0.61 0.026 0.016 0.019 <0.01 0.052 800 130 - ---9/24------1305 --1-6-.0---- - -101_ ___ 40-1 - ----- 0-._85 ----- __0__55__________0_.0-4.0_____0.147__ _0.-018_-_ 0_.033_--__0._053_--__ __230 --_230 10/1 1240 17.6 103 35.4 0.66 0.49 0.014 0.039 0.014 0.037 0.049 40 20 a,10/9 0910 20.2 105 32.4 0.70 0.66 0.043 0.101 0.039 <0.01 0.045 80 40 N 10/15 1330 21.0 105 40.1 0.64 0.46 0.047 0.118 0.029 0.030 0.057 900 50 10/22 1310 13.8 98 46.8 0.66 0.58 0.065 0.184 0.050 0.036 0.066 80 20 11/1 0915 7.8 89 45.1 1.2 1.2 0.078 0.255 0.050 0.133 0.154 110• 110 11/5 1015 12.4 94 41.7 1.1 1.0 0.026 0.265 0.046 0.123 0.164 1,300 800 11/13 1005 3.4 92 43.4 1.1 0.58 0.080 0.324 0.049 <0.01 0.051 300 230 11/19 1010 6.2 90 36.9 0.91 0.91 0.059 0.340, 0.033 0.039 0.046 70 20 11/26 1130 --- 105 35.4 0.98 0.71 0.027 0.367 0.028 <.002 0.053 300 300 12/4 1455- 8.9 91 46.8 0.65 0.60 0.052 0.378 0.038 0.043 0.060 1,300 500 12/10 0940 4.4 85 43.4 0.18 <A5 0.078 0.426 0.039 <.O1 0.035 300 130 12/18 1320 --- 83 48.6 0.30 <.05 0.072 0.425 0.040 <.O1 0.108 300 80 12/27 1225 0.8 92 54.1 0.28 0.22 0.064 0.464 0.030 <.O1 0.040 130 80 W 2.2 2.1 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 i 0 ,BTCAMP - Peconic River Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations October 1976 - September 1986 ----;-•--•--:.....••---•--- -----------------•-•---•:- - :•---...I----------------1 .......................... --------------------- ..... ---• -------- ---•-- .....:. ............ ............... -j---•--•-,-•---.._, ..-- ,---.. .......•----;------. -----.I .,I..------ ...............:.... -------------- �..;i..-- ---................. ...I_I.�E------------.... ••- - -I--I-al-•-•-•-•--•-•--..._._.... I Ir !:I .......... il. It I I _ 1.11 /-- 11;x-�--1'�.•J------•-`-I- I /��-I-1..!:.I._ .I.1 _f it11 1 I I r . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . - _11 . _ . . .I. i 1 .I. _ . .1 .1 I`AQr �' rb ,•�� -4D '` '� ` r ' O '�� 0 : •b_ " -0 �O-p" -b,0 8/29/77 1/11/79 5/25/80 10/7/81 * Source: USGS monitoring data. 2/19/83 7/3/84 11/15/85 * LEGEND * Peconic River water quality at Gran upstream at the USGS gauge station Appendix G)., The Grangebel Park c sampling data at the USGS gauge stf loading to the estuarine system from The current loading of 30 pounds per day from. each source contrast, Meetinghouse Creek histori phosphorus based on 1976 sampling source in both 1976 and 1990, nitrog cessation of direct duck farm dischm contributor of nitrogen in the 1988-1 Total nitrogen and phosphorus c, samples for the period of April 1987 d some fluctuation of phosphorus and ni deviation over time around an average Creek. The most drastic drop in 1 Park was not appreciably different from the water quality Table 6.145b for 1990 data; prior data included in verifies that the pollutant loading as estimated from L is probably a fairly good estimate of the actual pollutant freshwater portion of the Peconic River. s from the three major point sources is approximately 26 to >ed on sampling conducted between 1988 and 1990. In ly contributed approximately 227 pounds per day of lthough Meetinghouse Creek was the largest nitrogen loading decreased by over 60% in this time period due to the > to the creek. The Peconic River was, overall, the smallest time period. rations and loadings were evaluated based on weekly March 1989 for the above sources. While there was levels, the fluctuation seemed to be a fairly random for all of the point sources except for Meetinghouse Creek pollutant concentration was in June 1987 when nitrogen dropped from levels as high as 48 mg/1 to an approximate concentration of -.15 mg/1 and phosphorus decreased from as high as 3 mg/l to about. 0.8 mg/l. This drop corresponded with the cessation of direct duck farm discharges to Meetinghouse Creek. In 1987, nitrogen levels in Meetinghouse Creek then centered around 14 mg/l in June and July, 7.5 mg/l from August through September (no TKN included in this period due to lab difficulty; actual values may be close to June - July levels), 13 mg/1 in November, and 19 mg/1 through December and January of 1988., Figure 6.1- 8b illustrates that nitrogen then dropped to about 14 mg/l from February through July of 1988, when sampling was discontinued due to lab( December, 1988 concentrations flucti through March, 1989, ranging from as between April, 1989 and.March, 1990 phosphorus concentrations centered m duck farm discharge, there was a rise i January 1988 to a total phosphorus lev corresponds to the nitrogen increase it a maximum concentration of about 2.1 phosphorus. Weekly SCDHS samplin Nitrogen and phosphorus data kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN: -atory considerations. When sampling was resumed hi ited substantially around an approximate average of 17 mg/l . high as 26 mg/l to as low as 2 mg/1. Nitrogen concentrations luctuated around an approximate mean of 15 mg/1. While ire closely around 0.9 mg/1 immediately after the cessation of i phosphorus concentration from November 1987 through ;1 of as high as 1.6 mg/l. This phosphorus increase the same time period. Fluctuation in 1989 and 1990 reached . mg/1 total phosphorus but centered around 1.0 mg/1 total data for Meetinghouse Creek is presented in Section 6.1.4. the three point sources have also been broken down by total - gen plus organic nitrogen), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), 6-54 i TABLE 6.1-15B Peconic River @ Spillway, Grangibel Park, Riverhead; 1990 Date Time Temp Cond. TKN DKN NH3-:N NO2 + O-PO4-P T. Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. (Deg. C) (umho) NO3-N PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) < ----------------------------- (mg/1) ------------------------- > 1/2 1250 3.0 133 0.41 0.29 0.16 0.41 0.034 <0.010 0.048 300 130 1/8 1130 3.8 120 0.33 0.31 0.12 0.60 0.024 0.042 0.063 1,600 1,600 1/16 1330 6.6 --- 0.27 <0.05 0.076 0.42 0.020 0.060.' 0.078 500 130 1/24 1150 6.2 115 0.23 0.22 0.06 0.20 0.032 0.062 0.059 240 80 1/30 1355 7.8 --- <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.50 0.028 0.042 0.089 1,600 900 2/8 1130 5.7 92.5 0.17 <0.05 0.044 0.39 0.015 0.059 0.092 93 15 2/14 1055 8.0 108 <0.05 <0.05 0.056 0.38 0.025 0.083 0.108 220 30 2/20 1100 3.5 97.5 <0.05 <0.05 0.03 0.39 0.025 0.092 0.101 240 30 2/28 1340 4.4 127 0.21 <0.05 0.05 0.30 0.014 0.044 0.062 300 80 Q'3/7 0950 0.0 --- 0.21 <0.05 0.037 0.35 0.011 0.066 0.096 2 <2 3/13 1253 13.4 141 0.15 <0.05 <0.02 <0.2 0.0.13 0.040 0.080 1,600 240 3/21 1301 11.1 116 0.46 <0.05 0.04 0.34 0.015 0.049 0.111 170 170 3/26 1210 10.4 <0.05 <0.05 0.02 0.2 0.013 0.065 0.112 900 170 4/5 1335 7.8 --- 0.26 <0.05 0.08 0.38 0.024 0.048 0.092 900 500 4/11 1200 11.6 --- 0.19 <0.05 0.088 0.25 0.028 0.071 0.133 900 900 4/18 1010 9.8 105 0.39 0.17 0.04 <0.2 0.012 0.049 0.090 300 240 4/26 1034 14.1 110 0.50 0.45 0.038 <0.2 0.019 0.057 0.088 900 170 5/4 1145 16.8 152 0.81 0.53 0.07 0.25 0.030 0.095 0.102. 240 80 5/9 1225 17.2 132 0.92 0.90 <0.02 0.24 0.036 0.136 0.146 900 500 5/17 1135 17.2 131 0.48 0.28 0.13 0.33 0.050 0.056 0.113 >1,600 900 5/24 1410 18.4 409 0.55 0.18 0.08 0.32 0.042 0.069 0.086 240 130 5/30 1225 16.2 125 0.99 0.93 0.08 0.2 0.036 0.057 0.106 900 500 * Sampled at last nontidal point in river, downstream of USGS gauge. TABLE 6.1-15B (Cont.) Date Time Temp Cond. TKN DKN NH3-N' NO2 + O-PO4-P T. Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. (Deg. C) (umbo) NO3-N PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) < ----- ----------------------- (mg/1)------------------------- > -6'/6 1345 20.2 94.7 0.46 0.40 0.04 <0.2 0.034 0:065 0.095 -900 240 • 6/14 1500 22.5 103 --- --- 0.05 0.02 0.051 0.066 0.123 240 130 6/21 1400 22.8 110 2.0 1.8 0.06 <0.2 0.051 0.081 0.117 900 500 6/29 0650 23.2 108 --- --- 0.111 0.261 .0.059 0.058 0.117 >1,600 1,600 7/23 1210 24.8 113 0.51 0.30 0.068 0.128 0.035 0.035. 0.077 300 30 8/8 1315 22.8 183 1.01 0.76 - 0.107 0.208 0.061 0.075 0.140 130 80 8/16 1340 23.6 139 0.76 0.41 0.13 0.118 --- 0.055 .0.147 500 500 9/5 1355 22.0 155 0.22 <0.05 0.015 0.138 0.020 <0.01 0.054 1,300 80 9/12 0850 19.8 114 0.18 <0.05 0.046 0.190 0.026 0.040 0.070 500 300 9718 -----125-0--16-.4-- 0-1-35- -0:021 ---<0-01 0.046 000-- -3,000-----300----- •--300---- --355-----0-.-93---0-.8,1---0.-056 9/24 9/24 1220 15.8 128 0.85 0.89 0.108 0.227 0.029 0.044 0.045 .1,300 130 x110/1 1135 17.6 132 0.71 0.67 0.057 0.166 0.022 0.031 0.053 1,100 800 °110/9 0945 1.9.6 234 0:87 0.86 -.0.156 0.140 0.062 0.042 0.075 500 230 10/15 1305 20.4 158 0.61 0.52 0.065 0.179 0.025 <0.01 0.039 1,600 1,600 10/22 1240 14.0 111 0.59 0.-56 0.060 0.239 0.045 0.040 0.063 11300 800 11/1 0835 8.0 102 1.1 0.88 0.070 0.305 0.039 0.142 0.200 120 20 11/5 0935 12.4 105 1.3 1.1 -0.046. 0.315 0.038 0.108 0.171 700 300 11/13 0910 4.2 105 1.1 0.66 0.100 0.351 0.035 <0.01 0.041 -500 300 11/19 0925 5.0 111 0.99 0.93 0.080 0.381 0.032 0.036 0.052 260 170 11/26 1040 --- 123 0.80 0.52 0.087 0.422 0.031- <.01 0.061 700 300 12/4 1430 10.0 107' 0.54 0.40 0.042 0.384 0.036 <.O1 0.051 3,0.00 1,700 12/10 1020 5.5 100 0.26 0.36 0.114 0.452 0.036 0.041 0.034 500 300 12/18, 1255 --- 98 0.32 0.28 0.086 0.452 0.026 <.01 0.051 3,000 1,300 12/27 1150 1.0 118 0.44 0.43 0.117 0.452 0.025 <.O1 0.046 1,300 300 Meetinghouse Creek Nitrogen Data [April 1987 -March 1c. 42 ------- ------- --------------- --------------------,-- 40 •0i ....:.............. ........ .....- :----.._.....--- ;-- 38 --� - -Q- : - - - - - --:--....:.......... ......... .......; ....... ;.. 36 -'. '- ----------------------------------------L-------i-- 34 - -�..I� .�_ E ... _ .... - - ... - - - .. ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - 32-ItI-�I--------:------ : ----- : -------------' ------ 30 ..I! .I,.-, -- - - - - , -. - - -- ,-- - - - -- - - - - ---- ----- --- - - - -- - 28 --I�- .11 --•----,-------------------------: -.----- ;-- s 9 22 - Ir �- ;1 ........ -- .......- --.--- --------------- -- 16 •-N! - �'�I-------------- - -- - - -- - - - - -- •-•-•-..------.... 12 --1+----------------- ----•--------------•--- Q ----------- 2 ------;-------;-------,---•---------------------------- 1- 0 5/19/87 7/8/87 8/27/87 10/16/87 1215/87 1/24/88 3/14/88 188] *LEGEND* 0 --------- TKN SIE- — — — — NH3-N + — - — - —- NO3-N FIGURE 6.1-813 nitrate -nitrogen (NO3-N), total phosphate (T-PO4), dissolved phosphate (D-PO4), and ortho- phosphate (O-PO4) and were plotted for the April, 1987 through April, 1989 time range. As would be expected, ammonia nitrogen contribution, with TKN folloN input to the Peconic system. Thus, orl composition of the Peconic River syste almost negligible, with the major nitro; was ammonia -nitrogen. Over 80% of I ammonia -nitrogen, with the remainder indicative of minimal nitrification- occi concentrations at the Riverhead STP ai Creek nitrogen data fluctuations were i than 90% of the TKN was ammonia-ni itrogen was generally a minor factor in Peconic River :d by nitrate -nitrogen playing the major roles in the nitrogen nic nitrogen plays an important part in the chemical i. Nitrate -nitrogen in the Riverhead STP effluent was n contribution being in the form of TKN, most of which TKN in the Riverhead STP effluent was found to be Dmprised of organic -nitrogen. These sampling results are ging in the Riverhead facility treatment processes. Nitrogen graphically illustrated in Figure 6.1-8c. Meetinghouse nerally caused by ammonia and TKN variations; greater Coliform data was also graphed for the point sources (See Figures 6.1-9 - Peconic River; 6.1- 10 A and B - Meetinghouse Creek; and 6.1-11 - Riverhead STP). Coliform levels in Meetinghouse. Creek increased sharply in June of 1987 when the Corwin Duck Farm reportedly stopped discharging its waste. This increase in coliform counts coupled with relatively high ammonia - nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the s ream just outside the duck farm cast doubt on the effectiveness of the on-site containment of duck farm effluent in remedying the pollution in the creek. i One of the benefits of maintainer facilitates the analysis of temporal and sources. While no trends in seasonal 14 the Riverhead STP based on two years Peconic River appeared to increase apl concentrations rose from an average cc a routine sampling program is that the resulting database easonal fluctuations in pollutant loading levels in point ding variation were discerned for Meetinghouse Creek and f data, the nitrogen concentration and loadings in the eciably in the fall of 1989 and winter of 1990. Nitrogen centration of 0.27 mg/1 in the summer of 1989 (16 samples between -June and September) to a level of approximately 0.73 mg/i in the fall and whiter months (18 samples between October an February). Nitrogen loading increased from an average of approximately 1001b/day to about 266 lb/day in the same time period. To test a theory that nitrogen loading in the river increases in the fall and winter, when nutrients are no longer taken up by aquatic plants and die -off results in nutrient return to the system, historic data from USGS seasonal samples between 1977 and 1985 were analyzed and graphed. No seasonal trends were discernible from the USGS data, which is admittedly jimited (one sample per season) Other observed trends which previously discussed decrease in N been documented by SCDHS sampling data include the ghouse Creek nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and 6-58 rn m 30 29 28 27 26- 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 RIVERHEAD STP NITROGEN DATA [April 1989 -March 1990] .............. ....... ,....... I ------- ---------------- ------ ----- -•---- ---- - - - - :------ Q- .i i ► i • r r --------------- . --- • -- - -.�- O; - •.'SIE;--9i0--;--•----IE---E--;--+rl- - A.- -A -.1. - - �-, .-��g�� -Cj/ -; �161� • � �3 - � • O i• • + f -� - ; - p� -�E�E - ; i181� - - - - - � �E - r - • � / - - � � 1- . . -•---•..... ! .fry -O- O --►- r-- - \I -- ---...-- - - -- -- -- --•- :-- - - -b�: ..... a f --- -k- ......-•�...... :...... --- ........---------------------------------•-------.... _ -I' � - - -1�• - -.,f. 'f - �,; moi..* - - -* - ; - - - �F- - } - �- - �--I•� + 4/18/89 6/7/89 7/27/89 9/15/89 11/14/89 12/24/89 2/12/90 *LEGEND' 0 --------- TKN *----NH3-N •{------- NO3-N FIGURE 6.1-8C 6/7/89 7/27/89 9/15/89 11/4/89 12/24/89 * LEGEND * p --------- Tot. Coliform FIGURE 6.1-9 Peconic River Coliform Data [April 1989 -March 1990] 1700(� ---•--- - - 1600 - - --� O 44-� �. Q--------- (�.......... ;Q .......... 1500 - - - ! � ! � - t - � t �t .. • • ... !t '........ • ........... . . !� !�t• t !� �! 1400 - - -Lt!t� .....---- :! .; , , --• -- 1300 .- Q-• .... b. -•-•--- '-r---------_.., ...................... ! t ! • t ! t ! t ! , ! t � t 1200. .. : - •• - ---------•----.... P t- t ;-� t `-t- n1100 - .•, ..- ••• -• --- . •-----.... ------Q 1000 - ......; ._.. ,-... .. ........... ...... j. 900 -= - - :: - :-------- - �' - --• . 0 800 ! aj, : 0 700 �� '. �- -! - - - -- . ..-----•• '. • . I if M 600 ! --� - - -- .' •.• -- -• ! •.... r 500 p ........ 400 ', - �•---- : -- :- • - - - - -- t �- :----_... : . !-•-!- if 300-----• ...................• Q ---•--•------! -O - 200 - - - - - - - - - - --------------------- - - - - ----- .--- - - -- -- '-�-- t 100 - - - -• - -- : •- - - - - -- --------- :- - -- - -• :--...--- : ' -- 6-p n _ 6/7/89 7/27/89 9/15/89 11/4/89 12/24/89 * LEGEND * p --------- Tot. Coliform FIGURE 6.1-9 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000, 5500 m 5000 T P n 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Meetinghouse Creek Coliform Data [April 1987 -March 1988] -•--- ------ pp •-•--(----- ;---------------------------- - - - - -- ; -;i - -•--- - - - -- ; - - - -- - - - - -• -- ............ . ' L .. _ .. !t - - _ - - • - - - - - - - ... - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - -----------------! -- '�- ---�- ...... .--------'--------'--- . - - - - -• --- ----------------------- - - - - -- .... ; ...--- -i '� --�-i-- ,-- - - - -- .. - - -- - - -- -- . • . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -p- - - - - - - - -Tot. Coliform -- - -- ._----•. .-'•-- .�.�..._.._. ------------------------- - - • , - - p - - - ,- r - i• - - - ; i• i.... - ...... Opp - - - - - - : • ........ - -- -- - --; -• -- , - - -- ..----...., .. bd- �QQ 1. ------ ...... ;-------;-��--�� 0 p Ofl T FIGURE 6:1-10A 5/19/87 7087 8/27/87 10/16/87 12/5/87 1/24/88 3/14/88 *LEGEND* 160001 150001 14000 13000 12000 11000 100001 Meetinghouse Creek Coliform Data [April 1988 -March 1c. --- - --p•p•.----•- ----------------,------- . . . ii i •- - - - - - - -' . . . . . • . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . ... . . . . r.ii . i. •�•` _ - _ - - - - - - - - - • . - _ . _ . . . ; . . _ . ,. -... ------_---L,_..-------•------------------ - - - -- - -- - - - m9000 -- ,--- - - - - - -•--•-------------i! ...... n 8000 --. ,-- - - - - -•---;.... .............. ---- f 189 *LEGEND* 0 --------- Tot. Coliform FIGURE 6.1-10B 7000 - ... •------►' J. _..--- - - ----•a- - - - - - - - - - -- !----- ,; 6000 --•- - - - - - - .' .'.I ............. ..... - - - - - -!--•----- ,.... 5000 --, ...._0�•O0- � .. :...------- - - - - - -.... !- - - -- 4000 - -•- --c!-! ---- ----.................--.. . ......... .. - - -- 3000 - -'-- ! p; --.-- ,..._.... -- ... ...• ----�p--,--- i ---b, ---- 2000 _,_....z....___.... .................___...,...... . ... 'QE)E)'�-� 1000 ....... .......-- - - - - -; - - - -- 0 ee• 5/3/88 6/22/88 8/11/88 9/30/88 11/19/88 1/8/89 2/27/89 189 *LEGEND* 0 --------- Tot. Coliform FIGURE 6.1-10B rn rn W m P n 1 0 0 RIVERHEAD STP COLIFORM DATA [April 1989 -March 1990] 250000 1- - - -- • - - -•... •----.... -••--. --•-..---------------- 240000 : -• - - -- .... -• .Q. •..... ... ....... 230000 .... --....... --•-----•--';- - - - -- - ---------------•-- 220000 ,- .. • .. • • - ..... , .... -+ '- , .. • ......... ... , • ...... - - . 210000 -• - - -- --.... - - - - -- -- ---- 200000 . • • .. ... .. _ ......... -1 . ..... ... .. ... .. - - - - - - - - 190000 ...... ! !----- -- -.. ...... _... 180000 - --•-.. . •. i - - - -------- , -- - - -- ...._ 170000 - - ....------------- ------ - - =- -- 160000 pp O ©E50 O O Q ... O OCS ...Q — • fl, -00 060- .06Q • © -nr 150000 , 1,- - • .. -, - • f - _ ., .... - • , - •- -; •� - - ; jr • i 140000 - •, --1' - .. -r 1 -r-- --, -• ;, , 1- r, 130000'... ;i -- -- '- --! 1 it i y , i 120000 - 1- �� a .-I.•'•. • + '-1_• .� - a-' - ►�.--+-;-i.l 110000 100000 1 I 1 90000 I I I I -:- i : -b-b : ! - - - -.. ! +• ! .;...�. ! ....:_. �.;. 80000 - I .... ! .. 70000 - - 1. . I . I. ! 1 - � .. . . . . ! -. l' . ; 7 . . . . .1 . ' • 1 1 - - 1 I 60000 --� -!.! ,... .! .,-� • --... -.1�..' .:. �- - - -�------''-- 1 + ! '•_. 50000 ....Q -1-r!- -- OO r --- - - - ...1 40000 - : •! '1- - - - - -- �.... .. .,+.... !,--- ..- .- 30000 ... i 1 ... ...--•--Q---• .......... ... .!! .. - -- ...••..... •�. 20000 . . • . • . . . . .. . . . . • ... . . . . . . , 10000 - +! -r - - - - --, .. - - -- - - - - -- - -- : -i.... _.._. . I r t 0 4/18/89 6/7/89 7/27/89 9/15/89 11/14189 12/24/89 2/12/90 * LEGEND * O -•------- TOT FIGURE 6.1-11 loadings after June, 1987. In addition, 120 to 140 pounds per day of nitrogen October 1989 and March 1990. Riverhead STP nitrogen loading rose measurably from , A on increase in effluent nitrogen concentrations between The two years of SCDHS sampling data also provide an interesting comparison between nitrogen and phosphorus loading duringl, a year when rainfall was below average and a year which was very wet. The opportunity these comparisons occurred since rainfall at Riverhead was recorded to be 60.5inches between April 1989 and March 1990 as opposed to the 40.0 inches experienced in the twelve month period immediately preceding April, 1989 (Riverhead rainfall average is 47.3 inches per year between 1971 and 199.0). In brief, the data indicated that total nitrogen concentrations did not vary significantly between wet and dry years, but that elevated flows in Meetinghouse Creek and the Peconic River resulted in greater nitrogen loading to Flanders Bay. Phosphorus concentrations and loading followed trends similar to those observed for nitrogen. A comparison was also made betvbeen the coliform loadings of the three major point sources discharging to the Peconic River/Flande� Bay system during wet and dry years as they relate to the II average coliform loading attributable to stormwater runoff, which is approximately 5.5 E12 MPN/day. The analysis indicated that sl ormwater runoff was the primary coliform load to the Flanders Bay system, but that the other point sources, especially the Riverhead STP, contribute substantial coliform loads. This analysis is further discussed in -Section 6.4; with tabular figures presented in Table 6.4-3. �I Nitrogen loading estimnates from groundwater to_Peconic River and Flanders Bay were based on groundwater quality characterizations and USGS groundwater contribution estimates. However, in determining the pollutant contributions from the Peconic River headwaters, western, and middle reaches (Le., the areas upstream of the USGS gauge station), the groundwater projections were rejected in favor of the sampling and gauging technique, which incorporated all point and non -point sources upstream of the sampling point. In the Peconic River areas west of (upstream of) the USGS gauge, the.nitrogen loading from groundwater was estimated to be 174 pounds per day. This estimate, when coupled with the point sources of Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratories STP's contributions of approximately3' pounds per day of nitrogen, was higher than actual - sampling data of the River, which proZiced estimates of 132 pounds per day in 1989 and 193 pounds per day in 1976. Groundwater contribution is further discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.4. 6.1.4 At onetime duck farms on Long sland were plentiful and were concentrated along the shores I' and tributaries of Flanders Bay and Moriches Bay. Anecdotally, duck farming in, the U.S. began in I` the 1870's when- a.few Pekin ducks werle brought into the country from China (National Geographic,- 1951). By 1915, over a million ducks were harvested annually in eastern Long Island, II: with an estimated projection of 300,000, to 400,000 ducks harvested in 1915 in Riverhead alone 6-64 (Riverhead News, 1915). Approximately 21 duck farms flourished along the banks of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay in 1938, with an annual production of over 1,000,000 ducks in the area (State of N.Y. Conservation'Dept.,.1938). By the time of the L.I.208 study sampling conducted in 1976, most of these duck fames had gone out of business. By the early 1980's, only seven SPDES permits existed for duck farms on the Peconic River and Flanders Bay; how many of these facilities were actually in operation is unclear. The seven permitted farms had approval to raise a total of 370,300 ducks (see Tables 6.1-16a through c for duck farm data). By 1989, one duck farm (Corwin) was in operation in the Flanders region with a SPDES permit limit of 169,800 ducks. Discharges from duck farms were specifically cited in the 1978 L.I. 208 study as a significant contributing factor to degraded water quality in the Peconic system; duck farms have long been recognized as significant sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, coliform, BOD, and solids pollution. Duck farm discharges consist of very concentrated levels, of organic materials and nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. The pollutants may result in surface, water quality problems such as depletion of dissolved oxygen, pathogenic contribution, and an over -abundance of nutrients. In addition, sediment -water column'exchange (sediment flux) can continue to affect surface waters after the discharges cease. Duck farming discharge impacts are further discussed in Section 7. Historical impacts of duck farming on Peconic River water quality are discussed in a 1938 State of N.Y. Conservation Department biological survey report. The report describes intense pollution stemming from duck farming activity in the Peconic River, Sawmill Creek, and Meetinghouse Creek. Specific mention was made that, on two farms which were investigated, intermittent elementary treatment of duck wastes was not wholly satisfactory, and that duck farms discharge large amounts of organic wastes. Earlier duck farm activities undoubtedly did not utilize the waste treatment systems of settling and chlorination which would be required to reduce pathogen discharge; these treatment systems were later- required by the _SPDES permit program, which began regulating duck farms in the 1970's. The 1938 report notes that dissolved oxygen levels were depressed to as low as 0.0 mg/1 in the Peconic River headwaters. In tidal portions of the river, dissolved oxygen levels were as low as 0.1 mg/l; laundry waste and sewage treatment plant effluent also contributed to the pollutant loading in this portion of the river. The report further describes the condition of the river between Riverhead and Calverton, which was then composed of several ponds and dams. This area was reportedly so full of vegetation that the surface water was almost completely covered with plant growth, despite repeated efforts to "clean out" the ponds. Of the seven duck farms for which information is available in SCDHS files, only the Corwin Duck Farm on Meetinghouse Creek iscurrently in operation. This duck farm, located north of Hubbard Avenue, for the most part ceased discharging to Meetinghouse Creek in June, 1987. The 6-65 NAME (SPDES, #) Bridgeview Duck Farm (NY=0028266) Broad Cove Duck Farm (NY -0026930) C&R Duck Farm (NY -0027821) Corwin Duck Farm (NY=0005304) Hubbard'Duck Farm' (Sunrise Duck Farm) (NY -0027871) Shubert Duck,Farm (NY -0028970) Warner Duck Farad (NY0027936) TABLE 6.1-16A', Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Duck Farms in Peconic System Groundwater -Contributing Area LOCATION STATUS 1581.W. Main St. Out of Business (Forge Road) Riverhead 119 Hubbard Ave. Out of Business Riverhead SIO LIRR tracks Out of Business N/O West Main St. -Approx. 1/3 mi. E/0 Mill Rd. Riverhead N/O Hubbard-S/O Main : Active Aquebogue 137 Hubbard Ave. Out of Business Riverhead E/S Northville Tpk. Out of Business SIO CR.58 Riverhead River Road Calverton Inactive DISCHARGE OPERATING COMMENTS Peconic River All ducks sold by 3/86;. 1/82: No discharge for years; SPDES.issued:2/77. .. Terry's Creek Not functioning by 6/82; SPDES issued: 2/77. TPeconic River Not functioning for past Via small several years tributary Meeting House Cr. No discharge 7/86-12/86; Discharge 12/86-5/87; No discharge 6/87-4/88. Saw Mill Creek 6/82 - No discharge; 10%84 - facility inactive. Saw Mill Creek Not functioning by 12/83. Peconic River, No discharge by 9%15/81; 9/874 Not raising ducks; SPDES issued 5/1/77. TABLE 6.1-16B Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program DUCK FARM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS . NAME MAX # DUCKS DISCHARGE HISTORY (SPDES #) (1980 SPDES lim) WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM Bridgeview Duck Farm 55,000 1973: 34,000 ducks. Wastewater recycle system: (NY -0028266) 6/80 SPDES: Duck feedlot with discharge. Pre -settling lagoon, aeration 1/82: No discharge for years. lagoon, back to swim area. 11/83: Only occasional discharges through weak spots in dike. 5/84: must contain 10 yr, 24 hr rainfall. 3/86: All ducks sold by this date. Broad Cove Duck Farm 60,000 1973: 80,000,ducks (76,000 on straw). Aeration lagoon, settling lagoon, (NY -0026930) 1973: Flow = 666,000 gpd. Chlorination, discharge. 6/80 SPDES: Duck feedlot with discharge. Not functioning by 6/82. 2/85: Swim waters no longer separated from tidal waters. o, C & R Duck Farm 5,600 1973: 30,000 ducks. Information not available (NY -0027821) 24,000 upland, 6,000 on wire 1973: Plant flow = 42,800 gpd. 1980: SPDES flow.'limit = 60,000 gpd average.. Corwin Duck Farm 169,800 6/80 SPDES: Duck feedlot & duck processor. Clarifier, four aeration lagoons (NY70005304) 9/81: Flow = 400,000 gpd. (seven acres), settling lagoon, 4/87: 97% of duck's indoors. chlorination. 7/86-11/86: no discharge 12/86-5/87: avg. discharge = 182,000 GPD 6/87-4/88: no discharge Hubbard Duck Farm 8,500 6/80 SPDES: to contain 10 yr/24 hr rainfall. - (Sunrise Duck Farm) 9/81: A117 ducks upland. Organic matter (NY -0027871) removed and spread as fertilizer. 10/84: facility inactive. Shubert Duck Farm 25,000 1973: 25,000 ducks. One aerated lagoon, three (NY -0028970) 1973:.flow = 1,500,000 gpd. settling tanks, chlorine 6/80 SPDES: Duck feedlot with discharge. contact tank, to Sawmill Cr. 9/81: very heavy seepage. 11/83: must contain 10 yr, 24 hr rainfall. 12/83: farm not functioning. Warner Duck Farm 22,000 6/80 SPDES: Duck feedlot with discharge. Recycle system: one aeration lagoon, (NY0027936) 9/81: No discharge. three settling basins, back to 8/84: must contain 10 yr, 24 hr rainfall. swim area. 9/87 Not raising ducks. SPDES retained for possible resumption of enterprise. 11, NAME (SPDES #) Bridgeview Duck Farm (NY -0028266) Broad_ Cove Duck Farm (NY -0026930) C &,R Duck Farm (NY -0027812) Corwin Duck Farm (NY -0005304) Hubbard Duck Farm (Sunrise Duck Farm) (NY -0027871) Shubert Duck Farm (NY -0028970) Warner Duck Farm (NY0027936) TABLE 6.1-16C Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program DUCK FARM SPDES DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE DUCKS SPDES FLOW SPDES BOD MONITORING DATA SPDES DATE (Max.) LIMIT LIMIT REQUIREMENTS 60,000-/ 105,000 50 / 75 (gpd: avg/max) (mg/1: avg/max) 60,000 / 105,006 2%1/77 .35,000 45,000 /,122,000 50 / 75 Monthly report 7/1/77 35,000.. .45,000 /.122,000- 20:7 / 31.0 Monthly report 5/1/84^ .n/a n/a n/a When discharging 2/1%77. 60,000 668,000 / 942,000 50 / 75 Monthly report 7/1/82 60,000 668,000 / 942,000 120 / 220 Monthly report pre=1980 -5;600 60,000./ 120,000 27.5 / 31.3 Monthly report pre -1980 169,800. - 359 / 667 Monthly report 5/15/85^^ n/a monitor.- 359 / 667 Monthly report No disch. 7/86-11/86 No disch. 6/8'7-4/88 Disch. 12/86-5/87^^^ pre -1980^ 8,500 n/a n/a When discharging pre -4980 25,000 150,00-0 / 300,000 50 / 91.5 11/1:/83^ n/a n/a n/a 5/1/77 22,000 60,000-/ 105,000 50 / 75 6/9/78 22,000 60,000 / 105,006 25 / 37.5 8/1/84^ n/a n/a n/a Note:, n/a not applicable .Facility must contain 10 -yr., 24 -hr., rainfall. ^^ Corwin monitoring requirements; include UOD only between June 1 and October 31.,. UOD = [BOD x 1.53 + [measured TKN x 4.6], UOD limit = 1260 lb/day avg. and 1800 lb/day max (611-10/31 only). ^^Corwin avg. monthly monitoring data for period 12/86-5/87: Flow = 182,000 gpd; BOD = 178 mg/1; susp. solid's = 267 mg/1 (420 mg/l limit). SCDHS sampling of Meeting House Creek (at Corwin discharge) results: 4/1/87-5/27/87 (period of discharge): avg, total nitrogen = 33.7 mg/1; 6/3/87-7/28/_87 (no discharge): avg. total nitrogen = 14.5 mg/l t , IS ect san re: (! 87) ta] Xosl1W 2` mg Monthly report When discharging Monthly report -Monthly report When discharging Corwin Duck Farm then reportedly switched to a permanent system which does not discharge to surface waters. The facility has voluntarily consented to a renewed SPDES permit (effective March, 1990) which prohibits discharge except in the case of a 10 year, 24-hour rainfall event. The average total nitrogen in Meetinghouse Creek in a period of Corwin discharge in April and May, 1987, was 33.7 mg/l. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels have subsequently decreased in the creek outside of the duck farm discharge point but remain significant; by June of 1987, the total nitrogen dropped off to about 15 mg/l, due primarily to a decrease in ammonia -nitrogen, and remained near that level for sampling activity through April, 1989. Phosphorus levels dropped from about 2.7 mg/l to approximately 0.8 mg/l when discharging ceased. Data from SCDHS sampling of Meetinghouse Creek downstream of the duck farm for 1990 are presented. on Table 6.1-17a; additional data are contained in Appendix G. The persistently high ammonia -nitrogen and phosphorus levels in Meetinghouse Creek, coupled with the high coliform count, cast doubt on the effectiveness of the on-site containment of Corwin Duck Farm effluent in terms of remedying the pollution problem at Meetinghouse Creek. Total and fecal coliform levels, which were low in the creek in the period of duck farm discharge of April and May of 1987, increased dramatically soon after discharge stopped. The renewed SPDES permit notes that corrective measures will be required if it is determined that the facility is causing adverse water quality impacts due to overflow or seepage of wastewater. To monitor the nitrogen contribution of Meetinghouse Creek without the influence of the duck fain and related sediments, SCDHS sampled the creek upstream of the duck farm. The results of this sampling in 1990 are contained in Table 6.1-17b; prior data are contained in Appendix G. This sampling indicates that the ammonia -nitrogen and TKN concentrations near the creek's headwaters are consistently significantly lower than downstream. Thus, the sampling indicates that the duck farm and/or related sediment deposits are responsible for the nitrogen pollution at Meetinghouse Creek. The nitrate=nitrogen concentration (7-9 mg/1) near the headwaters of the creek is in the same range as, or slightly higher than, the nitrate -nitrogen level downstream. This elevated nitrate - nitrogen concentration may be due to the agricultural influence in the region. Historically, the Corwin Duck Farm had generated a relatively heavy discharge of effluent. In 1981, the discharge was estimated by the NYSDEC to be approximately 400,000 gallons per day, with a SPDES average monthly limit of 359,000 gpd and maximum daily limit of 667,000 gpd. The facility, which was classified by the NYSDEC as duck feedlot and duck processor, also had a SPDES limit on duck population at 169,800 ducks. Point source sampling conducted in the summer of 1976 as part of the overall modelling of the Flanders Bay system showed total nitrogen levels ranging from 49 to 59 mg/l in Meetinghouse Creek downstream of the duck farm. Total phosphorus registered between 13 and 14 mg/1 in Meetinghouse Creek on the same sampling dates. The drastic decrease in nitrogen and phosphorus Mz f TABLE 6.1-17A Crescent (Corwin) Duck Processing 1990 Date Time Cond. Temp. TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N T. Dis. T. PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. TSS (umho) (Deg. C) PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) (mg/1) <-------------------------- L.-(mg/1)---------------------- > 1/2 1150 837 7.8 9.2 8.9 8.5 0.070 8.4 0.720 1.06 1,300 500 --- 1/8 1020• 11'670 3.0 8.2 8.3 7.4 0.061 7.6 0.643 0.785 22,000 5,000 --- 1/16 1235 1,150 11.0 8.8 8.3 7.7 0.064 7.8 0.,753• 0.945 800 230 --- 1/24 1255 6,010 4.8 7.2' 6.5 7'.1 0.057 6.5 0.505 0.81.6 3,000 2,300 --- 1/30 1315 --- 10.8 8A 7.9 6.8 0.072 6.6 1.00 1.17 800 500 --- 2/8 1250 .6,250 6.5 6.3 6.5 5.9 0.048 5.4 0.588 0.768 240 15 --- 2/14 1200 932 11.2 7.'9 7.9 6:9 0.063 7.8 0.698 0.848 300 130 --- 2/20 1020 503 5.0 7.2 6.2 7.3 0.045 6.8, .0.201 0.324 1,300 90 --- 2/28 1235 1,500 5.4 9.5 8.4 7.6 0.050 6.2 1.13. 1.95 1,400 -- 500 --- 0)3/7 rn3/7 0840 --- 0.6 1.8 1.4 0.8 0.005 1.5 .0.211 0.218. 230 130 --- CD 3/13 1145 --- 10.4 4.9 4.9 3.3 0.039 4.8 0.360 0.598 170 < 20 --- 3/21 1105 3,620 9.9 5.9 5.7 6.7 0.063 6.0 0.599 0.789 2,200 2,200 --- 3/26 1105 --- 10.0 0.81 0.63 0.6 0.008 0.5 0.096 0.143 80 40 --- 4/5 1245 --- 9.2 7.0 7:2 6.7 0.095 7.0 0.906 1.09 - 800 500 --- 4/11 1115 --- 11.8 8.2 8.2 7.2 0.068 6.9 0.886 1.07 5,000 1,100 --- 4/18 0925 592 8.6 8.6 T.8 6.5 0-.064 7.3 0.925 1.14 800 500 --- 4/26 0930 2,100 12.4 9.4 8.6 7.0 0.073 7.4 0.964 1.18 800 300 --- 5/4 1035 2,010 14.5 8.6 8.3 6.9 0.097 7.5 0.758 0.977 9,000 800 --- 5/9 1115 2.,180 16.2. 7.4 7.0 .5.4 0.097 7.6 0.834 1.12 5,000 1,100 --- 5/17 1030 1,460 13.8 4.9 5.1 3.8 0.084 6.3 0.803 0.880 1,100 500 --- 5/24 1315 9,980 16.2 1.6 0.63 0.1 0.009 1.0 <0.010 0.250 130 80 --- 5/30 1110 2,440 14.0 6.4 6.0 4.2 0.090 5.9 '0.72 1.02 9,000 1,700 --- Sampled at discharge pt. -at Meetinghouse Creek downstream of Corwin duck farm, at low tide. TABLE 6.1-17A (coat.) Date Time Cond. Temp. TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N T. Dis. T.PO4-P T. Coli. F. Coli. TSS (umho) (Deg. C) PO4-P (mpn/100 ml) (mg/1) ' < ------------------------- (mg/1) ------------------------- > 6/6 1300 3,850 17.5 6.1 6.1 4.9 0.120 7.0 0.68 0.84 5,000 5,000 --- 6/14 1300 2,030 21.5 --- --- 4.8 0.173 5.8 0.742. 0.808 8,000 5,000 --- 6/21 1230 10,400 22.3 7.1 6.9 5.0 --- --- 0.662 0.819 16,000 5,000 --- 6/29 0830 8,320 19.8 7.4 7.0 4.5 0.111 3.8 0.469 0.624 5,000 800 --- 7/23 1120 5,200 24.6 7.2 7.4 7.9 0.154 5.2 0.427 0.735 3,000 500 --- 8/8 1215. 14,300 23.8 4.9 4.6 3.3 0.072 2.3 0.389 0.580 5,000 2,400 --- 8/16 1240 4,180 21.4 7.4 7.4 6.4 0.148 5.2 0.843 0.825 16,000 2,400 --- 9/5 1250 6,100 23.6 6.8 6.7 5.3 0.129 5.1 0.690 1.65 9,000 9,000 --- 9/12 --- 13,400 20.4 2.9 2.7 1.8 0.070 2.3 0.33 0.425 2,800 800 --- 9/18 1140 18,200 19.8 2.7 2.8 0.9 0.033 1.1 0.143 0.179 500 300 --- a' 9/24 1135 .1,380 15.2 8.6 8.4 6.3 0.142• 7.2 1.01 0.91 24,000 5,000 --- 10/1 1040 17,800 19.6 1.9 1.8 0.2 0.012 0.4 0.134 0.180 110 110 --- 10/9 1100 1,340 17.4 7.4 7.2 3.8 0.163 5.8 1.32 1.80 30,000 24,000 --- 10/15 1205 9,460 19.8 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.160 2.7 -0.528 0.651 9,000 1,300 --- 10/22 1115 2,770 14.8 7.8 7.3 6.7 0.132 5.8 0.619 0.861 11,000 5,000 --- 11/1 0730 4,670 9.6 7.6 7.2 4.3 0.108 4.5 0.929 1.170 50,000 24,000 --- 11/5 0750 2,290 11.0 6.8 7.6 4.7 0.105 6.1 1.03 1.12 3,000 800 --- 11/13 0720 793 3.8 9.2 9.6 7.1 0.076 6.5 0.84 1.14 3,000 2,400 --- 11/19 0825 6,060 6.2 5.4 --- 2.5 0.094 4.2 --- 0.499 5,000 800 --- 11/26 0910 3,190 7.8 8.4 --- 5.7 0.076 5.5 --- 0.79 500 130 8.0 12/4 1350 6,410 13.9 17.0 --- 1.8 0.081 3.3 --- 1.70 24,000 1,300 11.0 12/10 1120 1,650 8.9 5.1 --- 4.3 0.094 6.6 --- 0.75 800 230 21.0 12/18 1210 1,290 --- 5.6 --- 5.8 0.066 6.1 --- 0.732 500 300 23.0 12/27 1325 377 3.2 8.2 --- 6.6 0.062 6.8 --- 0.89 1,300 300 14.0 TABLE 6.1-17B Meetinghouse Creek Headwaters Sampling Data, 1990 Date Time Cond. Temp. TKN DKN NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N T. Dis. T.PO4-P 5,000 1,300 (umho) (deg.C) 300 500 80 300 80 300 80 PO4-P 300 170 80 1,100 130 130 < -------------------------- (mg/1) ------------------------ > 9/12 ---- 539 14.2 0.47 0.54 0.1 0.011 8.8 < 0.01 0.032 9/24 1110 512 14.2 3.2 1.1 < 0.1 0.018 8.1 0.064 0.482 10/1 1015 613 13.2 4.6 0.63 < 0.1 0.020 8.5 0.049 0.853 10/9 1035 204 17.4 1.73 0.94 0.1 0.024 4.1 0.033 0.198 10/15 1135 306 17.6 1.11 0.81 < 0.1 0.017 8.5 < 0.01 0.040 10/22 1140 272 14.2 0.69 0.87 < 0.1 0.014 8.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 11/1 0650 253 9.0 1.5 0.97 < 0.1 0.007 8.4 0.082 0.211 11/5 0830 274 12.6 1.0 0.58 0.1 0.008 8.3 0.046 0.072 11/13 0750 271 7.6 0.62 0.48 0.2 0.006 8.4 0.087 0.077 °1 11/19 0730 321 8.0 0.72 0.67 0.2 0.008 9.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 `) 11/26 0955 291 10.0 0.79 1.02 0.1 0.006 8.2 < 0.010 < 0.010 12/4 1320 251 13.3 1.34 0.56 < 0.1 0.009 7.4 < 0.010 0.051 12/10 1150 263 11.1 0.24 <.05 0.4 0.007 8.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 12/18 1145 249 --- 0.69 0.70 0.3 0.006 7.2 < 0.01 < 0.01 12/27 1310 275 1.7 0.85 0.51 0.4 0.004 8.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 * Sampled upstream of Corwin Duck Farm T. Coli. F. Coli. (mpn/100 ml) 1,100 170 3,000 2,400 500 300 24,000 5,000 1,300 230 2,400 300 500 80 300 80 300 80 1,100 300 170 80 1,100 130 130 20 300 70 80 40 loading from Meetinghouse Creek resulting from the cessation of duck farm discharges is discussed in detail in Section 6.1.3. The Shubert and Hubbard duck farms were located on Saw Mill Creek. The Shubert site, near the headwaters of the creek, was estimated to have had a flow of 1,500,000 gpd in 1973. The SPDES permit for the farm in 1980 specified a limit of 25,000 ducks and an average flow of 150,000 gpd. A 1981 NYSDEC memorandum noted that the farm had very heavy seepage and that the owner used a lot of water per duck. The operation was out of business by December, 1983. Meanwhile, the Hubbard site was, according to a 1980 SPDES pen -nit, was prohibited from discharging except in the case of runoff contribution in excess of that generated by a 10 -year, 24- hour storm. The Broad Cove Duck Farm was located on Terry's Creek. The estimated duck population and discharge in 1973 were estimated to have been 80,000 ducks and 666,000 gpd. The 1977 SPDES permit limited ducks to 60,000 and average daily discharge to 668,000 gpd. The site has not been functioning since 1982. Three duck farms were located upstream of tidally influenced portions of the Peconic River. From west to east, these facilities are the Warner, Bridgeview, and C &. R duck farms. By 1981, the Warner Duck Farm had eliminated routine surface discharges by the implementation of a swimwater recycle system. The facility, which was permitted for an average daily discharge of 60,000 gpd in 1977, was inactive by 1987. The Bridgeview Duck Farm also utilized a wastewater recycle system which, in 1982, had been in place for years. In the 1970's the Bridgeview farm only occasionally discharged to the Peconic River, with a SPDES permit average flow limitation of 45,000 gpd. The Bridgeview site was out of business by March of 1986. The C & R duck farm, which has been out of business for several years, was permitted for 5,600 ducks and an average discharge of 60,000 gpd around 1980. 6.1.5 Landfills A review of data available through 1990 relating to landfills located in the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic River/Peconic-Flanders Bays system was conducted. Landfills can be considered either point or nonpoint sources of pollution. For purposes of BTCAMP, they have been categorized as point sources. It should be noted that the information in this section was collected prior to the required December, 1990 shutdown of landfills in the study area pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law. Therefore, while the data in this section is still valid, the active status of the landfills so designated in this section may have changed by the time of publication of this report. _ There are nine landfills in the groundwater -contributing area of the Peconic system (see Table 6.1-18). Of these nine, there are five active landfills and four closed landfills at the time of report 6-73 NYSDEC Div. of Hazardous Waste Remediation codes: 2: Significant threat to the public health or environment - action required 2a: Temp. classification- inadequate/insufficient data for inclusion in other classificatia ("Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," NYSDEC, October 198,, Current as of 1989. NOTE: The information in this table was collected prior to the required December 1990 shutdown of landfills in the study area pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law. Therefore, the active status of the landfills so designated in this table may have changed by the time of publication of this report. I 6-74 Table 6.1-1-5 LANDFILLS IN PECONIC SYSTEM GROUNDWATER -CONTRIBUTING AREA • * I LANDFILL LOCATION STATUS SITE OPERATIONS (SPDES #) CLASS. East Hampton Accabonack Rd., SIO Active 2a Scavenger (pre -8/87); Resource (Accabonack site) Abraham's Path Recovery; Brush/Compost; Part - (NY -0136956) East Hampton Lined East Hampton Stephen Hands Path/ Closed 2a Abandoned facility; reactivated (Bull Path site) North-West Road (1979) for brush/.stump/constr.. East Hampton debris East Hampton Montauk Point State Active 2a Scavenger; Resource Recovery; (Montauk site) Parkway, Montauk 9/1/86- scay. lagoons closed_ (NY=0136948) Greenport North & Kaplan St. Closed 2a Garbage; Brush Greenport Hampton Bays Jackson Avenue Closed 2a Transfer - Hampton Bays North Sea Majors Path Closed 2a - North Sea North Sea Majors Path Active 2 Scavenger (pre -10/86); Waste Oii. (NY -0077445) North Sea Recovery; Resource Rec.; Brush/ Compost; Demo Debris; Part. Lin I Sag Harbor Sag Harbor Turnpike -Active 2a Transfer; Brush/Compost; Bridgehampton Demolition Debris Shelter Island Bowditch Rd./ Active 2a Resource Recovery; s (NY -0103462) Menantic Rd. Scavenger (pre -10/1/86) NYSDEC Div. of Hazardous Waste Remediation codes: 2: Significant threat to the public health or environment - action required 2a: Temp. classification- inadequate/insufficient data for inclusion in other classificatia ("Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," NYSDEC, October 198,, Current as of 1989. NOTE: The information in this table was collected prior to the required December 1990 shutdown of landfills in the study area pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law. Therefore, the active status of the landfills so designated in this table may have changed by the time of publication of this report. I 6-74 preparation. The active landfills include: East. Hampton (Accabonac Site), East Hampton (Montauk Site), North Sea (Majors Path), Sag Harbor (Sag Harbor Turnpike), and Shelter Island (Bowditch Rd.). Closed landfills are East Hampton (Bull Path Site), Greenport (North and Kaplan St.), Hampton Bays (Jackson Ave), and North Sea (Majors Path). See Figure 6.1-12 for the locations of the active and inactive landfills in the Peconic system. Table 6.1-18 presented the active and closed landfills in the groundwater contributing area of the Peconic system. Table 6.1-19 indicates that four of the landfills in the system have shown some degree of potential contamination. The North Sea landfill is an identified Class 2 site from which a plume of leachate contaminated groundwater has reached the surface waters of the Peconic system. An evaluation of the landfills in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic Bays system revealed documented contamination of groundwater due to the North Sea landfill and potential contamination from the other landfills. The North Sea landfill is the greatest immediate concern because its plume of contamination, which contains elevated concentrations of contaminants which include ammonia, iron, and manganese, has reached the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system (see Figure 6.1-13). Surface water and sediment sampling activity conducted by a consultant for the Town of Southampton has shown that the groundwater leachate from the North Sea landfill has upwelled in an area of approximately four acres in Fish Cove which exhibits high concentrations of leachate constituents and may have adversely impacted clam populations '(H2M, Feb. 1990). USEPA has also reported (August, 1991) the presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy metals in groundwater and cadmium in Fish Cove water samples. Just prior to BTCAMP report publication, USEPA announced that no further federal action at the North Sea landfill site is necessary. Under a consent decree with USEPA, the Town of Southampton is addressing the source of contamination. A USEPA press release (October 6, 1992) notes that the North Sea Landfill does not pose a significant threat to public health and environment via groundwater contamination, based on a program of remedial action. This program also calls for further monitoring of groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish Cove, and hard clam recruitment. The North Sea site was the only site classified by NYSDEC as Code 2 (in October, 1987 "NYSDEC Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites), which signifies required action due to a significant threat to the public health or environment. All of the other landfills were classified as Code 2a, which is a temporary classification denoting insufficient data for inclusion in other classifications; the Shelter Island landfill was subsequently delisted from the State Hazardous Waste Registry. Of the landfills in the study area, several are situated near the groundwater divide. These landfills include East Hampton (Accabonac, Active), East Hampton (Closed), Hither Hills (Montauk, Active), Hampton Bays (Closed), and Greenport (Closed). The potential for groundwater contribution from beneath these sites to the Peconic Bays system is reduced given their 'proximity to the groundwater divide and is especially lessened for the East Hampton Active and Closed landfills because of their relatively distant location with respect to the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system. The East Hampton (Active) landfill has had documented violations of 6-75 BLOCK ISLAND SOUND LT GARDINERS BAY SH LONG I SLAND SOUND AR AN RS SLAN LITTLE 1 P BAY I C �l I RIVERHEAD GREAT 8 2 PECO PECONIC ` EAST HAMPTON FLANDERS BAY BAY / SOUTHAMPTON LANDFILLS / I. EAST HAMPTON (ACCABONAC SITE) BROOKHAVEN 2. EAST HAMPTON (BULL PATH SITE) BAy 3. EAST HAMPTON (MONTAUK SITE) HI NEC K 4. GREENPORT 5. HAMPTON BAYS 6 . N_ORZH_S_E A NORICHE� BAY 7. NORTH SEA 8. SAG HARBOR 9. SHELTER ISLAND ACTIVE INACTIVE NOTE$ Date compiled In 1989, prior to scheduled Implementation of Long Island Landfill Lew FIGURE'6.1-12 ACTIVE AND INACTIVE LANDFILLS. IN THE STUDY AREA NO SCALE SOURCE, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PBH — 3/92 2372M/4 Table 6.1-19 Landfill Operation and Contamination Data LANDFILL APPROX. VOLUME TYPES OF KNOWN (SPDES #) SITE SIZE WASTES WASTE (APPLICATION) CONTAMINATION East Hampton (a) 60 acres 50 tons/day 1979: Scay. Waste (lagoons); 1982; Septic sludge from (Accabonac site) solid waste Separate areas: alum., glass, an on—site pit was found (NY -0136956) (1979) metals, scallop shells. No to contain methylene haz. materials/brush/debris chloride, toluene and phenol East Hampton (c) 15 acres 20 tons/day 1979: Exclusively brush/stumps (Bull Path site) solid waste constr. debris. Site was an (1979) abandoned village facility East hampton (a) 30 acres 20 tons/day Sole facility for solid waste 1983: Scavenger waste (Montauk site) solid waste in eastern Easthampton (1979) Tagoon has been flowing underground onto adjacent property. Large pond formed in woods Greenport (c) -- -- Garbage, brush; possibly other — materials (1969). Silver Lake used as dump site (1982) rn Hampton Bays (c) 10 acres -- Inactive landfill. — V Septage disposal site. V North Sea (c) 10 -- Inactive landfill and septage — lagoon. North Sea (a) 100 -- Active since mid -1960's. 1979: Leachate plume has (NY -0077445) Scavenger waste (SPDES deleted reached Fish Cove. 10.28/86); putrescible solid Character: Elevated waste in lined area (7 acres conductivity, ammonia, lined—completed by 11/82); chlorides, manganese, other inert material (e.g. sodium, hardness. 1983: debris in unlined area. Includes lead, iron, TOC; NYS drinking water stds. exceeded for cadmium, mercury and lead. Sag Harbor (a) 10 acres -- Household garbage transfer 3/84: DEC investigations Brush/debris buried on—site. noted a number'of rusted empty 55—gal drums protruding through refuse and brush on—site. Shelter Island (a) 10 acres Resource recovery; scavenger (NY -0103462) (SPDES deleted 10/1/86) _ (a) = active; (c) = closed Source: SCDHS files 2372M/4 i FIGURE 6.1-13 NORTH SEA LANDFILL PREVIOUS MONITORING WELLS AND LOCATION OF LEACHATE PLUME j ® MUS OW&AM&M YLF40M G "w DIIILLM umm AM No Mmmm"m OT U""T1 TRLu o u"a am= AAi mw"A Tw ev U O OLTTTO.► TATLu j maw WT VET "LLN ■ NOI/0ITNLA7 TAN.O ■OT APPWM 9T LIA&MVE WALK 11 ■ DIOL/OI WIM WLLB ARACTTD w LWHAn mu RM uAC1Yn PLUM DDIILO u" j NOURCj: uACMATI MWWWATIM. NDATN KA LWORILL TOM O/ ODIRMAININK OIMPOLK COUNTY D"An"awr OF "I"T" envwO. "ft. SOURCE: "Draft Work Plan, Phase 1, Remedial Investigation, North Sea Landfill, Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York, August, 1986," Ebasco Services Incorporated. 6-78 SPDES permit conditions during the period in which it accepted scavenger waste. Methylene chloride, toluene, and phenol were also discovered in septic sludge sampled from an on-site pit. The remaining landfills in the study area include Sag Harbor and Shelter Island. Both of these sites are presently active. A cursory NYSDEC inspection of the Sag Harbor landfill in 1984 revealed a number of rusted and empty 55 -gal. drums protruding through the refuse and brush on- site. The Shelter Island site accepted scavenger waste until 1986, and has been delisted from the State Hazardous Waste Registry A brief description of each landfill is presented as follows. East Hampton (Accabonac Site) The active Accabonac site, located between Accabonac Road and Springs -Fireplace Road, has separate collection areas for aluminum, glass, metals, scallop shells, etc. No brush, debris, or hazardous materials are officially accepted at the landfill. Prior to August of 1987, scavenger waste was accepted at the facility. A 1979 permit application projected a deposit of 50 tons/day of waste at the landfill. The Accabonac Landfill is situated near the edge of the groundwater divide, with groundwater beneath the site flowing in a southeasterly direction. , According to the SCDHS Bureau of Groundwater Resources groundwater flow system maps, it is estimated that little, if any, of the groundwater flowing beneath the site will ever reach Accabonac Harbor and the Peconic Bays system. Estimating the landfill area to be 45 acres, the NYSDEC classifies the site as code 2a with the migration potential of possible contaminants through groundwater described as highly likely with a high need for investigation. The Accabonac Landfill is composed of 2 distinct landfill cells: the north C & D cell and the south putrescibles cell. The C & D cell is unlined, while the putrescibles cell has 2 acres of double - lined (20 ml PVC) segment. The liner (installed in 198 1) is ineffective; no leachate has ever been removed from the landfill. A -comprehensive Part 360-2.15/Phase II site investigation scheduled for 1990. Workplan modifications were under review at the time of this writing. In 1982, septic sludge sampled from an on-site pit was found to contain methylene chloride, toluene, and phenol. Monthly monitoring reports as per SPDES permit requirements were available in SCDHS files for a few months prior to cessation of scavenger waste dumping, which occurred at the.startup of the East Hampton, Scavenger Waste facility. These reports indicated that, at the point of recharge to groundwater, there occurred elevated levels of BOD, suspended solids, nitrogen, zinc, lead, iron, and copper. A 1961"engineering survey of the Town dump area recommended improved sanitary landfilling at the dump. At that time, rodents, fires, and uncontrolled dumping of refuse such as tree stumps, automobile parts and large dead animals were noted as characteristic of operations. The 6-79 survey also noted that septic tank sludge was dumped in outlying areas contractors. East Hampton (Bull Path Site) The closed Bull"Path facility at Stephen Hands Path and North -W to have been an abandoned Village facility that was reactivated for brus] that time, the site was accepting 20 tons/day of solid waste and was new projected in approximately one year. According to the SCDHS Bureau groundwater flow system maps, the landfill is situated near the edge of t site is estimated by the NYSDEC to be 15 acres and is classified as'Cod assesses the migration potential of possible contaminants through group Peed for investigation. East Hampton (Montauk Site) d or purchased by st Road was noted in 1979- and 979and stump disposal. At ng capacity, with closure of Groundwater Resources to groundwater divide. The :2a. The'NYSDEC [water as likely, with a high Serving, eastern East Hampton, the active Hither Hills landfill at Montauk Point State Parkway closed its scavenger waste lagoons in September, 1986. The site area is estimated by the NYSDEC . to be 30 acres. The NYSDEC classifies the landfill as code 2a with a high need for investigation of groundwater conditions, which carry a likely potential for contaminant A Part 360-2.15 hydrogeologic workplan has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Conservation and J s now under review; the DEC anticipates the investigation.and monitorrtg program to commence in late.1990/early 1991. The SCDHS Bureau of Groundwater Resources groundwater flow system maps indicate that the landfill lies near the edge of the- groundwater div!de. In 1983; the scavenger waste lagoon was found to have been flowing underground to adjacent property, forming a large pond in the woods. Accepting 20 tons/day of (waste in 1979, the landfill was the sole facility for solid waste disposal east of Hither Hills. A 1961 engineering report recommended the new waste disposal facility. At that time, the private towner of the. sanitary landfill which was located off Flamingo Road about one mile north of Montauk Station requested that it be closed. Septic tank sludge was, in that time period, dumped o Ih the exposed surface of land owned or rented by. contractors. The land surface was scarified for better leaching of subsequent ..deposits. Greenport The closed Greenport landfill at North & Kaplan Streets was uses other materials. The site, which, according to the SCDHS Bureau of G groundwater flow system maps, is located near the groundwater divide, 1978, .the DEC ordered a halt to dumping at the Greenport site and requ materials, as the dump was impeding the natural flow of water in a wet] that Silver Lake was being used as a dumpsite. 640 for garbage, brush, and )undwater Resources was in use in 1969. In red the removal of unburied nd. A 1982 report notes Hampton Bays The Hampton Bays transfer station at Jackson Avenue is an inactive landfill and septage disposal site. The SCDHS Bureau.of Groundwater Resources describes the location of this landfill as being near the edge of the groundwater divide. The NYSDEC classifies the 10 acre site as 2a, with an unlikely migration potential of possible contaminants through groundwater and a low need for further investigation. North Sea . The North Sea Landfill is a 131 acre site which was in use since 1963 for the disposal of municipal solid waste, refuse, debris, and septic sludge. An estimated 80,000 tons per year of materials are landfilled annually. Previous operations on the site resulted in the capping of two unlined landfill areas ("Cell #1 ") of approximately 13 acres and 1.3 million cubic yards. Septic sludges were originally placed in the bottom of the capped landfill cells in the early 1960's. In the late 1960's, twelve scavenger lagoons were constructed. These lagoons received about 11 million gallons of septic sludge annually. The lagoons were decommissioned in 1986, with excavated material placed in "Cell #2," which has a clay liner and a membrane cap. The lagoons were then backfilled with sand. The currently active cell ("Cell #3") covers approximately seven acres. The cell was constructed with a double liner and leachate collection system. Recently, the NYSDEC has been investigating allegations that the linerwas not installed properly. The controversy has been resolved by the Town's agreement to cap the cell. At the time of report preparation, the site was the only landfill in the Peconic system groundwater -contributing area classified by the NYSDEC as Code 2. The landfill was an accepted NPL site, with drinking water having been brought in for residents downgradient of the landfill whose wells were contaminated by the leachate. The unlined "Cell #1" and the scavenger waste lagoons have been the .subject of a remedial investigation ("RI") and a feasibility study ("FS"). The remedy selected for source of contamination of Cell 1 was capping according to NYSDEC landfill closure requirements and additional sampling to verify removal of contaminated soil. Additional analysis also occurred pursuant to an ongoing remedial investigation/feasibility study. Analytical parameters measured in area wells indicate elevated levels of contaminants, including ammonia, iron, and manganese. USEPA has also reported the presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy metals in groundwater and cadmium in Fish Cove water samples. The above - outlined information is described in more detail in the "Work Plan, Phase 1, Remedial Investigation, North Sea Landfill, Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York, August, 1986" (Ebasco Fem:1I Services, Inc.) and "USEPA Facts, North Sea Municipal Landfill, 1991). The ,plume has reached its discharge boundary at Fish Cove, wl undertaken to assess the effects of the groundwater contamination on draft report by H2M Group Consulting Engineers for the Town of So Landfill, Phase II Remedial Investigation, Fish Cove Study" (Februat groundwater leachate from the landfill has upwelled in an area of app exhibits high concentrations of leachate constituents. Just prior to BTCAMP report publication, USEPA announced tl the North Sea landfill site is necessary. Under a consent decree with 1 Southampton is addressing the source of contamination. A USEPA pi notes that the North Sea Landfill does not pose a significant threat to via groundwater contamination, based on a program of remedial actio further monitoring of groundwater, air, benthic ammonia flux in Fish recruitment. Sag Harbor The active Sag Harbor site at Sag Harbor Turnpike is used for The landfill is also a transfer station for household garbage. A cursc revealed a number of rusted and empty 55 -gal. drums protruding th site. The NYSDEC classifies the landfill, estimated at 10 acres, as c potential of possible contaminants and a high need for investigation. Shelter Island The Shelter Island site is located at Bowditch Road and Menai active municipal landfill. The SPDES pen -nit for this landfill was de since Greenport agreed to accept scavenger waste from Shelter Islan at 10 acres, is classified as 2a by the NYSDEC, with a high need for likely migration potential of possible groundwater contaminants. He delisted from -the State Hazardous Waste Registry pursuant to the re( Division of Hazardous Wastes. 6.2 Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint source pollution is pollution that enters water from di; sources such as stormwater runoff rather than from discrete locations treatment plant discharge pipes. Nonpoint sources may contribute a v which include pathogens, nutrients, suspended solids, BOD -and toxic, 6-82 N.Y." (August, :re sampling efforts have been .ie surface water system. A thampton entitled "North Sea , 1990) has indicated that the )ximately four acres which no further federal action at EPA, the Town of s release (October 6, 1992) dic Health and environment This program also calls for ve. and hard clam ush and compost dumping. NYSDEC inspection in 1984 igh the refuse and brush on - le 2a with a likely migration : Road and is presently an ed effective October 1, 1986, The site, which is estimated restigation of the highly -ver, the site has been of the NYSDEC used and uncontrolled sources such as sewage e variety of pollutants s. While in some cases individual sources may seem unimportant, the cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution may be significant. A significant amount of pollutants to water systems are introduced by a variety of activities which do not result in a direct and easily identifiable point discharge. Examples of nonpoint sources of pollution which are discussed in this section are benthic deposits, animal wastes, sanitary waste disposal, fertilizers, pesticides, chemical/oil spills, and storage tank leaks. Atmospheric deposition and activities related to marinas and boating are also discussed in this section as, sources of pollution. To illustrate -the range of contaminants which can be present in stormwater runoff, which is a significant source of nonpoint source pollution to the Peconic Estuary system, Figure 6.2-1 presents concentrations of conventional parameters in stormwater as compared to those in secondary - treated municipal effluent. More detailed area -specific information regarding stormwater runoff is contained in Section 6.2.6. In general, nonpoint sources are transported to the Peconic system as a result of: o Sediment/water column flux o Stormwater runoff to surface waters o Groundwater contribution to surface water o Atmospheric transport and deposition These transport mechanisms are often dependent on meteorological events and/or local geology or .proximity to surface waters and are affected by land use practices (see Section 6.3 for discussion of land use and impacts). Nonpoint sources affect both surface and groundwaters. Groundwater is affected by on -lot sewage disposal, underground storage tanks, land-based spills, and fertilizer applications used on agricultural and residential lands (by groundwater recharge). Contamination from these sources may be transported by groundwater to surface waters. Surface waters are directly impacted by sediment fluxes involving oxygen and nutrients, stormwater transport of contaminants, groundwater inputs, atmospheric deposition, marina and boating - activities, dredging, and hydrodynamic forces acting on water bodies. Examples of degraded conditions of marine waters which can result from the above-described pollution include the following: o Reduction in species diversity o Decrease in primary production o Fish mortality and/or health of marine fauna o Human health risk effects o Other effects (such as loss of shellfishing areas, economic impacts, system eutrophication) On a national scale, in 1988 nonpoint sources comprised 65% of the contamination in impaired rivers, 76% in impaired lakes, and 45% in impaired estuaries (USEPA, 1988). The Peconic River and Flanders Bay nonpoint source nitrogen loading (during summer conditions) is 6-83 104 � �■ J I 102 O 10 U 1 1- I I♦ I t 10-1 BOD COD TN TP LEGEND 4*-* Stonnwater, range of concentrations Secondary effluent treatment, typical concentratwns TSS Fecal coliform bacteria E Reference: Modified from Galvin, 1987; Hvitved-Jacobsen, 1986 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS IN STORMWATER AS COMPARED TO THOSE IN SECONDARY -TREATED MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT Source: Puget Sound Water ,Authority. 1988 6-84 approximately 82% of the total point and nonpoint load: In addition, nonpoint source loading in the form of stormwater runoff has historically been considered to be the major source of coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary system.. One aspect of surface water systems with respect to many nonpoint source inputs is that they provide an opportunity for particulate settling and chemical uptake, with the system serving as a type of pollutant trap. These pollutants can be removed from the system through the utilization of nutrients by macrophytes and plankton, with subsequent consumption by higher elements of the food chain or through physical or chemical fixation in the bottom sediments. Resuspension or reactivation of these -materials can occur through physical, chemical or biological processes. In many enclosed aquatic systems the nutrient trapping process rapidly transforms the water body into an aquatic system polluted by its own excess, with algae blooms and rooted vegetation creating a burden of decaying organic matter which depletes the oxygen levels in bottom waters to a degree where fish mortality results. In an estuary, the settling, enrichment, algae growth, and decay cycle is similar, but a portion of the pollutant load is typically displaced with each tidal cycle. The relative shallowness of most estuaries allows a substantial oxygen transfer and mixing at the surface, thereby minimizing anoxia. Figure 6.2-2 presents a flow diagram that reflects the generic transport processes for pollutants in a watershed. 6.2.1 Overall Nonpoirit Source Loadings to the System Data which has been gathered for the majority of nonpoint source (NPS) loads primarily relates to nitrogen and coliform contribution. It is estimated by Suffolk County that the nitrogen loading from. nonpoint sources into the Peconic system via atmospheric deposition, stormwater runoff, and groundwater underflow (east of the USGS gauge sampling station) is approximately 3100 pounds per day during summer conditions. Of this quantity, the total nitrogen loading from summertime benthic flux is approximately 2,350 pounds per day, which is greater than the sum of all other point and non -point source loads of nitrogen. Although this estimate emphasizes the significance of benthic flux as a non -point source of pollution, the estimate is based on limited data and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment (see Section 6.2.8). A nonpoint source nitrogen loading summary is included in Table 6.2-1. Although the nonpoint source nitrogen loading greatly exceeds the total nitrogen load for point sources, the management of point sources remains a primary concern in the Peconic Estuary system. 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 also determined 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 6-85 Atmospheric Deposition 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Point 1 E-------------4 1 Sources 1 EForests — 1 % Fertilizer ° 1 1 1 Croplands ---� 1 1 F 1 1 _Pastures___ 1 1 Rivers --> � _ 1 Animal 1 �7i e e Waste 1 1 _ 1 Urban go --SM �00000CCCOOCOCCO --J Sc E"- "98qlw KlitrnryAn Flaw in tho lAbtArSh-' Fiaure 6.2-2 Table 6..2- , 1 Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Summary <------ Nitrogen Loading (lb/day) ------> Overall Peconit North South Area River Fork Fork Stormwater Runoff Load 26 5 10 11 Groundwater Underflow Load 577 303 215 59 Atmospheric Deposition 163 --- Sediment Flux 2350 --- --- --- Total Nonpoint Source Loading 3116 308 -225 70 *Groundwater underflow loading for Peconic River region includes Peconic River East region only. Other Peconic,River point and nonpoint contributions are included in Peconic River point source flow. Groundwater,�underflow estimates incorporate septic system effluent., fertilizer leachate, etc. (See,Section 6.1.,4),. **Direct rainfall contribution is'67 lb/day based on 3.9 sq*. mi. surface area for Flanders Bay (Hardyt 1976) And 1.0 mg/l,,total nitrogen in direct rainfall (LI 208 Study, Lake Ronkonkoma Study).. Overall atmospheric deposition term was supplied by TetrA-Tech (1.990). **'*Summertime sediment flux conditions pres6nted; average year-round sediment flux -loading is 730 pounds per day. Estimates are based on limited sampling in July and October, 1989 (see Section 6.2.8) and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment. groundwater to the marine system further indicate that groundv major influence in the water quality of the Peconic system (see sampling tends to indicate that the groundwater contribution estimates determining nitrogen loading to Flanders Bay may be conservatively b quantitative significance of groundwater nitrogen contribution must be is not as important as other point sources. rogen input may not be a 6.2.8). Dr. Capone's Df the USGS as applied in .gh. Thus, the apparent tempered by evidence that it In terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts, point sources 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. The groundwater underflow component of nonpoint source pollution, which was estimated at 580 pounds per day, incorporates a number of nonpoint source contributions, including sanitary system effluent, fertilizer leachate, and animal waste. These nonpoint source contributors, which are discussed in detail throughout this section, are accounted for by applying regional groundwater nitrogen concentrations (see Section 5) to USGS fmite-difference grid model estimates of groundwater contribution to the surface waters of the study area. Mord details regarding the assumptions involved in this analysis are contained in Section 6.4. Approximately 90% of the groundwater nitrogen loading occurr and North Forks region, with the remainder of the loading generated a the total nitrogen -contribution from groundwater for the Peconic Rive: Peconic River received approximately 53% (303 lbs/day) of the nitrog expected, the nitrogen loading from groundwater to Flanders Bay was than the South Fork. Loadings on the North Fork were attributable to (47% of acreage) as well as significant residential development (22% comparison, the South Fork, which contributed only 70 pounds to the nitrogen load in the primary study area, had no land in agricultural use contributing area to Flanders Bay and relatively less residential devek Land use data is discussed throughout this section, where applicable, Section 6.3. Stormwater runoff loading, at 26 pounds per day of nitrogen, point and nonpoint source loading of 3,800 pounds per day of nitro from stormwater runoff has historically been considered to'be the c loading to surface waters of Suffolk County.. Stormwater runoff cc C'st1:i d in the Peconic River East k the South Fork. 'In terms of Flanders Bay area, the ;n load. As would be treater for the North Fork L heavy agricultural influence ,f total acreage). By overall nonpoint source in the groundwater )ment (13% of total acreage): id is examined in detail in less than 1% of the total However, coliform loading cause of bacteriological Wes approximately 5.5 E12 mpn/day of total coliforms to surface ,waters of Peconic River and Flanders Bay. More information regarding coliform loading is contained in Section 6.2.6 and Section 6.4. 6.2.2 Agricultural and Residential Land Uses and Pollutant Loading Summary An analysis of the use of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural and residential regions located in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River and Peconic Bays system was conducted. Acreages of residential and agricultural land by region, including a breakdown as to sewered and unsewered areas, are shown on Table 6.2-2. Based upon the nitrogen analysis presented in this section, a total of approximately 215 tons of nitrogen per year (approximately 1180 pounds per day) was estimated to recharge to groundwater and. surface waters as a result of leaching and stormwater runoff from residential and agricultural land uses in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay groundwater -contributing areas. Of this total, approximately 56% (240,000 pounds per year, or 660 pounds per day) was a direct result of fertilizer application in agricultural and residential areas, with the remainder consisting primarily of nitrogen from residential sewage. This sewage component of nitrogen contribution corresponds to approximately 95 tons per year, or 530 pounds per day. A much smaller percentage of the overall nitrogen contribution can be attributed to various sources including direct precipitation, soil mineralization, and animal wastes. The primary pollutant involved in this evaluation was nitrogen which leaches to groundwater and/or surface water via infiltration or stormwater runoff. Table 6.2-3 presents estimated leaching rates for nitrogen in sewered and unsewered areas-. Nitrogen recharge rates were derived from "Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y." (Trautman, Porter, and Hughes, April, 1983). These recharge rates were representative of material balances which accounted for the processes of plant uptake, leaching, runoff, gaseous loss, soil mineralization, and precipitation. Because information regarding the use of pesticides and organic chemicals was scarce, this evaluation deals almost exclusively with nitrogen. However, groundwater quality data was used an as indicator of, the presence of organic chemicals, such as components of solvents, and pesticides in groundwater. This analysis of organic chemical and pesticide data utilized groundwater quality data ' from private; public, and monitoring wells to assess the effect of certain agricultural chemicals on groundwater. The May, 1980 "Status Report, Pesticide Sampling Programs, 1980-1987" was also utilized to obtain data regarding chemical usage on agricultural and residential land. More detailed information regarding the groundwater quality analysis is contained in Section 5. The results of the evaluation of organic chemical data indicates that organic chemical detection in -private wells was relatively low, with a detection rate of 4 to 15 per cent in the Peconic 6-89 TABLE 6.2-2 Residential and Agricultural Land Use in Sewered and Unsewered Areas in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater-Contributing'Area LAND USE <-------------------- AREA IN REGION (acres) -------------------> TOTAL' 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 AREA (PR -H) (PR -W) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C) (SF -C) (NF -I) (SF -I) Low Density Residential Unsewered: -1,346 60 105 103 62 176 167 264 410 Sewered: 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 Total: 1,383 60 105 103 99 176 167 264 410 Medm. Density Residential Unsewered: 2,025 0 43 148 513 559 319 97 346 Sewered: 451 0 0 0 451 0 0 0 0 Total: 2,477 0 43 148 964 559. 319 97 346 o High Density Residential Unsewered: 247 0 0 111 103 19 0 14 0 Sewered: 55 0 0 33 22 0 0 0 0 Total: 302 0 0 144 125 19 0 14 0 - Agriculture Unsewered: 3,721 64 558 587 107 877 0 1,529 0 Sewered: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: 3,721 64 558 587 107 877 0 1,529 0 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL 7,883 124 706 982 1,295 1,631 486 1,904 756 TOTAL -'ALL LAND USES .30,214 2,316 5,699 3,508 4,385 2,788 1,967 2,374 7,176 T* Regions included:: PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid,.and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland -Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) Table 6.2-3 Estimated Nitrogen Leaching Rates In Sewered, Unsewered and Agricultural Areas LAND USE FERTILIZER APPLICATION RATE (lb N/1000 sf)I Low -Density Res. 2.4 (1.0 unit/acre) 0 NITROGEN 1.1*** Med.-Density Res. 2.4 (2.9 Units/acre) 0 1.1*** High Density Res.^ 2.4 (8..0 units/acre) 0 32.4 1.1 *** Agric. (potatoes) 175**** (Riverhead/Haven Soil) * Adapted from estimates contained in "Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y.," Preliminary Draft, Trautman, N.M., K. S. Porter and H. B. Hughes, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, April, 1983. ** Water recharge = infiltration plus runoff.. *** 2.4 lb N per 1000 sq. ft in 45% of households and 0 lb. N per 1000 sq ft. in 55% of household as per survey noted in above-cited reference. **** Agricultural fertilizer application is 175 lb nitrogen per acre. "'High density residential assumed to be same as 4.0 units/acre for turf with sewage accounting for nitrogen increase resulting from additional units. ^^For purposes of this study, 90% of agricultural nitrogen leached is assumed to be from fertilizer. ** NITROGEN LEACHED (lb N/Ac/Yr) WATER RECHARGE NITROGEN CONC. <-TOTAL NITROGEN-> Nit. From I (inches/yr) I (mg/1) Unsewered Sewered FertilizerlUnsewered*SeweredlUnsewered*Sewered I 32.4 18.2 I 12.5 I 28.9 I 27.5 I 4.8 2.8 19.9 5.7 .0.0 I 28.9 27.5 I 2.9 0.9 25.5 11.3 5.6 l 28.9 _27.5 I 3.8 1.8 69.9 28.7 i 22.5 I 34.9 31.0 I 8.5 3.9:. 47.4 6.2 0.0 I 34.9 -31.0 I 5.8 0.9-. 57.5 1.6.3 10.1 I 34.9 31.0 I 7.0 2:2=' .129.0 26.1 I 19.9 I 43.0 I 32.2 I 12.8 3.4 109.1 6.2 0.0 I 43.0 32.2 I 10.8 0.8 118.1 15.2 9.0 I 43.0 32.2 I 11.7 2.0: 61.0^^ N/A N/A I 32.,3 I N/A I I 8.1 N/A * Adapted from estimates contained in "Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y.," Preliminary Draft, Trautman, N.M., K. S. Porter and H. B. Hughes, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, April, 1983. ** Water recharge = infiltration plus runoff.. *** 2.4 lb N per 1000 sq. ft in 45% of households and 0 lb. N per 1000 sq ft. in 55% of household as per survey noted in above-cited reference. **** Agricultural fertilizer application is 175 lb nitrogen per acre. "'High density residential assumed to be same as 4.0 units/acre for turf with sewage accounting for nitrogen increase resulting from additional units. ^^For purposes of this study, 90% of agricultural nitrogen leached is assumed to be from fertilizer. River/Flanders Bay region (1977-1988). Organic chemical detection eastern study area regions (1987-1988), except for the Gardiners Bay organic chemical problem elevated the overall detection rate. Pesticide contamination of private supply wells was common, e Fork where agricultural chemical usage was historically prevalent. A reflecting both aldicarb and carbofuran concentrations, ranged from 6 Fork groundwater quality regions. Detection rates in the same region 43%. Samples in the Peconic River/North Flanders Bay regions shov of 9.7 to 14.4 ppb except for the Peconic River Headwaters, which co the more residentially -developed Peconic River East area, which aver Pesticide samples taken in East Creek, a North Fork creek which cont between 3 and 7 ppb aldicarb, indicating pesticide contamination has surface waters (see Section 3). Sampling on the South Fork side of d limited, with lower average pesticide concentrations. Primary sources of information used in generating the fertilizer publications by the Cornell University Center for Environmental Resp Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton" (Hughes a an "Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y." ( April, 1983). These reports contained information regarding resulting from agricultural and various residential land uses. were similar in the i area where a localized throughout the North -rage total pesticide levels, to 14.4 ppb in the North averaged between 24% and :d average levels of pesticides tained insufficient data, and ged 6.4 ppb total pesticides. .butes to Flanders Bay, had some degree affected study area was much more fluation included two ;h: "Land Use and Porter, November, 1983) Porter, and Hughes, nitrogen loading factors its which were incorporated into these loading factors were fertilizer, sewage, direct precipitation, and other factors (e.g., animal wastes, soil mineralization, etc.). The loading factors from the Southold study presented on Table 6.2-3 were applied to residential and agricultural land uses in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay groundwater - contributing area to estimate the overall nitrogen loading resulting from various sources. For comparison purposes, Table 6.2-4 shows loading rates for a similar study performed in Southampton. The report "Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Bariens of Southampton" was reviewed for'its discussion of nitrogen recharge rates. Although both the Southampton and Southold reports treat agricultural areas similarly, a major difference in the two studies is that the Southampton study assumes a greater residential turf fertilization rate than the Southold study, resulting in higher residential nitrogen loadings. The Southold study as believed to be closer to actual conditions in the study area and was thus used for the respective calculations. Recharge rates for low, medium and high density housing were 25.5, 57.5, and 118.11 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year, respectively, as compared with the agricultural recharge rate of 61 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. The corresponding concentration of nitrogen in the recharge was estimated to be 3.8, 7.0, and 11.7 mg/l for low, medium, and high density residential categories with a concentration of 6-92 Table 6.2-4 Brown Tide Comprehensive,. Assessment and Management Program Estimated Annual Nitrogen Recharge Rates by Land Use Types* Nitrogen Nitrogen Data*** Source Land Use" lb N/ac In. Water mg/l N TURF Low Density Residential 123 6.9 7.7 Medium Density Residential 24 13.5 7.7 High Density Residential 15.3 8.6 7.7 Pine Barrens (no turf) 0.8 20.8, 0.2 Eastern L.I. Turf*-**.* 64.2 29.6 9.4 SEWAGE Low Density Residential 14.9 1.6 40.2 Medium Density Residential -52.4 5.6 40.4 High Density Residential 217.4 23.4 40.1 OTHER Low Density Residential 2.9 19.4. 0.6- Medium Density Residential 4.2 18.2 1.0 High Density Residential 6.3 25.7 1.1 TOTAL Low Density Residential 30.1 27.9 4.7 Medium Density Residential 80.6 37.3 9.3 High Density Residential 239 57.7 17.9. Agricultural (potatoes) [Rd]* 59.5 32.3 8.0 Agricultural (vegetables) [Rd]* 50.4 29.1 7.3 Agricultural (potatoes), [Pl]* ' 110.9 31.3 15.6 Agricultural (vegetables) [Pl]* 72.7 29.1 10.7 Adapted from nitrogen budg6iestimates `JnLand Use and Groundwater in Pine Barrens of Southampton," Hughes, H.B.F. and K.S. Porter, Water Resource Program, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, November, 1983. Land uses: Low density residential = 0-2 units per acre (2.7 person/ac); Medium density residential = 2-5 units per acre (9.6 persons/ac); High density residential = trailer park (39.4 persons/acre). In. Water = water recharged (inches): infiltration plus runoff; Lb N/ac = nitrogen leached (pounds per acre); <g/l N = concentration of nit. in recharge water, milligrams per liter. Based on simulation using Eastern Suffolk data for fertilized turf. [RD]* = Riverhead Sandy Loam; [Pl]* = Plymouth Loamy Sand 6-93 8.1 mg/1 in agricultural areas. Thus, in terms of nitrogen loading and recharge concentration per unit acre, agricultural areas contributed slightly more nitrogen than the medium density residential housing category. Actual field data collected during the "Suffolk County Comprel Management Plan" (CWRMP) was compared with the Southold stud3 area. Agricultural areas studied in the CWRMP were found to be and containing a concentration of approximately 7.9 mg/l, comparing wet mg/1 in the Southold study. Residential areas also correlated reasonat 3.9, 5.9, and 7.9 mg/1 for low, medium, and intermediate/high density comparing with 3.8, 7.0, and 11.7 mg/1 for low, medium, and high dej the Southold study. The correlation appeared to have a greater diverg densities. Meanwhile, the Southampton evaluation projected nitroger. significantly higher than those observed in the CWRMP for similar la Fertilizer Leaching of Nitrogen Fertilizer leaching of nitrogen is a major source of non -point s system. Table 6.2-5 presents commonly used nitrogen sources used release nitrogen sources are those compounds that, generally, incorp organics or a soluble coating that must be broken down by bacteria c nitrogen to the soil and root system of the plants. Other nitrogen soi soluble causing more rapid leaching of nitrogen through soils. Stud: practices that take into account temperature, season, irrigation or rai can result in lower leaching of nitrogen from fertilizer to groundwat public education and fertilizer management practices are important e pollution to the Peconic system. Fertilizer nitrogen contribution is by far more significant in agr residential regions. Nitrogen recharge rates from fertilizer in residen lower than recharge rates from fertilizer applications on agricultural l relative nitrogen loading from fertilizer according to land use in a pla areas made up 46% of the combined agricultural and residential acres but contributed 84% of the nitrogen recharge load from fertilizer and Total nitrogen recharge, by region and land use, is presented or account both on -lot sewage systems and fertilizer loadings. As show residential land uses recharge over 215 tons of nitrogen every year to Bay portion of the system. Total nitrogen loading was heaviest in the with the total nitrogen constituting 46% ( 99 tons per year or 540 you and agricultural nitrogen contributed in the Peconic River and Flande contributing areas. This nitrogen loading was due largely to the signi 6-94 -nsive Water Resources data as applied to the study ;rlain with groundwater with the projection of 8.1 [y well, with concentrations of land uses sity land uses as projected in :nce at higher residential concentrations which were id uses. ince pollution to the Peconic fertilizing turf grasses. Slow 'ate synthetic or natural water before releasing :es in fertilizer may be highly s have indicated that fertilizing all levels, and type of fertilizer (Petrovic, M., 1989). Thus, :ments to stress in limiting areasthan in areas were determined to be L Table 6.2-6 shows ng region. The agricultural examined in this evaluation Io of the total nitrogen load. Table 6.2-7. This takes into on this table, agricultural and rhe Peconic River/Flanders North Flanders Bay regions, ids per day) of all residential -s Bay groundwater- icant agricultural contribution, Table 6.2-5 The Properties of Nitrogen Sources Used on Golf Courses. Source: Petrovic, M. 1989 * G, Good; M, Moderate; P Poor ** F, Fast, M, Medium, S, Slow E, Extended; M, Moderate; L. Little H, high, M, Moderate, L, Low Low* Foliar Nitrogen Percentage Temp. Initial** Residual Water Burn Acidifying Leaching Source Type Nitrogen Response Response Response Solubility Potential Potential Potential Ammonium nitrate Synthetic inorganic 33 G F L H H M H Ammonium sulfate 21 G F L H H H H Activated sewage Natural organic 4-7 M -P M -S E L L L L Sludge (Milorganite) Digested sewage 1-3 M -P S E L L L L IBDU Synthetic organic 31 M M -S M -E L L L M Urea 45 G F L H H M H Ureaformaldehyde 38. P M -S E L L L L Sulfur -coated urea 32 M M M -E M -L L M M Source: Petrovic, M. 1989 * G, Good; M, Moderate; P Poor ** F, Fast, M, Medium, S, Slow E, Extended; M, Moderate; L. Little H, high, M, Moderate, L, Low Table 6.2-6 Relative Fertilizer Nitrogen Loading in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Area From Residential and Agricultural Lands Land Use Low Denlity 2 Med Density High Density Agric Total Region lb N/vr % lb N/vr % lb N/vr % lb N/vr % lb N/vr % PR -H 334 6 0 0 0 0 3,512 65 3,846 71 PR -W 586 1 437 1 0 78 30,624 78 31,647 81 PR -M 579 1 3,822 5 2,084 3 32,250 43 38,735 52 PR -E 554 1 9,736 17 1,857 3 5,860 10 18,008 31 NF -C 986 1 5,645 6 302 0 .48,144 52 55,077 60 SF -C 935 4 3,224 14 0 0 0 0 4,158 18 NF -I 1,479 1 981 1 228 0 83,919 78 86,607 81 SF -I 2.294 8 3.491 12 0 0 0 0 5.785 19 TOTAL 7,746 2 27,336 6 4,472 1 204,310 47 243,863 57 rn 0 * Regions included (See BTCAMP) - Land Use: "Regional Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) ** Total loading includes animal wastes, soil mineralization, direct rainfall, etc. For purposes of this study, 90% of agricultural fertilizer leached is assumed to be from fertilizer. l Fertilizer loading of nitrogen in pounds of nitrogen per year .2 Pecent of total agricultural/residential loading in the region (including sanitary wastes, animal wastes, etc.) Table 6.2-7 Total Nitrogen Loading by Land Use in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater. -Contributing Area From Residential and Agricultural Lands Total* Agricultural/Residential Nitrogen Loadingl Land Use Residential Low Density Med Density High Density Agric - Total Region lb N/vr/vr % lb 1V/yr L lb N/vr °o lb N/vr °o Ib N/vr L PR -H 1,521 28 0 0 0 0 3,902 72 5,423 100 PR -W 2,670 7 2,486 6 0 0 34,026 87 39,182 100 PR -M 2,635 4 21,758 29 14,800 20 35,834 48 75,026 100 PR -E 2,005 3 26,837 62 13,618. 23 6,511 11 58,971 100 NF -C 4,489 5 32,139 35 2,415 3 53,494 58 92,536 100 SF -C 4,255 19 18,352 81 0 0 0 0 22,607 100 NF -I 6,735 6 5,585 5 1,825 2 93,244 87 107,389 100 SF -I 10.444 34 19.877 66 0 0 0 0 30.321 100 TOTAL 34,753 8 137,033 32 32,658 8 227,011 53 431,454 100 * Regions included (See BTCAMP) - Land Use: "Regional Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) ** Total loading includes animal wastes, soil mineralization, direct rainfall, etc. I Percentages are of total agricultural/residential nitrogen loading in the region especially in the inland areas north of the bay. The next most significant regions in terms of nitrogen contribution were the Peconic River Mid and East regions, which accounted for 31% (67 tons per year or 365 lbs/day) of the overall nitrogen recharge load. ReSidential areas played a more prominent role in these regions, especially in the Peconic River East region, a large portion of which was sewered. The sewered areas weredifferentiated from unsewered areas with respect to nitrogen contribution. The Peconic River West and Headwaters nitrogen contributions (10% of total) were nearly all agricultural, while the South Flanders Bay region nitrogen recharge (12% of total) was exclusively residential. Of the residential land uses, medium density residential is by far the largest contributor to nitrogen loading with approximately 70% of residential nitrogen and 32% (69 tons per year or 377 lbs/day) of total agricultural/residential nitrogen recharge accounted fqr in this land use. Low and high density residential land uses are each responsible for approximately 8% of the total agricultural/residential nitrogen loading. The contribution of fertilizer to nitrogen loading broken down by sewered and unsewered residential and agricultural areas is presented on Table 6.2-8. Based on actual groundwater sampling, nitrogen contribution from groundwater to surface water in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River and F anders Bay region was approximately 577 pounds of nitrogen per day (east of USGS gauge station; see Table 6.2-9). In comparison to this projection, the preceeding modelling estimate of nitrogen contribution to groundwater from agricultural/residential and commercial activity for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region was ,estimated at 1268 lbs/day (see Table 6.2-10). The dis repancy is discussed in Section 6.4. Assumptions Pursuant to this nitrogen leachate analysis, runoff and leaching of nitrogen were treated as one quantity called "recharge." Thus, in utilizing the methodology of the (Cornell studies, this analysis did not distinguish between nitrogen lost via leaching to groundwater., or via stormwater runoff. However, the approach wasjustified in that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff is minor compared to .other point and nonpoint source pollution (see Section 6.�.6). The assumptions made in estimating nitrogen recharge rates included a fertilizer application rate of 2.4 lb per 1000 square feet of turf in 45% of households with no fertilizer applied to the remainder of the households. Agricultural soil recharge estimates assumed to be for a system wide soil consisting of Riverhead Sandy Loam; the inclusion of the loamy §ands present in certain agricultural areas would have increased the estimated recharge rates (see Table 6.2-4). Agricultural fertilizer application rate was assumed to be 175 pounds nitrogen per acre per year. In estimating agricultural nitrogen loading in the study area, potatoes grown in Riverhead Sandy Loam soils were assumed because they were the most predominant crop and soil type in agricultural areas (see Table 6.2-11). Information regarding the extent to which other- crops are 6-98 Table 6.2-8 _ Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Residential and Agricultural Fertilizer Nitrogen Loading in Peconic River and Flanders Bay GroundwaterLContributing Area Fertilizer Nitrogen Loading in Region (LB N/YR)** - Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Land Use* AreaPR-H) (PR -W) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C S( F -C) NF -I SF -I Low Density -Residential Unsewered: 7,538 334, 586 579 349 986 935 1,479 2,294 Sewered: 209 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 Total: 7,747 334 586 579 554 986 935 1,479 2,294 Medium Density Residential Unsewered: 22,778 0 437 3,822 5,178 5,645 3,224 981 3,491 Sewered: 4,553 0 0 0 4,558 0 0 0, 0 Total: 27,331 0 437 3,822 9,736 5,645 3,224 981 3,491 High Density Residential Unsewered: 3,978 0 0 1,787 1,661 302 0 228 0 Sewered: - 494 0 0 297 197 .0 0 0 0 Total: 4,472 0 0 2,084 1,857' 302 0 228 0 Agriculture Unsewered: 204,310 3,512 30,624.. 32,350 5,860 48,144 0. 83,919 0 Sewered: N/A N/A :, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: 204,310 3,512 30,624 32,250 5,860 48,144 0 83,919 0 O1 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL 243,859 3,846 31,647 38,735 18,008 55,077 4,158 86,607 5,785 *-For loading assumptions see "Estimated Nitrogen Leaching Rates in Sewered, Unsewered and Agricultural Areas." For high density areas, 9 lb/acre/yr leaching was assumed. In residential areas'; 45% of households were assumed to apply 2.4 lb nitrogen in fertilizer to 1000 sq.'ft. of turf, and the remainder of the households were assumed to apply no fertilizer. Agricultural areas were .w,n assumed to apply 175 lb N/acre. 10% of agricultural nitrogen load assumed to be from precip., irrigation, soil mineralization, etc. ** Nitrogen recharging via direct infiltration or runoff. Regions included (See BTCAMP) - Land Use: "Regional Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rte. 25) SF -C =.South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rte. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rte. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rte. 24, north of groundwater divide) TABLE 6.2-9 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Nitrogen Loading from Groundwater, Peconic River and Flanders Bay ^I, 1988-1989 Peconic River - Est. GW** (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic River - East PECONIC RIVER - TOTAL*** NORTH FORK SOUTH FORK 32.2 20.8 20.8 13.5 53.0 34.3 M .7 174 303 477 8.8 5.7 4.5 <-Groundwater-> Estimated 13.8 Nitrogen 0.8 59 Contribution Nit. Conc. Loading (cfs) (mgd) (mg/1) (lb/day) - - - - - - - - - - - - - For comparis.ion purposes: - - - - - - - - - <-- Flow --> - - -I- - - - - - - - - Peconic Riv. Flow - 1989 * 49.7 32.1 0.5 132 (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic Riv. Flow - 1976,* 36.1 23.3 1.0 193 (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic River - Est. GW** (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic River - East PECONIC RIVER - TOTAL*** NORTH FORK SOUTH FORK 32.2 20.8 20.8 13.5 53.0 34.3 M .7 174 303 477 8.8 5.7 4.5 215 13.8 8.9 0.8 59 PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS 75.6 48.9 5;3 751 BAY TOTAL ^ Based on groundwater quality estimates and USGSlgroundwater contribution estimates. * 1976 avg. based on flow and concentration for three samples taken in 1976. Peconic River samples taken at USGS gauge near western Peconic River East region boundary ** Based on USGS groundwater contribution data and estimated groundwater quality data. *** Based on USGS groundwater contribution data and estimated groundwater quality. NOTE: For groundwater quality estimates, see "BTCAMP - Groundwater Quality Assessment" and "BTCAMP - Groundwater Quality and Point and Nonpoint Loading Adjustments. 6-100 TABLE 6.2-10 Projected Loading Comparison to Groundwater and Surface Water Peconic River and Flanders Bay Areas 1988-1989 Nitrogen to Nitrogen to GW Surface Water from Ag./Res./Com. From GW Activity REGION-' (lb/day) (lb/day) Peconic River 174 328 (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic River - East 303 219 PECONIC RIVER - TOTAL 477 547 NORTH FORK 215 576 SOUTH FORK 59' 145 PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS 751 1268 BAY TOTAL * Loading to groundwater (GW) is based on residential (res.), agricultural (ag.), and commercial/industrial/institutional (com.) nitrogen contributions from fertilizer, septic systems, etc. Loading to surface water is based on groundwater quality generalizations and USGS groundwater contribution estimates (see Section 6.4). 6-101 Table 6.2-11 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Agricultural Statistics for Suffolk County* ** Percentage of total 'with respect to total acres of farmland, where available. * Reflects percentage of total number of farms engaging in given activity. 1987 1982 1978 Y of % of % of Farms/Land In Farms/Land'Use Acres Farms Total** Acres Farms Total** Acres Farms Total** Number of Farms -- 696 -- -- 797 -- -- 777 -- Farm Acreage 41,.779 -- -- 49,898 -- -- 51,583 -- -- Avg. Size 60 -- -- 63 -- -- 67 -- -- Farms 1 - 9 acres -- 264 38 -- 315 40 - 294 38 10 - 49 acres -- 217 31 -- 218 27 -- 203 26 50 - 179 acres -- 155 22 -- 188 24 - 199 26 180 -.499 acres -- 51 7 =- 65 8 - 68 91 500 - 999 acres -- 6 1 -- 8 1 12 2 > 999 acres -- 3 <1 -- 3 <1 - 1 <1 Irrigated Land 18,640 447 45 23,232 500 47 23,625 481 46 Total Cropland 33,749 643 86 41,040 720 82 44,733 725 87 Harvested Cropland 28,782 608 69 36,731 702 74 39,916 708 77 Cropland - pasture/grazing -- -- -- 873 44 2 353 36 1 Other cropland -- -- -- 3,436 156 7 5,264 209 10 Woodland (incl. pastured). -- -- - 2,790 119 6 2,507 111 5 Other pasture/rangeland -- -- -- 853 54 2 659 33 -1 House lots, ponds, roads wasteland, etc. -- -- -- 5,233 436 10 3,954 425 8 rn !, CROPS HARVESTED 0 "' Irish Potatoes 10,358 110 25 18,998 177 38 24,139 214 47 May - all 809 43 2 764 43 2 557 45 1 Alfalfa Hay 365 18 1 335 15 1 138 11 0 Vegetables for sale _ 7,650 219 18 7,958 292 16 7,457 274 14 Orchards 1,862 78 4 11009 62 2 700 43 1 Apples 227 26 1 190 38 0 202 32 0 Corn - grain or seed 1,145 26 3 896 .29 2 - 28 4 Corn.- spillage/green chop -- 7 1" 564 13 1 - 10 1 Nursery products -- -- -- 2,693 135 5 2,264 142 4 Nurs_e_rylgreenhouse, mushrooms and sod -- 296 43 4,018 314 8-3.602----334------r LIVESTOCK/POULTRY Number Number Number Cattle 8 calves 740 40 6 1,350 60 8 775 50 6 Beef cows 97 19 3 300 26 3 104 19 2 Milk cows 330 15 2 541 21 3 395 14 2 Hogs and pigs 882 18 3 569 38 5 362 32 4 Sheep and lamb 293 24 3 458 24 3 63 10 1 Chickens 3 months + 20,247 56 8 39,692 62 8 37,345 69 9 *Source: 111987 Census of Agricultural Advance Report, Suffolk County, N.Y.," and 111982 Census of Agriculture Preliminary Report, Suffolk County, N.Y., U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. ** Percentage of total 'with respect to total acres of farmland, where available. * Reflects percentage of total number of farms engaging in given activity. grown and the potential nitrogen recharge rates associated with the other crops are contained in the tables "Agricultural Statistics for Suffolk County" (Table 6.2-11) and "Simulated Nitrogen Leaching Concentration for Various Land Uses in Southold" (Table 6.2-12). Major crops generally had nitrogen recharge in the same general range as potatoes or, in some cases, somewhat higher than potatoes. In addition, loamy sand -type soils would have a higher nitrogen recharge rate than the sandy loam soil type which was assumed for this analysis as was previously indicated on Table 6.2- 4. Thus, the assumptions related to agricultural fertilizer recharge estimation in the study area may have tended to conservatively underestimate the agricultural nitrogen load.based on available information. In terms of actual areas occupied by specific crops, potatoes occupied approximately 29% of total cropland in the County and 36% of harvested cropland. Another significant crop type was the general category of vegetables, which accounted for 18% of total cropland and 26% of harvested cropland. The vegetable category was estimated to cause a nitrogen recharge concentration of between 10.2 and 10.8 mg/l. The other major class of agricultural activity was a general grouping of nursery, mushroom, and sod farm. While acreage data was not available for this classification, 43 per cent of all farms in Suffolk County reportedly engaged to some extent in plant cultivation (nursery, sod faun, or mushroom activity). Nitrogen recharge from this class of activity was high, with 11.5 mg/1 of nitrogen attributed to nurseries and between 8.5 and 19.6 mg/1 of nitrogen to sod farms. The changes in the total acres of agricultural land from 1978 to 1987 is presented in Table 6.2-13 and is discussed below and in Section 6.3. Trends Additional analysis on land use has been performed to show changes between the 1976 L.I. 208 study analysis and 1988 BTCAMP study in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay groundwater - contributing area. This data is presented and discussed in detail in Section 6.3. For the Peconic River/Flanders Bay areas, 1,046 acres of vacant and agricultural land changed use between 1976 and 1988. This constitutes only 3.5% of the total acreage (30,214 acres) in the BTCAMP study area. Residential use increased by 644 acres during this period, while agricultural and vacant uses decreased by 211 acres and 667 acres, respectively. This analysis of land use tends to indicate an increase in nitrogen recharge to the Peconic system since 1976, with a much greater change possible for the future since 38% and 48% of the primary and extended study areas, respectively, are vacant and developable. 6.2.3 On -Site Sewage Disposal . An analysis of land use patterns with respect to unsewered areas in the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay was conducted. The purpose of this review was to assess the approximate quantity of sewage being generated in this region in an effort to 6-103 Table 6.2-12 Simulated Nitrate Leaching Concentratio: for Various Land Uses in SoutholdI Nitrate Leached (mgA) * Grain is simulated here as a field being rested from regula .commercial grain production. ** Although no fertilizer is applied as such, the horses deposi, during the eight months that they graze in the pastures. *** These numbers are averaged over the entire land area, but they were broken into different fertilization rates for diff as fairways, greens and tees. 1 _ Source: "Protection of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y., " Porter and H.B. Hughes, Center for Environmental Resean April, 1983. 2428M/5 6-104 Total Fertilizer Applied (lb N/A/yr) 140 120 175 0 250 100 30 55 214' 289 0 63 48 0 potato production, not as lb N/A as manure simulation purposes t land categories such liminary Draft, K.S. Cornell University, Riverhead and Carver and Haven Sandy Plymouth Crone Loam Sands Cole Crops 10.2 12.0 Mixed Vegetables 10.8 12.0 Potatoes 8.1 16.1 Grain* 2.5 1.3 Nurseries 11.5 14.2 Orchards 6.4 12.0 Vineyards Residues Returned to fields 5.6 5.4 No Residues Returned 6.0 5.9 Sod 1st year 8.5 11.4 2nd year 19.6 21.5 Other Land Uses Horse Pastures 10.2 10.6 Golf Courses 7.6 8.5 Parks . 4.1 4.3 Vacant Land 0.9 0.9 (unfertilized vegetation) * Grain is simulated here as a field being rested from regula .commercial grain production. ** Although no fertilizer is applied as such, the horses deposi, during the eight months that they graze in the pastures. *** These numbers are averaged over the entire land area, but they were broken into different fertilization rates for diff as fairways, greens and tees. 1 _ Source: "Protection of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y., " Porter and H.B. Hughes, Center for Environmental Resean April, 1983. 2428M/5 6-104 Total Fertilizer Applied (lb N/A/yr) 140 120 175 0 250 100 30 55 214' 289 0 63 48 0 potato production, not as lb N/A as manure simulation purposes t land categories such liminary Draft, K.S. Cornell University, TABLE 6.2-13 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Changes in Agricultural and,,Vacant Land Use from 1976 to 1988 1976 <----------------------- 1988 Land Use -----------------------> LAND USE Resid Commrc Indust Instit Recrn Agric Vacant TOTAL AREA 1 (PR -Headwaters) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AREA 2 (PR -West) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Vacant 36.5 0.0 8.4 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 142.6 Total 36.5 0.0 8.4 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 142.6 AREA 3 (PR -Mid) Agric. 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 98.3 Vacant 46.6 15.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.6 Total 46.6 22.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 172.9 AREA 4 (PR -East) Agric. 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.4 Vacant 33.9 39.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0-.0 0.0 74.9 Total 33.9 44.2 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.3 82.3 AREA 5'(N. Flanders, Coastal) Agric. 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.7 95.2 Vacant 160.0 3.1 - 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 167.2 Total 181.5 3.1 .0.0 3:4 0.0 0.7 _ 73.7 262.4 AREA 6 (S. Flanders, Coastal) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0. 0.0 Vacant 51.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.9 Total 51.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.9 AREA 7 (N. Flanders, Inland) Agric. 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Vacant 62.2- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 Total 73.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.2 AREA 8 (S. Flanders, Inland) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 220.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261.2 Total 220.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261.2 AREAS 1-4 Agric. 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 105.7 Vacant 117.0 54.6 22.2 0.0 98.3 0.0 0.0 292.1 Total 117.0 66.2 22.2 0.0 98.3 0.0 94.1 397.8 AREAS 1-8 Agric. 32.5 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.8 211.9 Vacant 611.3 57.7 22.2 44.4 98.3 0.7 0.0 834.6 Total 643.8 69.3 22.2 44.4 98.3 0.7 167.8 1046.5 * As per LIRPB review of aerial photos. 0 6-105 estimate the amount of wastewater which will eventually reach the into the surface waters of the study area. A total of approximately 3.0 mgd of wastewater was estimated sewage disposal systems in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay grou The greatest contribution of on -lot sewage disposal, 0.76 mgd, occur. region outside of those tracts served by the Riverhead Sewer District in unsewered areas in primary study area). The next highest volume generation on a subregional basis occurred in the coastal area along t wastewater generated in this area was 0.672 mgd. The other regions wastewater contributions, with the South Flanders Bay areas ranging wastewater. The Peconic River West and Headwaters regions were t generation in unsewered areas, while the Peconic River Mid area gen of wastewater. Table 6.2-15 presents this data for the regions in the ] groundwater contributing area. For this study, the land use types which contain on -lot sewage and medium density residential areas. In addition, commercial, indu,; agricultural areas were accounted for in data tabulation. Open space, utilities, waste handling, and surface water areas were all considered amount of sewage to the study area. These land use types generally c in the LIRPB Land Use - 1981 report and in Section 6.3. The subregions of the study area selected for analysis include fi River and four areas adjacent to Flanders Bay. The Peconic River sei headwaters eastward to near the river's mouth. These regions differ i patterns. Open space is substantial in the Peconic River corridor. He "industrial" are also primary categories in the Headwaters and West r (Brookhaven National Laboratory and Grumman Aerospace, respecti "vacant" land comprising the most dominant land use categories in th River East region is the most developed portion of the Peconic River. North and South Flanders Bay regions were further divided into distinguish between areas which were generally closer to the surface v areas which were more distant. This split was effected for the purpos( potential for a more immediate impact on surface waters from the are, - impact based on the time that it would take groundwater to reach the s area. 6-106 and potentially flow be generated by on -lot water -contributing areas. in the Peconic River East ;e Table 6.2-14 for land uses on -lot wastewater th Flanders Bay. The .re significantly lower in )m 0.35 to 0.45 mgd of h below 0.1 mgd wastewater ted approximately 0.42 mgd sonic River/Flanders Bay posal included high, low, al, institutional, and scant, transportation, contribute a negligible iform with the classification it sections of the Peconic ions proceed from the river's predominant land use ever, "institutional" and ;ions of the river ;ly), with "agricultural" and Mid region. The Peconic ;oastal and inland regions to aters of the study area and of separating areas with the with lesser immediate irface waters of the study * Regions included (See "Regional Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid, and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay .and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) TABLE 6.2-14 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Land Uses in Unsewered Areas in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas LAND USE <------------------------ AREA (acres) ---------------=-------> TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AREA (PR -H) (PR -W) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C) (SF -C) (NF -I) (SF -I) Low Density Residential 1,347 60 105 103 62 176 '167 264 410 Medium Density Residential 2,025 0 43 148 513 559 319 97 346 High Density Residential 247 0 0 111 103 19 0 14 0 Commercial 3.93.. 8 10 87 156 64 21 34 11 Industrial 252 0 24 131 37 40 0 15 5 Institutional 137 0 0 1 51 20 1 6. 57 Open Space - Recreational 8,469 791 2,000 382 881 412 1,131 0 2,873 0 Agriculture 3,721 =64 558 587 107- 877 0 1,529 _ 0 Vacant 8,442 250 1,331 1306 950 587 312 387 3r318- ,318Transportation Transportation& Recharge Basin 695 1.6 102 346 151 28, 1 16 34 Utilities 163 0 0 97 20 0 0 8 37 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 40 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 31 Surface Waters 649 56 251 164 98 6 15 5 55 ALL LAND USES 26,580 1,245 4,424 3,475 3,129 2,788 1,967 2,374 7,176 * Regions included (See "Regional Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid, and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay .and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) TABLE 6.2-15 On -Lot Sewage Disposal in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas LAND USE Wastewater Factor ** (gpd/acre) Low Density Residential 300 Medium Density Residential 870 High Density Residential 1500 Commercial 780 / 390 Industrial 780 / 390 Institutional 780 / 390 Open Space - Recreational 0 rn C) Agriculture 10 co Vacant 0 Transportation & Recharge 0 Utilities 0 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 0 TOTALS IN ALL LAND USES <---- On -Lot Wastewater Generation (gpd/1000) -in Region *** ---> FLOW IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ALL (PR -H) (PR -WI) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C) (SF -C) (NF -I) (SF -2) REGIONS 404.0 17.9 31.4 31.0 18.7 52.8 50.1 79.2 122.9 1762.0 0.0 37.6 129.0 446.1 486.3 277.7 -84.5 300.7 370.6 0.0 0.0 166.5 154.7 28.1 0.0 21.3 0.0 230.1 3.2 4.1 34.1 91.5 50.0 16.7 26.1 4.2 126.8 0.0 9.5 51.1' 21.8 31.1 0.0 '11.4 1.9 74.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 29.9 15.8 1.1 4.7 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.6 5.6 5.9 1.1 8.8 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3005.0 21.8 88.2 418.0 763.7 672.9 345.6 242.5 452.0 * See "Regional Boundaries" for exact description of regional boundaries. ** See "Wastewater and Scavenger Waste Generation Factors" for assumptions. ***. Acreage omitted from land use statistics (due to sewering) in estimating on -lot sewage disposal: 1071 acres institutional in Peconic River Headwaters (Brookhaven National Lab) 1275 acres industrial in Peconic River West (Grumman Aerospace, Calverton) .33 -acres high-density residential in Peconic River East (Calverton Hills Condominiums) 1256 acres of various land uses in Peconic River East (Riverhead Sewer District). Several areas were excluded from the on -lot sewage disposal analysis based on existing sewering. These areas include Brookhaven National Laboratory, Grumman Aerospace (Calverton), Calverton Hills Condominiums, and the Riverhead Sewer District. In residential areas, the assumptions made in deriving appropriate wastewater and scavenger waste generation factors relied upon SCDHS design criteria for single-family homes and predominant zoning in the study area. In nonresidential and nonagricultural areas, Suffolk County Sanitary Code density requirements were used as guidelines in estimating waste generation rates with allowances made for increased flow resulting from denitrificatiorrsystems. More details regarding assumptions made in converting land use data into wastewater information is contained in Table 6.2-16. Scavenger waste generation was directly proportional to wastewater production. The total scavenger waste generation in the study area was 9,850 gpd, a fraction of the average scavenger waste stream at the Riverhead -Southampton Scavenger Waste treatment plant. This estimate might be a reasonable approximation since large sections of developed land in Riverhead and Southampton did not fall within the scope of this study area. Table 6.2-17 presents the scavenger waste generation data. An estimated measure of the intensity of land use in the study area subregions with respect to on -lot sewage disposal was obtained by comparing total wastewater generated in a subregion with the total area in that subregion. The result was a series of ratios of wastewater to area. The overall ratio for the entire study area was 102 gallons of wastewater per acre. However, this ratio was significantly higher in the more developed regions. A ratio of over 240 gallons per acre was encountered in the Peconic River East and North Flanders Bay Coastal areas, with the Peconic River Mid and South Flanders Bay Coastal areas experiencing a load of about 120 and 175 gallons per acre, respectively. The Flanders Bay Inland areas ranged from about 60 to 100 gallons per acre, while the Peconic River Headwaters and West regions has less than 30 gallons per acre of unsewered wastewater (see Figure 6.2-3). The most significant land use type in terms of volume of wastewater generated was, by far, medium density residential acreage (1.8 mgd). Low and high density housing were similar (0.4 mgd) with low density housing, as expected, more prevalent in the unsewered portions of the study area. Commercial, industrial and institutional land uses collectively accounted for approximately 0.43 mgd of on -lot wastewater flow. Figure 6.2-4 presents a comparison of flow to area by land use for the region. The water quality -of groundwater in the study area was found to be impaired in many locations (see Section 5). While much of the contamination has been related to agricultural land use and modem fanning practices, on -lot sewage disposal can also be considered to be a significant nonpoint source of contamination to the groundwaters of the Peconic system. Additionally, in near 6-109 Table 6.2-16 Wastewater and Scavenger Waste Generation Factorsl Land Use Zone III Low Density Residential 300 Medium Density Residential 870 High Density Residential 1500 T Commercial 780 Industrial 780 0 gpd/unit Institutional 780 Open Space-Rec. 0 Agriculture 10 Vacant 0 Transportation/Recharge= _ _ 0 Utilities 0 Waste Handling-Mgmt. 0 Surface Waters 0 Wastewater Factor (gpd/acre) Zone IV 300 870 1500 390 390 390 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Zone III-IV* Assumptions 300 1 unit/acre (based on zoning); 300 gpd/unit 870 15,000 sq. ft./unit (predominant zoning; 300 gpd/unit 1500 8 units/acre (approx. trailer park density); 150 gpd/unit 585 300 gpd/acre Zone III, 600 gpd/acre Zone IV [2] 585 300 gpd/acre Zone III, 600 gpd/acre Zone IV [2] 585 300 gpd/acre Zone III, 600 gpd/acre Zone IV [2] 0 No wastewater generated 10 1 farm/30 acres [3], 300 gpd/farm 0 No wastewater generated No wastewater generated 0 No wastewater generated 0 No wastewater generated 0 No wastewater generated Table 6.2-16 (Continued) Wastewater and Scavenger Waste Generation Factors Scavenger Waste Factor Basis: 150 gal. scay. waste/capita [4]/year x 2.4 persons/household [5] = 360 gal. scay. waste/household/year 360 gal. scay. waste/365 days x 1 day/300 gal. wastewater [6] = 0.00329 gal. scay. waste/gal. wastewater [1] Wastewater per unit is as per SCDHS regulations for design criteria. Currently allowable flow (per 40,000 sf) for conventional systems: Zone 3 — 300 gpd; Zone 4 — 600 gpd. Hydrogeologic Zone III: Peconic River Headwaters, West and Mid Areas; South Flanders Bay Inland area. Hydrogeologic Zone IV: North Flanders Bay Inland and Coastal, South Flanders Bay Coastal. Peconic River East includes both Hydrogeologic Zones III and IV; wastewater generation in this region is assumed to be an average of flow in Zones III and IV. [2] 15% of acreage is assumed to be at triple flow to account for denitrification systems. [3] Approximate median farm size based on 111987 Census of Agriculture Advance Report, Suffolk County, N.Y.," U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of the Census. [4] Scavenger waste factor basis: June 1987 H2M Engineering Report on Scavenger Waste in Riverhead and Southampton. [5] 2.4 persons per household based on 9988. Population Survey," Long Island Lighting Company. [6] 300 gpd = design criteria for single family residence flow. * Hydrogeologic zones as defined in L.I. 208 Plan (LIPRB, 1978). Table 6.2-17 On -Lot Scavenger Waste Generation in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas Scay. Waste GPD in On -Lot Scavenger Waste Generation (gpd) in Region *** Factor All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Land Use (gad/acre) Regions PR -H) (PR -W) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C) (SF -C) (NF -I SF -I Low Density Residential 0.99 1,329 59 103 102 62 174 165 261 404 Medium Density Residential 2.86 6,455 0 124 1,083 1,468 1,600 914 278 989 High Density Residential 4.94 1,219 0 0 548 509 93 0 70 0 Commercial 2.57/1.28 757 11 13 112 301 165 55 86 14 Industrial 2.57/1/28 386 0 0 168 72 102 0 38 6 Institutional 2.57/1.28 244 0 0 2 98 52 4 15 73 Open Space -Recreational 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agriculture 0.03 122 2 18 19 4 29 0 50 0 Vacant 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation & Recharge 0..00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Utilities 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Handling - Mgmt. 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Waters 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS IN ALL LAND USES 10,513 72 259 2,034 2,513 2,214 1,137 798 1,487 N *** Acreage omitted from land use statistics (due to sewering) in estimating on -lot sewage disposal: 1071 acres institutional in Peconic River Headwaters (Brookhaven National Lab) 1275 acres industrial in peconic River West (Grumman Aerospace, Calverton) 33 acres high-density residential in Peconic River East (Calverton Hills) 1256 acres of various land uses in Peconic River East (Riverhead Sewer District) FIGURE 6.2-3: Relative On -Lot Wastewater Generation 250 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 240 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 . . . ... . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 210 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 190 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a -- 170 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - ::.::.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- n 140 .................................. ... ....... 4:4:m ------------------------- S 130 ...... ................................. ................... 120 ---------------- ------ ....... --------................................. ........ 110 ----------------------- ...... ----------------------- 100 ----------------- -............ ..................... ............... 90 ----------------------- -------- -------------- :::: r80 ------------------------ ------- ....... e70 ............................ ------- ...... -------------- 60 ----------------------- ....... ------ 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- .. . . . . . . .. .•. . . . . . . . ..... 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . - - - - - - 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - - - - - - -- 1 2 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . - - - - - - - . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...... ..... 0 Pec.Riv-Head Pec.Riv-West Pec.Riv-Mid Pec.Riv-East N.Rand-Coast S.Rand-Coast N.Rn&nland S.Rand-Inland *LEGEND* Flow [mgd] Area [actl 000] FIGURE 6.2-4 - On -Lot Sewage Disposal by Land Use 2.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.70 - --- - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- m1.60 g1.50 ----------- -- -------- * --------------------------- d 1.40 - - - - - - - - - - - =•-•----•----•-----•--------------------•- 1.30 • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 1.20 - - - - . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r 1.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a 0.90 ---- * ----------- * ------------- -------------------- c 0.80 .......................................... 0.70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 • 0.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.56 - - -- - - - - 7: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 0 0.40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30 - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 - - - - - - - • . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.10 - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 L les M-,' Res Wi Res rinmmrc-1 trl Institutni *LEGEND* Flow [mgd] Area [actl 000] shore or high water table areas, on-lot.systems have been known to leach directly to surface water bodies. Failure of sanitary systems in poor soil conditions are further environmental hazards associated with on -lot sewage disposal. While 3.0 mgd may be the average volume of wastewater discharged over a year, peak flows occur in summer. As discussed in Section 2, seasonal population of the five East End Towns can increase by over 60% (approximately 110,000 people). This increase, especially along coastal areas, can cause significant direct and indirect leaching of wastewater to nearby surface waters. The impact of the sanitary system effluent, especially at peak flow season, is a concern with respect to contributing to the closing of 'shellfish beds and the impaired usage of the waters in the Peconic system. 6.2.4 Spills. Leaks and Storage Tank Data Introduction Spills and leaks can happen through carelessness, negligence, poor planning or preparation, or f disregard for proper procedure. Spills or leaks of contaminants within the Peconic system are nonpoint source contributions which can degrade the water quality of both surface and groundwaters in the system. The overall SCDHS record, as reviewed from October, 1985 through August, 1988, does not indicate a history of large, environmentally devastating spills of toxic, hazardous or harmful materials. For example, of the 25 reported spills or leaks within the study area, approximately 25% involved volumes greater than 100 gallons. The predominant type of spill or leak during this review period were electrical transformers on poles, that spilled or leaked coolant oil that has on occasion contained PCB's. Most of these spills were reported to be one. gallon or less in size. Leaks in excess of a thousand gallons from underground storage tanks are known to have occurred in the past in the Peconic system, on Long Island, and nationally. The extent of these sources of pollution are potentially large because the contamination is underground, and may go unnoticed for an extended period of tune. The problem of leaks and spills has led to the development of Suffolk County's Articles 7 and 12 of the Sanitary Code. Article 12, "Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling Controls," specifies requirements for storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials, including tank testing; prohibited discharges; tanks, piping, and fittings materials and installation procedures; abandonment and removal procedures; construction and modification permits; and, permits to operate. Article 12 covers new and existing installations of aboveground, indoor, and underground facilities; transfer facilities and operations; and, portable containers. Time schedules for testing underground tanks and for full compliance for all facilities are provided, and storage facilities of less than 250 gallons in five gallon containers or dry storage of less than 2,000 pounds 6-115 are exempted. Article 12 also includes "Standards for the Design of Underground Gasoline and Oil Storage Facilities (10/1/83)" which mandate procedures for approvals to construct; approvals of field installations; and final approvals of completed installations. They also provide minimum specifications for underground tanks, piping, fittings, connections, and leak detection. Additional requirements are given for high groundwater areas, and for separation distances from water supply facilities, stormwater basins, and sanitary leaching pools. Sketches of typical installations are included. Article 7 "Water Pollution Control" is primarily intended to prov deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas from possible spi] toxic and hazardous materials- Storage and discharge of toxic and hazy recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas are restrictive, and faci retail stores, agriculture, and highway construction and repair are exerr possible variances for gasoline service stations and industrial establish] collection and treatment, with effluent disposal outside of deep recharg 7 includes requirements for permits to construct sanitary facilities and i control the commingling of wastes and stormwater discharges. Requir include monitoring and reporting, connection to public sewer systems, disposal systems. Spills and Leaks - Data Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) data w or spills which occurred in the groundwater -contributing area to the Pt from storage tanks in the Peconic system between January, 1986 and J Since there are over 20,000 registered storage tanks in Suffolk County e additional protection to and discharges of certain sous materials in deep ies and activities such as ed. Article 7. specifies ;nts served by sewage areas. In addition, Article discharge wastes, and to tents stipulated also id abandonment of sanitary re used to summarize leaks tonic system. Over 20 leaks ly, 1988 were reported. the number of reported leaks in the Peconic system appears to,be.comparatively small. The impact of these leaks, however, needs to be evaluated according to type of material leaked, approximate duration of the leak, and volume of material that was released. In cases where the material that leaked from a storage tank is identified, the predominant material involved was petroleum products. Table 6.2-18 presents the leaks from storage tanks reported in the Peconic system during this All spills in the SCDHS spill log in the vicinity of the study area of October 1985 through August 1988, while only major spills of great noted for prior time periods. These spills are presented on Tables 6.2-, About half of these spills were related to transformer failures. The ren gallon spill of PCB -contaminated oil from a cracked elbow on a drain gallon spill of kerosene from an overturned tank trailer. The N the clean-up which is required for leaks and spills of hazardous 6-116 frame. were recorded for the period ;r than 100 gallons were 9 and 6.2-20, respectively. cinder included a 1,000 ine of a truck, and a 7,000 maintains jurisdiction over 6-117 Table 6.2-18 r' Tank Leaks in Study Area January 1986 through July 1988 LOCATION DATE LEAK BOCES I 8/30/88 2,000 gal. tank: #2 fuel oil N. Griffing Ave., Rvhd . Northville Gas Station 7/26/88 Contaminated soil found on top of Riverhead Traffic Crcl tank during Phase H repipe. St. Andrew's RCC 5/21/88 3,000 Gal. tank # 2 F.O. Division St., Sag Harbor Triangle Service Stn. 10/27/87 3 tanks w/holes. Groundwater Northville Tpk, Rvhd contamination excessive. St. Andrew's RCC 10/21/87 4,000 gal. Tank; 3,000 gal. tank. Division St. ' Deep Sea Marina 10/15/87 One hole in gasoline tank. Tank Montauk removed. Springs School 9/25/87 5,000 gal. fuel oil tank. Springs St., E. Hmptn Main Rd. 9/10/87 5,000 gal. tank; No. 2 fuel oil. Orient Point 680 Elton St. 8/3/87 2,500 gal. tank; No. 2 fuel oil Riverhead Montauk Downs State Pk 7/9/87 7,500 gallon tank. Montauk Grumman Hanger 5 6/25/87 6,000, 5,000, 25,000, and 6,000 gal. i Calverton tanks. Grumman Plant 6 6/23/87 550 gal. tank — diesel. Calverton Pulaski St 6/22/87 10,000 gal. tank. Riverhead Whaler's Marine 5/29/87 2,000 gal. tank. Sag Harbor E. Hmptn Middle School 5/18/87 15,000 gal. tank, 12,000 gal. tank E. Hampton # 2 fuel oil. 6-117 LOCATION UPS Calverton Mobil 415 E. Main, Riverhead Inlet Rd. East/North Hwy Southampton Star Island Montauk Fort Pond Road Montauk Grumman Calverton Grumman Calverton Rt. 58 Table 6.2-18 (Continued) Tank Leaks in Study Area January 1986 through July 1988 DATE LEAK 11/17/86 10,000 gal. tank - gasoline. 10/31/86 3,000 gal. tank, kerosene. 9/16/86 Well driller found gas in well, possibly from Texaco across street. 7/31/86 10,000 gal. tank diesel; 10000 gal. tank - regular. 7/16/86 10,000 gal. gasoline. 7/10/86 1-15,000 and 2-7,500 gal. tanks 6/5/86 1,000 gal. #2 fuel oil. 4/17/86 10,000 gal. and 20,000 gal. tanks. 6-118 Table 6.2-19 Spills and Leaks in Vicinity of Study Area October 1985 to August 1988 LOCATION DATEPS ILL Deep Woods Rd. 8/15/88 Transformer: 1 pint PCB. Riverhead 439 Edwards Ave. 7/25/88 Perhaps 200 gal. spilled on ground. Calverton E. Main St., Riverhead (opposite Sears) Old Welch Asphalt Plant, Riverhead Middle Rd/. Northville Tpk 28 Alissa Lane Flanders Substation W. Main, Riverhead 640 RT. 58 Main St. Sag Harbor LILCO Mill Rd., Riverhead Main Street Harbor LILCO Sag Harbor Tpk/Scuttle Rd Farragut Rd. Montauk Kiln St. Shelter Island W. Main St. Riverhead 6/29/88 Spill 5/6/88 Heavy oil spill (10'x20') 2/24/88 160 gal. heating oil spilled on basement. 2/17/88 2/10 - 1/2 gal. oil. Cleaned by LILCO. 12/10/87 100 gal. spilled - gasoline Riverhead delivery. 3/2/87 4-6 gal. spilled from transformer. 1/28/87 Approx. 1,000 gal. PCB-contam. oil from cracked elbow on drain line of truck. 1/23/87 Approx. 100 gal. heating oil into Sag basement of pharmacy. 1/12/87 Transformer rupture. One gallon spilled. 8/4/86 Pole - 1 gal. oil. 8/4/86 Pole - < 1 gal oil. 8/4/86 Pole - < 1 gal oil. 6-119 6-120 Table 6.2-19 (Continued) Spills and Leaks in vicinity of Study Area October 1985 to August 1988 LOCATION DATE SPILL Roanoke Ave./Old Country Rd. 7/24/86 Lilco — 10=15 gal. on road. Riverhead Peconic Avenue 2/25/86 Lilco exc. crew finds gasoline—sat. Riverhead soil on site of former service station. Rt. 58 2/4/86 Overturned tank trailer spills 7,000 Riverhead gal kerosene. 339 Starr Blvd 11/29/85 Fuel spill at home. Calverton 1661 Glenwood Park 11/26/85 Oil leaking from abandoned piping. Riverhead 3705 Wells Rd. 10/23/85 Pole transformer leaking. Peconic 298A River Rd. 10/23/85 Pole transformer leaking. Calverton Wood Lane 10/23/85 Pole transformr leaking. Peconic Roanoke Ave 10/4/85 Pole transformer leaking. Riverhead Rt. 25/Tuttle Lane 10/3/85 Pole transformer down, empty. Riverhead Pulaski & Hallet 10/3/85 Pole transformer leaking. Riverhead 6-120 Table 6.2-20 Spills and Leaks in Study Area Pre -1984: Large Spills Only Location SCDHS Spill # Date Grumman Aerospace (1983-146) 6/16/83 Calverton (1980-6) 1%24/80 Grumman Aerospace (1983-105) 5/3/83 Calverton (1977-21) 1977-21 Grumman Aerospace (1983-96) 1983 Calverton (1976-4) 12/9/77 Grumman Aerospace (1983-41) 2/25/83 Calverton _ Grumman Aerospace (1983-3) 1/9/83 Calverton Grumman Aerospace (1982-111) 8/24/82 Calverton Grumman Aerospace (1982-20) 2/1/82 Calverton Pleasure Drive (1981-157) 11/5/81 Flanders Rt. 24 (1981-17) 1/28/81 Flanders Traffic Circle (1980-6) 1%24/80 Riverhead Route 24 (1977-21) 1977-21 Riverhead Flanders Road (1976-4) 12/9/77 .Brookhaven Natl. Lab — 11/26/77 6-121 Amount/Source 100-150 gal. JP5 during transfer of fuel oil from tank to refueling truck. Removal of 5-7 yards soil. Overfilled holding tank again. Recurring spill. Overfilled holding tank at wastewater treatment plant. Possibly 280 gallons lost. Cleaning of 9+ yards. Fuel Spill - 30 gallons JP -5 on airfield. Approx. 500 gal. JP -4: overfill spill, airport fuel depot. Excavation of 40+ yards. Marine Pollution Control. 1,000 ,to 1,500 gallons from moat in firematic training site. Excavation; Marine Pollution Control cleanup. Approx. 100 gal. JP4 spill - overflowed tank. Soaked up; Marine Pollution Control cleanup. 2,500 gal ferric chloride wastes. Into concrete diked area; removed. Fuel oil, probably >50 gal. Soil removal. Lake and Woodhull; not extensive. 2,000 gal. gasoline. 1,200 gal. gasoline 25,000 gal. mineral spirits & No. 6 fuel oil. Brookhaven National Lab / Grumman One large leak, which consisted of mineral spirits and Number 6 fuel oil, occurred in 1977 at Brookhaven National Laboratory. This leak has been largely cleaned up and final remediation is currently being investigated. The spill has reportedly not been found to have affected surface waters. Spillage at the Grumman facility has reportedly resulted in contamination of groundwater, which is currently being investigated. Historically, a number of spills in the study area took place at they Grumman, Calverton, and Brookhaven National Laboratory facilities. Seven spills were recorded at the Calverton site in the 1982-1983 time period, while six outdoor spills at Brookhaven NationalUtboratory were cleaned up in 1987. From October, 1985 through August, 1988, 14 spills occurred in Riverhead. The varied and relatively large amounts of materials stored at particular concern. Storage capacity at Brookhaven National Labor. gallons, the bulk of which was allocated to fuel oil. Meanwhile, the has a storage capacity of 712,000 gallons. About half a million gall4 almost evenly between jet fuel and fuel oil. Almost all of the 139 re facilities were outdoor tanks, with approximately 20% fewer tanks a ground. Table 6.2-21 presents data on storage at both sites. In September, 1987, Brookhaven National Lab and Suffolk Cot stating that BNL will voluntarily conform to the applicable environmi Suffolk County Sanitary Code. At BNL, as of December, 1989, SCD buildings were completed. The findings are summarized as follows:: drum storage areas require registrations and upgradings, and 69 air en to operate. In addition, fourteen buildings are scheduled for cesspool L and Grumman is of y is almost 1.5 million unman, Calverton facility of this capacity was divided ered tanks located at these -e ground than below signed an agreement 1 requirements of the inspections of 413 tanks need registration; 41 ion points need certificates Of the violations at BNL, 30 required immediate corrective action; to date, 23 violations have been corrected. The remaining 7 violations include 5 cesspool contamination incidences and two cases of soil contamination. The cesspool contamination is currently rot a major concern with respect to the pollution of groundwater and/or surface waters. While the soil contamination, which includes oil and heavy metals, is more serious, it is at present not considered a major groundwater and/or surface water hazard. The 23 violations which were corrected included six drum stoi completed cleanups, and eleven SPDES incidences. The SPDES co: modified permit discharge limitations or altered discharge practices. was a concentration of 58 ppb dichlorobenzene in the STP effluent. 6-122 ge non -compliances, six ections resulted in either One of the SPDES violations , BNL re -sampling rn N w Table 6.2-21 TOTALS 712,100 74 ' 4 30 40 Grumman Aerospace, Calverton and Brookhaven National Laboratories Storage Tank Data Total Number of Storage Tank Types Facility Storage Tanks Material Capacity Above ground/ Above ground/ Underground/ (SCDHS ID #) Registered/Active) Stored JgAU Total Inside Outside Outside Brookhaven. National Labs 67/65 Fuel oil 1,361,560 32 0 17 15 (020266) Gasoline 70,550 12 0 5 7 Diesel 34,375 17 0 5 12 Other Oil 10,000 1 0 1 0 Lube Oil 2,550 2 0 0 2 Drum Storage 2.350 1 -1 0 0 TOTALS 1,481,385 65 1 28 36 Grumman, Calverton 83/74 Jet Fuel 274,600 21 0 10 11 (060022) Fuel oil 264,000 7 1 1 5 Ind. Waste 62;850 12 0 10 2 Gasoline 50,000 4 0 0 4 Unidentified 25;100 6 0 3 3 Diesel 17;475 8 1 1 6 Waste Oil 7,550 _3 0 0 2 Motor Oil 4,000 2 0 0 2 Org. Solvent 3,475 8 2 3 3 Cal. Fluid 3.050 3 0 1 2 TOTALS 712,100 74 ' 4 30 40 and subsequent SCDHS routine monitoring failed to detect the presence of any organics in the STP effluent stream, so the non-compliance was considered to be remediated. During 1987, BNL Plant Engineering and the BNL Safety and Environmental Protection Division responded to 17 petroleum product spills. Eleven of these incidents occurred indoors and involved small quantities of petroleum products which were contained on asphalt, concrete, or surfaces lined with an oil -impervious material. Clean-up procedures were instituted and there were no environmental impact as a result of the occurrence. On six occasions, petroleum spills required EPA, NYSDEC, and SCDHS notification because soil contamination occurred. These spills were cleaned up and contaminated soil was disposed of in an approved manner. All cleanup operations were approved by NYSDEC and SCDHS. No further remediation was required for any of the above spills. On November 26, 1977, approximately 25,000 gallons of ALF, a mixture of mineral spirits and No. 6 fuel oil leaked. EPA -approved remedial actions recovered approximately 80% of the spilled material. In December, 1986, during installation of groundwater monitoring wells, oil - contaminated soil was encountered. A consultant was given a contract to conduct an investigation of the subsurface oil contamination in the vicinity of the CSF. They commenced their work in August, 1987 after reviewing BNL -supplied information by conducting a soil gas survey of the spill and adjacent sites. Subsequent work included drilling of soil borings (five) and installation of monitor wells (five) in areas defined by the soil gas survey. Split spoon samples, collected during the soil boring and monitor well construction process, and water samples collected from the developed wells were submitted for base/neutral compounds, total organic carbon and biological oxygen demand analyses. In addition, slug tests and drawdown tests were also conducted to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. Following the receipt of the analytical results, the consultant will recommend a cost-effective remediation procedure. More information regarding operations and contamination at Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory is contained in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.5, and Appendices K and L (updates). Storage Tank Data Suffolk County Department of Health, Services (SCDHS) files were used to determine the major storage tank facilities in the groundwater -contributing area to Peconic system. Tank leakage records were also summarized in the storage tank evaluation as part of a comprehensive effort to assess potential sources of contamination to the surface waters of the study area. Since over 20,000 tanks are currently registered with SCDHS and data access and manipulation for these tanks was not easily facilitated, the survey focused on tanks in the two major 6-124 storage tank facilities in the study area::: Brookhaven. National Laboratory and Grumman Aerospace Corp., Calverton (see Table 6.2-21). In addition, since the bulk of the remaining storage tank facilities in the study area appeared to occur in Riverhead, major aboveground, outdoor storage tank facilities containing tanks with capacity in excess of 1,000 gallons in the Town of Riverhead were identified and are presented on Table 6.2-22. Tank leakage records for the entire study area as reported in the SCDHS spill log between January, 1986 and July, 1988 were presented on Table 6.2-18. In the Town of Riverhead, 1.8 million gallons of capacity exist in aboveground, outdoor storage tanks. Major storage facilities of greater than 100,000 gallons were Grumman, Agway Petroleum Corp., Long Island Ice and Fuel, Riverhead Oil Products, and Ace Fuel Company. The facilities which had storage capacity for industrial products and by-products other than fuel -type liquids included Additive Products and Agway Fertilizer. Additive Products had a 57,000 gallon capacity dedicated to acid, industrial waste, cellulose acetate, hydrogen peroxide and other chemicals, while Agway Fertilizer had a 34,000 gallon capacity for nitrogen solution and acid. Throughout the study area, there were 23 tank leaks recorded in the SCDHS spill log in the period between January, 1986 and July, 1988 (see Table 6.2-18). Four, of these records involved nine tanks at the Grumman Calverton facility. Twelve of the incidences occurred in Riverhead, while ten of the failures were registered throughout the South Fork in Southampton and East Hampton. Four of the South Fork incidences took place at Montauk, and three occurred in Sag Harbor. According to Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, all motor fuel tanks must be tested by 1989. The test used on tanks in Suffolk County is the NFPA 329 standpipe test. If a failure is detected, the tank must be removed from use as per Article 12 requirements. The NYSDEC takes jurisdiction when a leaking tank has contaminated soil or groundwater and oversees any remedial soil excavation, monitoring, and recovery well activity which may be required. In addition to tank testing, all facilities utilizing underground storage tanks must be in full compliance with Article 12 requirements by 1990. Article 12 requires that underground storage tanks must be constructed of double -walled fiberglass or cathodically protected steel. The exception to these regulations are residential heating tanks with a capacity of less than 1100 gallons. A Tank Corrosion report was issued by the SCDHS Office of Pollution Control in November, 1988. This report was the result of observations made on 500 steel underground storage tanks which were removed between February, 1987 and September, 1988. The only major group of tanks not included in the study were small heating tanks, since the law does not require replacement testing of the heating tanks under 1100 gallons. 6-125 Table 6.2-22 Major Aboveground, Outdoor Storage Tank Facilities* in the Peconic System Groundwater—Contributing Area in Riverhead Town STORAGE SCDHS # OF CAPACITY NAME/LOCATION OF FACILITY ID # MATERIALS STORED •TANKS (gal) Riverhead Cent. School Dist. 0060007 #2 Fuel Oil 2 825 Osborne Ave., Riverhead Kerosene 4 1,375 Waste/Other Oil 2 2,550 TOTAL 8 4,750 Hazeltine Corp. 0060021 Org. Solvent 2 5,530 Old Country Rd., Riverhead TOTAL 2 5,530 r, Grumman Aerospace Corp. 0060022 #6 Fuel Oil 1 25,000 N Calverton Ind. Waste 10 50,950 Jet A Fuel 6 16,597 JP 5 4 16,000 Calibrating Fluid 1 550 Diesel 1 275 Motor Oil 1 550 Org. Solvent 3 825 Unidentified 4 24,000 Waste Oil 1 1.000 TOTAL 32 135,747 Magee Service, Inc. 0060026 Gasoline 4 80,000 Rt. 58, Riverhead TOTAL 4 80,000 Lilco op. Center 0060027 Gasoline 1 1,250 Doctor's Path, Riverhead TOTAL 1 1,250 Agway Petroleum Corp. 0060028 Kerosene 3 40,000 Pulaski St., Riverhead #2 Fuel Oil 1 20,000 Gasoline 1 20,000 Diesel 1 20,000 TOTAL 6 100,000 Table 6.2-22 (Continued) Major Aboveground, Outdoor Storage Tank Facilities in the Peconic System Groundwater -Contributing Area in Riverhead Town STORAGE SCDHS # OF CAPACITY NAME/LOCATION OF FACILITY ID # MATERIALS STORED TANKS (gal) N.Y. Tel. Co. 0060034 #2 Fuel Oil 1 7,500. Griffing Ave., Riverhead Diesel _l 2,000 TOTAL 2 9,500 Getty 0060041 Diesel 2 1.100 CR 58, Riverhead TOTAL 2 1,100 Long Island Ice & Fuel 0060042 #2 Fuel Oil 6 118,000 W. Main St., Riverhead Kerosene 1' 10,000 TOTAL 7 128,000 N V Riverhead Oil Products 0060047 #2 Fuel'Oil 8 225,000 Marcy Ave., Riverhead Kerosene 2 30,000 TOTAL 10 255,000 R.O. Welch Asphalt Co. 0060061 Asphalt 5 55,800 Woodcrest Ave., Riverhead Diesel 1 275 Waste Oil 3 700 Unidentified 2 7,600 TOTAL .11 64,375 Metro Station 0060073 #2 Fuel Oil 1 1,000 Main St., Riverhead Waste Oil 2 550 TOTAL 3 1,550 Additive Products Division 0060077 Acid 2 6,150 West Lane, Aquebogue CC -4 Overflow 3 19,000 Org. Solvent 3 16,500 Ind. Waste 2 2,000 Cellosolve Acetate 2 7,000 Hydrogen Peroxide 1 6,500 TOTAL 13 57,150 N 00 Table 6.2-22 (Continued) Major Aboveground, Outdoor Storage Tank Facilities in the Peconic System Groundwater—Contributing Area in Riverhead Town STORAGE SCDHS _# OF CAPACITY NAME/LOCATION OF FACILITY ID # MATERIALS STORED TANKS (gal) Adchem Corp. 0060078 Drum Storage 1 13.750 CR 58, Riverhead TOTAL J3,750 Ready Mix Supply Corp. 0060079 #2 Fuel Oil 1 2.000 Kroemer Ave. Riverhead TOTAL 1 2,000 Riverhead Honda 0060090 Gasoline 1 3,000 Rt. 58, Riverhead Waste Oil 1 100 TOTAL 2 3,100 Crescent Duck Processing 0060104 Gasoline 1 1,000 Edgar Avenue, Aquebogue Other Oil 1 1.000 TOTAL 2 2,000 Agway Fertilizer 0060112 Nitrogen Solution 1 22,000 Marcy Ave., Riverhead Acid 1 12.000 TOTAL 2 34,000 Ace Fuel Company 0060116 #2 Fuel Oil 1 840,000 W. Main St., Riverhead Kerosene 3 45.000 TOTAL 4 885,000 Riverhead Propane Plant 0060129 #2 Fuel Oil 1 20.000 Mill Rd., Riverhead TOTAL 1 20,000 Suffolk Cement Precast 0060137 Diesel 4 7,300 W. Middle Rd., Riverhead #2 Fuel Oil 3 1,100 Waste Oil 3 3,275 - Kerosene 1 275 TOTAL 11 11,950 Table 6.2-22 (Continued) Major Aboveground, Outdoor Storage Tank'Facilities in the Peconic System Groundwater -Contributing Area in Riverhead Town STORAGE SCDHS # OF CAPACITY NAME/LOCATION OF FACILITY ID # MATERIALS STORED TANKS (gal) E. Island Auto Salvage 0060142 Diesel 1 1,000 Kroemer Ave., Riverhead Waste Oil 1 275 TOTAL 2 1,275 TOTAL IN STUDY AREA IN RIVERHEAD 127 tanks 1,817,027 o, * For purposes of this table, major storage tank facilities are defined as facilities having aboveground, outdoor storage" -tanks in excess of 1000 gal. ko Total number of registered facilities in Riverhead Town: 171 In Riverhead Town in study area Total number of registered facilities in study area - 123 Number of facilities with aboveground, outdoor storage - 35 Number of facilities with aboveground, outdoor -storage with capacity of greater than 1000 gallons - 22 The study found that small tanks were more likely to perforate than large tanks due to the thinner walls found in the smaller tanks; size was determined to be more important than age in predicting tank failure. Fuel oil tanks were shown to be just as susceptible to corrosion as gasoline tanks. In addition, tanks did not always leak immediately upon perforation. 6.2.5 Hazardous Waste Storage /Improper Disposal Wastes that are hazardous or toxic to the environment and/or humans warrant special handling to prevent or minimize the potential for contamination. One current effort to reduce the amount of household hazardous wastes that enter the environment is the Stop Throwing Out Pollutants (S.T.O.P.) programs established by the various townships and villages. Other sources of hazardous wastes are generally regulated under Federal, State, and local regulations that include: o RCRA o CERCLA o SARA Title M 0 6 NYCRR Part 360 0 6 NYCRR Part 364 o Articles 7 and 12 of Suffolk County Sanitary Code Leaks and spills are discussed in detail in Section 6.2.4, which deals mainly with accidental discharges of petroleum products. In addition, point sources of pollution such as industrial and commercial discharges and municipal landfills are contained in Section 6.1. Hazardous waste storage, disposal, and contamination are discussed in greater detail in this section for household hazardous wastes and industrial/commercial wastes. Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) Household hazardous wastes are designated as being exempt from being treated as a fully regulated hazardous waste under both Federal and State laws. Some of the common household hazardous wastes include: o Paint o Paint Thinner o Drain cleaners o Solvents and cleaners o Auto care products o Antifreeze o Smoke Detectors 6-130 o Aerosol containers . o Acids and bases o Fertilizers o Pesticides o Batteries o Wood Stains and Preservatives o Motor Oil Towns in the Peconic System recognize that household hazardous wastes, even though they usually comprise less than 1 % of their municipal solid waste stream, represent a potential significant nonpoint source of pollution to ground water. In order to remove these wastes before they become a source of pollution, S.T.O.P. programs have been developed in all East End Towns. While all of the Towns have developed and begun to implement plans for household hazardous waste containment facilities for the temporary storage of the collected wastes, S.T.O.P. events have.been held by the Towns in conjunction with a licensed hazardous waste hauler. The S.T.O.P. events are scheduled periodically and help to reduce the amount of hazardous wastes. Household Hazardous waste containment facilities are being developed, or are already in operation throughout the Towns in the Peconic System. These facilities are designed to provide safe, double -contained, temporary storage of household hazardous wastes (HHW). Additionally, with such a facility operating on a more regular basis than a S.T.O.P. event, public participation and volumes of HHW removed from the waste stream are expected to be higher than for individual S.T.O.P. events over the long-term. Industrial/Commercial Hazardous Wastes Most of the hazardous waste used and generated in the Peconic System occurs as a result of industrial, commercial, and institutional practices. While hazardous wastes are regulated, accidents have occurred that have resulted in pollution entering the Peconic system ground and surface waters. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Grumman Aerospace, and other commercial and industrial enterprises in the Peconic System produce or utilize significant quantities of organic compounds, heavy metals, and other hazardous wastes. In general, numerous other activities have also historically been sources of nonpoint source pollution. For example, school laboratories, in the past, dumped used chemicals down the drain. Commercial dry cleaners used benzene or other organic compounds as part of the cleaning process and discharged the spent solvent. In addition, electroplating and circuit board manufacturing facilities routinely use highly toxic heavy metals and organic solvents in the manufacturing process and discharged the wastes as a normal operating procedure. The Rowe Industries Site discussed previously in Section 6.1.2 and 6.2.4 is one example of manufacturing practices involving hazardous wastes which have resulted in environmental pollution. Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory, a Federally recognized Superfund site for a portion of its property, and Grumman Aerospace are considered to be two of the largest potential sources for hazardous wastes in the'system. Both liquid releases and airborne contamination from these and other places are nonpoint source inputs of hazardous wastes. In a January, 1989 report, the U.S. 6-131 Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that addressing known environmental hazards at BNL will cost at least $17 million. The BNL estimate of between $17 and $22 million for cleanup and environmental upgrades is drawn from a long-range Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) plan that the Lab developed and sent to DOE in September, 1988. The BNL plan outlines anticipated actions for existing environmental problems, the Lab's strategy for expanding the current program for characterizing and monitoring the site, and the upgrades required to avoid future radioactive and chemical pollution. At BNL thus far, the DOE survey has found no environmental conditions that pose an immediate threat to human life. It has, however, identified several potentially significant problems that are thought to have resulted from practices that took place before many environmental hazards were recognized or current regulations were in effect. The most significant of these problems is the presence of radioactive and chemical contaminants in groundwater underlying specific areas on the Lab site. By analyzing samples taken from 100 monitoring wells placed around the Lab site, BNL has detected several regions of contaminated groundwater that contain small amounts of radioactivity or chemicals. The most significant location was discovered in 1984: a plume of chemicals located in the southeast quadrant of the Lab traveling a southerly direction. Because of the levels and location, in 1986 BNL began a program to clean up the water before it traveled beyond the site boundary. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, has also been detected in the groundwater in the eastern and southeastern portions of the Lab. BNL is watching the movement and concentration of tritium to determine what, if any, cleanup is required. Water samples taken from monitoring wells at the boundaries of BNL show that radiation and chemical concentrations are well within all guidelines. The tritium comes primarily from the Lab's two landfills. In the Lab's early years, limited amounts of low-level radioactive waste were permitted to be disposed of in the landfills. BNL stopped that practice in 1977. In the case of the chemicals, most of the pollution has been caused by commonly -used degreasing agents such as trichloroethane and trichloroethylene. It is suspected that the organic plume that BNL is cleaning up comes from use of these solvents during earlier periods when their disposal was not regulated. BNL hired a consulting firm to delineate the extent of contamination in the groundwater. The consultants traced the TCA plume by installing wells and analyzing groundwater samples. They found concentrations up to 1,800 parts per billion (ppb); the legal limit is now 5 ppb. The plume had traveled about 2,000 feet to the southeast, but had not affected the Lab's drinking water and had not reached the site boundary. 6-132 .. BNL's Aquifer Restoration Project began in April,of 1986. The air stripping technique employed in the project takes advantage of the fact that TCA, an organic compound, is hydrophobic, so it readily separates out of water vapor sprayed into the air. Clean water returns to the ground. This method of decontamination is- the preferred process for cleaning TCA -contaminated groundwater and has been frequently used on Long Island. Each day, groundwater is brought up to the surface through five pumping wells located along the plume. Water is then sprayed, into the air at the rate of 1,700 gallons per minute. About 2.5 million gallons of water are aerated in this, manner each day. Comparisons between the water before and after spraying show that BNL is removing TCA with 95-100% efficiency. The "1987 Environmental Monitoring Report" noted that the TCA concentrations had dropped to about 100 ppb. To further identify the extent of environmental pollution, DOE staff took soil samples in .April, 1988, and installed and sampled -ten new wells on site. Several programs are already in the works to remedy the groundwater situation. Work to install new wells around the site for groundwater monitoring was scheduled for completion by February, 1989. The Lab is also prepared to begin a DOE -funded project to cap the Lab's landfill, as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency and New York- State have fully reviewed the plans and concur that capping is the best remediation method. More detailed information regarding environmental conditions at the BNL site is contained in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.4, and Appendix K (update). Additionally, asbestos removal, closure of cesspools, and connection to the Lab's sewer system are expected to reduce the potential for hazardous wastes to continue to enter the Peconic system. Several buildings have been identified which are still connected to cesspools, such as the paint and carpentry shops, where employees work with hazardous materials. To eliminate the potential for these materials getting into the cesspools and then into the groundwater, these buildings will be hooked into the sewage system. Upgraded hazardous waste management facilities have. been proposed for funding that could be expected to lower the potential for future hazardous waste contamination. Argon -41, oxygen -15, and tritium were the predominant radionuclides released to the air from BNL facilities. In 1987, the following radionuclides were released: o 1500 Ci of argon -41 0 582 Ci of oxygen -15 0 012 Ci of tritium gas 0 188 Ci of tritium in the form of water vapor 6-133 v Grumman Aerospace Grumman Aerospace, as part of their manufacturing and testing processes, generates waste classified as hazardous. Often this waste has been placed in 55 gallon drums. Prior to 1982, the drums were stored outdoors on wooded pallets in an open paved area adjacent to Plant 6. The drums were fitted with plastic drum covers to prevent water from accumulating on the tops. Grumman Aerospace Corporation developed construction plans and specifications to modify the drum storage area to manage hazardous wastes in conformance with Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. These facilities .were designed to contain spillage of up to 30 percent of the maximum volume of hazardous waste in- storage. In the 1982 Hazardous Waste Storage Facility Concept Design Report, it was determined by Grumman Facility Engineering personnel that the Calverton site required a hazardous waste storage facility to hold up to 250 fifty-five gallon drums of waste. The facility was also designated for storage of empty recertified drums. Grumman determined the building size required to hold hazardous waste and recertified drums was, approximately 50 feet by 80 feet, or 4,000 sq.ft. The facility location was chosen to be east of the existing sewage treatment plant. The following hazardous wastes were designated for storage in this facility: o Waste paint solvents (methyl ethyl ketone) o Phenol waste (stripped paint residue semisolid form) o Chlorinated solvent (trichloroethane) o Ethylene glycol o Waste photographic developer (silver, cadmium, phenol) All of these wastes have freezing points well below 20 degrees fahrenheit; therefore, the facility did not require heating. A December, 1986 letter from the SCDHS noted that approximately 150 waste drums were still stored improperly on the runway, despite completion of the new waste storage facility near the industrial waste pretreatment building. Another SCDHS notice was issued in July, 1986, when a 1,000 gallon #2 fuel oil tank failed. This failure was confirmed on June 18, 1986. As a result of production activities, quantities of waste are produced at the Grumman facility _ which are defined as hazardous under the USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and NYSDEC Part 360 Solid and Hazardous Waste Law. There are two operations at the facility which are involved in hazardous waste collection, treatment and storage. These operations include the collection and treatment of rinse water which may be hazardous wastes due to chromium contamination and the storage of drums containing hazardous waste. 6-134 The wastewaters produced at Grumman are predominantly the result of aircraft paint stripping and paint cleanup. These wastewaters contain chromium and phenol from the paint and organic solvents from the stripping and cleaning operation. Chromium concentrations can periodically exceed the 5.0 mg/1 maximum concentration limit of the EP Toxicity test; therefore, the wastewater is identified as a hazardous waste. The wastewater from various stripping and cleaning operations connected with the Paint Shop is pumped into two tanks located north of the Paint Shop. These tanks can hold the wastewater for collection by tank truck or the wastewater can be pumped directly to the Industrial.Waste Treatment Facility (IWTF) receiving tank. Wastewater is also produced in the Delivery and Preparation building where a touch-up painting and paint stripping operation was set up. The wastewater from this operation is collected in transfer tanks. The wastewater is then transferred to the IWTF by tank truck or is pumped through a temporary aboveground force main directly to the IWTF receiving tank. The wastewater in the receiving tank is then pumped into one of four fiberglass waste treatment tanks for oxidation of phenols and synthetic organics and the reduction and precipitation of chromium. Each of the treatment tanks has a capacity of 6000 gallons and is set up for- treatment in a batch mode. The sludge from this process is transported to the Grumman, Bethpage facility where it is dewatered by vacuum filter at the industrial waste treatment facility. The dewatered sludge is disposed" of along with the Bethpage facilities'; sludge_ in a secure landfill: The treated wastewater is then discharge to an on-site sanitary sewerage system.. The waste halogenated solvent generated at this facility is trichloroethane which is used for various cleaning operations. The waste solvent is collected in 55 gallon drums moved to the drum storage area for storage prior to disposal. The, waste nonhalogenated solvent is a ketone base solvent (ignitable) used in various painting operations. This waste is generated predominantly in the Paint Shop. The .waste solvent is collected in 55 gallon drums for disposal. The Industrial Waste Treatment Facility and associated collection system treats only on-site waste and is presently operating under a New York State SPDES Permit. Treated industrial waste is eventually discharged to the sanitary sewage treatment plant. The waste halogenated solvent generated at this Grumman facility is trichloroethane which is used for various cleaning operations. The waste solvent is collected in 55 gallon drums and moved to the drum storage area for storage prior to disposal. The waste nonhalogenated solvent is a ketone base solvent (ignitable) used in various painting operations. This waste is generated predominantly in the Paint Shop. The waste solvent is collected in 55 gallon drums ,for disposal. 6-135 A significant quantity of paint residue is also generated from paint stripping of aircraft and aircraft subassemblies in preparation for repairs, renovation and repainting. The paint residue, which is a soft, semisolid material, is collected along with paper used to cover the shop floor and placed in 55 gallon drums for disposal. In addition, a small quantity of photo waste, consisting of waste concentrates from Black and White and Color photo processes, is generated in Plant 07. The waste photographic fixer solution, which is high in silver concentration, is passed through an electrolytic silver recovery system which substantially reduces the silver concentration in the waste. Waste oil produced at the Grumman facility is predominantly a high grade kerosene type jet fuel. The waste. material is produced from draining aircraft tanks prior to repairs or renovations and after testing. Due to strict specifications pertaining to jet fuel, the fuel drained from the aircraft can not be reused, as aircraft fuel. The waste jet fuel is used by Grumman's Fire brigade for setting fires in a test area and practicing extinguishing techniques. If waste fuel is produced at a rate greater than used by the fire brigade it is sold to waste oil recovery firms for reuse. Additional information regarding Grumman is contained in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.4, and Appendix L (update). 6.2.6 Stormwater Runoff The extent and intensity of various nonpoint sources of pollution, including stormwater runoff, were investigated by the Long Island 208 Wastewater Management, Treatment Plan. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (LI NURP) further explored the problem of stormwater runoff as it relates to localgroundwater and surface water quality. Both the 208 Study and the subsequent LI NURP study identified stormwater runoff as the major source of bacterial loadings to surface waters in Suffolk County. Numerous factors are significant in assessing the impacts of stormwater runoff on surface water bodies. For example, the manner in which stormwater enters streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries is varied both in terms of the area of entry (i.e., upstream creeks, open estuarine waters, etc.) and the types of discharge (e.g., overland runoff, channeled discharge through a pipe, etc.). In addition, the extent and type of development of the drainage basin will determine what types of pollutants enter surface waters. In general, intensive development is correlated with stormwater runoff pollution; the relationships of land use to stormwater runoff are discussed in this subsection and in Section 6.3. Stormwater Effects The impacts of stormwater runoff are complex and numerous and are discussed in detail in the LI 208 Study and the Long Island Segment of NURP. As previously noted, one of the major problems posed by stormwater runoff is that stormwater can carry pathogens and viruses that are 6-136 a taken up by filter feeding organisms.,such as shellfish. This bacteriological, loading may result in the closing of shellfish beds. In addition to coliform loading, stormwater runoff may have a number of other adverse impacts on surface waters. For example, sediment loadings cause decreased light transmission through the water column resulting in decreased plant production, changes in species abundance and diversity, and impairment of recreational and commercial values. Additionally, nutrient loading from stormwater runoff can promote the eutrophication of lakes and estuaries. Pesticides and herbicides in stormwater runoff can hinder photosynthesis in aquatic plants, affect biotic reproduction, and bioconcentrate in fmfish and shellfish, presenting health hazards to human consumers. Toxins from pesticide runoff, if found in sufficient concentrations, may disrupt aquatic food chains. Bottom sediments often act as sinks for heavy metals and these metals may be resuspended in the water column by activities such as dredging. Stormwater Transport and Deposition Stormwater runoff is that part of the total precipitation that flows over the land surface. Under natural conditions, during and following a rainfall, stormwater flows (within the watershed area) to lower elevations where it is either recharged to groundwater or it drains to streams, rivers, bays, and other surface waters. The amount of runoff from an undeveloped watershed area depends upon . storm characteristics . type and amount of vegetative cover . soils and soil permeability . slope characteristics . type and capacity of natural drainage systems Nonpoint pollutants move into the aquatic environment both in solution and attached to particulate material which is flushed and transported from the land surface. Once in streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries, the pollutants may pass through the aquatic system, or they may reside in a stream, lake, or estuary bottom for a longer period of time. The ultimate fate of a given pollutant is a function of its chemical properties and form and the environment to which it is discharged. Due to the gradual percolation of much of the rainfall into the soil in relatively undisturbed watersheds, both the volume of runoff and the rate of overland flow are reduced, thus maximizing aquifer replenishment in some areas and minimizing erosion. In developed watersheds the amount of runoff also depends upon amount of impervious surface area and existing stormwater control measures. Sources of contaminants which are transported by stormwater runoff include: . animal wastes . highway deicing materials 6-137 . decay products of vegetation and animal matter . fertilizers . pesticides . air -borne contaminants deposited by gravity, wind or rainfall . general urban refuse . by-products of industry and urban development . improper storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials The contaminants associated with and carried in stormwater runoff include the following major categories: . Metals . Organic Chemicals - Base Neutral Compounds - Acid Compounds -Volatiles - Pesticides . Inorganic Chemicals . -Phosphates -Nitrates -Chlorides . Bacteria & Viruses . Oxygen Demanding Substances The actual mechanism by which contaminants are transported via stormwater runoff begins when raindrops dislodge soil particles and contaminants from land surfaces. This material is carried in solution or suspension and travels with the runoff. Suspended particles are deposited en route if the velocity of stormwater decreases. Contaminants carried in solution in stormwater enter the soil through the larger pores at the soil surface and move downward and horizontally through the pore network. Water diffuses into the smaller pores by capillarity or soil moisture tension. The rate of movement through the soils and surficial materials depends upon the size, shape, continuity and arrangement of the pore network system. The most soluble constituents such as nitrates and chlorides and many organic chemicals continue to move relatively quickly downward through the aquifer system or to the bays, while certain constituents such as lead and, probably, chromium, tend to be attenuated by soil prior to reaching groundwater. Soils with a high clay, fine sand, or silt content or with the presence of interspersed clay lenses retard the rate of movement of water and some contaminants through the soil. A portion of the constituents may be used by plants and soil bacteria. J 6-138 Peconic River Intensive Sampling 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 coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorous, metals, and total organic carbon. The results of this survey are included in Appendix F. In general, no significant increases in pollutant loadings were detected at either the USGS gauge or Grangebel Park as a result of the stormwater runoff. Incremental pollutant loadings from the Peconic River after a rainfall event are generally attributable to increases inflow rather than dramatic pollutant inputs of pollution from stormwater. Peconic River - Flanders Bay Pollutant Loading Analysis An analysis of the potential pollutant loading resulting from stormwater runoff was conducted by SCDHS for the stormwater runoff -contributing area to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. As part of this effort, the stormwater runoff -contributing area was delineated by field surveys. Stormwater runoff loading factors found in literature were then utilized in conjunction with land use data for this region to produce estimates of contaminant loading to the surface waters of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Pollutants analyzed as part of this evaluation include nitrogen, phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal and total coliform. The process of generating estimates of stormwater runoff loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay incorporated several analytical procedures, including storinwater runoff area delineation and land use data tabulation. Stormwater runoff factors were then applied to the land use estimates for the stormwater runoff -contributing area to obtain pollutant loading estimates. The stormwater runoff -contributing area was initially outlined by estimating stormwater drainage area pursuant to an inspection of.topographic maps of the area. The boundary was then field -checked and adjusted as necessary to provide a more accurate depiction of the stormwater runoff - contributing area. The Peconic River and Flanders Bay, as the primary study area, were the limit of the stormwater runoff delineation because of land use data availability and other considerations. Once the stormwater runoff -contributing area delineation was complete, the boundaries were digitized onto the land use map prepared by the LIRPB and SCDHS for the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Detailed land use breakdowns for the Peconic River, North Fork, and South Fork (around Flanders Bay) stormwater runoff -contributing areas thus were facilitated and are presented in Table 6.2-23. The application of stormwater runoff loading factors to these land use projections produced quantitative estimates of nitrogen, phosphorus, BOD, TSS, and total and fecal coliform loadings. Loadings were obtained by simply 6-139 TABLE 6.2-23 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Land Use in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay <- Acreage in .Stormwater Runoff Contributing Areas * -> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 449.0 64.4 129.5 255.0 Medium Density Residential 977.2 136.6 444.8 395.8 High Density Residential 49.7 19.5 14.4 15.8 Commercial 221.0 44.7 133.8 42.5 Industrial 51'.1 33.6 17.6 0.0 Institutional 459.6 386.9 10.9 61.8 0 Open Space - Recreational 3,667.0 1,735.0 239.5 1,692.5 Agriculture 170.5 44.5 126.0 0.0 Vacant 1,418.2 340.5 523.3 554.3 Transportation & Recharge 159.5 56.6 50.1 52.9 Utilities 20.2 13.5 01.0 6.8 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 4.6 0.0 0.4 4.2 Surface Waters 571.9 433.9 4.0 133.9 ALL LAND USES 8,219.4 3,309.7 1,694.4 3,215.4 * Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. multiplying loading factors (pounds pollutant per acre per inch of rainfall) by acreage and inches of rainfall. It was assumed that 45 inches per year of rainfall occurred in the study area. Stormwater runoff loading factors were tabulated from three primary sources: "The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan" ("LI 208 Study," Volume II, page 13, Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978), "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" ("National NURP, USEPA, December, 1983), and "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" ("L.I. NURP," LIRPB, December, 1982). "L.I. NURP" projections were used for low and medium density residential development as well as commercial and transportation land uses. This data was used because of the relatively extensive sampling associated with the subject sites as well as the local nature of the study. "National NURP" estimates were used for high density residential development, since this land use was not sampled in the "LI 208 Study" or the "L.I. NURP." Because low density residential loading data was scarce, medium density development factors in the "L.I. NURP" were also used for low density residential development. These factors were lower than factors for low density development in the "National NURP." Table 6.2-24 presents loading factors from various sources in literature which were used to characterize stormwater runoff. In addition, Table 6.2-25 presents selected stormwater runoff loading factors used in- this analysis, while Table 6.2-26 presents supplemental data for stormwater runoff loading factors. Nutrient Loading Total nitrogen loading to the surface waters from stormwater runoff into the Peconic River and Flanders Bay was estimated to be 26.2 pounds per day (lb/day). Only five pounds of this total - occurred in the Peconic.River region, with the remainder fairly evenly distributed between the North Fork and South Fork. Table 6.2-27 presents this data. Total phosphorus loading from stormwater runoff was approximately one-tenth of the total nitrogen loading. The majority (60%) of nitrogen and phosphorus loading occurred in the medium density residential land use category, with low density residential development accounting for a significant amount of the remainder of the loading. The remainder of nutrient loading was contributed from runoff across commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportation land uses. Table 6.2-28 presents total nitrogen loading in stormwater runoff contributing areas to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay as well as total phosphorus loading in stormwater runoff contributing areas to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. In terms of relative nitrogen loading, stormwater runoff was, at 26 pounds per day, considerably smaller than the 740 pounds per day contributed by other major point sources to the same region of the Peconic system (Riverhead STP, Meetinghouse Creek, and Peconic River). Nonpoint source loading (excluding stormwater runoff loading) as measured by groundwater underIIow east of the USGS Peconic River gauge station was, by comparison, even larger, with 6,1501 Table 6.2-24 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors * SOURCES: "The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan" (LI 208 Study), Vol. II, p. 13, Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978. "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (National NURP), USEPA, December, 1983. "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (L.I. NURP), LIRPB, December, 1982. For more detailed data regarding sites, factors, number of storms sampled, etc., see Table 6.2-26. ** Coliform data given in mpn/ac/in. NOTE: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. <---------=--------- LOADING, LB POLLUTANT/ACRE/INCH OF RAINFALL **--------------------> * LAND USE STUDY/SOURCE TOT NIT TOT PHOS F COLI T COLI BOD SS LEAD CHROMIUM COPPER NICKEL Low Dens Res LI 208 Study 0.14 0.018 4.2e+10 7.3e+10 --- 2.9 0.006 0.0 0.003 0.001 National NURP 0.19 0.029 --- --- 0.80 12.3 0.012 --- 0.003 --- L.I. NURP 0.01 --- 1.0e+8 5.1e+8 0.02 --- 0.00012 0.00003 --- --- BTCAMP FACTOR USED 0.13 0.013 3.8e+9 •2.4e+10 0.30 2.8 --- --- --- --- Med Dens Res LI 208 Study 0.23 0.091 1.0e+10 6.2e+10 0.36 3.3 0.024 0.002 0.009 0.003 National NURP 0.19 0.029 --- --- 0.80 12.3 0.012 --- 0.003 --- L.I. NURP 0.13 0.013 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 --- 2.8 --- --- --- --- BTCAMP FACTOR USED 0.13 0.013 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 0.30 2.8 --- --- --- --- High Dens Res LI 208 Study --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- National NURP 0.19 0.029 --- --- 0.80 12.3 0.012 --- 0.003 --- L.I. NURP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BTCAMP FACTOR USED 0.19 0.029 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 0.80 12.3 --- --- --- - --Ind/Comm LI 208 Study 0.06 0.007 3.4e+6 2.2e+7 0.35 --- 0.01 0.105 0.014 0.064 N National NURP 0.50 0.076 --- --- 2.18 32.5 0.033 --- 0.008 --- L.I. NURP 0.02 --- 1.5e+9 1.2e+10 0.36 --- 0.0035 0.00032 --- --- BTCAMP FACTOR USED 0.02 0.002 1.5e+9 1.2e+10 0.36 5.3 --- --- --- --- Agriculture LI 208 Study --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- National NURP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- L.I. NURP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BTCAMP-FACTOR USED --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Transportation LI 208 Study 0.06 0.005 --- --- 0.32 4.6 0.008 0.001 0.011 0.001 National NURP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- L.I. NURP 0.02 --- 7.4e+8 1.7e+8 0.09 --- 0.003 0.0001 --- --- BTCAMP FACTOR USED 0.02 0.002 7.4e+8 1.7e+8 0.09 1.3 --- --- --- --- * SOURCES: "The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan" (LI 208 Study), Vol. II, p. 13, Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978. "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (National NURP), USEPA, December, 1983. "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (L.I. NURP), LIRPB, December, 1982. For more detailed data regarding sites, factors, number of storms sampled, etc., see Table 6.2-26. ** Coliform data given in mpn/ac/in. NOTE: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. Table 6.2-25 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Selected Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors * <- LOADING, LB POLLUTANT/ACRE/INCH OF RAINFALL LAND USE TOT NIT TOT PHOS F COLI T COLI BOD SS Low Dens Res Med Dens Res High Dens Res Ind/Comm Agriculture Transportation 0.13 0.013 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 0.30 0.13 0.013 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 0.30 2.8 2.8 0.19 0.029 3.8e+9 2.4e+10 0.80 - 12.3 0.02 0.002 1.5e+9 1.2e+10 0.36 5.3 0.02 0.002 7.4e+8. 1.7e+8 0.09 1.3 * SOURCES: "The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan" (LI 208 Study), vol. II, p. 13,'Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978. "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (National NURP), USEPA, December, 1983. "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (L.I. NURP), LIRPB, December, 1982. ** Coliform loading given in mpn/ac/in. NOTES: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. See Tables 6.2-24 and 6.2-26 for more information regarding these factors. 6-143 Table 6.2-26 Stormwater Runoff Loading Factors Supplemental Data * LAND USE STUDY/SOURCE SITE Low Dens Res LI 208 Study Lake Success National NURP Composite L.I. NURP Laurel Hollow # STORMS 0-3 Var. 9 Med Dens Res LI 208 Study Several; See Note 6-13 National NURP Composite Var. L.I. NURP Central Ave, Deer Pk 23 High Dens Res LI 208 Study No sites sampled 0 National NURP Composite Var. L.I. NURP No sites sampled --- Ind/Comm Agriculture LI 208 Study National NURP L.I. NURP LI 208 Study National NURP L.I. NURP Heartland Ind. Park 0-1 Composite Var. Centereach 6 No apprecbl.runoff --- No data presented --- No sites sampled --- Transporttn. LI 208 Study LIE Exit 58 0-4 National NURP No data presented --- L.I. NURP Plainview 9 SITE YEARS OF DATA AVG. ANNUAL RAINFALL Riverhead 45 44.6 Greenport 25 43.4 Bridgehampton 51- 45.0 Suffolk Avg. (Approx.) 45 COMMENTS / FACTORS USED L.I. NURP data for med. dens. res. used. BOD data estimated as fraction of LI 208 BOD. L.I. NURP data for med. dens. res. used. BOD data estimated as fraction of LI'208 BOD. National NURP data used. Coliform estimated as LI NURP med. d res. coliform. L.I. NURP data used. TP estimated a fraction of LI 208 TP. TSS estimate - as fraction of Natl. Nurp. TSS No runoff factors available. L.I. NURP data used. TP estimated a fraction of LI 208 TP. TSS estimate" as fraction of LI 208 TSS NOTE: For LI 208 Study, number of samples are dependent on analytical parameter. LI 208 Medium density residential includes following sites: Valley Stream, Massapequa Creek, Baldwin, Sampawams Creek, Pentaquit Creek, Sayville (W. Branch Brown's River). For National NURP, a variable portion of a database including 2,300 storms and 81 sites was used. * SOURCES: "The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan" (LI 208 Study), Vol. II, p. 13, Long Island Regional Planning Board, July 1978. "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (National NURP), USEPA, December, 1983. "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" (L.I. NURP), LIRPB, December 1982. 6-144 TABLE 6.2-27 Stormwater Runoff Loading Summary for Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay * <------------- Loading, Pounds/Day **------------> BY LAND USE Low Dens Res TOT NIT TOT PHOS F COLI T COLI BOD SS BY REGION 15.7 1.6 4.6e+11 2.9e+12 36 337 Peconic River 5.0 0.5 1.9e+11 1.3e+12 31 412 North Fork 10.1 1.0 3.le+11 2.0e+12 30 334 South Fork 11.2 1.1 3.4e+11 2.le+12 31 325 Overall Region 26.2 2.7 8.4e+11 5.5e+12 92 1071 BY LAND USE Low Dens Res 7.2 0.7 2.le+11 1.3e+12 17 155 Med Dens Res 15.7 1.6 4.6e+11 2.9e+12 36 337 High Dens Res 1.2 0.2 2.3e+10 1.5e+11 5 75 Commercial 0.5 0.1 4.1e+10 3.3e+11 10 144 Industrial 0.1 0.0 9.5e+9 7.6e+10 2 33 Institutional 1.1 0.1 8.5e+10 .6.8e+11 20 300 Open Space/Rec 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 Vacant 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 Transportation 0.4 0.0 1.5e+10 3.3e+9 2 26 Utilities 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 Waste Handling 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 Surface Waters 0.0 0.0 O.Oe+O O.Oe+O 0 0 All Land uses 26.2 2.7 8-.4e+11 5.5e+12 92 1071 *Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge. **Coliform loading given in mpn/day. NOTE: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. 6-145 Table 6.2-28 Total Nitrogen Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay Total Phosphorus Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay <-Total Nitrogen, Pounds/Day-> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 7.2 1.0 2.1 4.1 Medium Density Residential 15.7 2.2 7.1 6.3 High Density Residential 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 Commercial 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 Industrial 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Institutional 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.2 Open Space - Recreational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _Transportation & Recharge 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Waters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Land uses 26.2 5.0 10.1 11.2 Total Phosphorus Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. 6-146 <-Total Phosphorus, Pounds/Day-> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 Medium Density Residential 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.6 High Density Residential 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Commercial 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Institutional 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Open Space - Recreational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Transportation & Recharge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Waters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Land uses 2.7 0.5 1.0 1.1 Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. 6-146 approximately 650 pounds per day contributed by nonpoint sources which include nitrogen recharge from fertilizer and septic systems. Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Suspended Solids Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading in stonnwater runoff was projected to be 92 pounds per day, while suspended solids loading was estimated to be 1071 pounds per day. Biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids loadings were fairly evenly distributed between the Peconic River, North Fork, and South Fork. The relatively high contribution of BOD and suspended solids in the Peconic River area was due to the institutional and commercial acreage, which were associated with substantial loading factors for BOD and solids. as compared to nitrogen and phosphorus. Table 6.2-29 presents BOD loading from stormwater-runoff in the contributing area. Bacterial Loadings Total and fecal coliform loadings for the study area were 840 billion and 5.5 trillion mpn per day, respectively. Coliform projections were approximately 50% higher in the North Fork and South Fork than in the Peconic River area. Table 6.2-30 presents fecal coliform loading in the stormwater runoff contributing areas to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay as well as total coliform loadings. The symbol "e" is used to denote the base -10 exponential function. The coastal waters of Long Island receive coliform loadings from various sources, including direct waterfowl contribution, sewage treatment plants, stream base flow, and stormwater runoff. Stormwater has historically been considered to be the major source of coliform loading to Long Island bays. Coliform contribution by the Riverhead STP has been estimated to approach that of the stormwater runoff contribution (see Section 6.4); however, recent measures to install additional chlorine contact tankage to remedy the disinfection problems at the Riverhead STP have been taken by the Town of Riverhead. Regardless of water quality, shellfishing is not permitted within a NYSDEC-specified distance from a STP outfall. As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in the Peconic system. The areas closed to shellfishing are located adjacent to STP discharges or major riverine inputs such as the Peconic River, or are situated in semi enclosed embayments and near shore locations. The benefits derived from the application of control measures will vary from water body to water body and as discussed in other section of this report, depend upon the existing water quality, the degree of tidal flushing, and the presence of sewage treatment plant discharge. The NURP study maintained that on an area -wide basis, the opportunities for preserving water quality in currently certified waters were better than the opportunities for improving water quality in uncertified or conditionally certified waters. Table 6.2-31 presents a breakdown of the coliform load reductions 6-147 Table 6.2-29 BOD Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay <------ BOD, Pounds/Day------> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 16.6 2.4 4.8 9,.4 Medium Density Residential 36.1 5.1 16.5 14.6 High Density Residential 4.9 1.9 1.4 1.6 Commercial 9.8 2.0 5.9 1.-9 Industrial 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.0 Institutional• 20.4 17.2 0.5 2.7 Open Space - Recreational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Transportation & Recharge 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 Utilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Waters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Land uses 91.9 30.6 30.4 30.8 Suspended.Solids Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River.and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. 6-148 <------ TSS, Pounds/Day ------> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH. REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 155 22.2 44.7 88.0 Medium -Density Residential 337 47.2 153.5 136:6 High Density Residential 75 29.5 21.8 23.9 Commercial 144 29.2 87.4 27.7 Industrial 33 21.9 11.5 0.0 Institutional 300 252.8 7.1 40.3 Open Space - Recreational 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 Vacant 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Transportation & Recharge 26 9.1 8.0 8.5 Utilities 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Waters 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Land uses 1071 412 334 325 Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River.and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. 6-148 Table 6.2-30 Fecal Coliform Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay <-- Fecal Coliform, MPN/Day --> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 2.le+11 3.0e+10 6.le+10 1.2e+11 Medium Density Residential4.6e+11 6.4e+10 2.le+11 1.9e+il High Density Residential 2.3e+10 9.le+9 6.7e+9 7.4e+9 Commercial 4.le+10 8.3e+9 2.5e+10 7.9e+9 Industrial 9.5e+9 6.2e+9 3.2e+9 O.Oe+O Institutional 8.5e+10 7.2e+10 2.0e+9 1.le+10 Open Space - Recreational O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Agriculture O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Vacant O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Transportation & Recharge 1.5e+10 5.2e+9 4.6e+9 4.8e+9 Utilities O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Waste Handling - Mngmnt. O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Surface Waters O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O All Land uses 8.4e+11 1.9e+11 3.le+11 3.4e+11 Total Coliform Loading in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay <-- Total Coliform, MPN/Day --> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK FORK Low Density Residential 1.3e+12 1.9e+11 3.8e+11 7.5e+11 Medium Density Residential2.9e+12 4.0e+11 1.3e+12 1.2e+12 High Density Residential 1.5e+11 5.8e+10 4.3e+10 4.7e+10 Commercial 3.3e+11 6.6e+10 2.0e+11 6.3e+10 Industrial 7.6e+10 5.0e+10 2.6e+10 O.Oe+O Institutional 6.8e+11 5.7e+11 1.6e+10 9.1e+10 Open Space - Recreational O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Agriculture O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Vacant O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Transportation & Recharge 3.3e+9 1.2e+9 1.0e+9 1.le+9 Utilities O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Waste Handling - Mngmnt. O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O Surface Waters O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O O.Oe+O All Land uses 5.5e+12 1.3e+12 2.0e+12 2.le+12 Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. NOTE: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. 6-149 Table 6.2-31 COLIFORM LOAD REDUCTIONS AND SHELLFISH BED OPENINGS AS PREDICTED BY THE MATRIX MANIPULATION MODEL Runoff Opened Shellfish Beds Load Reduction Nassau Suffolk Total °o acres acres L acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 2800 27 0 0 2800 75 4018 39 740 14 4758 85 5236 51 20007 37 7243 95 10195 99 4236 79 14431 99 10287 100 4690 88 14977 34b 3078 30 0 0 3078 66c 1812 18 7400 14 2552 a Equal reduction of overland and stream runoff load. b No overland runoff. 40% reduction in Nassau, 24% in Suffolk. C No stream runoff. 60% reduction in Nassau, 76% in Suffolk. Source: Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, 1982 6-150 and the number of acres of shellfish beds. More detailed information regarding strategies for coliform load control and reduction is contained in Section 7. Construction Runoff Sedimentation stemming from erosion at construction sites can cause locally severe water quality problems. Construction activities are often accompanied by removal of riparian vegetation. The clearing of vacant lots often results in the transport of sediment into creeks, bays, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Erosion from construction activities is high on a volume basis as compared to other land uses. The amount of sediment reaching a water body from a particular site is highly variable and is dependent on a number of factors such as acres of disturbed area, proximity to a waterway, and soil type and slope. Figure 6.2-5 presents a graphic breakdown of sediment volume by land use type. Commercial/Industrial Runoff Runoff from developed commercial/industrial properties can carry the usual array of contaminants in addition to pollutants specific to the type of activity carried on at the site. Improper storage and handling of waste products may also result in discharge to surface waters. Currently, no industrial SPDES permits allow surface water discharges in the Peconic System. Grease and oil products are sometimes disposed of on land, into storm sewers or directly into surface waters. In some industrial areas, concentrations of these products discharged to storm drains may inhibit the proper functioning of recharge basins by preventing percolation of stormwater through the soil. Surface water discharge of grease and oil may accumulate on aquatic plants, eventually resulting in the loss of aquatic biota. en Space Runoff The natural processes which exist before the introduction of paved surfaces, rooftops, storm sewers, and altered vegetation and landscape provides a filtration function which minimizes the natural and man made pollutants on the land surface from being conveyed to coastal waters. For example, the role of wetlands as an intermediate ecosystem which influence the resultant water quality of the bays cannot be underestimated. Wetlands function as filters and pollutant removal systems for coastal stormwater. In addition, runoff falling on sandy subsoil can serve as an effective filtration process and substantially. remove any particulate pollutants from rainfall. 6.2.7 MarinaBoating Impacts Increased development throughout the coastal zone in conjunction with increasing demand for recreational marina facilities has created the need to protect sensitive coastal environments while 6-151 Comparison Of Sediment Volumes And Land Use Types S©diment Volume•TonslSq Mile/Year 1 Woodland 100 2 Mixed Rural Areas 300 3 Farm Land 500 4 Light Development 10.000 5 Heavy Development 100,000 Source: NYSDEC FIGURE 6.2-5 enhancing multiple uses of valuable coastal resources. The number and location of marinas in the Peconic System was discussed previously in Section 2 of this report. Economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits of boating and marinas have also been discussed in Sections 1 and 2. For example, 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. Using various assumptions, the Long Island Regional Planning Board (1984) estimated that the total value of all registered boats in Nassau and Suffolk Counties was $800 million in 1982. In balancing this acknowledgement of the clear benefits of the marinas and boating, this discussion centers. on potential impacts of existing marinas as a nonpoint pollution source to surface waters. Most of the total and fecal coliform entering marine waters in Suffolk County has historically been considered to be a result of stormwater runoff (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978, 1982). Increases in boat pollution associated with heavy boating activity in a shallow embayment on Chesapeake Bay was found by Lear et al. (1978) to be completely masked and undetectable due to high concentrations of fecal coliform contributed by surface runoff. Similarly, Faust (1982), determined that fecal coliform. counts resulting from natural runoff were 72 times higher than the highest level attributable to recreational boats. Despite the significance of stormwater runoff coliform loading to marine surface waters, there exists concern regarding potential pollution stemming from marinas and boating activities, especially in constrained and poorly -flushed water bodies. Suffolk County has addressed such concerns with a local law (Resolution #946-88) which directs the SCDHS to investigate public health nuisances at marinas; this law has not been enforced due to manpower limitations. Sanitary wastes from boats may be a problem in many bays and harbors. Boats less than 25 feet in length are not required by the Coast Guard to have marine toilets. These smaller boats, which comprise 89% of the total Suffolk County recreational boating fleet, generally do not have marine toilets due to space and power limitations (Rogers and Abbas, 1982). These boats are usually used on a daily basis rather than for extended periods of time. Some boats may have portable toilets, while many others discharge untreated waste to bays and harbors. Portable toilets are frequently used by smaller vessels and these toilets have a small, detachable tank which can be emptied at dockside rest rooms. Larger boats of greater than 25 feet, which are often used for overnight stays and weekend trips, are required to have Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD's). The placing of MSD's on all vessels that contained installed toilets (unless exempted by the Secretary of Defense) was a main objective of Section 312 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, which placed responsibility for the development and enforcement of its regulations within the offices of .the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA. The MSD's were to be designed either to hold raw sewage for shore -based disposal or to treat the wastes onboard prior to discharge. Effluent 6-153 restrictions for fecal "coliform and visible floating solids for both existing and new vessels were also promulgated. The types of MSD's and the regulations for the MSD's are shown in Table 6.2-32. Under the Clean Water Act, the state can petition the EPA to declare "no discharge zones" where all craft with installed toilets would be required to have holding tanks or sanitation systems that are secured to prevent overboard discharge. Some of the larger craft may berth at marinas and harbors for weeks at a time. Houseboats, which are often utilized as floating homes, are an additional source of sanitary waste discharge. Floating homes lacking adequate sanitary treatment facilities can generate a volume of waste equivalent to a single family residence. Sanitary boat waste contains ammonia, nitrates, phosphorous, BOD, COD, and dissolved and suspended solids. Untreated sanitary waste may contain significant amounts of fecal coliform and other types of bacteria, viruses, fungi and worms. Filter feeding organisms such as clams, scallops and mussels may ingest these organisms in large concentrations and become a means of transmissions of viral hepatitis and gastroenteritis. The extent of pollution of a water body by sanitary wastes from boats is a function of the number of boats anchored or docked in the area and the capacity of the waters to assimilate the wastes. The effects of sanitary waste discharges are site-specific and not well documented. Several studies have shown that high concentrations of boats in poorly flushed water bodies can contribute to increased coliform bacteria levels. Although the potential exists for adverse environmental and health impacts from boat sewage, a connection between boating activity and increased oxygen depletion, nutrient levels and/or incidences of disease has not been demonstrated (EPA, 1985). In response to the increasing concern regarding discharge of sanitary wastes from recreational vessels, Tanski (1989) conducted a survey of pump out stations in Suffolk County to assess the level of use and availability of these facilities. The study found that, although the present documented demand does not appear to justify the installation of pump out facilities at each of the over 200 marinas in Suffolk County, additional stations may be warranted in areas with heavy boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive waterways with poor flushing. The implementation of other measures such as designation of no discharge zones and expanded efforts in boater education may also help increase usage. Practical, economical alternatives for disposing of collected boat wastes must be identified if efforts to promote the proper use of holding tanks and pump out facilities are to be successful. Oil and Gasoline Hydrocarbon discharges to surface waters may result from the operation of boat engines, release of bilge water, spills from marine fuel docks and oil storage facilities, and discharge,from roadways adjacent to surface waters. Careless or improper pumping or filling practices and leaking 6-154 TABLE 6.2-32 Coast Guard Regulations for MSDs-As of January 30,1980 1 Must be Equipped with a Vessels with Installed Toilets Certified (or Labeled) In permitted MSD discharge waters2 65 feet and under Over 65 feet In No -Discharge Areas Any Vessel - Type I MSD, Type H MSD or Type III MSD Type II MSD or Type III MSD Type III MSD Unless Equipped With a Type I MSD installed on a new vessel (Built on or after January 30, 1975) before January 30, 1980. Type I MSD purchased for an existing vessel (Built before January 30, 1975) before January 30 and installed before January 30, 1979 Type I MSD, or Type II MSD that has been secured so as to prevent any discharge IMany boats that are 25 feet or less in length are not equipped with installed sanitary facilities and are therefore exempt from MSD regulations. 2Permitted MSD discharge waters include coastal waters, estuaries, the Great Lakes, interconnecting waterways, freshwater lakes, impoundments accessible through locks and other flowing waters that are navigable interstate by vessels subject to -this regulation. 3No-discharge areas include those freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs or other freshwater impoundments whose inlets and outlets are such as to prevent the ingress or egress by vessel traffic subject to this regulation or in rivers not capable of navigation by interstate vessel traffic. Type I - a flow-through device that treats the effluent onboard. Disinfectant chemicals are [nixed with the raw sewage which is chopped up with high speed blades and then discharged into the water. 1. Fecal coliform count of effluent cannot exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters 2. No visible floating solids may be present. 6-155 TABLE 6.2-32 (cont.) Type H - a flow-through device that treats the effluent onboard. It is either biologically or chemically treated and chopped up. Suspended solid material is removed by sedimentation or filtration prior to discharge. 1. Fecal coliform count of effluent cannot be greater than 200_ per 100 milliliters 2. Suspended solids cannot exceed 150 milligrams per liter. Type III a holding tank device that does not discharge any sewage. It is stored (usually with disinfectants and deodorants added) until it can be pumped out at a shore -based facility (pump -out station) or in an unrestricted discharge zone (beyond three miles from shore). Due to problems in meeting the deadlines established under this act, a number of waivers were issued extending the date for the purchase and installation of,MSDs. Source: "Nonpoint Source Management Handbook," LIRPB,1984. 6-156 gasoline tanks at marine -fuel docks result in a large number of small spills that can severely impact the aquatic environment in the immediate vicinity. Oil released into the water forms droplets of an oil -water mixture, which adheres to the surfaces of benthic organic sediments, sand, silt and debris. Some of the oil is subsequently taken up by the root systems of marine flora. The more highly refined oils, such as No. 2 fuel (diesel) are more toxic than crude oil. However, the soluble fraction of oil can be toxic, inhibitory, or stimulatory to marine phytoplankton, and may have the capacity to alter phytoplankton population structures. Furthermore, the ingestion of water containing low levels of gasoline and oil have been known to affect the taste of clain meat. Various hydrocarbons have been found to be carcinogenic and the severity of their impact may be magnified at each trophic level. At present, however, there is very little information regarding the long-term sublethal effects associated with chronic, low-volume spillage. A film or layer of -oil on the water's surface can reduce the amount of light penetration through the water column and can reduce the exchange of oxygen at the air -water interface. The productivity of marine plants that require light for photosynthesis may be reduced and oxygen - requiring organisms may be stressed. Marine Paints Most boats are scraped, sanded and painted annually. The marine paints utilized for painting the bottoms of boats usually contain a marine biocide that inhibits the growth of marine plants, barnacles and other organisms. Navigational aids are routinely painted with these antifoulant paints as well. Marine paints are another source of pollution related to boating. The marine paints utilized for painting the bottoms of boats usually contain a marine biocide that inhibits the growth of marine plants, barnacles and other organisms. Navigational aids are routinely painted with these antifoulant paints as well. Marine antifoulant paints may contain toxic compounds; low concentrations of organotin compounds, popularly used in the past in marine paints, have been shown to be lethal to oyster larvae and fiddler crabs. While Tributyltin (TBT) has the ability to degrade into harmless compounds, it usually concentrates faster than it can dissipate due to the large number of vessels present in marinas and harbors. In 1988 Federal legislation,(Public law 100-333) prohibited the use of TBT on vessels under 25 meters- (82 feet) in.length. This ban would cover the vast majority of boats found in the Peconic System. Additional MarinaBoating_Impacts The cutting of rooted aquatic vegetation by boat propellers occurs when motorboats traverse shallow waters. The decrease in plant vegetation, along with the accumulation -of plant debris on the 6-157 bottom, may reduce the aquatic population or change the composition of species that depend on these plants for food, shelter, or substrate. The, degree, of damage incurred by propeller cuttings in shallow areas depends on the intensity of boating activity. - Most boaters try to avoid shallow areas with rooted vegetation because of poor maneuverability,. the likelihood of propeller fouling, and possible boat damage. Much of the destruction of rooted aquatic vegetation can be attributed to boaters' ignorance of the depths of the waters in which they are navigating. In shallow waters, the wave energy created by boat wakes or the turbulence resulting from the action of propellers in the water (prop wash) can stir up and suspend fine particulate matter. Over a period of time, this constant disruption can physically alter the substrate and habitat of benthic or bottom. organisms. Narrow navigational channels located in tidal marshes, are subject to excessive wave action from boats that may erode marsh vegetation and cause slumping and collapsing of channel edges. Other environmental impacts that can result- from boat wakes and prop wash include the release of toxins (when sediments containing these substances are disturbed) and the reduction of light penetration causing reduced productivity. Boating activity can also significantly impact the nesting ureas of waterbird colonies, such as terns, plovers and gulls. Noise pollution is another factor which has been associated with boating activity. Floatables and Other. Debris More than 14 billion pounds of crew wastes, gear, and cargo are lost or dumped into the oceans every year from vessels involved in recreational boating, commercial fishing, merchant shipping, passenger service, and other marine -related activities. Marine debris consists of a wide assortment of plastic, wood, paper, glass, rubber, metal and organic waste materials that float or are suspended in the water column and may eventually be deposited on shoreline and beaches. In 1989, the Long Island Chapter of the Water Pollution Control Foundation prepared and implemented a public education campaign to reduce floatable'and marine debris. The Peconic system was one target area of this campaign. Plastic debris may be mistaken .for food by whales, porpoises, seabirds and turtles. If Viese items are ingested, they may cause death by blocked passages, ulcerations, toxic accumulation and starvation. -Entanglement poses a problem for marine mammals, fish and birds. Discarded or lost fishing gear, six pack rings and strapping bands have all been found to entangle fish; seabirds and marine mammals which may result in starvation or drowning. Lost fishing gear may continue to trap target and nontarget species, and fishing line can ball up and become a snare for fish, crabs and seabirds. 6-158 Floatable debris can be a hazard to recreational and commercial fisherman and boaters. Boats can easily become disabled when plastic items foul propellers and clog water intake valves. Besides the danger posed by floatable debris, the money spent to repair propeller damage, burned out pumps, and dry docking of the owner's vessel can be substantial. In addition, a beach littered with plastic bottles, rusty cans, food remnants, styrofoam cups, and other bits of debris can ruin the recreational enjoyment of beach goers. This material is long-lasting and often non -biodegradable and may be resuspended by high tides and storms. The Peconic System as a whole has not been impacted .by floatables to the same extent as urban areas. In select locations, however, floatable debris may be a problem. Increases in marinas and boating populations may further the likelihood in future years of floatable debris problems. 6.2.8 Dredging impacts and Sediment Flux Dredging Commercial and recreational boating activity is an important aspect of the marine economy in Suffolk County. Brown (1984) indicated that the opportunities for marina expansion are generally greater in the Peconic Bay area than elsewhere on Long Island. During the period 1972-1983, the Peconic Bay area experienced a 28% increase in berths as compared to 8% for the north shore and 4% for the south shore of Long Island. The beneficial impacts of boating to the economy and recreational and aesthetic resources of the Peconic system are discussed in greater detail in Sections 1 and 2. However, boat usage in the Long Island area has resulted in the demand for navigation channel access, as well as the establishment of various support industries. A network of Federal, State and County navigation channels has been developed in Suffolk County waters; some channels provide general navigational access, while others provide access to only a small area of the population resident along the shoreline adjacent to such channels. The extent to which channel dredging can occur, as well as the environmental impacts associated with channel dredging projects, has been the subject of numerous discussions among boating enthusiasts, regulatory agencies, commercial fishing interests and environmentalists. The cost of dredging has increased significantly in recent years and the availability of dredge disposal sites has diminished. It is not anticipated that many new navigation channels will be created due to tidal wetlands regulations. The few new channels that may be created will probably be confined to the Gardiner's and Peconic Bay area (Suffolk County, 1985) due to intensifying shoreline development pressures and a suitable sand substrate for beach nourishment. Figure 6.2-6 presents the locations of federal and Suffolk County dredging projects. Suffolk County involvement in dredging activities dates back to 1948. Direct County dredging began in 1956 with the purchase of the County dredge "Shinnecock." Most of the projects 6-159 O BLOCK /BLAND SOUND Source: Suffolk County Locations Of Federal And Suffolk County Dredging Projects FIGURE 6.2-6 undertaken by the county in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's were for channel creation, while those performed by the county during the 1970's and 1980's were for channel maintenance and interface dredging of shoals at the intersections of navigational channels and larger water bodies. Suffolk County authority to dredge is vested in the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) which pursuant to Section 801, subsection (7) of the Suffolk County Charter is assigned responsibility for control of all waterways, including the supervision, construction and alteration of docks, marinas, parks, preserves, and beach erosion projects. SCDPW also prepares all topographic, hydrographic, and land surveys. Suffolk County has the authority to enter into contracts with towns and villages and charge for their services, but has chosen not to do so. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services may review dredging projects to determine if dredging will prevent or alleviate a public health problem such as mosquito breeding areas. Department of Health Services certification is applicable only for the year the charnel is dredged and must be reapplied for if subsequent dredging takes place. Impacts from dredging include increases in turbidity at the dredging and disposal sites, changes in bottom topography, and the remobilization of contaminants in bottom sediments at the dredge and disposal sites. Besides Suffolk County -sponsored dredging projects, there are numerous other dredging projects undertaken by private concerns. Although these projects are generally smaller in scope and material removal, the cumulative effect of these small projects can be significant. Topographic changes in channels can produce changes in tidal range, currents, shoaling/scouring patterns, and salinity levels in back bay areas. The most critical, yet least understood chemical effect of dredging is the potential remobilization of contaminants (petroleum, heavy metals, pesticides, organics, nutrients) that are sorbed to the surface of fine grained particles that typically settle to the bottom in harbors and coves. Spoil disposal activity can depress dissolved oxygen levels in the water column and increase the concentration of nutrients. Biological effects include the obvious destruction of habitats including wetlands, spawning grounds, and grass beds and the direct burial of benthic, nonmotile organisms, such as clams and mussels. More subtle biological effects include the chronic impacts of suspended sediments on filter feeders and the potential uptake and concentration of released contaminants through the food chain. A breakdown of Federal dredging projects is given in Table 6.2-33. Dredging projects by town are given in Table 6.2-34. In the Peconic system dredged material is largely composed of sand. On East End dredging projects performed by Suffolk County, this material is used predominantly for beach nourishment. As a result, the lack of dredge spoil disposal sites experienced in other regions is not an immediate problem in the Peconic system. 6-161 Table 6.2-33 Federal Navigation Projects in The Peconic System Source: Suffolk County Planning Department, 1985 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 1990 SCOP Project Purpose Authorized Channel Dimensions Utilization Status Recommendation Peconic River Navigation Channel -Improvement Adopted 1871, 61x 751, approx. 4.6 miles Pleasure boats Completed No regional facili— Modified 1945 long 1942 ties; consider de—authorization of project Mattituck Harbor Navigation Channel Improvement Adopted 1896, 7'x801, approx. 2.2 miles Pleasure boats and Completed Harbor of refuge; Modified 1935 long, 2 rip rap jetties at commercial fishing 1965 modify existing 7' and 1964 entrance, and anchorage basin craft project to 8' 71.deep 460'x570' Greenport Harbor. Harbor and Navigation Channel Adopted 1882, 810001, approx. .5 mile Pleasure boats and Completed Possible modification (Sterling Basin) Improvement Modified 1890 long, a 1,570' breakwater, commercial fishing 1939 of existing.81x100' and 1937 and 2 anchorage areas craft project to 121x150' 8'and 9' deep. outside Sterling Basin Sag Harbor Harbor and Navigation Channel Adopted 1902, 101x1001, approx. .6 mile Pleasure boats. Completed Oil terminal phase out; (East Hampton) Improvement Modified 1935 long, 2 anchorage areas 6' 1938 consider de—authorization and 8' deep,3,180.' breakwater of 101000' project; rn modify channel to 81000' Hay(West)Harbor Navigation Channel Improvement Adopted 1930 1410001, approx. .4 mile Commerce and Completed Maintain existing "0 Fishers Island long pleasure boats 1931 project Lake Montauk Harbor and Navigation Channel Adopted 1945 1210501, approx. .7 mile Pleasure boats and' Completed Modify existing 12' Harbor Improvement long, boat basin 4001000' commercial fishing 1968 project to 151x150' 10' deep, and east and west craft jetties Source: Suffolk County Planning Department, 1985 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 1990 M M w Table 6.2-34 Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHAMPTON Dates Cubic Yards Method of Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Cold Spring .Pond 1964 124,800 Beach 1967 29,800 nourishment 1971 23,900 1982 1975 28,300 1982 48,000 1984 1986 22,700 10,500 1987 7,000 1987 Fresh Pond 1975 141,100 Beach 1980 2,700 nourishment 1981 3,000 5,300 nourishment 1982 4,500 1983 3,300 1984 .4,100 1985 4,300 1986 2,500 1987 4,800 1988 3,500 1989 2,000 Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Marina 45 None None Goose Creek (b) Dredging Requested None None Mill Creek 1960 180,700 Beach _ 2 marinas and 1971 27,100 nourishment yacht club 1986 13,200 North Sea Harbor 1961 108,100 Beach, 1964 18,300- 8,3001971 1971 47,500 1975 25,000 1980 33,900 1981 2,900 1982 4,500 5/83 9/83 22,400 1984 15,800 1985 10,500 1986 14,100 1987 15,800 1988 7,500 1989 6,500 Noyack Creek 1969 134,900 Beach 1988 5,300 nourishment Marina 2 public ramps 15-20 Moorings None 145.30 130 None Public Access 6 - 10 cars Ramp 5 car capacity. Ramp 2 ramps 6 - 10 cars Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHAMPTON Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Red Creek Pond (g) 1964 93,200 Beach Town floating 15 - 20 Ramp 1971 10,200 nourishment dock moorings 6 cars ' 1975 10,200 1981 4,300 1981 15,000 1982 15,000 1983 3,400 1984 8,300 1986 8,300 1987 7;500 Reeves Bay 1967 14,700 Upland 2 marinas 73 None 1967 ,135,300 Sag Harbor Cove (h) .1960 78,100 Upland 5 marinas 365' Ramp Sag Harbor Cove (Uppe.r). (h) 1960-. 78,100 Upland 5 marinas 365 Ramp rn . Sag Harbor Part I 1965 258,800 Beach 2 marinas, boat 145 None ' 1987 7,400 nourishment yard, yacht club, a, and oil terminal 4 Sebonac Creek 1958 110,200 Beach Yacht club Ramp 1967 58 ',700 nourishment 1968 51,500 1981 8,900, 1989 6,700 1989 20,200 Shinnecock Canal 1966 132,200 Beach General navigation 1968 nourishment Sylvan. Royal Ave./ Dredging Requested None None None Long Neck Blvd. (b) Wooleys Pond 1964 210,800 Beach Marina 100.20 Yes 1967 15,200 nourishment 1972 12,800 1975 12,000 1979 3,000 . 1980 6,700 5/81 1,000 6/81 1,900 1983 11,300 1984 6,900 1985 4,900 1987- 10,300 rn M cn Proiect Name Accabonac Harbor Lake Montauk Napeague Harbor Northwest Harbor Sag Harbor (a) (Part II) Dates Dredged 1959 1965 1971 1976 1985 1989 Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects EAST HAMPTON Cubic Yards Dredged '205,500 74,000 17,000 30,000 30,100 15,300 1949 40,000 1959 100,000 1974 65,000 1967 342,000 1988 26,300 1961 357,000 1965 49,000 1971 18,000 1977 40,000 1978 39,000 Method of Types of Water Disposal Dependent Facilities Beach 2 town boat ramps nourishment upland dis— posal and beach nourish— ment beach nourish— ment Upland on Town commerci S.C. parkland fishery dock, ferry and beach terminal to Block nourishment Island, 12 marinas and charter boat operations, town boat ramp Upland on Town boat ramp Hicks Island Modified Town boat ramp inlet orien— and informal mooring ratio and placed soil on barrier spill 2 upland Oil storage facility sites yacht club, county Three Mil -e Harbor 1958 82,000 Beach 1961 35,000 nourishment 1965 106,000 on both 1974 - 83,000 sides of '1975 90,000 inlet and and upland site on Marina La. (a) Sag Harbor is a federally authorized project. dock, 2 marinas., and village ramp and boat basin 10 marinas, town commercial fishing dock, 3 town boat ramp sites, slips at county/town facility No. of Slips/ Moorings None 1729 None None 303 643 Ramps & Parking Capacity Shipyard Lane - 5 cars Landing Lane — 5 cars West Lake Dr. 10 cars Lazy Point Park Northwest Landing Rd. Marine Park — Gann Rd. — 50 cars; Hands Creek Landing 15 cars; Three Mile Harbor Park & Dock — 5 cars Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHOLD Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Proiect Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Broadwater Cover (a) 1966 434,400 Formerly up- Marina 40 1976 11,000 land on 2 1,000 1982 10,200 sites, now 12,400 1980 1,900 beach nourish- 9,700 1982 1,700 ment to the 1,700 1984 1,900 west of inlet 1,400 Brushes Creek 1966 86,400- Beach Marina 15 1975 7,500 nourishment 345,600 1979 5,000 on both sides 7,600 1980 11900 of inlet 800 1981 5,800 1983 1,500 1984 4,800 1985 6,800 1986 3,000 1987 3,000 1988 4,500 1989 1,000 1990 Pending Cedar Beach Harbor 1979 12,400 1980 1,900 1981 9,700 1982 1,700 1983 1,700 1984 1,900 1985 1,400 1986 2,900 1987 1,900 1989 2,400 Corey Creek (b) 1963-64 345,600 1967 23,900 1972 7,600 1981 10,200 1983 800 1984 3,500 1986 18,600 1987 5,000 Ramps & Parking Capacity Ramp Ramp Beach Marine Technology None None nourishment Dept. of SCCC to the west Formerly Ramp None Ramp upland and 6 cars now beach nourishment Dam Pond (c) Dredging Requested None None None Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHOLD Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Proiect Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Deep Hole Creek 1964-65 243,500 Beach None None None 1972 21,100 nourishment 1975 4,000 on both sides 1976 14,000 of inlet 7/80 5,000 11/80 10,000 1982 8,800 1983 6,300 1987 7,700 1989 10,800 East Creek (a) 1966 434,400 Formerly None None None 1976 11,000 upland on 2 1982 10,200 sites, now beach nourishment to the west of inlet a, Goose Creek (b) 1959 46,700 Formerly Ramp None Ramp 6 cars 1967 72,500 upland by 1968 11,100 Bayview Ave. 1976 6,000 now beach nourishment Greenport RR Dock 1983 41,700 Offshore Commercial fishery Approx. 12 None disposal site dock commercial between Greenport and Dering Harbor Gull Pond 1959 177,200 Beach Town beach, docking Large docking Double ramp at 1960 28,500 nourishment and boat ramps facility at Manhasset Ave. 1970 29,000 between Gull Manhasset Ave. Park—.250.cars 1979 23,300 and Sterling Park 1983 1,000 Basin 1989 1,1000 . Hall Creek (c) 1979 17,400 Beach- None None None 1980 4,200 nourishment 1983 8,300 to the east Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHOLD Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity James Creek 1964-65, 272,500 Formerly 2 marinas 120 Ramps at 1979 3,000 upland to the Village Marine 1980 6,700 east, now of Mattituck' 1983 9,400 beach and Strongs 1985 5,300 nourishment Mattituck 1986 1,800. on both sides Marina of inlet Jockey Creek (e) 1959 23,200 Beach Marina 60 None 1959 93,400 nourishment 1976 91000 to the .west Little Creek (b) 1967 51,000 Beach. Ramp None Ramp - 6 cars 1968 3,700 nourishment 1975 5,000 on both sides 1976 40,000 of inlet 1978 4,000 1979 5,000 1980 2,400 rn 5/81 2,400 !, 9/81 2,400 rn 1982 7,000 co 5/83 2,400 8/83 2,300 5/84 2,400 8/84 6,000 1985 3,100 1986 5,800 5/87 4,800 7/87 4,000 1988 3,000 1989 4,000 Long Creek (part 1967 13,000 Upland Matt -A -Mar Marina 87 None of Mattituck Creek) site of is at intersection Mattituck Creek and Long Creek Mill Creek 1963 66,300 Upland 3 marinas 361 Ramp.at Port of 1968 2,700 on island Egypt Marina 1975 6,000 to the west 1979 4,000 1981 4,500 1990 2,000 (est) Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHOLD Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Mud Creek 1966 434,400 Formerly None None None 1976 11,000 upland on 2 1982 10,200 sites, now 1987 6,600 beach nourishment to the west of inlet New Suffolk 1977 4;000 Beach Boat ramp New Suffolk 1979 1,500 nourishment -Town ramp 1980 1,000 on town beach 1981 2,000 to the south 1982 3,300 1983 1,000 1984 .1,800 1985 2,500 1986 1,300 1987 1,500 1988 1,800 °i 1989 1,300 1990 1,200-1,500 (est) rn 1O Peters Neck Point Dredging Requested Marina 30 Town ramp 30 cars Richmond Creek 1959 123,500 Beach None None Paved road 1964 82,800 nourishment 1967 25,100 on both sides 1972 5,500 of inlet 1983 15,300 Schoolhouse Creek 1976 12,000 Beach Marina 56 None nourishment Sterling Basin (f) 1959 163,900 Formerly 4 marinas and a 380 None (Greenport) 1963 129,200 used wetlands sailing club 1976 12,000 by cemetery, now use back side of inlet for beach nourishment Town Creek/Harbor 1959 23,200 Beach Marina near mouth of 50 Founders (e) 1959 93,400 nourishment creek and town ramp Landing Pk. 1976 9,000 to the west on bay (on bay — 25 cars) Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SOUTHOLD (a) Broadwater Cove, Mud Creek and East Creek were dredged as one project in 1966, 1976 & 1982. (b) By letter of July 8, 1985, Town Board agreed to provide public access to Corey, Goose, Little and West Creeks. (c) The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has determined that it is necessary to maintain the mouths of Dam Pond.and Halls Creek to a depth of approximately 3 feet below mean low water in order to drain nearby mosquito -breeding --areas _= - - - --- (d) The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has determined that dredging Goldsmith Inlet was necessary in 1985 to protect the public health. (e) Jockey Creek and Town Creek/Harbor were dredged as one project in 1959 and 1976.- (f) 976.(f) Mattituck Creek and Sterling Basin are federally authorized projects. Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity West Creek (b) 1966 9,000 Beach Ramp None Ramp 1976 91000 nourishment 6 cars 1982 2,800 on both sides of inlet West harbor 1971 43,100 Used hopper (Fishers Island - barge and channel connecting dumped at sea to Federal project) Wickham Creek 1966 48,300 Beach Marina 100 Boatmans 1972 10,000 nourishment Harbor 1979 3,600 to the west Marina ramp 1981 1,700' 1982 2,200 1983 1,900 1984 1,400 1985 1,400 upland 1986 2,600 disposal T 1987 2,600 1989 4,700 V C) Wunneweta Pond 1989 .2,800 Beach nourishment (a) Broadwater Cove, Mud Creek and East Creek were dredged as one project in 1966, 1976 & 1982. (b) By letter of July 8, 1985, Town Board agreed to provide public access to Corey, Goose, Little and West Creeks. (c) The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has determined that it is necessary to maintain the mouths of Dam Pond.and Halls Creek to a depth of approximately 3 feet below mean low water in order to drain nearby mosquito -breeding --areas _= - - - --- (d) The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has determined that dredging Goldsmith Inlet was necessary in 1985 to protect the public health. (e) Jockey Creek and Town Creek/Harbor were dredged as one project in 1959 and 1976.- (f) 976.(f) Mattituck Creek and Sterling Basin are federally authorized projects. Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects SHELTER ISLAND Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Project Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Chase Creek 1980 300 Upland Maintain flushing Coecles Inlet 1966 143,200 Beach Marina 55/30 None nourishment Condons Cove 1965 48,900 Adjacent Dock and ramp Ramp 1966 151,000 shoreline Crab Creek 1976 10,000 Beach Maintain flushing 1983 4,300 nourishment 1987 4,320 Dering Harbor 1966 18,200 Deposit in 2 marinas 25/25 Ramp portion of harbor Dickerson Creek 1982 300 upland Maintain flushing 1988 15,000 Beach nourishment rn Gardiners Creek 1979 5,300 Upland. Maintain flushing v Menantic Creek 1986 9,200 Beach Ramp Ramp nourishment Smith Cove 1966 35,900 Beach None None None nourishment West Neck Harbor 1955 8,000 Beach 2 ramps 2 ramps 1960 313,500 nourishment 1965 19,400 1976 18,800 1983 17,400 1988 4,900 Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects RIVERHEAD Dates Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water No. of Slips/ Ramps & Parking Proiect Name Dredged Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity Dreamers Cove (a) 1985 7,300 50 ft. of dockage None None at motel East Creek 1960 305,900 Beach Town Marina 77 N.Y.S. Boat 1961 108,700 nourishment, Ramp - 100 1965 35,600 formerly Cars 1,975 38,800 upland 1981 4,300 1983 4,300 1985 5,000 1986 10,300 1988 9,800 Hawks Creek 1966 30,800 Beach Yacht 200 None 1975 1,500 nourishment basi.n 1982 1,300 1983 1,300 1984 2,500 1985 2,800 1987 1,300 1988 1,300 Meetinghouse Creek 1948' 123,700 Upland on Marina 145 None 1961 31,000 Indian Island 1975 249,500 County Park (duck sludge) Merrits Bay 1967 82,300 Upland on Dockage, (Peconic River) south side pollutant of River removal, and navigation :.: Mi amogue Lagoon - =1966:- _ _ _::..17;400 Beach- -------None ,..'.-:- . _...-_ -: _ .:_ . • = '-None- . - - -•- None - _ -- 1975 2,700 nourishment 1979 1,000 1980 2,200 1981 - 11000 1982 500 1983 1,500 1984 2,300 1987 2,800- 1988 2,000 1989 1,000 1990 1,000 Dates Pro.iect Name Dredged Peconic River (b) 1960 1970 Reeves Creek (c) 1965 Sawmill Creek (c) 1965 Terrys Creek (c) 1965 Table 6.2-34 (Continued) Summary of Suffolk County Dredging Projects RIVERHEAD Cubic Yards Method of Types of Water INo. of Slips/ .Ramps & Parking Dredged Disposal Dependent Facilities Moorings Capacity 160,200 Upland Yacht club, dockage, None 616,300 in downtown Riverhead, Marina proposed - 708,600 Upland Restaurant dock 10 None (dock while dining) 708,600 Upland- None None None 708,600 Upland None None None (a) The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has ..determined that dredging Dreamers Creek was necessary in 1985 to protect the public health.. (b) Peconic River is a federally authorized project. (c) Reeves, Sawmill and Terrys Creeks were dredged as one -project in 1965. Sediment Flux 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. 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. Any change in point source loading resulting, from the implementation of management alternatives will thus eventually r change the sediment flux rate of oxygen and nutrients. In obtaining quantitative data for the sediment influence on the Peconic system, preliminary investigation of sediment -water exchanges of organic matter, oxygen, and inorganic nutrients (ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and silicate) have been performed by Dr. Jonathan Garber (Chesapeake Biological Library). Ten stations were used during the summer (July) and fall (October) of 1989, with water temperatures differing by about 10 degrees C in these two tune periods. Water of the Peconic system were partially well -mixed to well -mixed during the sampling periods, with dissolved nutrient concentrations low to moderately low .and dissolved oxygen concentrations generally high throughout the system. Dr. Garber's report had a number of interesting conclusions, including a fording that the Peconic Bay sediments exhibited significant net fluxes of dissolved oxygen and inorganic nutrients during the sampling periods in question. The reportfurther 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. Additional data on annual rates of phytoplankton productivity, nutrient; inputs, and benthic fluxes on Peconic Bay system productivity and water quality would be needed tol better quantify the impact of benthic fluxes on Peconic Bay system productivity and water quality. ;" The Garber report identified two "hot spots" of sediment -water ekchange, one near the mouth of the Peconic River and one in Noyack Bay, which should be further 'investigated. In general, the coarser sands and gravel of nearshore margin sediments exhibited low fluxes; higher fluxes corresponded with deeper depositional areas of the bay system. Sampling stations for benthic flux study are presented in Figure 6.2-7.- Fluxes of oxygen, nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, and phosphorus are represented in Figures 6.2-8 through 6.2-11, respectively. Based on the limited sampling which occurred (limited to July and October, 1989), the total nitrogen loading from benthic flux for the Peconic River and Flanders Bay areas has been estimated to be approximately 2,350 pounds per day during summertime conditions and 730 pounds per day on a year-round basis. This loading is is greater than the sum of all other point and non -point source loads of nitrogen. Although this estimate emphasizes the significance of 6-174 FIGURE 6.2-7 BLOCK ISLAND SOUND NBA BT IC 0 a . B Al JBT �RFnT • BT -2 •SJ •B�T I i4�!"" ' C O l SC—I 10'a ft9� GARDINF.RS BAY •BT -6A r:ord NAPEAGUE BAY o ; i s ,kilometers Location map of the Peconic Bay estuarine system showing positions of sediment flux sampling stations. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and October 1989,11 Garber et al, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, June, 1990. NEMi 3.5 Icy M * 2.5 E O 2 X J U. rn Z V w 1.5 Cn X O = 1 z1.1 w M 0.5 A FIGURE 6.2-8 BENTHIC OXYGEN FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM -1989 PR BT -1 Si BT -2 SC BT -3 NB BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of dissolved oxygen at sampling stations in the Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and obe "-89," "irbqjjMf a' Mies-----ke '--'ogi--' Lat---tor 19ne 1110. 30 w —15 FIGURE 6.2-9 BENTHIC NITRATE + NITRITE' FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM —1989 PR BT -1 SJ BT -2 SC BT -3 NB BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of nitrate+nitrite at sampling stations in the Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and October 1989," Garber et al., Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, June, 1990. 0 20 r n E z 15 �o i v, 1 10 X D J LL °' W 5 V V z 0 W F - Q —5 z —15 FIGURE 6.2-9 BENTHIC NITRATE + NITRITE' FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM —1989 PR BT -1 SJ BT -2 SC BT -3 NB BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of nitrate+nitrite at sampling stations in the Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and October 1989," Garber et al., Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, June, 1990. 500 FIGURE 6.2-10 BENTHIC AMMONIUM FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM -1989 A t PR BT -1 Si BT -2 SC BT -3 NB BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of ammonium -N at sampling stations in the Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and Oci 1. G ' r E' - - -ipe 400 0 r M E z 300 i Z D Co v- 200 7- D 7- 0 O a 100 FIGURE 6.2-10 BENTHIC AMMONIUM FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM -1989 A t PR BT -1 Si BT -2 SC BT -3 NB BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of ammonium -N at sampling stations in the Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and Oci 1. G ' r E' - - -ipe 22 20 18 r 1s E 14 \ 12 a �a 10 1 8 U. a, 6 o U 4 F- Z W 2 In 0 -2 -4 FIGURE 6.2-11 BENTHIC DIP FLUX PECONIC BAY SYSTEM -1989 PR BT -1 SJ BT -2 Sc BT -3 NB. BT -5 BT -6A BT -8 STATION DESIGNATION Benthic flux rates of dissolved inorganic phosphate (DIP) at sampling stations in the.Peconic system, July and October 1989. Source: "Sediment -Water Flux Measurements in the Peconic Bay Estuarine Ecosystem: July and October 1989," Garber et al, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, June 1990. 'r benthic flux as a non -point source of pollution, the estimate is based on, limited data and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment. The variability of the data is illustrated in the October benthic flux measurements, which were much lower than in July; ammonium flux at the Noyack Bay sampling station in October measured only about 5% of the levels measured in July. Ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in Peconic Bay sediments and the ratios of oxygen, nitrogen, and silica flux in benthic fluxes suggest that the biogeochemical cycle of organic matter in the Peconic system follow Redfield -like stoichiometries. No evidence of nitrogen loss, relative to phosphorus, was apparent in the benthic fluxes of these sediments, indicating that there is little net loss of fixed nitrogen through the process of denitrification in bay sediments for the sampling locations and time periods analyzed. Although more sampling and modelling would be required to better characterize the influence of sediment flux on the Peconic estuary system, it is known that sediment flux rates reflect particulate organic carbon deposition and subsequent diagenesis. The deposition of particulate organic carbon is, in tum, directly related to phytoplankton production and point source loading from sewage treatment plants and -tributaries. Thus, any change in poirt source loading will eventually change the sediment flux rates of oxygen and nutrients. Dr. Schubauers' work on characterizing sediment flux loading has been complemented by the efforts of Dr. Doug Capone of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory to study nutrient inflow into the Peconic system via submarine nutrient discharge. Over 100 sediment cores were collected between June and October, with nutrient and salinity analysis completed on 48 of the cores as of September 23, 1990. Preliminary results indicate that there is little evidence to suggest a large submarine influx of groundwater at any mid -bay sites. The same was generally true of cores from beach sites at Indian Island and Meschutt, with all but two cores at Indian Island showing no strong signal of decreasing salinity or increasing nitrate concentration. However, many of the cores at Reeves Bay and near Jamesport Beach showed evidence of submarine discharge. Report findings will be more comprehensively analyzed and summarized once all of the laboratory analysis is completed. 6.2.9 Atmospheric Deposition Acid rain has traditionally been a concern with respect to depressing the pH of freshwater ecosystems due to excessive loadings of acidity. Figures 6.2-12 and 0-13 show the minimum, .0 maximum, and average pH of rainfall on a monthly basis and on an annual basis, respectively, for the time period of 1978 through 1987. -These-figures are- based on data supplied by the Brookhaven National Laboratory weather monitoring station, which is near the western end of the study area. 6-180 rn� 00 FIGURE 6.2-12: Average Monthly Rainfall pH Data [1978-1987] 5.00 ------------•---------------------------------------•-------•---•---------•---- 4.95----------------------- - - -- -----.--------------------•------•-----------.... 4.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -----------=1,----------------------------------- 4.85 --------------- •--- - - - - - - --------------1 t- - - ---------------•------- 4.80------..------•--------------------------� 1----------- \-- - --- -----...-- -- 4.75 - - - - - - - - - - - --------------- - - - - -----------•-/..� .------.. ......... + 4.70 .. . . . . . . . . .... . ..... .. . ..... .. ... ... .... %� - - - - - _ - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - -i 4.65 ........ - ..1....... '.....` - - ----...... 4.60 ;- - .\------------------ ---- - - - - -- - 1-----.-------- -- ----- .-- - - - - -- 4.50---,---------�\.................................. - .�_ - -- .•... 1 4.45 - - - --------- -- -- i-� ��\..-------- ----- - - - -�` /-------------- --` ....... 4.40 -- - - - - - - - - - - -- .. - - -- - - - -- - -.. .._------ -- ........ - - - j � - - - -- - - - - - .... - �4.35 ). .. _ . . . . - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - .... - - - - - - 4.30 - - - - - ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- ._...----- ---.... - y -..... - -- : .ilk . - -- - - -- P 4.25 91E, ---•-----• -------- ��f H4.20 - - - - - - - -- �--- -- - - -------- ---- -- - - -- .-•---.fl --- ;- - - - - -. 4.15 ............. ...--- - - - - -- --- - - - - ---- - - - - -- - -- --- -- ,'-.. -'p-- 4.10 ------------ - - - - --------..._..-------- - - - - -- - --- • - - - ----- --- 4.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - --- - - - - -- - -- _....- ......--•- ------•------- 3.95 =- - - - - - - - - - •-- - - - - ---...... --- - - - -\--.....--- ------- - -- --- ---- 3.90 - ----.--.P-___ - - - - - - - - - - ••. .---- - - - - -- -----...--- 3:85 - - - - -` - - - - -- '--- - - - - -�----- ----------- - - - - -- -----Q,•-....•--...0 ... ......-- 3.80 . ------------------- !•_-...------------.....-- '� �• 3.75 - - -- .--------•--•.----------------------�.......................... 3.70 - - - - - - - -'--•------------`.-•----------•-- .. - -- ,---------------•----------- 3.65-------0----------.------�--- - - - - -- =,--- - - -- -------------------------- 3.60 - - - - - - - - ---------------•-�, - - -• --....... ---...... --------- - - - - -- --•-----_.. 3.55 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •------- . - - - - - - ------------ ----------------------------- 3.50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: Brookhaven National Lab weather monitoring station FIGURE 6.2-13: Annual Rainfall pH Data, 1978-1987 5 -------- ---------------------------------------------------- 4.9 .. ... . . . . . . . . . . �\ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - 4.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - le. ...........- - - - - - - - - - - 4.6 . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . --%-+-------, . . . 4.5 -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4 . . . . // . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . V - - - - - - - - - - - - -- V 4.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . .I . . . .. . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . 00 � N) 4.1 - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3.9 0 ------ 1�. 31.8 - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,: - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.7 - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - -- I . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0- 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Ye a r So e: okl--ler "itle-1 L; ve4-41-,%.r i 85 86 87 gr16-19or In the context of the BTCAMP study of a marine environment, acid rain is not a primary concern with respect to direct impact on surface water pH due to the buffering capacity of the marine system. However, concerns exist with respect to indirect impacts of rainfall acidity on the Flanders/Peconic Bays system. Such indirect impacts may be related to the effects of acidity on the Peconic River and on the solubility and transport of contaminants through soil, groundwater, and sediment. Since sediment and groundwater contribution of nitrogen and other parameters is discussed in Section 6:2.8., this section primarily examines the most significant direct impact of acid rain on marine systems,- which is nitrogen loading. Historically, atmospheric sources generally have been considered minor contributors of nitrogen compounds to surface waters. However, due to increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere on a national level over the last three decades, the amount of nitrogen reaching waters from precipitation has been recognized as a significant contributor of contaminants to surface waters. Fossil fuel combustion is by far the major source of nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. Nitrogen oxides from combustion are eventually returned to the earth's surface in their gaseous form or as particulate nitrate, nitric acid or other soluble nitrates in wet precipitation or dry deposition. Highway vehicles contributed 36% of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere in 1984, electric power plants contributed 32% and industrial combustion contributed another 15%. According to 1980 data, other transportation activity contributed another 6 to 10%. In New York, 80-85% of the nitrate deposition originates from outside the State. When compared to anthropogenic sources, natural sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in the U.S. are negligible. A study conducted by the USGS on water quality trends in the nation's rivers during the period 1974 to 1981 documents wide -spread increases in nitrate concentrations. Total nitrogen increases at network stations were strongly associated with high levels of atmospheric nitrate deposition, particularly in the Ohio, Mid -Atlantic, Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi Basins. Increasing trends in total nitrate concentrations were extremely frequent and widespread, outnumbering decreases four to one. The nitrate increases resulted in rises of from 20% to 50% in the delivery of nitrate to Atlantic coast estuaries,.the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Statistical analysis showed increases in total nitrogen to be strongly associated with several measurements of agricultural activity and also with atmospheric deposition. Total nitrogen trends appear more related to nonpoint than to point sources. The study concluded that atmospheric deposition, in particular, may have played a large role in total nitrogen increases in midwestern and eastern basins. Tetra -Tech has estimated that the actual atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface water systems is 163 pounds per day (wetfall and dry deposition). Estimates that quantify the wetfall of nitrogen in the Peconic system have also been developed based on contribution of direct rainfall. Using a 3.9 square mile area for the surface waters of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay areas a 6-183 concentration of 1.0 mg/1 total nitrogen in 44 inches of rainfall per year, it is estimated that the deposition of nitrogen to the surface waters due to direct rainfall is 67 pounds per day. Additional estimates based on earlier work on the New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay have also been developed. Based on generalized regional atmospheric nitrogen flux rates, approximately 3,331 pounds of nitrogen per day (608 tpy) of nitrogen is deposited from the atmosphere to the surface waters of the Peconic system. In the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region it is estimated that the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the surface waters contribute 436 pounds per day (25 tpy). For actual computer modeling and pollutant loading projections, the higher loading rate of 163 pounds per day projected by Tetra -Tech was used as a conservatively high estimate. This estimate is approximately 5% of the overall non -point source loading to the system. 6.2.10 Animal Waste Animal waste, which contains nutrients, bacteria, fecal streptococcic bacteria, and other pathogens, is capable of affecting the quality of ground and surface waters. - Waste from dogs, cats, horses, and wildlife (including waterfowl) contain a number of pollutants that can stress surface waters, especially if these systems are already stressed by contaminants from other sources. These wastes are a significant source of biological oxygen demand, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcal bacteria, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Animal waste can also contain pathogens that can be ingested by shellfish and cause illness in humans such as tuberculosis, salmonellosis, toxoplasmosis', and visceral larvae migrans (LIRPB, 1984). The most significant sources of animal wastes impacting the Peconic system are dogs and waterfowl. This impact is primarily `felt in terms of increased levels of ;fecal coliform, which is chiefly responsible for the closing of most shellfishing areas. Colifomis, while harmless in themselves, are considered reliable indicators of contaminants that may contain disease -causing pathogens. Dogs outnumber every other domestic animal found on Long Island, and -their wastes are considered the most widespread original pollutant (LIRPB, 1984). New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets reported 50,242 licensed dogs in Suffolk County in 1989, but this number is hardly representative of the total dog population (it is interesting to note that in 1975, NYSDAM reported 121,795 licensed dogs in Suffolk County). In 1975, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) estimated the bi-county dog population to be 425,000, with an annual increase of 4 percent. If this estimate was correct, then the present bi-county dog population would exceed 700,000. This waste is a primary source of nonpoint pollution, especially in more developed areas where waste deposited on paved areas can be washed directly receiving waters. In this case, impact to the system is relatively unimpeded. 6-184 Waterfowl may be a significant source of coliform bacteria in certain locations in the study area, in many instances depositing wastes directly into bay areas and freshwaters. The sources, of pollution attributed to waterfowl are caused by White Pekin Ducks, Semiwild Ducks (offspring of Pekins that have interbred with wild waterfowl), and large populations of Canada Geese, Mallard Ducks, Herring, Ring -billed and Great Black -backed gulls. The White Pekins and Semiwild Duck populations (both nonmigratory) rely heavily on feeding by humans for survival. This feeding sustains high duck populations and promotes growth, resulting in increased pollution to the water body. Duck wastes can upset a pond's natural chemical and biological balance, resulting high coliforni counts and in excessive nutrient loading and growth of algae and weeds. Waters contaminated with duck wastes can transmit salmonella, ornithosis, Type A influenza, schistosomiasis, and New Castle disease to man. Wild ducks (those that migrate) also contribute to the loadings to bays and ponds. Large migrating populations increase the available nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations and result in higher BOD. Human feeding of these waterfowl has resulted in many animals either remaining in the area year round or altering their migrating habits, thereby compounding the problem caused by Pekins and Semiwild Ducks. Table 6.2-35 presents the relative coliform waste characteristics of dogs, ducks, geese, and vacant land. Based on this table, it can be assumed that animal waste may be responsible for most of the fecal coliform load attributed to runoff from the land; it has historically been recognized that stormwater runoff is the chief source of coliform loadings to Peconic River/Flanders Bay. The need for improved animal waste controls in order to reduce, the impact to surface waters and to halt the closing of shellfishing areas has been identified in several previous reports. These controls, which are discussed in greater detail in Section 7, are viial'io the protection of the Peconic system. 6.3 Land Use and Impacts Existing land use, land use changes, land available for development, and changes in environmental resources have all been explored by the LIRPB. The 11RPB work was coupled with SCDHS geographic information system computer capabilities to allow tabular and graphical representation and analysis of the resulting information. Throughout the BTCAMP report in general and Section 6 in particular, land use is related to pollution contribution, where appropriate. Examples of significant sources of nonpoint source pollutant loading include fertilizer nitrogen leachate from residential and agricultural land uses and sanitary system effluent from residential uses. Pesticides have also been identified as problems in agricultural areas, while stonnwater runoff impacts are greatest in the highly residential regions of the study area. 6-185 Dog Duck Goose Acre of Residential Land Table 6.2-35 Coliform Waste Characteristics* Manure �g/dav) 227 336 1498 *LIRPB, 1982 (NURP) Fecal Coliform PN/ 18 x 106 32.7 x 106 32.7 x 106 6-186 Fecal Coliform (mPN/dav) 4 x 106 ,11 x 106 49 x 106 1x106 In many.cases, point sources also correlate with land use. For example, discharges in industrial land uses have been documented sources of contamination in the study area. Increases in sewage treatment plant waste generation can also be directly related to population growth and development proliferation. More information regarding the correlation between land use and groundwater quality is contained in Section 5, which presents an. analysis of regional groundwater quality based on private well sampling data. Section 5 shows that areas with heavy residential and agricultural influences, such as in the eastern Peconic River area and on the North Fork, also have elevated groundwater nitrogen concentrations. In addition, much of the eastern Peconic River and North Fork also suffer from pesticide problems in groundwater due to the historically heavy use of aldicarb in agricultural areas. Given the strong correlation which has been established between many intensive land uses and environmental degradation, it is clear that the management of the remaining vacant and developable land in the study area is a matter of tremendous importance. This need for management is especially significant in light of the adverse environmental impacts which have already befallen the area despite its relatively,rural character (27% and 23% of the land in the priinary and extended study areas, respectively, is in the open .space category). Although much of the land in the study area is already developed or is in open space, the potential for further development and pollution is high, with a substantial a=mount of land still vacant and open to development (38% and 48% of the primary and extended study areas, respectively, are vacant and developable). The following subsections of Section 6.3, prepared by LIRPB, describe the results of the land use study efforts regarding existing land use, land use changes, land available for development, and changes in environmental resources. It should be noted that land use data has been tabulated in detail for the primary study area (Peconic River and Flanders Bay) by utilizing large-scale aerial photography, Suffolk County Tax Map study, and field verification. The detailed primary study area data was then computer -digitized so that graphical and statistical representations could be made. In contrast, estimates for the extended study area are based on a 1988 update of the LIRPB Land Use - 1981 report. This update uses a grid system which only roughly approximates the study area. In addition, the extended area study update was based on aerial survey study and was not subject to the rigorous and intensive analysis and field verification that was utilized for the primary study area. Thus, the land use data for the extended study area are not directly comparable with the data assembled for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay areas. The extended study area data should, therefore, be viewed only as gross indicators of the relative magnitude of development types in that area. It should be noted that the statistics presented in this section are current as of 1989. Since the land use statistics were compiled, recent acquisitions have decreased the amount of developable land in'the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area, and other acquisitions have been proposed as part of the draft Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) plan. 6-187 6.3.1 Existing Land Use and Land Use Changes - Primary Study Area Land uses for the primary study area, including the Peconic River and the North and South Forks around Flanders Bay, are shown in Tables 6.3-1 and 6.3-2. These land uses have been tabulated for the groundwater -contributing areas and stonnwater-contributing areas, respectively. Information which explains the land use classification system and specifies the boundaries of land use regions is also contained in Tables 6.3-3 and 6.3-4. The 1988 land use data were collected utilizing 1987/88 aerial photographs (1" = 400' for the Town of Riverhead and 1" = 1,000' for the Towns of Brookhaven'and Southampton); and verified by field inspection in 1988. These data were recorded on Suffolk County tax maps (1" = 300'). Approximately 30,200 acres were found to exist in the primary study area. The land use figures indicate a significant residential influence of 15% in this regionI Agricultural lands also occupy substantial acreage at about 11% in the primary study area, while 27% of the land in the primary study area is in open space. The significance of these land uses relates to pollution loading as noted earlier in this subsection and in appropriate sections in this report. Table 6.3-5 shows land use changes in vacant and agricultural land use development between 1976 and 1988. In identifying changes in land use from 1976 to 1988 in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage area, 1976 aerial photographs (1" = 1.,000') were compared to 1.988 existing land use data. The following are observations regarding the land use change data: 1. For the Peconic River Headwaters Region, no changes in land use were detected during the 1976- 1988 time period. 2.. Land use changes were detected on 398 acres in the West, Mid and East Regions of the Peconic River basin; 79% of the 'change involving 316 acres occurred in the 'West and Mid Regions of the river. Vacant and agricultural lands in these two regions were primarily converted to recreational and residential uses; however, 43 acres involved conversion to commercial and industrial uses. Nearly 54% of the 82.3 acres in the Peconic River East Region undergoing a change during the period was developed for commercial purposes. 3. For the Peconic River area as a whole, 398 acres underwent a change during the period, with 29% of the acreage being converted to residential use. Over 88 acres in the river corridor were developed for commercial and industrial uses. 4. The North Flanders Bay Coastal Region included the most acreage undergoing a change in use (262 acres) of all the eight regions comprising the Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage area. 6-188 TABLE 6.3-1 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Land Uses in Peconic River and Flanders Bay Groundwater -Contributing Areas * Regions included (See "Groundwater -Contributing Region Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid, and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) * LANDUSE <---------------------------- AREA (acres) ---------------------------> TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AREA (PR -H) (PR -W) (PR -M) (PR -E) (NF -C) (SF -C) (NF -I) (SF -I) Low Density Residential 1,383 60 105 103 99 176 167 264 410 Medium Density Residential 2,477 0 43 148 964 559 319 97 346 High Density Residential 302 0 0 144 125 19 0 14 0 Commercial 595 8 10 87 359 64 21 34 11 Industrial 1,533 0 1,299 131 44 40 0 15 5 Institutional 1,424 1,071 0 1 267 20 1 6 57 Open Space - Recreational 8,517 `791 2.,000 382 928 412 1,131 0 2,873 co 1° Agriculture 3,736 64 558 587 122 877 0. 1,529 0 Vacant 8,613 250 1,331 1,306 1,122 587 312 387 3,318 Transportation & Recharge 736 16 102 346 192 28 1 16. 34 Utilities 165 0 0 97 21 0 0 8 37 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 56 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 31 Surface Waters 678 56 251 164 127 6 15 5 55 ALL LAND USES 30,214 2,316 5,699 3,508 4,385 2,788 1,967 2,374 7,176 * Regions included (See "Groundwater -Contributing Region Boundaries" for exact boundaries): PR = Peconic River Region (Headwaters, West, Mid, and East) NF -C = North Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 25) SF -C = South Flanders Bay Coastal Region (between bay and Rt. 24) NF -I = North Flanders Bay Inland Region (north of Rt. 25, south of groundwater divide) SF -I = South Flanders Bay Inland Region (south of Rt. 24, north of groundwater divide) TABLE 6.3-2 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Land Use in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Area to Peconic River and Flanders Bay * Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. <- Acreage in Stormwater Runoff Contributing Areas * -> LAND USE OVERALL PECONIC NORTH SOUTH REGION RIVER FORK.,- FORK Low Density Residential 449.0 64.4 129.5 255.0 Medium Density Residential 977.2 136.6 444.8 395.8 High Density Residential 49.7 19.5 14.4 15.8 --Commercial 221.0 44.7 133.8 42.5 Industrial' 51.1 33..6 17.6 0.0 Institutional 459.6 386.9 10.9 61.8 CD Open Space - Recreational 3,667.0 1,735.0 239.5 1,692.5 Agriculture 170.5 44.5 126.0 0.0 Vacant 1,418.2 340.5 523.3 554.3 Transportation & Recharge 159.5 56.6 50.1 52.9 Utilities 20.2 13.5 0.0 6.8 Waste Handling - Mngmnt. 4.6 0.0 0.4 4.2' Surface Waters 571.9 433.9 4.0 133.9 ALL LAND USES 8,219.4 3,30.9.7 1,694.4 3,215.4 * Peconic River = Peconic River region west of gauge station. North Fork = north side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. South Fork = south side of Peconic River and Flanders Bay east of gauge station. TABLE 6.3-3 Land Use Classification System Land Use Category Sub -category 1) Low-density Residential less than or equal to 1 unit/acre 2) Medium -density Residential 3) High-density Residential 4) Commercial greater than 1 to less than 5 units/acre greater than or equal to 5 units/acre - Multi -family, PRC, Apartment Complex, Hostel Trailer Camp, Migrant Labor Camp 1. Hotel, Motel, Cabin 2. Offices 3. 4. 5. 6-191 a. Medical Center, Lab, Animal Hospital, Veterinary Lab b. Funeral Home/Taxidermist Retail/Services a. Dry Cleaner b. Laundromat c. Restaurant/Catering Hall d. Photo Lab Automotive/Marine a. Service Station/Auto Repair/ New Car Dealer b. Car Wash c. Boat Repair d. Vehicle Fleet Storage Yard Active Recreation a. Spa/Health Club b. Race Track c. Bowling, Theatre, Day Camp, Nursery School, Sports Area, Skating Rink, Driving Range TABLE 6.3-3 (cont.) Land Use Category Sub -category 5) Industrial 1. Printing/Publishing 2. Industrial Processing, e.g., Electroplating 3. Food Processing 4. Chemical Storage 5. Coal, Gasoline and/or Fuel Oil Bulk Storage Station 6. Sand Mine 7. Construction Yard 6) Institutional 1. Hospital, Nursing Home, Rest Home 2. School, House of Worship, Municipal Office 7) Recreation and Open Space 1. Developed Park (or portion of) Other than Golf Course 2. Undeveloped Park or Open Space (i.e. Nature Preserve, Nature Conservancy; dedicated reserve areas) 3. Golf Course 4. Cemetery 5. Zoo/Game Farm 6. Scout Camp/Gun Club 8) Agriculture 1. Crop/Orchard 2. Nursery/Greenhouse 3. Sod Farm 4. Vineyard 5. Poultry/Duck 6. Horse Farm 7. Other Livestock 8. Development Rights Reserve 9) Vacant Land 1. Land left in Natural State/Disturbed Land/Old Field 10) Transportation 1. Airport 2. Municipal Highway Dept. Yard a. Salt storage 3. Recharge Basin . 6-192 TABLE 6.3-3 (cont.) Land Use Category 11) Utilities 12) Waste Handling and Management 13) Surface Waters Sub -category 1. Public Water Supply Well Site 2. Land Reserved for Future Water Supply Well Site 1. Waste Treatment Plant 2. Landfill 3. Resource Recovery Site 4. Recycling Center/Salvage/Junk Yard 1. Lakes/ponds 2. Freshwater Streams 6-193 �i Land Use Region Boundaries The following regions are bounded on Peconic River/Peconic Bays System and the Peconic River/Peconic Bays system. the north and/or south by the divide for groundwater flow into the �I 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.`I, 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 -1) 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.q 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. °i rt 6-194 TABLE 6.3-4 ( cont . ) Great Peconic Bay - 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. Creat 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. 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. 6-195 * As per LIRPB review of aerial photos: -.6-196 TABLE 6.3-5 'f Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program Changes in Agricultural and Vacant Land Use from; 1976 to 1988 1976 <----------------------- 1988 Land Use --r--------------------> LAND USE Resid Commrc Indust Instit Recrn ! Agric Vacant TOTAL AREA 1 (PR -Headwaters)'. Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 0:0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.'0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AREA 2 (PR -West) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 36.5 0.0 8.4 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 142.6., Total 36.5 0.0 8.4 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 142.6 AREA 3 (PR -Mid) Agric. .0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 91.8 98.3 Vacant46.6 15.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.6 Total 46.6 22.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 ;. 0.0- 91.8 172.9 AREA 4 (PR -East) Agric. 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0..0 .2.3 7.4 Vacant 33.9 39.1 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0:0 74.9 Total 33.9 44.2 1.3 0.0 0.6 0'.0 2.3 82.3 AREA 5 (N. Flanders, Coastal) Agric. 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 73.7 95.2 Vacant 160.0 3.1 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 167.2 Total 181.5 3.1 0.0- 3.4 0.0 0.7. 73.7 262.4 AREA 6 (S. Flanders, Coastal) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 Vacant 51..9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.9 Total 51.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 51:9 AREA 7 (N. Flanders, Inland) Agric. 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 Vacant 62.2 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 Total 73.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 73.2 AREA 8 (S. Flanders, Inland) Agric. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vacant 220.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 261.2 Total 220.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261.2 AREAS 1-4 Agric. 0.0 11.6- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 105.7 Vacant 117.0 54.6 22.2 0.0 98.3 0.0 0.0 292.1 Total 117.0 66.2 22.2' 0.0 98.3 0.0 94..1 397.8 AREAS 1-8 Agric. 32.5 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.8 211.9 Vacant 611.3 57.7 22.2 44.4 98.3 0.7 0.0 834.6 Total 643.8 69.3 22.2 44.4 98.3 0.7 167.8 1046.5 * As per LIRPB review of aerial photos: -.6-196 Over 181 acres were converted to residential use. There was also a significant change from agricultural to vacant in this region (74 acres). 5. In the South Flanders Bay Coastal Region, 52 acres of vacant land were converted to residential use. 6. In contrast to the Flanders Bay coastal regions, the North Flanders Bay Inland Region experienced significantly less change than the South Inland Region (73 vs. 261 acres, respectively). 7. For the entire drainage area, 1,046 acres of vacant and agricultural land changed use between 1976 and 1988. This constitutes only 3.5% of the total acreage (30,214 acres) in the BTCAMP study area. a. During the 12 -year period, 835 acres of vacant land underwent a change in use. b. A change of use occurred on 212 acres of agricultural lands. c. Seventy-three percent of the vacant lands were change to residential use, while agricultural lands were primarily converted to vacant use (168 acres). d. Nearly 71% of the observed change in the usage of vacant and agricultural lands occurred in the Flanders Bay Inland and Coastal Regions, which encompass a total area of 14,305 acres, or 47% of the total area subject to detailed study under BTCAMP. About 29% of the change occurred in the Peconic River corridor, which has a total area of 15,908 acres. The data in Table 6.3-5 can also be used to estimate the 1976 land use distribution in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage area. It is estimated that there were 3,748 acres devoted to residential uses of all categories in 1976. Residential use increased by 644 acres during the period as reflected in the 1988 total of 4,392 acres. The total area devoted to agricultural use in 1988 was 3,736 acres. This represents a net loss of 211 acres from the 1976 total of 3,947 acres. There was a net loss of 667 acres of vacant land in the BTCAMP study area from 1976 to 1988 (9,280 acres in 1976 and 8,613 acres in 1988). 6.3.2 Existing Land Use and Land Use Changes - Extended Study Are Gross estimates for land use in the eastern study area are presented in Tables 6.3-6 through 6.3-9 for the South Fork, Shelter Island, and North Fork areas as well as for the overall extended study area. These tables also present the changes in land use between 1981 and 1988. As previously noted, these figures are intended to be illustrative in nature since the database is 6-197 TABLE 6.3-6 Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the South Fork Basin. Intermediate/High Density Residential 2,699 55 -2,754, Transportation/Utility 2,199 -- 2,,199 Industrial 1-,197 -48 1,149 Total 53,773 53,773 (a) Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use -1981. Hauppauge, N.Y. Drainage basin boundaries stylized according to grid system contained in this report. Gardiners Island acreage (3,300) included as open space in the South Fork Basin. (b) Gain (positive) or loss (neeative) of land use by cateeory based on analysis of aerial photos. 1981 Land Use Change Estimated 1988 - Land Use Classification Land Use (a) , 1981-1988 (b) Land Use Vacant 27,777 =5,621 22,156 Institutional 727 -90 637 Agriculture 1,748 25 1,773 Recreation/Open Space 12,567 1,803 14,370 Low -Density Residential 1,732. 2,542 4,274 Commercial 828 51 879 M Marine Commercial 113 6 119 Medium Density Residential 2,186 1,277 3,463 Intermediate/High Density Residential 2,699 55 -2,754, Transportation/Utility 2,199 -- 2,,199 Industrial 1-,197 -48 1,149 Total 53,773 53,773 (a) Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use -1981. Hauppauge, N.Y. Drainage basin boundaries stylized according to grid system contained in this report. Gardiners Island acreage (3,300) included as open space in the South Fork Basin. (b) Gain (positive) or loss (neeative) of land use by cateeory based on analysis of aerial photos. TABLE 6.3-7 Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the Shelter Island Basin. 1981 Land Use Change Estimated 1988 Land Use Classification Land Use (a) 1981-1988 (b) Land Use Vacant 1,799 -425 1,374 Institutional 493 -- 493 Agriculture 324 -4 320 Recreation/Open Space 2,901- -- 2,901 Low -Density Residential 381 304 685 Commercial 52 -1 51 rn �o Marine Commercial 18 2 20 Medium Density Residential 806 110 916 Intermediate/IIigh Density Residential -- 7 7 Transportation/Utility 117 -- 117 Industrial 206 7 213 Total 7,097 7,097 (a) Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use -1981. Hauppauge, N.Y. Drainage basin boundaries stylized according to grid system contained in this report. (b) Gain (positive) or loss (negative) of land use by category based on analysis of aerial photos. Land TABLE 6,:3-8 Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the North Fork Basin. 1981 Land Use Change Estimated 1988 sification Land Use (a) 1981-1988 (b) Land Use__ Vacant 8,328 , . -933 7,395 Institutional 1,014 --. 1,014' Agriculture 6,938 -63 6,875 Recreation/Open Space 1,622 43 1,665 Low -Density Residential 644 578 1,222 Commercial 1,149 33 1,182 rn - N C) Marine Commercial 228 5- 233 Medium Density Residential 1,981 315 2;296 Intermediate/H-igh Density Residential -- 27 27 Transportation/Utility 828, -8 820 Industrial - - 3 3 Total 22,732 22,732 (a) Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. 'Land use -1981. Hauppauge, N.Y. Drainage basin boundaries stylized according to grid system contained in this report. (b) Gain (positive) or loss (negative) of land use by category based on analysis of aerial photos. TABLE 6.3-9 Summary of Land Use Data (in acres) for the South Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork Basins. 1981 Land Use Change Estimated 1988 Land Use Classification Land Use (a) 1981-1988 (b) Land Use Vacant 37,904 -6,979 30,925 Institutional 2,234 -90 2,144 Agriculture 9,010 -42 8,968 Recreation/Open Space 17,090 1,846 18,936 Low -Density Residential 2,757 3,424 6,181 Commercial 2,029 83 2,112 rn No Marine Commercial 359 13 372 Medium Density Residential 4,973 1,702 6,675 Intermediate/High Density Residential 2,699 89 2,788 Transportation/Utility 3,144 -8 3,136 Industrial 1,403 -38 1,365 Total 83,602 83,602 (a) Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use -1981. Hauppauge, N.Y. Drainage basin boundaries stylized according to grid system contained in this report. (b) Gain (positive) or loss (negative) of land use by category based on analysis of aerial photos. imprecise and the study area does not conform strictly to database boundaries. Thus, the total acreage of 83,600 acres in this region is only a rough approximation. 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. The LIRPB report entitled Land Use -1981 provided the starting point for estimating the 1988 distribution of land uses in the South Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork drainage basins. At the outset, it should be stressed that there are limitations in the accuracy of the land use data contained in the 1981 land use report; sources of error impacting land use data tabulations are outlined therein. Thus, the 1981 data should only be used to make general comparisons of the relative magnitude of different land uses in the three drainage basins. jl The 1981 land use data and 1988 update for the three drainage basins were not based on comprehensive field inspections and verifications of land uses utilizing`large scale Suffolk County tax maps, as was the case with the analysis of land use for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage basin. For this reason, and the fact that a different approach was utilized to determine drainage basin boundaries, these data should not be considered comparable with those assembled for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage basin. Land use acreage by category was tabulated in the 1981 land use report using a 1,440 acre grid system. The ground water divide along the North and South Forks was superimposed on this grid system in order to identify those grids falling within the respective' drainage basins. Hence, the drainage basin boundaries were approximated in step -wise fashion. The gross scale of the grids. resulted in the inclusion of some areas lying outside the Peconic/Gardiners Bays drainage area, as well as exclusion of some areas within the boundary area, depending upon the location of the divide within each of the grids. The 1981 land use data contained in Tables 6.3-6 through 6.3-9 were computed by summing the acreage by land use category for all of the grids within the respective three drainage basins. Changes in land use were estimated for primarily vacant and agricultural lands by comparing 1988 aerial photographs (1",= 1,000.') with original 1981 existing land use maps (1" = 2,000'). Changes in the use of parcels greater than four acres in size were noted on an overlay displaying the grids. For each grid, the acreage of land uses undergoing a change for the period was tabulated and subsequently summed to generate estimates of losses and/or gains of the various land use categories within each basin. The 1981 land use data were then adjusted by the incremental change during the 1981-1988 period, thereby providing an estimate of 1988 land use within the drainage basins. f' 6-202 Observations based on resulting land use change data for the extended study area are outlined below: 1. Land use changes occurred on 5,759 acres in the South Fork basin (11% of the nearly 54,000 acres that constitute the total basin area). Over 5,600 acres of vacant land changed in use during the period 1981-1988. These lands were primarily converted to low density and medium density residential. use. However, there also was an increase of over 1,800 acres of open space due to public acquisitions in the South Fork basin. By far, the changes occurring in this basin far exceed those that have occurred in the Shelter Island and North Fork basins. As of 1988, over 22,100 acres of vacant land were estimated to exist in the South Fork basin. 2. Land use changes from 1981-1988 occurred on 430 acres within the Shelter Island basin; only 6% of the total basin area (7,100 acres) was involved. There was a loss of 425 acres of vacant land, leaving nearly 1,400 acres of vacant land and 500 acres of agricultural land in place as of - 1988. Nearly all of the changes involved conversion to low density residential and medium density residential use. 3. About 4% of the 22,700 acre North Fork basin changed usage during the period 1981-1988. The total acreage undergoing a change amounted to 1,004 acres. Most of the change involved the loss of vacant land; there was also a small loss of agricultural acreage. Low density and medium density. residential uses increased; there were also small increases in the other land use categories with the exception of agriculture and transportation/utility. As of 1988, it is estimated that there were over 14,000 acres of vacant and agricultural lands found in the North Fork basin. Table 6.3-9 shows the net change in all land use categories- for the South Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork basins combined. Of the 7,157 acres of land involved, nearly 7,000 acres of vacant land changed usage during the period. There was an increase of 5,215 acres in residential uses of all types. Recreation/open space lands increased by 1,846 acres. It is estimated that, as of 1988, there were nearly 40,000. acres of vacant and agricultural lands in the 83,600 acre, three basin area adjacent to eastern Peconic/Gardeners Bays. 6.3.3 Land Available For Development, A detailed, parcel -by -parcel analysis was performed to calculate the acreage of land available for development in the primary study area. Since the required database for such an analysis was not available for the extended study ---area, estimates of land available for development was estimated less rigorously as the sum of acreage of vacant and agricultural lands. as specified in the 1988 land use inventory. 6-203 Land available for development in the primary study area (planning areas 1-8) is shown in Tables 6.3-10 and 6.3-11 (by land use category and planning region, respectively). Table 6.3-12 contains a rough estimate of land available for development in the extended study area. It is evident that a substantial amount of land is still vacant and open to development. In summation, the total developable acreage in agricultural and vacant lands is 38% and 48% in the primary and extended study areas, respectively, highlighting the need for planning future development and pollution control strategies to protect surface water quality. Land available for development on the primary study area is derived from existing land use and zoning data. Zoning data was collected from the Towns of Brookhaven (5/89), Riverhead (5/88) and Southampton (5/86). Land use data was obtained from aerial photographs of Brookhaven (1987), Riverhead (1987) and Southampton (1988). For purposes of this study, land available for development was divided into the following categories: vacant residential old filed subdivision, agriculture (development rights not ceded), residential subdividable land, private recreation and open space (development rights not ceded), partially developed subdivision, partially developed old filed subdivision, and vacant non -residentially zoned land. Vacant non -residentially zoned old filed subdivision land was considered but none exists in the study area. The amount of land available for development is found by determining the acreage in each category from tax map square footage and the town zoning regulations. From this information, the number of building lots is calculated utilizing the yield per acre factors determined by the LIRPB in the 1978 Lona Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Plan: Vol. H. This approach was utilized for the following categories: vacant residential (one acre or larger), agriculture, and private recreation and open space. The amount of land available for development was determined by estimating the actual number of vacant lots for the following categories: vacant residential old filed subdivision, partially developed old filed subdivision, and vacant non -residentially zoned land. The residential subdividable land category included lots which currently have a residence on thein, but which can be further subdivided according .to existing zoning regulations. For this study, a parcel of land must have been five times the minimum lot size for its zoning designation to be considered in this category. Vacant non -residentially zoned land includes both commercially and industrially zoned categories. Observations regarding developable land in the eight planning regions in the primary study area are as follows: Area 1 (Peconic River, Headwaters Region) contains part of Brookhaven National Laboratory and significant acreage of County -owned parkland. For these reasons, this area has the least amount of land available for development of all the sub -areas. Vacant residential lands account for 272.1 . acres and there are three parcels of agricultural land near Wading River Rd. which account for 66.4 acres. Together, these two categories represent the potential for 136 new residential lots. The majority of the land available for development in Area 2 (Peconic River, West Region) is in the vacant residential category of which there are 874.7 acres that potentially could be developed 6-204 TABLE 6.3-10 Summary of Land Available for Development for Areas 1-8 by Category. Land Available For Development Vacant Residential Vacant Residential Old Filed Subdivision Agriculture (Development Rights Not Ceded) Residential Subdividable Land Private Recreation and Open Space (Development Rights.Not Ceded) Partially Developed Old Filed Subdivision Partially Developed Subdivison Vacant Non -Residentially Zoned Land Total Total Acres Lots 6,147.3 2,809 135.7 462 1,879.1 1,366 160.7 183 161.8 75 95.0 190 405.6 564 2,499.2 -- 11,484.4 5,649 aLot figures pertain only to residentially zoned lands. 6-205 TABLE 6.3-11 Summary of Land Available for Development for Areas 1-8 by Area. Area Acres - Lotsa 1 .338.5 136 2 1891.3 697 3 2005.5 410 4 1172.5 838 5 1055.3 855 6 441.0 498 7 1336.7 991 8 3243.6 '1224 . Total 11;484.4 5,6-49 aLot figures -pertain only to residentially zoned lands. 6-206 TABLE 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). 9 of Basin. Vacant & Agricultural Area Available for Basin Name Basin Area Vacant Land Agricultural Land Land Development South For 53,773 22,156 1,773 23,929 449 Shelter Island 7,097 1,374 320 1,694 24% rn C) North Fork 22,732 7,395 6,875 14,270 639 v Total 83,602 30,925 8,968 39,893 489 into 280 residential lots. In addition, there are a number of large lots totaling 750.9 acres of vacant non -residentially zoned land in the area west of Edwards Ave. The vacant residential old filed subdivision category represents a total of 97.3 acres of which there are'352 residential lots available for development. Adjacent to Connecticut Ave. is a 153.4 acre lot presently used for private recreation and owned by the Babylon Rod and Gun Club. One small lot (10 acres) of agricultural land exists in the west end of the sub -area. Overall, there is a potential;for 697 residential lots in Area 2. It should be noted that a significant portion of this area is in County ownership as part of its Peconic River holdings. Area 3 (Peconic River, Mid Region) contains small clusters of vacant residential land along the LIRR and the Peconic River. There is one small area of vacant residential old filed subdivision land (10.7 acres) south of State Road 24. Agricultural lands available for development total 106.7 acres and border primarily along the western boundary of this area. A small parcel (2.1 acres) owned by the Estates Civic Association is used for private recreation. However, the majority of land available -for development in this area is in the vacant non -residentially zoned land category. These are large lots, which total 118 1. 1 acres, and are primarily located in the Town of Riverhead. Overall, Area 3 has a total of 2005.5 acres available for development with the potential for 410 residential lots. The widest variety of zoning and land available for development"categories is found in Area 4 (Peconic River East Region). Large and small vacant residential lots scattered throughout this area account for most of the land available. A narrow stretch of a vacant residential old filed subdivision land adds up to 6.7 acres in the Town of Southampton. Three small agricultural areas which are zoned for residential use are found in Riverhead, as well as 77.5 acres of a former duck farm near CR 105 which is zoned for business use. Many lots north of the LIRWand along the Peconic River corridor fall into the residential subdividable category, and have the potential for 61 new lots. Several partially developed subdivisions around the Wildwood Lake area, totaling 55.2 acres, provide for 103 lots which are available for. development. Vacant non=residentially zoned area which account for 355.7 -acres, are concentrated in the western end of the area near Mill Rd. In addition, there is a 65 acre commercially zoned vacant lot between CR' 104 and CR 105, which was a former drive-in theatre. The lands in the five land available for development categories in Area 4 add up to 1172.5 acres and 838 developable residential lots. Vacant residential lands in Area 5 (North Flanders Bay, Coastal Region) are generally large lots, some of which include significant wetland areas. However, agriculture is the leading land - available for development category with most of these parcels, totaling. 592.2 acres, located south of State Road 25. A few residential subdividable lots and several partially developed subdivisions can be found along the Peconic River. Only one large parcel (107.2 acres),on Terry's Creek falls into the vacant non -residentially zoned category. Overall, Area 5 has 872.1 acres available for residential development with the potential for 855 lots and 183.2 acres 'available for commercial and industrial development. 6-208 In Area 6 (South Flanders Bay, -Coastal Region) a number of vacant residential lots are situated on Peconic River/Flanders Bay, including some large areas of wetlands along Reeves Bay and Red Creek Pond. Several residential subdividable lands are within a medium density residentially zoned area adjacent to Reeves Bay, and in a low density residentially zoned area adjacent to Red Creek Pond. Three waterfront lots totaling 6.3 acres owned respectively by. the, Flanders Men's Club, the Waters Edge Civic Association, and the Riverhead Estates Civic Association, fall into the private recreation and open space category. Three partially developed subdivisions in this area provide 247 lots available for development. The total acreage available for development in Area 6 is 441 and the potential is for an additional 498 residential lots. There is no commercially or industrially zoned land available for development in this area. Area 7 (North Flanders Bay, Inland Region) has three land available for development categories. The vacant residential parcels, which average around 10 acres each, are found throughout the area and total 245.3 acres with 197 potential buildable lots. However, the leading land available for development category is agriculture which totals 992.8 acres, and has the potential for 794 potential building lots. Only 98.6 acres are in the vacant non -residentially zoned category and zoned for commercial use. Most of these lots are located along State Road 25. Altogether, 1336.7 acres are available for development with 991 buildable lots. Area 8 (South Flanders Bay, Inland Region) has the most land available for development of all the eight sub -areas studied. Most of these large, vacant residential parcels are found in the Town of Southampton's low density residential zones, and add up to 2990.1 acres with a potential for 865 residential lots. The amount of vacant residential old filed subdivision land is much less, totaling 21 acres with 60 buildable lots, and is located in the vicinity south of Goose Creek. A large area of partially developed old filed subdivisions in Flanders provides 190 lots for development. Partially developed subdivisions can be found along Pleasure Drive, near Red Creek Pond, and in Squiretown. In these places, 109 lots are available on 137.5 acres. Area 8 has a total of 3243.6 acres available for residential development with the potential of 1224 residential lots. Observations for the extended study area based on Table 6.3-12 are outlined below: 1. For the South Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork basins combined, there are approximately 40,000 acres of vacant and agricultural lands available for development; this constitutes about 48% of the total land area in the basins. About 31,000 acres of this total are in the vacant category. 2. The South Fork basin has the largest tally of available land (about 24,000 acres), while the Shelter Island basin has the smallest (about 1,700 acres). Shelter Island also has the smallest percentage of total basin area available for development. 6-209 3. More than half (63%) of the North Fork basin is available for development. As compared to the other basins, there is a significant amount of agricultural land available in this basin (nearly 7,000 acres). 6.3.4 Changes in Environmental Resources Losses in environmental resources for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay Area and the drainage areas of the North and South Forks were determined by interpretation of aerial photographs of the towns of Brookhaven (1987, 1" =1000'), Riverhead, (1987, 1" = 400'); Southold (1988, 1'= 1000'), Southampton (1988, 1" =1000'), East Hampton (1988, 1 1000'), and Shelter Island (1988, 1" = 1000'). This information was utilized to update the 1977 Natural Resources map series prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board under the New York State Coastal Management Program (1" = 2000'). Acreage lost was estimated for each environmental resource category identified on the map series. Table 6.3-13 shows losses in acreage of environmental resources from 1976 to 1987/88 for Peconic River/Flanders Bay, North Fork, South Fork, and Shelter Island drainage basins, as determined by the location of the ground -water divide. The total acreage lost in all areas was 4,050 acres. The Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage area lost 528 acres, comprised mostly of forest and farmland. The North Fork and South Fork drainage basins sustained th6 greatest losses in environmental resources with acreage totalling 1,337,and 1,649, respectively. The predominant loss in acreage in the North Fork drainage area was within the forest and farmland categories. In the South Fork drainage basin, approximately 89% of the losses appeared in the forest category alone; over 100 acres of maritime flora were lost, specifically in the Shinnecock Hills area. The Shelter Island drainage area lost a total of 536 acres over this time period with approximately 75% of the loss in the forest category. Losses in freshwater and tidal wetlands ranged from 1 to 12 acres with a total of 26 and 21 acres lost, respectively, for each category. Losses in dunes, beach and bluff appeared to be minimal. Acreage lost in the old field category totalled 151. The greatest losses occurred in the forest category, which accounted for approximately 73% of the total acres. Of the four drainage areas, the South Fork had the largest loss in forest with 1,461 acres. The greatestloss in farmland, which accounted for approximately 20% of the total acreage lost, occurred in the North Fork drainage area (542 acres). 6.4 Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Summary Table 6.4-1. and Figure 6.4-1 summarize the nitrogen loading to surface waters in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions. Groundwater nitrogen loading was obtained by applying regional 6-210 TABLE 6.3-13 Estimated Losses of Environmental Resources from 1976 to 1987/88 (in acres). Environmental Resource Category South Fork Fresh - 9 1461 102 Drainage Water Tidal Maritime Old Basin Wetland Wetland Forest Flora Dunes Beach Field Farmland Bluff TOTAL Peconic River/ 9 1 337 4 9 168 528 Flanders Bay 536 TOTAL 26 rn 2943 105 4 12 151 North Fork 1 10 750 3 1 29 542 1 1337 South Fork 12 9 1461 102 1 37 23 4 1649 Shelter Island 4 1 395 3 7 76 49 1 536 TOTAL 26 21 2943 105 4 12 151 782 6 4050 Table 6.4-1 Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Summary Peconic River and Flanders Bay MAJOR NONPOINT SOURCE LOADS Stormwater Runoff Load Groundwater Underflow Load Atmospheric Deposition ** Sediment Flux *** Total Nonpoint Source Loading", MAJOR POINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS <------ Nitrogen Loading (lb/day)------> Overall Peconic North South Area River Fork Fork 30 5 10 10 580 300 220 60 160 --- --- --- 2350 --- --- --- 3120 310 230 70 Peconic River 130 130 --- --- Riverhead STP 140 140 --- --- Meetinghouse Creek 360 --- 360 --- Other Point Sources **** 40 20 20 3 Total Point Source Loading^ 680 280 380 3 TOTAL POINT AND NONPOINT LOADS 3800 590 610 70 *Groundwater underflow loading for Peconic River region includes Peconic River East region only (downstream of USGS gauge point source sampling station). Other Peconic River point and nonpoint contributions are included in Peconic River point source flow. Groundwater underflow estimates incorporate septic system effluent, fertilizer leachate, etc. **Direct rainfall contribution is 67 lb/day based on 3.9 sq. mi. surface area for Flanders Bay (Hardy, 1976) and 1.0 mg/l total nitrogen in direct rainfall (LI 208 Study, Lake Ronkonkoma Study). Overall atmospheric deposition term (direct rainfall plus dry deposition) was supplied by Tetra -Tech (1990). *** Summertime conditions. Average year-round sediment flux is 730 pounds per day. Sediment flux estimates are based on limited sampling in July and October, 1989 (see Section 6.2.8); estimates should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment. **** North Fork: Terry's Creek, Sawmill Creek, Broad Cove Duck Farm; South Fork: Birch Creek, Mill Creek,.Hubbard Creek; .Peconic River: Little River, White Brook. Minor arithmetic deviations in total loadings as the sum of individual loads are due to round -off of presented intermediate numbers. 6-212 FIGURE 6.4-1: TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING TO PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS BAY, 1988-1990 750 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - -- NOTES----•-----•-----••----•--------.--.._...._.r.._ - "Other Nonpoint Sources" include groundwater underfiow (sepdcftertaizer contribution) east of Peconic (liver USGS gauge station. Sediment flux during summertime conditions is 2.350 pounds per day total nitrogen._ 700 _ _ - - - - - _ - _ - 650 •--------•----•---------------------------------------------------- 600 ---•-•---.....-•---• ........................••---••-•-- ... .......... 550 ------------------•-----------•-------- ... -.......... 500 ................... - - - - - -.• - ------............... 1 b450 ..................................................... d400........... .......... ................................................ a ......................... ..........•----- Y350 N300 --•.........................••---•-_.. 250 ---•-----......--••---... ..............•- 200 -......................................•- 150 .......................................... 100 - - ..-=- ...---•- 50 ............. 0 SEDIMENT FLUX OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES MEETINGHOUSE CREEK RIVERHEAD STP PECONIC RIVER STORMWATER RUNOFF groundwater nitrogen concentrations to USGS groundwater underflow estimates. Table 6.4-2 outlines some of the assumptions made in the groundwater nitrogen loading analysis, which is discussed in detail later in this section. The overall nonpoint source load contributes 3,100 pounds per day of nitrogen during summer conditions, or 82% of the total nitrogen loading. Most of the nonpoint source nitrogen load during summer conditions was determined to be sediment flux (86%. of summertime nonpoint source nitrogen load), with groundwater underflow also comprising a significant portion of nonpoint source nitrogen loading (19% of summertime nonpoint source nitrogen load). The areas that generate the bulk of the nonpoint source;nitrogen loadings in terms of groundwater underflow to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions were found to be the Peconic River and the North Fork areas. Although year-round sediment flux in approximately 730 pounds; per day, summertime sediment flux is estimated to be 2,350 pounds per day. The magnitudeof the sediment flux estimate emphasizes the significance of benthic flux as a non -point source of pollution. However, it must be re-emphasized that the estimate is based on limited data and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment. The variability of the data is illustrated in the October, 1989 benthic flux measurements, which were much lower than in July, 1989; ammonium flux at the Noyack Bay sampling station in October measured only about 5% of the levels measured in July. Major point source nitrogen contributions, at 680 pounds per day' total nitrogen, comprised only about 18% of the total point and nonpoint source nitrogen loading;to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay system. The largest contributor of all the point sources was Meetinghouse Creek (358 G; pounds per day) followed by the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant (1,40 pounds per day) and the Peconic River (132 pounds per day). Although the nonpoint source nitrogen loading greatly exceeds the total nitrogen load for point sources, the management of point sources remains a primary concern in the Peconic Estuary system. The significance of point sources has been established by computer modelling of the surface water system (see Section 7), which has shown that stormwater:mnoff, 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 also determined 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 6.2.8). Dr. Capone's sampling tends to indicate that the groundwater contribution 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. 6-214 Table 6.4-2 Groundwater Quality and Point and Nonpoint Loading Adjustments (For Use in Generalized Point and Nonpoint,Source Loading Summary) GROUNDWATER gUALIT% ADJUSTMENTS South Fork 2.5 84 0.8 * See Section 5.. ** 0.5 mg/l assumed to be native groundwater quality, which' is less than 1.0 mg/l ("Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan,", 1987). NOTE: USGS groundwater contribution estimates are included in Table 6.2-9. POINT SOURCE ADDITIONS Avg. 1989 Approx. Nit. Approx. Region Source Flow Concentration Nit Load (mgd) (mg/1, N) (lb/day N) Peconic River Grumman STP 0.058 17..6 * 8.5 (Head, West, Mid) BNL STP 0.825 3.6 ** 24.8 * Based on one SCDHS sample. ** Based on two SCDHS samples. NONPOINT SOURCE ADJUSTMENTS - (Industrial/Commercial/Institutional' Loading to Groundwater) Region Avg. Open Space/ Adjusted Nitrogen vacant/ Nit. Conc. Region Conc.* Surf. Waters (mg/1) (mg/1) (at 0.5 mg/1)* Peconic River 1.5 55 1.0 (Head, West, Mid) Instit. (unsewered) Peconic River- East -5.0 50 2.7 North Fork 6'.0 27 4.5 South Fork 2.5 84 0.8 * See Section 5.. ** 0.5 mg/l assumed to be native groundwater quality, which' is less than 1.0 mg/l ("Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan,", 1987). NOTE: USGS groundwater contribution estimates are included in Table 6.2-9. POINT SOURCE ADDITIONS Avg. 1989 Approx. Nit. Approx. Region Source Flow Concentration Nit Load (mgd) (mg/1, N) (lb/day N) Peconic River Grumman STP 0.058 17..6 * 8.5 (Head, West, Mid) BNL STP 0.825 3.6 ** 24.8 * Based on one SCDHS sample. ** Based on two SCDHS samples. NONPOINT SOURCE ADJUSTMENTS - (Industrial/Commercial/Institutional' Loading to Groundwater) Region Source Area Loading (Acres) (lb/day) Peconic River - East Commercial/Industrial 426 19.0 Instit. (sewered) Commercial/Industrial 244 38.4 Instit. (unsewered) North Fork Commercial/Industrial 179 28.2 Instit. (unsewered) NOTE: Medium density residential nitrogen loading data was used for gross estimation purposes in the absence of more specific data. Loading factors used: 0.158 pounds N/ac/day in unsevered areas 0.045 pounds N/ac/day in sewered areas (see Section 6.2.2). 6-215 ii In terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts,point sources -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 directlyii 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. A comparison was also made between the coliform loadings of the three major point sources discharging to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system (see Table 6.4-3); as they relate to the average coliform loading attributable to stormwater runoff, which is approximately 5.5 E12 MPN/day. In a relatively dry year (April 1988 -March 1989, 40.0 inches of rainfall at Riverhead), the Meetinghouse Creek coliform loading was 1.1 Ell and the Peconic River loading wwi12.3 El 1, while in a wetter year (April 1989 -March 1990, 60.5 inches of rainfall at Riverhead) the same loadings were 9.3E11 and 1.5 E12, respectively,, almost an order of magnitude higher. Thus, in a dryer year, the combined loading of the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek are an order of magnitude lower than the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load, while in a wetter year the combined loading is about one-half of the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load. In both scenarios, the Meetinghouse Creek coliform loading is on the order of one-half of the Peconic River ;coliform loading. The Riverhead STP coliform load (1.8 El in a dryer year, 3.2 El2 in a wetter year) is greater than the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek coliform loads combined, and, in a wet year, is greater than one-half of the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay area. However, the Riverhead STP loadings are, based on samples taken from the chlorination tank effluent weir, and are not necessarily representative of the loading at the actual outfall. Discharge monitoring reports submitted by the Riverhead STP pursuant to its SPDES permit conditions indicate that coliform levels as sampled from the manhole downstream of the chlorination tank may be less than those at the chlorination tank outlet. ;However, the coliform concentrations at the manhole are still high, routinely exceeding SPDES permit conditions. The Riverhead STP has recently taken measures, including process optimization and the installation of additional chlorine contact tanks to improve disinfection, which are examples of positive efforts to control pollution to the Peconic system. Coliform loading estimates are presented in Table 6.4-3. This section is untended only as a summary of the analysis performe md to estimate the relative quantities of pollution to the Peconic Estuary system. Relative impacts; of the various sources with respect to feasibility of various management alteratives are examined in detail in Section 7. 6-216 TABLE 6.4 -3 - Point Source Coliform Estimates Wet Year vs. Dry Year COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS* Coliform Concentration, MPN/100 ml Wet Year Dry Year Meetinghouse Creek 8300 2200 Peconic River 880 400 Riverhead STP 120,000" 62,000 COLIFORM LOADING ESTIMATES* Coliform Loading, MPN/Day Wet Year Dry Year Avg. Stormater Runoff 5.5e+12 5-.5e+12 Meetinghouse Creek 9.3e+11 1.1e+11 Peconic River 1.5e+12 2.3e+11 Riverhead STP 3.2e+12 1.8e+12 *Based.on weekly SCDHS sampling data for Meetinghouse Creek, the Peconic River (at USGS gauge), and the Riverhead STP. (at chlorination.tank effluent weir). Dry year data: April 1987 -March 1988 (partial data); April 1988 -March 1989 (40.0 inches rainfall at Riverhead). Wet year data: April 1989 -March 1990-(:60.5 inches rainfall at Riverhead). (Average annual rainfall at.Riverhead =-47.3 inches between 1971-1990). NOTE: The symbol "e" denotes the base -10 exponential function. 6-217 Sampling data from 1976 was compared to the 1988-1990 sampling data. In terms of point source loading of nitrogen, the Peconic River loading dropped by approximately 32%, the Riverhead STP loading increased by 16%, and the Meetinghouse Creek loading decreased by 61%. Overall, however, nitrogen loading decreased by about .53% in the 1987-199,0 time range, due mainly to the decrease in the duck fame discharge to Meetinghouse Creek. The comparative loading estimates are represented in Table 6.1-1 and are discussed in detail in appropriate areas of Section 6.1. It must be stressed actual historical decreases in pollution loading to the Peconic River and Flanders.Bay are certainly much more dramatic than observed between! 1976 and 1990, since most of the duck farms which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out of business by 1976. In addition, a laundry facility which discharged to the Peconic River had gone out of business by 1976; data regarding additional, direct commercial and industrial discharges to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system prior to the SPDES permit program is scarce. Duck farming activity is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.4, and water quality', impacts associated with duck farm discharges are- analyzed in Section 7. In attempting to compare historical nonpoint source pollutant loading with current loading conditions, it is difficult to assess trends. The primary reason for this difficulty is the lack of a long- i term data base to provide information regarding historical nonpoint source pollutant loading. However, nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff and groundwater underflow, which contains sanitary system effluent and fertilizer leachate, can.be related to development patterns and land use. This land use analysis, which is described in detail in Section 6.3, shows that, for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay groundwater -contributing area, 1,046 acres of vacant and agricultural land changed use between 1976 and 1988. This constitutes only 3.5% of the total acreage (30,214 acres) in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay study area. Therefore, in light of the moderate increase in development in the wester study area and the relatively minor impacts that changes in non -point sources have on the surface waters of the Peconic system with respect to the point sources (see Section 7), it is likely that the increase in the last 15 years has not beenterribly significant in terms of nitrogen loading to surface waters. Of course, this analysis of nonpoint source pollution does not include sediment flux loading, which is not extensively characterized by data and which is related to point source deposition of pollutants. The apparent non -significance of the impacts of historical increases in nitrogen loading from non -point sources such as sanitary waste; fertilizer leachate, and stormwater runoff does not diminish the need for planning and management, since there exists a tremendous amount of vacant and developable land in the western study area (27% of Peconic'; River/Flanders Bay study area as of 1989; see Section 6.3). 'The development of this land could have significant impacts on natural resources and surface waters in terms of contaminants such as coliform and nitrogen from stormwater runoff, sanitary system effluent, and fertilizer. In addition,an increase of nonpoint source loading in the Peconic. River corridor would be especially harmful, since the shallow 6-218 component of groundwater flow in this portion of the study area drains into the Peconic River. This river essentially discharges as a point source in an environmentally sensitive, poorly -flushed area. Computer modelling has shown that increases in the point source loading represented by the Peconic River would result in significant adverse environmental impacts to the estuarine surface waters (see Section 7). Tidal Transport Tidal transport is an important factor in the removal of pollutants from the Peconic system and is worth emphasizing in a discussion of pollutant inputs. The Peconic System is vertically well mixed and circulation processes are primarily driven by sea surface and wind forcing. Modelling analysis conducted in 1976 during the 208 Wastewater Treatment Management Plan focused on the western and central regions of the Peconic System. Results of these analyses, which are confirmed and expanded in Section 7, indicated that although the majority of the central and eastern.Peconic system exhibited good quality, the Peconic estuary and Flanders Bay areas were subject to the dual impacts of locally weak tidal flushing and close proximity to three major pollutant sources: the Peconic River, duck fanning, and the Riverhead STP. It is clear from the sampling data that overall nitrate contributions have the greatest affect on the more enclosed water bodies of the system. It should be noted that this subsection is meant only to provide a brief overview of the importance of physical transport processes of nutrients within the estuarine system. More detailed information regarding water quality and modelling is contained in Section 3. The spatial distribution of nutrients, BOD and phytoplankton (non -conservative variables) are characterized by strong east -west gradients with maximum concentrations observed in the west (Peconic River estuary and Flanders Bay), reflecting the significance of tidal mixing and exchange on the distribution of constituents within the well -mixed water column. High concentrations within the western end reflect point and nonpoint source loading of nutrients and organic materials (Riverhead Waste Treatment Plant, tributaries and duck farms) and physical accumulation as a consequence of weak flushing of Flanders Bay. Loading Summary. - Methodology and Discussion A summary of point and nonpoint source nitrogen loading data was performed to characterize the numerous potential sources of surface water contamination in the study area. This data was used in the overall analysis and modelling of pollutant loading to the surface waters of the study area. The point and nonpoint source loading summary utilized previously generated data dealing with stornwater runoff, point source loads, and nonpoint source (fertilizer and sanitary -system effluent) contamination. Nonpoint source data for stormwater runoff (Section 6.2.6) and point source data for Meetinghouse Creek, the Riverhead STP, and the Peconic River (Section 6.1.3) for 6-219 the 1988-1989 time period were directly Peconic River flow at the USGS gauge s National Lab STP and Grumman Aerosl the Peconic flow loading and did not nee Nonpoint source (NPS) loadingfro mineralization, and direct precipitation w quality nitrogen concentrations to estimai quality estimates were initially obtained i sampling data to project regional ground` only in developed areas, however, the gr( vacant land and open space a value of 0.5 Management Plan" notes native groundw Groundwater underflow-quantity estimate from their regional three dimensional fiuv separate groundwater contribution estima station (Headwaters, West, and Mid), the Since the Peconic River flow was the USGS gauge station were excluded i and point and nonpoint loading adjustm( the groundwater contributions from the l River nonpoint loading projection. The western Peconic River nonpoint loading runoff in the Peconic River region, at 51 occurred mostly in the developed Pecon attributed to the Peconic River region w: The nonpoint source nitrogen loadi USGS gauge station was 577 pounds per Peconic River East and North Forks regi( South Fork. The Peconic River west of t: pounds per day of nitrogen as calculated comparison, the Ll 208 Study estimated i range of 133 to 414 pounds per day of nil )plicable.for purposes of this summary. Since the tion was evaluated as a point i source, the Brookhaven .e Corp. STP effluents were -already included as part of to be separately included. a fertilizer, septic system contribution, animal waste, soil .re accounted for by applying` regional groundwater ;d groundwater contributionsin given areas. Groundwater •om earlier studies which utilized water supply well ,ater concentrations. Since these supply wells occurred andwater concentrations were adjusted by assigning mg/l total nitrogen. ("Comprehensive Water Resource Lter quality nitrogen concentrations to be less than 1 mg/1). 3, supplied by the USGS in die form of simulation derived e difference groundwater model, were available to provide es for Peconic River regions west of the USGS gauge Peconic River East region, and the North and South Forks. raluated as a point source, nonpoint sources to the west of ►m the pollutant loading summary. Groundwater quality is were previously presented in Table 6.4-2. Thus, only :conic River East region was included for the Peconic ,ception to the exclusion of nonpoint sources, from ,as stormwater runoff. This exception was made because funds of nitrogen per day, was relatively small and River east region. Runoff nitrogen contribution was tout further adjustment. as estimated by groundwater contribution east -of the y. Approximately 90% of this loading occurred in the with the remainder of the loading generated on the USGS gauge was responsible for approximately 132 using Peconic River flow and sampling data. By 1976 nitrogen loading for the Peconic River to be in the (Section F, p. 61). The nonpoint source nitrogen load' g from groundwater east of the USGS gauge was almost as large as the entire point source load ng represented by the Riverhead STP (140 pounds per day), Meetinghouse Creek (358 pounds per day), and the Peconic River (13ipounds per day). 71 Stomtwater runoff loading, at 26 pounds per day, was less than 1% of the total point. and nonpoint source nitrogen loading. . . . I I. 6-220 In an effort to relate pollutant generation in the study area to pollutant loading to surface waters, the loading estimates to surface waters, as generated by groundwater quality and quantity data, were compared to loading estimates presented in Section 6.2.2 ("Agricultural and Residential Pollutant Loading"). The agricultural and residential estimates were supplemented by commercial, industrial, and institutional contributions in the Peconic River East and North Fork areas, the only regions in the primary study area which appeared to have significant concentrations of such land uses which were likely to be pollutant -generating. For lack of better information, medium density residential loading factors for sewered and unsewered areas were applied to the commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. The total commercial, industrial, and institutional nitrogen loading was thus estimated to be 57 pounds per day in the Peconic River East region and 28 pounds per day in the North Fork region. In the North and South Forks around Flanders Bay, the nitrogen contribution to surface water as measured by groundwater quality and quantity was about two and one-half times less than the pollution contribution estimated from septic tank contribution and fertilizer application. The reasons for this discrepancy is not known with certainty. However, the difference in estimates suggests that the methodology used to determine nitrogen loading to groundwater from agricultural or residential land uses may have yielded overly high estimates. It is also possible that a significant portion of groundwater recharged in the western study area does not actually enter the surface water system within the Peconic River East/Flanders Bay area, discharging at point further east. Whatever the explanation, it appears that groundwater contribution is not a major influence in terms of pollutant loading to the Peconic Estuary system based on Tetra-Tech's computer modeling and Dr. Capone's sampling (see Section 6.2.8). It should be noted that much of the groundwater in the study area has a deep recharge flow component, making precise modelling of pollutant transport through the aquifer a complex and difficult task. For this reason, USGS estimates of groundwater contributions and SCDHS groundwater quality data were used instead of estimates of fertilizer and septic system loads to groundwater in estimating nitrogen loading to the surface waters of the study area. Overall, the nitrogen loading estimates from residential and agricultural loading in the entire Peconic River region (547 pounds per day) correlated reasonably well with the nitrogen estimated to enter the surface water from actual groundwater- contribution (477 pounds per day). These projected loading comparisons are shown in Table 6.4.4. However, the relative distribution of these estimated loadings in the Peconic River East region and the western Peconic areas differed significantly. In the Peconic River areas west of the USGS gauge, the nitrogen loading from groundwater was estimated to be 174 pounds per day. This estimate, when coupled with the point sources of Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratories STP's contributions of approximately 33 pounds per day of nitrogen, was slightly higher than actual sampling data of the river, which produced 6-221 Projected Loading Comparis Peconic River a REGION Peconic River (Headwaters, West, Mid) Peconic River - East PECONIC RIVER — TOTAL NORTH FORK SOUTH FORK, PECONIC RIVER/FLANDERS BAY TOTAL Nitz Surf Fx (1 * Loading to groundwater (GW) agricultural (ag.), and com .nitrogen contributions from -,Load . ing to surface water is generalizations and USGS gr E 6.4-4 n to Groundwater and Surface Water d Flanders Bay Areas 988-1989 s l ogen to Nitrogen to GW ace Water from Ag./Res./Com. om GW Activity b/day) ' (lb/day) 174 328 303 -219 477 -=547 215 576 59 145 751 1268 is based on residential (res.), mercial/industrial/institut-ional (com.) fertilizer, septic systems, etc. based'on groundwater quality' oundwater contribution estimates. 6-222 estimates of 132 pounds per day in 1989 and 193 pounds per day in 1976. Since 1976 projections were based on only three samples, and since the nitrogen concentrations in the two time periods were relatively close, a water quality improvement in the Peconic River cannot be definitively documented based on sampling data. However, some improvement may have indeed occurred with the termination of operation of three duck farms on the Peconic River and the decrease in average flow of Grumman and Brookhaven National Lab STP flows. Nonetheless, the nitrogen loading west of the USGS gauge based on groundwater contribution (174 pounds per day base on 1.0 mg/1) and on surface water sampling data (132 pounds per day based on 0.5 mg/1 in river) were reasonably close. A difference occurred in the nitrogen loading as calculated by fertilizer and septic system effluent loading in this region, which was 328 pounds per day as compared with 174 pounds per day actually attributable to groundwater contribution to surface waters. Nitrogen -consumptive processes (plant uptake; natural denitrification) within the river region are a possible explanation for this difference. It is also conceivable that the agricultural and residential loading in this area is misleading due to the high degree of open space around the river, which may have a locally purifying effect on the groundwater which immediately feeds the river. Thus, groundwater flow patterns may be such that groundwater in areas with higher nitrogen concentrations discharge further downstream in the surface water system. In the Peconic River area east of the USGS gauge, the fertilizer and septic system loading was estimated to be 219 pounds per day as compared with an estimated groundwater loading to surface water of 303 pounds per day. The 26% difference in loading may be within the range of error for the types of gross estimations performed in this analysis. It is also possible that pollutant loading in this area has been underestimated, or that pollutants from the agricultural and residential areas just west of the Peconic River East area may have an impact on groundwater quality in this area. 6-223 7.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.0 . MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section contains the assessment of pollutant source impacts on surface water quality and presents an evaluation of management alternatives and a recommended management plan. The source assessment, management alternative evaluation, and recommended management plan are the culmination of a comprehensive process of resource evaluation and .problem identification which have been presented in previous sections of the report. The value of the Peconic Estuary resources,.the documented problems affecting the system, and the long-range estuarine management concerns are set forth in Sections 1 through 5 of BTCAMP, which essentially provide a comprehensive characterization of the Peconic Estuary system and its groundwater -contributing area (collectively designated as the "study area"). Section 1 of BTCAMP is an introduction which sets forth the purposes and priorities of the study, defines and describes the study area, and discusses the BTCAMP planning approach, previous water quality studies, and related planning efforts. The natural resources and processes are addressed in detail in Section 2. Section 3 explores surface water quality in detail, presenting data and analysis regarding water quality conditions, problems (e.g., nitrogen and coliform pollution), and trends. Brown Tide is discussed in Section 4, which treats the organism's spacial and temporal appearances as well as its biology, impacts, and related research efforts. Section 5 undertakes an .extensive analysis of groundwater quality in the study area to be used to substantiate subsequent qualitative and quantitative analyses of pollutant loading and to provide data for the computer model of the system. The information in Sections 1 through 5 regarding conditions, problems, and concerns is supplemented by extensive pollutant assessment efforts which are presented in Section 6. These efforts were performed to provide an objective basis for computer model inputs and the management alternatives evaluation. The impact assessment and alternatives evaluation process is discussed in detail in Section 7.1. Based on the modelling results and on information contained in previous report sections, a comprehensive summary of important factual findings has been generated. Each specific finding is the basis of a conclusion which analyzes the management ramifications of the finding and, where appropriate, weighs management alternatives in terms of practicality of achieving management goals (e.g., attainment of nitrogen guideline, opening of shellfish beds). The coupled factual information and analytical interpretation is presented in the "Findings and Conclusions" in Section 7.2. Recommendations are then presented in Section 7.3, followed by a brief outline of implementation mechanisms (Section 7.4) and a discussion of compliance with Clean Water Act Section 2050) objectives (Section 7.5). Finally, the most recently obtained information regarding management alternatives is contained in Section 7.6. This information, which is consistent with the remainder of Section 7, is presented for the sake of completeness to specifically incorporate the most current data regarding Riverhead STP flow and nitrogen loading. A tabular distillation of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this chapter is contained in Table 7.0-1. 7-1 Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program TABLE 7.0-1 - SUMMARY OF.FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. EROAN TIDE 1. The Brown Tide is an algal bloom of a particularly small '1 1. Monitoring of water quality and Brown Tide and previously unknown species (Aureococcus 1 concentrations in the Peconic Estuary and South anovhagefferens) which has appeared in the Flanders/ I Shore bays systems ..should be continued. Peconic and South Shore bays systems. I.2. Theories relating to the onset and persistence 2. The Brown Tide bloom is recurring in nature; and has to I of the Brown Tide should be further researched; date been unpredictable in onset, duration, and 1 this research should have greater emphasis cessation, often persisting for unusually long periods 1 on field studies. .Areas of research should of time over large areas. I include specific organic nutrients; chelators 3. Advances have been made regarding the identification I such as citric acid; trace metals such as and characterization of the Brown Tide -and its growth I iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate, and boron; needs. Although all algal growth requires macro- 1 and meteorological and climatological factors. nutrients, conventional macronutrients such as nitrogen 1 Laboratory research regarding the organism's apparently do not trigger the onset of the Brown 1 physiology also should be continued. Tide blooms. Chemicals which have been implicated.by 13. Surveys and research on the toxic, mechanical, research as potential contributors to Brown Tide's 1 and/or poor nutritional impacts of the Brown Tide . pervasiveness include specific organic nutrients, 1 on shellfish should be continued. chelators such as citric acid, and trace metals such 14. Factors related to the control and subsidence of the as iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate and boron.. 1, Brown Tide, such as viruses and dimethyl sulfide/ 4. Viruses -are suspected to be an agent in ending the growth 1": acrylic,acid production, should be researched. cycle of the Brown Tide. Acrylic acid and dimethyl 15. Restoration and monitoring should occur for Brown -sulfide, which -may be:produced by the Brown Tide I Tide -impacted natural.resources; potential priority Tgairi-m,—may—lie--t-oxi�---to zoopran-kion which wou graze I targets are scal.Lops and ee grass. on the Brown Tide. Meteorological and climatological 1 factors may.also affect the Brown Tide. I 5. The abundant Peconic Bay scallop population was virtually 1 V eradicated by the toxic, mechanical, and/or poor I ry nutritional "aspects of the Brown Tide. In addition, the I eelgrass-beds, which are a critical shellfish and finfishl "spawning and nursery area, were decimated, probably due 1 to reduced light penetration caused by the Brown Tide. 1 Other shellfish apparently affected during Brown Tide 1 blooms include oysters, clams, and blue mussels. _ II. OTHER EMIROMMMM" 1 CONCERNS 1. WMPZ E SURFACE 1. I Based on analysis of Flanders Bay data which relates total,1 1. The general L.I."208 Study marine ,;surface water -quality' XLTER QUALITY nitrogen (TN) concentrations to chlorophyll -a and chloro -1 nitrogen guideline.of 0:4 mg/l should be modified phyll-a to diurnal dissolved oxygen (D.O.) variations, I to 0.5 mg/1 total nitrogen for Flanders'Bay a surface water total nitrogen concentration limit of 0.51 and the tidal portions of the Peconic River. mg/l will ensure a minimum dissolved oxygen of 5..0 mg/1. 1 2. All new or incremental nitrogen loading should be 2. Portions of the western Peconic system contravene the TN I prohibited if it discharges to surface waters, or guideline (typical TN levels as high,as 0.8 mg/1), and I - results in substantial groundwater degradation, occasionally experience depressed D.O.; but apparently I in the environmentally stressed region of the tidal • not exhibit advanced eutrophication in terms of conven- I. Peconic River and western,Flanders Bay. tional nutrients. The system may be near the limits of 13. As a long range goaly pollution abatement should occur the factor of safety incorporated in the TN guideline. I so that the nitrogen guideline can be attained in the 3. Water quality in the eastern Peconics is excellent with I tidal portions of. the Peconic River and Flanders Bay. respect to nitrogen concentration. 1 4. Pollution to the eastern portions of the Peconic Estuary 4. Data indicate that nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay: I system should be controlled so that existing water qual- have not changed,significantly between 1976 and 1988. 1 ity in the bays east of Flanders Bay is maintained. In Prior to 1976, numerous industries (extensive duck farms,) small embayments, pollution sources require evaluation milling, fish processing, iron forge,,etc.)-probably I to assess localized impacts and potential remediation. contributed to degraded conditions as compared with 1976.1 5. Surface water modelling and monitoring should continue. TOPIC 2. MJOR POINT SOURCES A. Sewage 1. Treatment Plants ("STP's") 2. 3. 4. 5. V I W B. Peconic River 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. 6. BTCAMP TABLE 7.0-1 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) FIMINGS / CONCLUSIONS Because of the quantity and location of its discharge. the poorly -flushed mouth of the Peconic River, the Riverhead sewage treatment plant (0.7 mgd, 140 pound per day total nitrogen discharge, of which 7 pounds per day are attributable to the scavenger waste faci is by far the most significant sewage treatment plan in terms of nitrogen loading. Improvements in wastewater treatment and disposal at t Riverhead STP would result in a reduction of summert surface water total nitrogen concentrations to near 0.5 mg/l guideline in the western Peconic system. Elimination of the Riverhead STP surface water colifo loading could move the open shellfish area boundary on the order of an additional 1 km westward. Previous efforts at -sampling and modelling impacts of Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory STP's hav been limited. However, both of these facilities are environmental concerns because they discharge direct into the environmentally sensitive Peconic River. Other STP's discharging to surface waters are not a th to system -wide water quality because of their remote locations with respect to the western Peconics and t low nitrogen loading rates. However, localized imps (e.g., Sag Harbor) may require further investigation Water quality in the Peconic River is excellent with respect to nitrogen concentration (approximately 0.5 l mg/l at USGS gauge upstream of Riverhead STP).- l Despite excellent water quality, as a result of its high l 'flow, the Peconic River contributes substantial nitrogen l (avg.of 130 pounds per day, range of 20 to 500 pounds l per day) to an environmentally stressed area. i The high degree of open space in the Peconic River water- l shed (26% of 15,900 acres in 1989) has spared the river l from excessive pollution in recent years; the area's landl use did not change drastically between 1976 and 1988. l Substantial potential exists for future development in the l Peconic River area (34% of acreage developable in 1989). l Mathematical modelling and sampling have established that l increased development intensity adversely impacts ground -1 water quality. L.I. 208 Study modelling indicates that l slight changes in groundwater quality have significant i impacts on Peconic River nitrogen concentrations; as per l current modeling, Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations l are very sensitive to Peconic River loadings. l The relationship between land use and surface water l quality, coupled with the amount of developable land in l the study area, highlights the need for stringent l development controls to prevent degradation of Peconic l River and Flanders Bay. An additional benefit of land l use controls would be the added protection of invaluable l natural resources of the study area. l at l 1. I I s I I lity)i 2. P t l I he l ime l 3. the l I rm ( 4. T I I the l e l I ly I I reat l l 5. S heir l cts i • I I I l 1. "q a 4. 5. 6. RWOMNKNDATIONS n relation.to sewage treatment plant expansion, no net increase in quantities of nitrogen discharged to surface waters should be allowed from Grumman, Brookhaven National Lab, and Riverhead STP's. ollution from other sewage treatment plants in the study area should be controlled such that existing water'quality in the surface waters east of Flanders Bay is maintained. As a long-range management goal, the Riverhead STP should be upgraded so that the surface water quality nitrogen guideline can be attained. he long-range Riverhead STP upgrade may be in the form of a groundwater discharge (10 mg/1 total N), a relo- cated surface water discharge at central or eastern Flanders Bay (approx. 23 mg/l total N), or a surface water discharge at the existing location (4 mg/l total N); environmental impacts of alternatives would require assessment before selection. From BTCAMP's pollution control and natural resources perspective, groundwater recharge is the most desirable alternative. PDES permits should be modified to require monthly reporting of effluent nitrogen concentrations for Peconic River -discharging STP's and quarterly report- ing for all other surface water -discharging STP's. Throughout the entire Peconic River groundwater- . contributing area, new or incremental nitrogen loading should be prohibited if it discharges to surface waters or results in substantial groundwater degradation. New groundwater -discharging sewage treatment plants in the Peconic River area generally should be avoided. New groundwater -discharging plants should be considered only if best available denitrification technology is used; the proposed project is associated with significant groundwater, natural resources, and/or surface water quality benefits; and additional analysis shows that impacts on the Peconic River system will be negligible. Developable residential land in the Peconic River ground- water -contributing area should be upzoned to a minimum of two acres per unit. Additional natural resource protection could be attained by even more stringent land use controls, such as three to five acre zoning. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses should be controlled so that the impact on groundwater with respect to nitrogen contribution is comparable to that of two -acre residential zoning. Zoning controls should be implemented in conjunction with other land use management techniques, including cluster development, transfer of development rights, and programs related to land preservation, acquisition, and enhancement. In addition to the land use controls noted above, I I B. Stormwater 1. Stormwater runoff, which contributes approx. 30 pounds per 11. On a system -wide basis, any action which would Runoff day of nitrogen, does not appear to be a significant I result in a substantial increase in stormwater input with respect to nutrient loading. I runoff coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary 2. As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in I system should be strictly prohibited. the Peconic system; these areas are generally situated 12. Stormwater runoff remediation efforts should be in semi -enclosed embayments and near shore locations or I undertaken on a site-specific basis pursuant to are located adjacent to STP discharges. I localized studies which demonstrate technological, 3. Stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant I economic, and environmental feasibility. BTCAMP TABLE 7.0-1 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) TOPIC F1WrHGS / CONCLUSIONS 'RECOMMENDATIONS 2. MAJOR POINT SOURCES (cont.) B. Peconic River I Peconic River development plans should be reviewed (cont.) I utilizing the strictest practicable standards, which I would include the requiring of open space dedications, I maximum practicable setbacks from the river, and I natural landscaping to minimize fertilizer use. C. Meetinghouse 1. The elimination of Corwin Duck Farm's direct discharge to 11. Monitoring and remedial investigation of pollution Creek Meetinghouse Creek substantially improved water quality I at Meetinghouse Creek should be continued and in the creek with respect to nutrients such as I remediation should be effected when technologically, nitrogen, but nitrogen (15 mg/l as compared with less I economically, and environmentally feasible. than 2 mg/l in other local creeks) and coliform 12. The evaluation of the effectiveness of on-site duck concentrations in the creek remain elevated. I waste containment and treatment processes at the 2. Current total nitrogen loading from Meetinghouse Creek is I Corwin Duck Farm should be continued. approximately 360 pounds per day. 13. Sediment flux study should be conducted in 3. Substantial reduction of Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen I Meetinghouse Creek to quantify actual impacts of contribution (15 to 2 mg/l total N) would result in only I sediment flux on water quality -and to evaluate -- moderate improvements in system -wide water quality (due I effectiveness of potential remedial measures. to -the creek's location in a better -flushed area, only I about 0.05 mg/l total nitrogen reduction as compared with) 0.2 mg/l improvement associated with Riverhead STP I upgrading). I 4. Meetinghouse Creek improvements would have more system- I wide significance if they were effected in concert I with other pollution abatement efforts. I 5. Improvements in Meetinghouse Creek coliform I concentrations would result in only localized benefits. I I 3. MAJOR NON -POINT SOURCES I A. Sediment Flux 1. Summertime sediment flux nitrogen contribution, estimated 11. Sediment flux sampling should be continued and expanded. to be 2,400 pounds per day, is greater than all other 12. The dynamics of the relationship between pollution (i.e., chemical sources of nitrogen contribution combined. I contribution and sediment flux should be studied exchange between 2. Changes in point source loading resulting from the I so that ultimate short, and long-term benefits sediment and implementation of management alternatives would I associated with -,pollution abatement could -be = water column) eventually change the sediment flux rate, potentially_ I better documented. resulting in significant water quality improvements. 13. The computer model of the estuarine system should 3. More monitoring and study is needed to better I be upgraded to include an improved sediment characterize the dynamics of the relationship between I submodel. pollution contribution and sediment flux. I I I B. Stormwater 1. Stormwater runoff, which contributes approx. 30 pounds per 11. On a system -wide basis, any action which would Runoff day of nitrogen, does not appear to be a significant I result in a substantial increase in stormwater input with respect to nutrient loading. I runoff coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary 2. As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in I system should be strictly prohibited. the Peconic system; these areas are generally situated 12. Stormwater runoff remediation efforts should be in semi -enclosed embayments and near shore locations or I undertaken on a site-specific basis pursuant to are located adjacent to STP discharges. I localized studies which demonstrate technological, 3. Stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant I economic, and environmental feasibility. BTCAMP TABLE 7.0-1 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) TOPIC rami GS / CONCLUSIONS REC014MM TIONS 3. MAJOR NON -POINT SOURCES (cont.) B. Stormwater source of total and fecal coliform loading to the 13. Proposals for new development within the stormwater Runoff Peconic River and Flanders Bay. Other localized sources I runoff -contributing area to the Peconic'Estuary (cont.) may include wildlife waste and sanitary systems. I system should be reviewed under the strictest 4. Based on pollutant loading analysis and land use data, I scrutiny. In addition to on-site stormwater stormwater runoff coliform loading is correlated with I runoff containment requirements, vegetative land use intensity, with the North and South Flanders Bayl buffers and sediment and erosion control plans areas, due to substantial residential acreage, each I should be considered as part of the approval contributing a much greater coliform load than the less I process, with enforcement through the issuance intensively developed Peconic River watershed I and revocation of permits. 5. Modelling indicates that the benefits from decreased storm -1 4. With respect to sources such as domestic animal waste water runoff coliform loading do not justify the costs I and fertilizers, best management practices and of system -wide remediation. However, localized benefits I public awareness should be promoted. might be realized from site-specific remediation. I C. Groundwater 1. North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastern Peconic River 11. Substantial degradation of existing groundwater Underflow regions have -groundwater nitrogen concentrations which I quality should be prevented, especially in the are substantially elevated (5 to 7 mg/1). I Peconic River area (see II.2.B.., "Peconic River"). 2. Western and central Peconic River, with their vast 12. Groundwater monitoring programs and the study of expanses of open space, have relatively low total I surface water impacts of groundwater should be nitrogen concentrations (1 to 1.5 mg/l)- indicating I continued, especially with respect to areas with excellent groundwater quality. I known contamination (see II.4.A., "Landfills," and 3. Pesticide contamination of private water supply wells is I II.4.B., "Hazardous Materials"); estimation of -common in the eastern. Peconic River, North Flanders Bay l groundwater inflow and its pollutant contribution and North Fork regions (6.4 to 14.4 ppb",'avg.), where i to surface waters should be performed for:, -the areas agricultural chemical usage was historically prevalent. .I east of Flanders Bay and further refined in the Detectable pesticide levels in East Creek (up to 8 ppb) I western study area. Pesticide contamination related indicate that pesticide contamination has, to -some I to agricultural practices is an area of special degree, reached surface waters of the study areas. I concern which warrants further monitoring and .4. The intensity of land usage in given areas is directly I evaluation. - related to nitrogen loading and groundwater quality 13. Best management practices, such as low -maintenance degradation. Both residential and agricultural land I lawns, slow-release nitrogen fertilizers, Uses are responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in I modification of fertilizer application rates, and the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions, medium- I sanitary system maintenance should be promoted density residential and agricultural land uses have I through public education. similar nitrogen loading rates. 14. Additional controls, such as fertilizer use 5. The apparent significance of groundwater nitrogen contri- I restrictions, should be promoted in the Peconic bution (approx. 580 pounds per day east of USGS gauge) I River watershed. is tempered by surface water quality data, computer l modelling, and groundwater infiltration sampling which indicate that groundwater nitrogen contribution is not having a significant impact on study area surface waters.I 6. Although mitigation of existing groundwater conditions I does not appear to be a priority with respect to surface water quality improvement, the prevention of substantial future degradation to existing groundwater quality is an important goal,'especially in the Peconic River area. I ' I ' 4 OTHER SOURCES OF POLLUTION A. Landfills 1. -----I----- The plume of contaminants which emanates from the North 11. Remedial investigations of the North Sea landfill, Sea landfill reportedly includes ammonia, iron, l as required by USEPA, should be conducted with manganese, volatile organic compounds, lead, and I full consideration of surface water impacts. BTCAMP TABLE 7.0-1 -.SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) TOPIC FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS REColffiMNDATIONS 4. OTMR SOURCES OF POLLUTION (coat.) A. Landfills -cadmium. 1 2. Monitoring of the surface waters and sediments of (cont.) 2. With the exception of. Shelter Island, the other eight I Fish Cove should be continued. landfills in the study area are classified as potential 1 3. Monitoring of other landfills in the study area environmental hazards. 1 should consider potential surface water impacts. B. Hazardous 1. 1 Activities at Brookhaven National Lab and Grumman have 1 1. Groundwater monitoring programs at Rowe Industries, Materials resulted in groundwater contamination and subsequent I Brookhaven National Laboratory; Grumman, and other remediation efforts. I sites of present and historical discharges should 2. Surface water impacts from existing industrial discharges 1 be continued. In general, the relatively small have not been documented. 1. store of data regarding hazardous materials impacts 3. The inactive Rowe Industries facility is the source of a 1 on surface waters should be expanded. significant plume of organic chemical contamination 1 2. Where appropriate, monitoring and remedial which has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor 1 investigations of hazardous material -contaminated Cove, with unknown impacts. 1 sites should incorporate surface water and sediment 4. There are no reports of surface water impacts resulting 1 monitoring with'full consideration of surface from accidental spills and leaks in the -study area. 1 water impacts incorporated in management decisions. 5. Household hazardous materials are a potential and largely 1 3. "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" programs should be - undocumented source of pollution. I continued and enhanced to foster-public.education 1 and reduce household hazardous material pollution. - C. Marinas and 1. Sanitary waste discharges from boating activities are 11. The Suffolk County law mandating the investigation Boating site-specific and not we'll documented, but are 1 of potential nuisances at marinas should be suspected of contributing to surface water coliform 1 implemented. loading, especially in environmentally sensitive 1 2. Greater use of shore -based toilets, holding tanks on waterways with poor flushing. I boats, and existing and additional pump -out stations 2. The implementation of the Suffolk County law (Res. 996-88) 1 should be promoted, especially in areas with heavy to investigate potential nuisances at marinas would 1 boat traffic or. in environmentally sensitive areas. be a useful first step in.addressing the need to better 1 3. Implementation of other measures, such as designation understand and manage the contribution of marinas and 1 of "no discharge zones" and enforcement for non - boating to surface water pollution. 1 compliance with discharge regulations, may also in - 3. Oil and gasoline, marine paints, and debris are marine 1 crease usage of pump -out facilities and should be con - pollution sources which may warrant future evaluation. 1 sidered, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. J 4.,Marina-.projects should be -.scrutinized under .the.most _ 1 environmentally sensitive standards of review. 5. Public education should be an integral component of 1 boater -related surface water protection programs. 1 6. The 'impacts of oil and gasoline, marine paints, and 1 floatables and other debris should be investigated. D. Atmospheric 1.'Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface water systems'1 1. Monitoring of the direct and indirect impacts of acid Deposition is approximately 160 pounds per day (wetfall and dry I rain on the surface waters of the study area should deposition); this estimate is approximately 5% of the I be conducted and studied, where appropriate. system's overall (summertime) non -point source loading. 2. Modelling indicates that changes in regional air quality 1 would have limited impact on the system's marine waters. 1 3. Although acid rain is not a primary concern with respect 1 to direct impact on marine surface water pH due to -the 1 -- - -- - - - C�_J - ! - TOPIC BTCAMP TABLE 7.0-1 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS 4. OTWM SOURCES OF POLLUTION (Cont.) D. Atmospheric Deposition ( cont . ) 5. NATURAL RESOURCES 6. IMLEMENTATION V i V 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. buffering capacity of the marine system, acid rain m directly impact the fresh waters in the study area a may indirectly impact marine waters by affecting the solubility/transport of material through sediments. The ecological significance of the Peconic Estuary is manifested in its rare ecosystems, nationally and locally threatened and endangered species, species diversity, and -extensive wetlands and wildlife habit Natural resources may be impacted by water quality management decisions. From a natural resources persepective, management information for the Peconic Estuary appears to be relatively limited. The implementation of BTCAMP recommendations would bes proceed as a cooperative effort between all levels o government with the support and guidance of the private citizenry. The implementation program would be most effective wit mechanisms to re -convene the BTCAMP Management Commi to periodically assess the progress of implementatio BTCAMP recommendations, to address potential future environmental concerns, and to identify funding sour for additional monitoring, research, and remediation f 1 I I h 1 ttee 1 nof.1 I ces 1 . I I I I I I 12. To I I 13. In I I I I I I I I I I 14. Mo I I I I I 1 water quality management decisions should be accompanied by the maximum practicable level of protection and enhancement of natural resources. comprehensive, Peconic Estuary -specific natural re- sources inventory/management plan should be pursued. lementation of regulatory and/or.remediation recommendations should be conducted by parties that have current responsibilities and should be enacted/enforced by the agencies with current jurisdiction over the subject matter of given recommendations. For example, the STP recommendations should be enforced by NYSDEC and SCDHS through the SPDES permit process, with STP owners responsible for compliance. Meetinghouse Creek pollution should be addressed by NYSDEC and the Corwin Duck Farm with the assistance and guidance of SCDHS and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Land use regulations fall within the province of the Towns' regulatory authority, and stormwater runoff should be. addressed at the appropriate governmental level. ensure consistency with this study's recommendations, all local regulations, plans, policies, and practices should be reviewed and, where necessary, amended. the case of non -regulatory issues, implementation should be conducted by organizations which are qualified in given areas of.concern. Funding for research should be provided by all levels of government, and public education should be continued by the Citizens' Advisory Committee (a.k.a. "Save the Bays") and groups such as the Cornell Cooperative Extension. Future Brown Tide Management Committee meetings should be held periodically to assess the progress of implementation, address potential future environmental problems, and identify and pursue funding sources for further monitoring, study, remediation, etc.i nitorng of groundwater and surface waters should be continued by SCDHS with respect to BTCAMP-type monitor- ing and NYSDEC and USEPA, where appropriate (e.g., shellfish program and finfish, superfund sites, etc.). Local investigations and pilot remediation projects should be cooperative intergovernmental ... efforts. ay I nd 1 I I I I 11. Al I I ats. '12. A I I I I I I I t 11. Imp 7.1 Computer Modelling: Impact Assessment and Alternatives Evaluation ` This subsection presents a summary of the computer modelling used to facilitate the impact assessment and management alternative evaluation process utilized in BTCAMP. The impact assessment of pollutant sources was based on pollutant input data presented in Sections 1 through 6 and computer modelling of alternatives which varied the source loads to demonstrate actual source impacts on the system. Appropriate alternative management scenarios were subsequently modelled to evaluate effectiveness of various source controls in achieving water quality goals (e.g., nitrogen guideline attainment, shellfish area openings, etc.). The tested alternatives were selected from a vast array of potential alternatives which can mitigate pollutant loading. The range of available alternatives has been summarized in various planning documents such as the L.I. 208 Study, and is prohibitively 'extensive to reproduce in BTCAMP. Therefore, this section generally addresses only the alternatives which could affect system -wide water quality, as determined by extensive impact assessments of sources. Due to finite time and resources, alternative evaluation could not be performed for each site- specific creek :and tributary in the Peconic system. However, in general; environmentally sensitive management measures should be implemented where feasible as prudent environmental protection measures, especially where localized benefits can be demonstrated (e.g., site-specific stormwater remediation resulting in localized shellfish area openings). A description of the nitrogen and coliform goals and the alternative management scenarios simulated for this study using the WASPS model is presented below. For the purpose of the study, the Peconic River, Riverhead STP, and Meetinghouse Creek were considered point sources of pollution to Flanders Bay. Other sources which were evaluated include stormwater runoff, sediment flux, groundwater underflow (includes sanitary system and fertilizer contribution), atmospheric deposition, and ocean boundary exchange with Block Island Sound. Point sources included in the WASPS model are listed on Table 7.1-1 and are graphically presented on Figure 7.1-1. The longitudinal transect utilized by the computer model extends from the head of tide in the Peconic River to Gardiners Bay (see Figures 7.1-2 and 7.1-3 for transect and link -node diagrams). Over 50 alternative management scenarios were simulated using the Peconic Bay WASPS model; a table summarizing parameters for these runs is contained in Appendix J. - The model results for the alternative simulations also are presented on Appendix J as longitudinal transects in which each alternative is compared to the existing 1988-1989 conditions (i.e., the base run); a narrative description of the results is contained in sections 7.1.2 through 7.1.9. 7.1.1 Nitrogen and Coliform Goals Two of the primary criteria utilized in measuring effectiveness of the following. management alternatives are coliform and nitrogen impacts. The coliform standard for open shellfishing waters is statutorily defined (70 mpn/100 ml), and management alternatives may be clearly assessed in terms of 7-8 TABLE 7.1-1 Point Sources Included in the WASPS Peconic Bay Model* Station Water Body 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' East Creek Reeves Creek Meetinghouse Creek Terry's Creek (Broad Cove Duck Farm) Terry's Creek Sawmill Creek (Shubert Duck Farm) Sawmill Creek Peconic Estuary (Riverhead STP) Peconic River (USGS Gage 1304500) Little River White Brook Goose Creek Birch Creek Mill Creek Hubbard Creek * See Figure 7.1-1 for the locations of these point sources. 7-9 CD SONG ISLAND 0 Pont Source Location of 04 3 02 06 8(p7 010 011 012 PECONIC 013 0" 16 RIVER 15 � FLANDERS GREAT BAY F g u r e 7.1-1 4 Point sources included in WASPS Peconic Bay model (Sag Harbor STP and Shelter Island Heights STP not shown). S1 ra .i N Scale 0. 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers LONG ISLAND SOUND LONG ISLAND o. F it 7� 31T30 PLUM ISLAND 3 GARDINERS s GARDINERS ISLAND BAY 2148 1 4 PECONIC „ "a A A 45 RIVER • u s FLANDERS BAY GREAT ECONIC BAY I I I I I I I I I 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Longitudinal Distance from Mouth (km) Figure 7.1-2-1ongitudinal transect used for presentation of Peconic Bav WASPS model results. Source: Tetra -Tech SLANDERS Figure 7.1-3 Enlargement of link -node network showing Flanders Bay and Neconic River their success in opening additional shellfishing grounds. However, the standard for appropriate marine surface water nitrogen concentration is not as clearly defined. Therefore, the modelling consultant undertook a refinement of the recommended nitrogen guideline for Flanders Bay. The correlation between nitrogen, chlorophyll -a, and diurnal dissolved oxygen (D.O.) fluctuations was used to determine the relative importance of nutrients in controlling dissolved oxygen concentrations. The plot of diurnal dissolved oxygen range (late afternoon minus early morning concentration) vs. daily average chlorophyll -a concentrations for Flanders Bay is presented in Figure 7.1-4; 1976 data are presented as open circles and the more recent 1989-1990 data are plotted as solid squares. A regression of this data should allow for a reasonable interpretation of the net effect of phytoplankton on dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Flanders Bay region. Based on 436 observations between 1980-1990, the average summer (July through September) dissolved oxygen concentration for Flanders Bay is 6.94 mg/l. Therefore, an allowable D.O. range of 1.4 mg/l yields an approximate minimum of 5.5 mg/1 D.O., ensuring that the water quality standard of 5.0 mg/1 D.O. is met with an additional factor of safety of 0.5 mg/l D.O. Graphically (see Figure 7.1- 4), the allowable chlorophyll -a level corresponding with the permissible 1.4 mg/1 D.O. range is 13 ug/l chlorophyll -a. Figure 7.1-5 illustrates the relationship between chlorophyll -a and nitrogen. Because of the scatter in data points, a line bounding 80% of the data was chosen to afford a reasonable margin of safety in the analysis. As per the graph, a total nitrogen concentration of less than 0.5 mg/l will ensure a chlorophyll -a concentration of less than 13 ug/1, thus limiting the D.O. range to 1.4 mg/1 and keeping the D.O. above 5.0 mg/1 at virtually. all times. 'Therefore, the 1976 L.I. 208 study marine surface water nitrogen guideline of 0.4 mg/l should be revised to 0.5 mg/1 in Flanders Bay. 7.1.2 Base Run RUN000: This base run for comparison to the alternative management simulations used a Peconic River flow of 49.7 cfs at 0.5 mg/L TN. Meetinghouse Creek and the Riverhead STP were set to the existing (1988-1989) flows and water quality levels. The groundwater and sediment flux concentrations also were set to existing 1988-1989 values. Sediment flux rates were based on data measured by Jon Garber in July and October of 1989. 7.1.3 Peconic River Management Alternatives The following four alternative runs give an indication of the extent to which water quality in the Peconic system will be degraded if no management alternatives are implemented in the upstream areas to the Peconic River watershed. Each of the scenarios depicted in these model runs assumes an increase in nutrient pollutant levels (using total nitrogen as the nutrient) in the Peconic River tributary. 7-13 4.0 3.5 2.0 0 r. 0.5 0 ■1989-1990 Flanders Bay C Peconic River Data 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily -Avg. Chlorophyll -a (ug/L) Figure 7.-1-4 DO Range vs Chlorophyll (1976 data are circles; 1989-90 data are squares) F ;e: tra, h ■ 01976 "208" Data 0 1976 ■ o ■ ■ ■ 0 0 ■ ■ o 0 ■ o 0 0 0 19B9-90 o ■ ■ o ■ o ■ 40" o 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily -Avg. Chlorophyll -a (ug/L) Figure 7.-1-4 DO Range vs Chlorophyll (1976 data are circles; 1989-90 data are squares) F ;e: tra, h ■ 14 12 10 n 0 t ■ 1989-199 Flanders Bay 6 Peconic River Data 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Daily Avg. Total Nitrogen (ug/L) F gure 7.1 _b Chlorophyll vs Total Nitrogen (1976 data are circles; 1989-90 data are squares) Source: Tetra -Tech 1976... -*. 976: . /,989- 0 oil■ ■ AL■ ■ ■ ■ O MIT Cr • • O ■ ■ 13 ■ ■• ■ 0 O • O ■ zo O O O 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Daily Avg. Total Nitrogen (ug/L) F gure 7.1 _b Chlorophyll vs Total Nitrogen (1976 data are circles; 1989-90 data are squares) Source: Tetra -Tech RUNO01: For this scenario, the Peconic River total nitrogen was set to 1.0 mg/L at a flow of 49.7 cfs with all other parameters the same as in -the base run. This run represented a total nitrogen increase in the Peconic River of 0.5 mg/L over the base run condition. The model results show that this increase in total nitrogen in the Peconic River impacts water quality to kilometer 36.0 which is in central Flanders Bay. The summertime maximum increase in TN concentration is about 0.16 mg/L and occurs in the upstream segment of Peconic River estuary. RUN002: This alternative was' similar to RUN001 except the total nitrogen concentration of Peconic River was increased to 2.0 mg/L. Water quality was impacted to about kilometer 34.0 in this case, and the maximum increase in total nitrogen over the base run was about 0.57 mg/L during the summer period. RUN003: For this scenario the Peconic River was set to a high flow (100 cfs) for the entire simulation and the total nitrogen was fixed at 1.0 mg/L. The impacts on water quality are evident down to approximately kilometer 27.0 which is in Great Peconic Bay. The maximum increase during the summer period was about 1.02 mg/L over the base case. RUNO04: This run was similar to RUN003 in that the Peconic River flow was set to 100 cfs, but the total nitrogen concentration was fixed at 2.0 mg/L. The impact on water quality can be seen down to about kilometer 20.0 which is in Little Peconic Bay. The maximum summer increase in total nitrogen was about 2.2 mg/L-above the base run. 7.1.4 Riverhead STP Management Alternatives This section deals with impacts relating to the mitigation or intensification of pollution stemming from the Riverhead STP. In 1990, the Riverhead Town consultant targeted 2.0 to 3.0 mgd as the ultimate facility flow to accommodate an expanded service area (i.e., to serve the western Route 58 corridor and potential future development). Thus, the computer modelling alternatives analyzed the impacts of such an increase;, this analysis is reflected in the following discussion of management alternatives. The proposed long-range expansion plan is not known at the time of this writing. However, the management alternatives discussed below, although not necessarily precisely conforming with any current long-range plans, are valid as long-term planning tools and as indicators' of water quality trends should additional pollution be introduced from the Riverhead STP. It must be noted that management alternative computer modeling, analysis presented in the subsection was based on an existing flow of 1.06 mgd at the Riverhead STP as reported by the facility. In the summer of 1992, on discovering defective flow measurement at the facility, the Riverhead Town consultant revised the flow estimate to approximately 0.3 mgd lower than the flow which was previously reported by the facility; shortly thereafter, the flow was reported to be approximately 0.7 mgd. The information throughout the entire report was then modified to reflect a discharge of 0.7 mgd and 23 mg/1(approximately 140 lb/day total nitrogen). Using the most recent available data (0.64 mgd and 25 mg/l; 134 lb/day total nitrogen) shows that the re -calibrated base modeling run differs slightly in the immediate vicinity of the STP. ' However, the BTCAMP 7-16 modelling consultant believes that the new flow rate brings the model into even better agreement with observed total nitrogen data, which is above the guideline, in portions of the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay system (see Figures 7.1-6 and 7.1-7). Given the relatively minor variation associated with the differences, the variation may be neglected for purposes of this analysis. The following management alternatives are still quite valid in terns of relative system -wide impacts associated with incremental increases or decreases in pollutant loadings, even though the present discharge in this subsection is presented as 1.06 mgd. It should be noted that even more specific Riverhead STP data and management alternative runs, current_ as of reportpublication, are included in Section 7.6. Twenty-two (22) different alternatives for management of the Riverhead STP discharge were evaluated with the WASP5 model to determine the impact on water quality in the Peconic system. Ten of the alternatives considered here involved diverting the Riverhead STP flow to groundwater near the vicinity of the present surface water discharge. One alternative assumes that the Riverhead STP was never built and that all residences and other facilities served by the sewer district discharge to septic systems. Four alternatives evaluated the effectiveness of moving the Riverhead STP discharge into central and eastern Flanders Bay. The final two alternatives consider limiting the total nitrogen concentration in the Riverhead STP effluent to 4 mg/L and 9 mg/L based on proposed limits from the Long Island Sound Study's October 1990 Status Report and Interim Plan for Hypoxia Management. The remaining alternatives involve variations of effluent discharge rates and nutrient treatment levels at the Riverhead STP. RUN005: For this case all the Riverhead STP flow is diverted to groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the present outfall (i.e.; in segment 72 in the model). It is assumed that the groundwater underflow to Peconic River will have a total nitrogen concentration of 5.0 mg/L. The model results show that diverting the treatment plant flow to groundwater will reduce total nitrogen in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions by up to about 0.20 mg/L during summer periods. RUNO06: This run was identical to RUN005 except that it was assumed that the groundwater underflow reaching the Peconic River will have a total nitrogen concentration of 7.0 mg/L. The model results indicate a maximum summertime reduction in total nitrogen of about 0.16 mg/L. RUN007: For this run the injection of Riverhead STP effluent to groundwater was increased to 2.0 MGD with a total nitrogen concentration of 5.0 mg/L in the groundwater underflow to Peconic River. The model results show a decrease in the summer of about 0.16 mg/L compared to the base run (RUN000). RUN008: This run is identical to RUN007 except the groundwater underflow concentration was increased to 7.0 mg/L. The model results indicate a maximum summertime reduction in total nitrogen in the Peconic River of approximately Q. 10, mg/L compared to RUN000, the base condition. RUN009: Here the Riverhead STP effluent flow rate was increased to 3.0 MGD with a total nitrogen concentration in groundwater underflow of 5.0 mg/L. The model results show a decrease of ' about 0.10 mg/L in total nitrogen during the summer. 7-17 off 600 200 Winter Average (Nov 1. — Jan 31) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) 10001 1 Summer Average (Jul 1 — Sep 30) 800 J 600 3Mlf 200 0 L- 40 5 0 35 30. 25 20 15 10 5 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.1-6 Base Case -Runs 7-18 i R N000d: Riverhead Q= 1.06 MGD, TN=22.7 g/L \ — — R N000c: Riverhead Q=0.64 MGD, TN=25.0 g/L 1 1 1 1 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) 10001 1 Summer Average (Jul 1 — Sep 30) 800 J 600 3Mlf 200 0 L- 40 5 0 35 30. 25 20 15 10 5 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.1-6 Base Case -Runs 7-18 i 1000 800 600 C 0 IM 0 n 1111i 200 0 40 Winter Average (Nov 1 — Jan 31) \ RL N000a: Riverhead Q= 1.06 MGD, TN=22.7 g/L \ — — R N000c: Riverhead 0=0.64 MGD, TN=25.0 g/L 1 \ \ 1000 :3111; J 600 CM 0 3s�r•, 0 a 200 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) i Summer Average (Jul 1 — Sep 7 o, 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.1-7 Total Nitrogen Verification Run 7-19 5 0 RUNO10: This run is identical to RUNO09 except the groundwater underflow concentration was increased to 7.0 mg/L. The model simulation shows only a very small reduction (about 0.02 mg/L) in total nitrogen levels for the. summer period. RUN011: This scenario assumes that the Riverhead STP was never constructed and that all residences and other facilities served by the sewer district discharge directly to septic systems in the Riverhead area (model segments 72 and 73). A flow rate of 1.06 MGD (the present existing Riverhead STP discharge rate) was added to the groundwater underflow and the total nitrogen concentration was set-to 8.0 mg/L. The model results show that the water quality in the Peconic River would be improved by as much as 0.14 mg/L compared to existing conditions. If the assumptions used in this alternative run are correct, then the Peconic estuary would have been better off without the Riverhead STP, at least with respect to total nitrogen concentration. RUN022: For this alternative, the Riverhead STP outfall was relocated from its present location in the Peconic River estuary to central Flanders Bay (model segment 60). All other conditions were the same as in the base case (RUN000). The model results show an improvement in total nitrogen in the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay of up to 0.36 mg/L during the winter and about 0.28 mg/L in the summer. RUN023: Here the Riverhead STP outfall was relocated to eastern Flanders Bay (model segment 54). All other conditions were the same as in RUN000, the base run. The model results indicate an improvement in total nitrogen levels in the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay of about 0.37 mg/L in the winter and about 0.28 mg/L in the summer. The results are nearly identical to RUN022. RUN024: For this run, model source loadings were set the same as in RUN000 except for the Riverhead STP which had loading of TN set to 4.0 mg/L. This reflects the proposed Long Island Sound Study high-level management scenario (Level 3) of full-scale Biological Nutrient Removal that would achieve an effluent concentration of 3-5 mg/L TN. The model results show that total nitrogen will be reduced by about 0.24 mg/L during summer months in Flanders Bay and tidal Peconic River. RUN025: This model run simulates the proposed Long Island Sound Study mid-level management scenario (Level 2) of Biological Nutrient Removal that would achieve an effluent concentration of 8-10 mg/L TN. The Riverhead STP was set to a loading. of 9 mg/L at a flow rate of 1.06 MGD. The model results show that TN concentrations will be reduced by about 0.17 mg/L in the Flanders Bay region. RLN026: The Riverhead STP flow rate was increased to 2.0 MGD to reflect future conditions and the treatment of the waste stream was assumed to provide effluent at a total nitrogen 7-20 concentration of 5.0 mg/L. The model results for show .that summertime TN concentrations will be up to 0.17 mg/L less than existing conditions in the Peconic Estuary.. RUN027: This run was similar to RUN026 except the Riverhead STP TN effluent concentration was set to 10.0 mg/L with a flow rate of 2.0 MGD. Model results for summertime conditions indicate that TN concentrations will be up to 0.05 mg/L less than existing conditions (i.e., essentially the same as existing conditions). RUN028: Similar to RUN026 except that the Riverhead STP flow was set to 3.0 MGD and the TN effluent concentration was 5.0 mg/L. Summer TN concentrations were up to 0.11 mg/L less than under existing conditions. RUN029: Similar to RUN027 except that the Riverhead STP flow was set to 3.0 MGD at a effluent TN concentration of 10.0 mg/L. Summer TN concentrations were up to 0.06 mg/L higher than under existing conditions. RUN030: The Riverhead STP outfall was relocated to Central Flanders Bay (model segment 60) at an effluent flow rate of 2.0 MGD and TN concentration of 20.0 mg/L. The model results show that TN concentrations will decrease by. about 0.25 mg/L during summer months and about 0.32 mg/L during winter periods. . RUN031: This run is the same as RUN030 except the Riverhead STP flow rate was increased to 3.0 MGD at an effluent TN concentration of 20.0 mg/L. The model results indicate that TN concentrations will be up to 0.23 mg/L less than current levels during summer months and about 0.30 mg/L less during'winter months. RUN032: In this run all the Riverhead STP effluent (2.0 MGD) was diverted to groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the treatment plant. It was assumed that the groundwater TN underflow concentration would increase to 7.0 mg/L in the vicinity of the STP. Model results indicate that TN concentrations will be up to 0.08 mg/L less than existing conditions for this alternative. RUN033: This run was the same as RUN032 except that sediment flux was assumed to be reduced by 30% due to the absence of direct water column loading from the treatment plant. The model results show that TN concentrations will be up to 0.12 mg/L less than existing conditions during summer periods. RUN034: This is the same as RUN032 except effluent flow rate is 3.0 MGD. The model results indicate that TN concentrations will be 0.02 mg/L higher than under existing conditions during summer periods. 7-21 RUN035: This is the same as RUN034 except that sediment flux rates were reduced by 30% to reflect potential improvements due to the absence of direct water column loading of nutrients from the treatment plant. The model results indicate that TN concentrations will be up to 0.34 mg/L lower than under existing conditions during summer periods. RUN038. RUN039. RUN040: This series of three runs was used to produce a single graphic to show the following: RUN038: a future baseline condition of the Riverhead STP at 2.0 MGD and 22.7 mg/L total N with Meetinghouse Creek and the Peconic River at existing conditions. RUN039: same as RUN038 except the Riverhead STP is upgraded to provide denitrification (to 10 mg/L TN) of the incremental 0.7 MGD waste stream while the existing design flow of 1.3 MGD is still at 22.7 mg/L TN. RUN040: same as RUN039 except water quality in Meetinghouse Creek was improved to 2.0 mg/L. The results of the model show that in all cases the TN concentrations are higher than present existing conditions (0.25 mg/L, 0.14 mg/L, and 0.11 mg/L higher for RUN038, RUN039, and RUN040 respectively). Denitrification of the incremental 0.7 MGD waste stream (RUN039) only provides about 0.09 mg/L TN improvement in water quality in the Peconic River estuary over the case where no denitrification existed at all (RUN038). - RUN051: This run corresponds to the recent SPDES application for the Riverhead STP in which 1.3 MGD are discharged to the Peconic River at 22.7 mg/L TN and an additional 0.1 MGD are discharged to groundwater. It was assumed that the discharge to groundwater will increase the groundwater TN concentration to 6.0 mg/L TN in the immediate vicinity of the treatment plant. Model results show that summertime TN will increase by about 0.08 mg/L in the Peconic River in the vicinity of the STP. 7.1.5 Meetinahouse Creek Management Alternatives A series of five alternative scenarios involved Meetinghouse Creek. This tributary was subjected to loadings from duck farms in the past and apparently continues to receive some nutrient input from the Corwin Duck Farm as evidenced by -high pollutant levels and coliform counts at a sampling station near the duck farm. Existing total nitrogen levels used in RUN000 for Meetinghouse Creek averaged about 14.7 mg/L and the existing discharge -rate was approximately 4.466 cfs. The following model runs were intended to determine the impacts on the Peconic system due to changes in water quality in Meetinghouse Creek. 7-22- RUN012: For this scenario the flow in Meetinghouse Creek was set to 2.0 cfs and the total nitrogen was decreased to 2.0 mg/L. The model results indicate that water quality will improve slightly (by about 0.06 mg/L during summer months) from about kilometer 20 (Little Peconic Bay) to the head of tide in the Peconic River if Meetinghouse Creek total nitrogen conditions can be improved to -2.0 mg/L. RUNO13: This model run was identical to RUNO12 except the flow in Meetinghouse Creek was increased to 6.0 cfs. Again, the model results show that Meetinghouse Creek has a widespread ` impact on the Peconic system, ranging from kilometer 20 (Little Peconic Bay) to the head of tide in the Peconic River. This run shows a maximum summertime reduction in total nitrogen of about 0.05 mg/L compared to existing conditions (RUN000). The results are nearly identical to RUN012 meaning that an increase -in Meetinghouse Creek flow rate from 2.0 cfs to 6.0 cfs has essentially no impact on water quality in the Peconic system assuming a source concentration in the tributary of 2.0 mg/L total nitrogen. RUNO14: In this case the flow in Meetinghouse Creek was .set to 6.0 cfs and the total nitrogen concentrations were set to existing conditions (about 14.7 mg/L). The purpose ,of this run was to - evaluate the impacts of a high flow condition in Meetinghouse Creek. The model results show a small increase in total nitrogen of about 0.06 mg/L for both the summer and winter periods. The spatial extent of the impact extends from about kilometer 20 (Little Peconic Bay) to the Peconic River. RUN015: This scenario involved improving Meetinghouse Creek total nitrogen concentration to 2.0 mg/L and diverting the Riverhead STP (1.06 MGD) to groundwater. The assumed groundwater underflow total nitrogen concentration was 5.0 mg/L. The model results show a maximum decrease in total nitrogen compared to the existing conditions (RUN000) of about 0.24 mg/L for the summer period. RUN016: This scenario was essentially the same as RUN015• except that the total nitrogen sediment flux rates in Flanders Bay and Peconic River were reduced by 30%. . This, was an approximation of the amount of improvement in sediment flux that would be achieved as a result of diverting the Riverhead STP to groundwater. The model results show that total nitrogen levels drop substantially (about 0.26 mg/L in the summer) in Peconic River and western Flanders Bay. Water quality improvement is noticeable from the' Peconic River to about kilometer 20 which is in Little Peconic Bay. 7-23 7.1.6 Miscellaneous Model Runs 7.1.6.1 Ocean Boundarypacts RUN017: For this model run total nitrogen at the ocean boundary at Gardiners Bay was set to zero. This was a model sensitivity run rather than a management alternative since nothing can be done at the local management level to modify the ocean water quality conditions. The purpose of this run was to determine how much of an impact the ocean boundary has on the Peconic System. -The model results indicate that the impact of the ocean boundary can be felt to some degree all the way to the mouth of the Peconic River estuary. 7.1.6.2 No Plan -Induced Pollution RUN018: This was considered to be the best possible condition which could be achieved assuming no man -induced pollution to the Peconic system. For this case; the Riverhead STP was completely removed. from the system, both the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek total nitrogen concentrations were set to 0.3 mg/L, and the total nitrogen sediment flux rates were reduced by 50%, everywhere. Groundwater concentrations were the same as in the existing condition case (RUN000). The model results show that total nitrogen concentrations are less than 0.4 mg/L everywhere in the system. 7.1.6.3 No Future Controls RUN019: The purpose of this scenario was to determine the impact on water quality if no future controls are implemented. In other words, we are assuming that pollutant levels will be allowed to increase beyond present day conditions. The Peconic River total nitrogen was set to 3.0 mg/L, Meetinghouse Creek was set to 20 mg/L, and the Riverhead STP with a discharge of 3.0 MGD was set to 20 mg/L. Total nitrogen sediment flux rates were increased by 20% throughout the system. Groundwater concentrations of total nitrogen were the same as for the base run. The model results show a dramatic increase in total nitrogen of about 1.18 mg/L during the summer and 1.90 mg/L during the winter. 7.1.6.4 Atmosvheric Devosition Atmospheric deposition of nutrients is the result of processes operating on a much larger spatial scale than the Peconic system. There are no management alternatives for ,Suffolk County that would effectively address reductions in atmospheric deposition. What is important, however, is to assess the relative magnitude of an essentially uncontrollable non -point source in relation to controllable sources within the Peconic Bay region. For the Peconic system, atmospheric deposition represents less than 10% of the total nitrogen input. 7-24 RUN036: The purpose of this run was to determine the impact potential changes in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen would have on the Peconic system. Atmospheric total nitrogen deposition was increased by 20% for this run and the model results are very similar to the base run (RUN000) with the maximum increase in TN concentration of 0.01 mg/L occurring at about kilometer 35. RUN037: For this run the atmospheric deposition of total nitrogen was decreased by 50%. The model results show a small improvement in TN water column concentrations of up to 0.02 mg/L. This shows that atmospheric deposition is not a major contributor to nutrient loadings to the Peconic system. RUN041 to RUN047: This is a series of runs to produce a "cumulative improvement" graphic (Figure 7.1-8) using latest available data which show the changes in TN concentration as each source of nitrogen is sequentially improved in the Peconic system. RUN041: Riverhead STP completely removed from system RUN042: Peconic River water quality improved to 0.3 mg/L TN RUN043: Meetinghouse Creek water quality improved to 0.3 mg/L TN RUN044: Other tributaries water quality improved to 0.3 mg/L TN RUN045: Sediment TN flux reduced by 50% RUN046: Groundwater underflow TN concentration improved to 0.3 mg/L RUN047: Atmospheric deposition reduced by 50% The model indicates that removing the Riverhead STP will result in the greatest improvement in the Peconic River estuary in summertime water quality (0.26 mg/L) of any of the seven alternatives in this group. The next largest improvement (0.07 mg/L) occurs when the Peconic River is improved to 0.3 mg/L TN. The smallest improvement (0.01 mg/L) comes from reducing atmospheric deposition by 50%. 7.1.7 Groundwater Management Alternatives RUN020: This run was the same as the base case except that the groundwater quality in the contributing area to norther Flanders Bay and Peconic River was improved to a total nitrogen concentration of 2.0 mg/L (it was about 5.0 mg/L in the base case). The model results show a small improvement of about 0.03 mg/L in total nitrogen levels in Peconic River and Flanders Bay. RUN021: For this scenario, groundwater quality for the area contributing to southern Flanders Bay was improved to 3.0 mg/L (it was 3.44 mg/L in the base case). The model results indicate essentially no change from the base run: 7-25 1000 600 c Q� 0 z 400 v 0 200 0-- 40 Summer Average (Jul 1 — Sep 30) 35 30 25 20 15 10 Distance from Block . Island Sound (km) Figure 7.1-8 Computer Model Simulation - Cumulative Improvement from Managment Alternatives 5 0 RUN 41 throug RUN047 Base Run (Existing Conditions, RUNOOOc) Riverhead STP Removed Peconic River TN improved to 0.3 mg /L ' /MBetinghouse Creek TN improved to 0.3 mg/L Other S reams TN improved io 0.3 mg/L • Sediment TN Flu Reduced by 50% /Groundwater underflow IN improved to 0.3 g/L tmospheric TN deposition reduced by 50% 35 30 25 20 15 10 Distance from Block . Island Sound (km) Figure 7.1-8 Computer Model Simulation - Cumulative Improvement from Managment Alternatives 5 0 7.1.8 Coliform Bacteria Manasement Alternatives RUN048, RUN049, RiTN050: RUN048 was the base run for the coliform bacteria management runs and it included coliform loading from a typical wet year as measured by SCDHS during the period April 1989 to March 1990. The Peconic River flow was set to 69.7 cfs with a coliform concentration of 880 WN/100 ml. Meetinghouse Creek had a discharge of 6.263 cfs and a coliform concentration of 6070 WN/100 ml. The Riverhead STP effluent was set to its reported discharge of 1.06 MGD (see Section 7.1.4 for discussion) and 4.9E+12 MPN/day. The total wet year coliform loading from all eight tributaries in the model was 2.91E+12 MPN/day. SCDHS has estimated the total non -point source nmoff for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay area as 5.5E+12 MPN/day. The difference of 2.59E+12 MPN/day not accounted for in the streamflow was added to each of the shore segments in the Flanders Bay region of the model as a flux of 0.294E+12 MPN/day per square kilometer. RUN049 used the same wet year discharge conditions, however, it was assumed that management practices were implemented to reduce coliform loading due to stormwater runoff by 50% (i.e., streamflow coliform loading and the non -point flux loading were both reduced by 50%). RUN050 was the same as the baseline run (RUN048) except, it was assumed that no management practices were implemented and coliform loadings due to stormwater were allowed to increase by 25%. The model results indicate that any changes in stormwater loading of coliform bacteria will only be evident in the Flanders Bay and Peconic River portions of the system. However, with respect to coliform loadings from stormwater, the model has no defined sources entering into Great Peconic Bay, Little Peconic Bay, Shelter Island Sound, or Gardiners Bay. If these sources could be identified and quantified in the model, then one would expect to see the coliform concentrations increase to a certain extent between the ocean boundary ' and Flanders Bay. In the baseline run (RUN048) the maximum peak coliform concentration of 770 MPN/100 ml occurs in the vicinity of the Riverhead STP. This peak is reduced to 390 MPN/100 ml in RUN049 and is increased to 970 WN/100 ml in RUN050. Also, RUN049 indicates that violations of the 70 MPN/100 ml standard for shellfishing will move about 0.6 km upstream (from kilometer 36.2 to 36.8) which will make more waters available for this beneficial use. RUN052: This run simulated the implementation of improved chlorination and increased detention time at the Riverhead STP which results in a decrease in coliform loading from the plant to 700 MPN/100 ml (0.281E+11 MPN/day). The model results show that this reduction in coliform loading from the Riverhead STP will reduce the peak coliform count from 784 MPN/100 ml in the immediate vicinity of the plant to 148 WN/100 ml. In addition, the 70 WN/100 ml SA shellfishing standard moves about 1.4 kilometers further upstream (see Section 7.2.4A, Conclusion V, for discussion). RUN053. RUN054: RUN053 assumed the Riverhead STP was diverted to groundwater and there was no coliform loading from the plant. RUN054 assumed no coliform loading from Meetinghouse Creek. The results of RUN053 are nearly identical to RUN052 in which the coliform 7-27 effluent from Riverhead STP was reduced to a concentration of 700 MPN%100 ml. Complete removal of the coliform load from Meetinghouse Creek has little impact on coliform concentrations along the transect (there is a small reduction from 18 to 16 WN/100 ml near kilometer 35). 7.1.9 Sediment Flux as Incorporated in Model The transformation of particulate material deposited on estuarine sediments is referred to as diagenesis.. The consumption of oxygen in the overlying water column by sediments is an important 1 element in the oxygen balance of most estuarine waters. Common practice is to determine the magnitude of the oxygen sink by directly measuring the sediment oxygen uptake rate. However, mi the case of our Peconic Bay model, many of the management alternatives being investigated (e.g., reducing nutrient effluent in the Riverhead STP) affect the supply of particulate organic material to the sediments. Thus, the use of measured sediment flux (Garber 1990) will probably yield projected dissolved oxygen and nutrient results that will be in error. The reason -is that sediment flux is caused by decaying particulate organic matter in the sediments. If the supply is reduced by management control measures, then the sediment flux will gradually decline in response to this reduction. Several of the alternative model runs assumed that sediment flux was reduced by a certain percentage (e.g., 30% reduction in RUN033) as an approximation of� the anticipated decline in sediment flux rates from the implementation of management controls on nutrient sources. The model does not incorporate any linkage of sediment flux rates to changes in the source of organics deposited to the sediments. The processes that determine sediment fluxes can be grouped into four categories: (1) sources of organic material 'and, sediment, (2) settling, scour, or burial of organic sediments, (3) decomposition and oxidation of organic material, and (4) vertical transport of oxygen and nutrients at the sediment -water interface. The WASP5 model of Peconic Bay does not link the settling of organic materials to decomposition and eventual vertical transport back into the water column in a dynamically coupled manner. Instead, the model considers that organic particulate matter settles to the bottom and is lost from the system. The measurements of sediment flux rates by Garber (1990) are then used to estimate vertical transport of oxygen and nutrients back into the water column from sediments. In other words, even though the source of organic particulate matter to the bottom sediments changes in the model, the sediment flux rates will remain the same as those measured by Garber (1990). Two theories exist pertaining to the dynamics of sediment nutrient flux response to variations in point source loadings. The ability of estuarine sediments to retain nutrients and release them into the water column after point sources have been eliminated can be referred to as the sediment flux "memory". The "long memory" theory assumes that the sediments will retain much of the nutrients accumulated from point sources for a long period of time (i.e., 5 years or more). During the long memory time period, the sediments will continue, to release nutrient fluxes even though no more source deposition is taking place. The "short memory" theory assumes that all nutrients in the sediments will be exhausted after a relatively short period of 1 to 5 years following the cessation of 7-28 point source loadings. Presently, there is'very limited data to substantiate either of these two theories. In fact, different water bodies may exhibit different length sediment flux memories. - The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) has reported that sediments in the Sound, particularly in the deep waters at the western end, have accumulated large quantities of organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus over more than a century. These sediments are now a persistent. source of nutrients and carbon that contribute strongly to oxygen depletion and to advance phytoplankton production when these benthic nutrients reach surface waters. The enriched status of these sediments is not expected to change quickly under any conditions and the sediment fluxes would delay improved oxygen conditions following reductions in other nutrient sources. In addition to sediment flux, the WASP5 model also incorporates nutrient input from groundwater underflow. This is a separate entity from the nutrients contributed by the sediments, even though it also enters the water column through the sediment -water interface. The sediment flux - is generated within the sediments by decaying organic matter while the nutrients in the groundwater underflow are carried within the ground water. itself. Groundwater nitrogen data used as input for the WASP5 model is based on a synthesis of data compiled by SCDHS for the BTCAMP. 7.2 Findings and Conclusions 7.2.1 Brown Tide I) Spatial Range and Temporal Appearance Finding I The Brown Tide is a destructive algal bloom which has appeared in the Peconic Bays and South Shore bays system of Long Island. The uniqueness of the "brown tide" blooms is the dominance of a single, particularly small, and previously unknown species (Aureococcus anophagefferens). In the Peconic system, the Brown Tide bloom persisted in high concentrations for extended periods in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. Peak Brown Tide cell counts often exceeded 1 million cells per ml, as compared with a normal, mixed phytoplankton assemblage concentration which would typically range from 100 to 100,000 cells per ml. Similar algal blooms were detected in the same timeframe in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, although the New Jersey bloom was never positively identified as Brown Tide. After virtually disappearing, elevated Brown Tide cell counts were observed in July of 1990 in West Neck Bay, a sheltered water body off Shelter Island, and in western Shinnecock and eastern Moriches Bays. Brown Tide also reappeared in high concentrations in Shinnecock and Moriches Bays in the fall of 1990 and persisted into the winter. A recent, intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the Peconic Estuary system in May, 1991 and persisted in high concentrations through July, 1991. The devastating effects of the Brown Tide are discussed in Section 7.2.2, "Natural Resources." 7-29 Conclusion I The Brown Tide is a dense algal bloom which has appeared in Peconic/Flanders and South Shore bays systems. A particularly small and previously unknown species, the Brown Tide can persist for unusually long periods of time over large areas and has had destructive impacts, especially in the Peconic/Flanders bays system. The bloom is recurring in nature, and has to date been unpredictable in onset, duration, and cessation. Since the. Brown Tide has also appeared in other surface waters in the Northeast, the Brown Tide is not a problem which is limited only to eastern Long Island waters. II) Physical Factors Finding II Concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the Peconic Estuary system during Brown Tide periods were, in general, not markedly different from pre -bloom years; total nitrogen seems to have remained relatively unchanged in the Peconic/Flanders Bays system between 1976 and 1988-1990 (see Section 7.2.3, "Marine Surface Water Quality"). Additionally, Brown Tide has not occurred in numerous other coastal embayments around Long Island which have experienced eutrophication and higher concentrations of nutrients. - Field work in 1985 in Narragansett Bay by URI scientists found the abundance of the Brown Tide organism was negatively correlated with nutrients and other measures of eutrophication (Smayda). Productivity rates were high during the Brown Tide blooms but at levels similar to earlier summers (Lively et al. 1983, Bruno et al. 1983). Although cell densities were high, phytoplankton biomass (as ug chl/1) was not different from pre -bloom years (Cosper et al. 1987). The Brown Tide has proven to be a remarkably hardy organism. The ability to adapt to variations in temperature was dramatically illustrated by the 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 at a wide range of light intensities (Carpenter and Cosper 1988) indicate a typical growth rate 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. Aureococcus blooms have appeared in the summer after extended periods of dry weather, leading observers to theorize that climatological factors, and high salinity may be a factor in the onset of the organism (Nuzzi) along with other physical, meteorological, and offshore forcings. In the laboratory, the organism grew best at a salinity of 30 ppt and 25 degrees C, but was adaptable to a wide range of temperature and salinity. Field data, however, indicate that the Brown Tide organism may be more abundant in bay locations which have lower salinities; recent MSRC work shows that when sodium glycerophosphate is substituted for inorganic phosphate in the growth medium, growth is, indeed, much better at the lower salinities. 7-30 Conclusion- II Although nutrients are required by phytoplankton for growth, the input of conventional macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus apparently do not trigger the onset of the Brown Tide blooms. This suggests that some unidentified factors are responsible for the Brown Tide, including the possibility that certain organic nutrients or other specific chemicals may play a role in the onset and maintenance of the Brown Tide; viruses and zooplankton interactions are also possible factors affecting Brown Tide growth (see Finding and Conclusion III, "Research Efforts"). These factors should be further monitored and researched, as should the relationship between meteorological and climatological factors and the Brown Tide. III) Research Efforts Finding III Aureococcus anophagefferens is a small (2-2.5 microns in diameter), spherical cell that has the general characteristics of the group of algae known as the chrysophytes. During the summer of 1986 the "brown tide" organism was isolated into culture by State University of New York Marine Sciences Research Center (SUNY MSRC, Cosper 1987), with guidance from SCDHS, from water collected from Great South Bay; J. Sieburth of the University of Rhode Island is credited with the identification and naming of the organism. The subsequent development and perfection of an immuno-epifluorescent staining and examination technique (Anderson, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute) has allowed definitive identification of this organism in plankton samples, facilitating accurate and regular SCDHS monitoring for the Brown Tide. In MSRC laboratory studies, substitution of sodium glycerophosphate (an organic phosphorus compound) for inorganic phosphate at equivalent phosphate levels to the standard media enhanced growth to 70% of growth in natural seawater media. 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; the organics may also serve as chelators (chemicals that combine with metals making them available for growth and/or nontoxic to organisms). . Laboratory growth of Aureococcus has been shown to be stimulated by various chelators, including citric acid. Experimental data also hint at a requirement for iron and selenium as well as the micronutrients vanadate, arsenate and/or boron. The Brown Tide organism has been found to use nitrate, amino acids, and urea, but not ammonia, as sources of nitrogen. Citric acid, arsenate, vanadate . and boron all have possible anthropogenic sources in Long Island waters. For example, citric acid has been used as a chelating additive in detergent (NTA is banned in New York State), arsenate is in fertilizer, vanadate occurs from the burning of oil and coal, and boron is found in soap products. Recently, SCDHS has initiated and conducted a sampling program for dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a volatile sulfur compound produced by certain marine phytoplankton. Preliminary results show a 7-31 correlation between elevated DMS concentrations in surface waters and the Brown Tide -bloom. Dimethyl sulfide is sampled as an indicator of acrylic acid concentrations, since acrylic acid may be toxic to certain zooplankton whose grazing might otherwise keep the Brown Tide in check. Acrylic. acid is formed in a one-to-one ratio with DMS when dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) is cleaved. 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; at no time have Long Island isolates of Aureococcus been observed to have associated viruses. The MSRC is seeking funding to do more Brown Tide -related virus research. Conclusion III Although significant advances have been made regarding the identification and characterization of the Brown Tide organism and its growth needs, the causal factors related to the onset, duration, and cessation of the Brown Tide bloom are not known. Specific organic nutrients may be required for rapid growth of this species and might even serve as additional energy sources. Chemicals which 'have been implicated by research as potential contributors to Brown Tide's pervasiveness include chelators such as citric acid as well as trace metals such as iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate and boron. More research regarding the occurrence of these chemicals in East End waters and their relationship with the growth of the Brown Tide organism would be required to better assess their, causal relationship with the Brown Tide bloom. Additionally, more research would be required to characterize the roles of viruses in the growth dynamics of the Brown Tide organism and acrylic acid in the viability of a zooplankton population which would graze on aureococcus. 7.2.2 Natural Resources I) Scallops Finding I In 1982, bay scallop catches from the Peconic System accounted for approximately 28% of the - United States landings of this species, with a catch of 491,000 pounds. By 1987 and 1988, after the onset of the Brown Tide (Aureococcus anophagefferens) 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. Numerous mechanisms which may be operating independently or simultaneously have been suggested to explain the impact of Brown Tide on larval, juvenile, and adult shellfish. These mechanisms include the poor retention of small particles by shellfish feeding apparatus, structural features of Aureococcus which impair digestion by filter feeders, inefficient feeding and low absorption at high algal concentrations, potential toxic quality of Aureococcus to shellfish, and insufficient nutritive quality of Aureococcus to shellfish. However, 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, indicating that starvation of bivalves during "brown tide" 7-32 blooms may not readily be attributed to a nutritional deficiency associated with this type of food organism. The loss of eelgrass habitat (see Finding/Conclusion IV) has also been devastating to the scallop population, since eelgrass is believed to be critical habitat in the life cycle of young scallops. Scallop reseeding programs have been undertaken on a limited scale by local groups in eastern portions of the system, with a limited but significant repopulation of scallops reported in certain regions. However, a recent, intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the Peconic Estuary system in May, 1991 and persisted in high concentrations through July, 1991. The impacts of the latest bloom have yet to be assessed. Conclusion I The abundant Peconic Estuary scallop population was virtually eradicated by the onset of the Brown Tide. The cause of the adverse impacts of Brown Tide on scallops is not known with certainty. Although the scallops experienced a moderate repopulation after the bloom of 1988 subsided, a 1991 bloom has again threatened the scallop resource. II) Other Shellfish Finding II Although oyster populations in the Peconic Estuary were already limited by overfishing, disease, and predation, catches of several hundred thousand pounds per year were recorded each year between 1976 and 1984. After 1985 and the onset of the Brown Tide bloom, the oyster harvests dropped to less than 10,000 pounds per year with less than 1,000 pounds harvested in 1989 (latest available year at time of report preparation). Clams harvested during the years of the blooms were observed to have reduced abductor muscles or meat weight and quality. However, loss of the scallop fishery resulted in increased hard clam fishing pressure, with the hard calm harvest rising from 100,000 to 200,000 pounds per year in pre -bloom years to 550,000 pounds in 1989. In general, with the exception of a number of areas situated in semi -enclosed embayments and locations near shore or adjacent to STP discharges, open bay water quality with respect to coliforms is good and complies with shellfishing standards [see Stormwater Runoff, 7.2.5.B.M. The Brown Tide in Narragansett Bay resulted in an estimated 95% mortality rate of blue mussels in that water body. In the. Peconic system, although blue mussel resources were not specifically surveyed, abundance of mussels apparently declined as a result of the Brown Tide. Conclusion II Although the Brown Tide impact on scallops was most prominent, the Brown Tide apparently was also responsible for adverse impacts on other shellfish, including oysters, blue mussels, and. hard clams. The long-term impacts of increased fishing pressure on hard clam resources are unknown. 7-33 III) Finfish Finding National Marine Fisheries Service data specific to the Peconic Estuary system for -the years 1985-1989 was not maintained; the Peconic -system data is now being maintained separately. NYSDEC research on juvenile fish was started on the first year of the Brown Tide bloom. One aspect of•the results is a nearly non-existent catch of baitfish. However, there is no preceding, non - Brown Tide baseline analysis with which to compare the post -Brown Tide findings. After conducting a survey of young fish and eggs in all'Long Island coastal waters, Perlmutter (1939) concluded that "the general area extending from Great Peconic Bay eastward to Montauk Point and vicinity is relatively more important as a spawning and nursery area for most of the so- called summer fishes than any other region of the island." Because of the Brown Tide, eelgrass beds, which are an important nursery habitat for finfish, have been decimated. Conclusion III Although local anecdotal information indicates a sharp decline in the finfish resource during Brown Tide years, there is an absence of a Peconic Estuary -specific fisheries database prior to the Brown Tide years which can be used to corroborate this theory. However, the sharp decline in eelgrass beds in the regionally important Peconic Estuary spawning and nursery area could have a substantial, adverse long-term impact on coastal fisheries. IV) Eelgrass Beds Finding IV The decimation of the eelgrass beds in the Peconic estuary system is believed to be attributable to reduced light penetration due to the Brown Tide bloom density. Both the density and distribution of eelgrass showed a marked decline in post -bloom years; it is estimated that 16,000 acres of eelgrass were lost in the Peconic Estuary system in the 1985-1987 Brown Tide bloom period (Dennison). Although the value of eelgrass in the life cycle of the Peconic system bay scallop has -not been quantified, it is recognized that eelgrass communities provide a substrate for bay scallop larvae and many other epiphytic organisms, critical nursery habitat for shellfish and finfish, and bountiful nutrients for herbivores and, in turn, predators. Eelgrass also provides for the enhancement of sediment deposition and binding and is a key component associated with the cycling of oxygen and nutrients in shallow estuaries such as the Peconic system. Historic eelgrass die -offs have been attributed to factors such as the "wasting disease;" although rigorous scientific documentation is sparse, the recovery of eelgrass after a die -off has been observed to be slow. Recent studies have shown that eelgrass beds in Great South Bay and South Oyster Bay have declined by 35% to 50% when comparing 1988 data to historic data. This decline is believed to 7-34 be independent of Brown Tide. In contrast, the increase in Shinnecock and Moriches Bay eelgrass communities is considered atypical and attributable to the greater, diurnal ocean flushing in those systems. Conclusion IV The Brown Tide resulted in the devastation of the eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary system. Although the dynamics of eelgrass function and recovery have not been adequately characterized, it is known that eelgrass is important nursery habitat for scallops and other marine life. The decline in eelgrass has potentially serious, long-term adverse impacts on marine ecosystem health and the recovery of habitat -dependent organisms such as the bay scallop. V) Wetlands and Other Natural Resources Finding V Over 3,600 acres of tidal wetlands in the study area (as per SUNY MSRC, 1972), as well as numerous important freshwater wetlands, provide wildlife habitat, offer a buffer against pollutants, and afford recreational opportunities and scenic open space. In addition to wetlands, 14 rare ecosystems as designated in the "Priority Listings of Rare and Natural Communities With Occurrences on Long Island" (New York Natural Heritage Program, December 1986) occur within the study area. These ecosystems vary in degree of rarity from rare in New York State to globally rare, such as the dwarf pine plains. In all, thirty-five � natural and man -influenced vegetative communities occur within one-eighth of a mile of the banks of the Peconic River alone (Inous and Naidu). In addition, over forty areas in the region have been designated as significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats by the Secretary of State pursuant to the recommendations of the DEC. A number of nationally and locally threatened and endangered species use the important habitats which exist in the Peconic Estuary study area. These species include the federally endangered loggerhead, leatherback, and green turtles as well as the federally endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle, which reportedly uses the Peconic system as a nursery. Other threatened and endangered species which utilize the Peconic Estuary system include the piping plover and the roseate tem, which are also federally listed species, and the least tem, common tem, northern harrier, red shouldered hawk, osprey, tiger salamander, buck moth, and mud turtle. "Special concern" species birds that are probable nesters in the Peconic system include the least bittern, 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, and diamondback terrapin. Numerous rare and endangered insects, such as the coastal barrens buck moth, also occur in the Peconic Estuary study area. Because of its extraordinary value, a significant amount of acreage in the Peconic system has been set aside as, parkland for a variety of reasons which include active and passive recreation,, nature preserve, and groundwater protection. Major State and County parks wholly or partially within the 7-35 Peconic drainage area encompass over 5,000 acres. In all, approximately one-fourth of the 110,000 acres in the drainage area of the Peconic system is currently in open space and recreational land use. Losses in acreage of environmental resources from 1976 to 1987/88 for the study' area were determined by aerial photo analysis performed by the LIRPB. The total acreage lost in allareas was 4,050 acres, approximately 73% of which was in the forest -category. The Peconic River/Flanders Bay drainage area lost 528 acres, comprised mostly of forest and farmland. The North Fork and South Fork drainage basins sustained the greatest losses in environmental resources with lost acreage totalling 1,337 and 1,649, respectively. The predominant loss in acreage in the North Fork drainage _ area was within the forest and farmland categories, while the South Fork resource loss was primarily in the forest category alone. The Shelter Island drainage area lost a total of 536 'acres over ,this time period with approximately 75% of the loss in the forest category. Conclusion V Although BTCAMP focuses primarily on the causes and effects of the Brown Tide as well as other conventional water quality parameters, the wealth of other natural resources which are present in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic Estuary groundwater -contributing area must be acknowledged. The ecological significance of the area is manifested in its extensive, high-quality wetland's; its New York Natural Heritage Program rare ecosystems, its significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, and its nationally and locally threatened and endangered species. The protection of these resources is, of course, of paramount concern. While some resources, such as wetlands, serve to protect surface water quality, other resources may be impacted by water quality management and land use decisions and structural and non=structural controls. Thus, natural resources should be protected and, where feasible, enhanced when major water quality -related management decisions such as stormwater runoff control or sewage treatment plant outfall relocation are contemplated. 7.2:3 Marine Surface Water Quality I) Water Quality Guideline Finding I . The average daily dissolved oxygen (D.O.) in Flanders Bay was found to be 6.94 mg/l. Based on this average, a diurnal D.O. range of 1.4 mg/1 was determined to be the maximum acceptable range that provides for the minimum allowable D.O. of 5.5 mg/l. The minimum allowable D.O. incorporated a 0.5 mg/1 factor of safety over a, water quality standard of 5.0 mg/l. Diurnal dissolved oxygen ranges in the Flanders Bay region were plotted against chlorophyll -a concentrations for worst-case summer conditions. A chlorophyll -a concentration of approximately 1-3 ug/1 was found to produce the maximum allowable D.O. variation of 1.4 mg/l. 7-36 1 From a plot of chlorophyll -a vs., nitrogen, it was observed that a nitrogen concentration of 0.5 mg/1 correlated with the 13 ug/1 chlorophyll -a target. Although the coefficient of correlation for the relationship between nitrogen and chlorophyll -a did not have a very high confidence level, a line bounding 80% of the chlorophyll data points was chosen to conservatively maintain a reasonable factor of safety in the analysis. Conclusion I Based on analysis of Flanders Bay data which relates nitrogen concentrations to chlorophyll -a and chlorophyll -a to diurnal 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/l. II) Existing Water Quality - Primary Study Area Finding 11 Actual total nitrogen concentrations, as observed in the bays system and as verified in the computer model, range from approximately 0.5 to 0.8 mg/l total nitrogen over about 3 kilometers of the westem Flanders Bay system during summer conditions. In addition, dissolved oxygen levels occasionally dipped below 5 mg/l. The nitrogen concentrations are locally elevated due to point sources such as sewage treatment plants and non -point sources such as sediment flux (see following subsections for findings, conclusions, and recommendations). Although these nitrogen concentrations are above the suggested water quality guideline of 0.5 mg/l, the system did not demonstrate characteristics of advanced eutrophication associated with over - enrichment of conventional nutrients,, such as excessive algal blooms and severe depletion of dissolved oxygen, from spring, 1988 ' to spring, 1991. In addition, anecdotal information from naturalists and baymen indicates that marine resources, such as finfish and scallops, began to reestablish themselves during periods when the Brown Tide substantially subsided between the spring of 1988 and the spring of 1991. Conclusion II Although portions of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay are in contravention of the nitrogen guideline, the Peconic estuary has not demonstrated symptoms of a severely stressed ecosystem from the perspective of nutrient enrichment. These facts indicate that the system may be near the limits of the factors of safety incorporated in the determination of the nitrogen guideline. Thus, the system could experience serious eutrophication and water quality degradation problems if pollutant loading were to increase. III) Existing Water Quality - Extended Study Area Finding IEI The better -flushed surface waters east of Flanders Bay have total nitrogen concentrations which are generally below 0.5 mg/l. 7-37 Conclusion III With respect to the nitrogen guideline, water quality in surface waters east of Flanders Bay is generally excellent. IV) Historical Trend in Water Quality Finding IV Average total nitrogen and phosphorus loading from major point sources to Flanders Bay in 1976 was estimated to be 1440 and 350 pounds per day, respectively. By the 1988-1990 tune period, the total nitrogen and phosphorus loading from major point sources .to Flanders Bay had decreased to approximately 680 and 80 pounds per day, respectively. Thus, nitrogen loading decreased by about 760 pounds per day (53% decrease from 1976 levels), and phosphorus loading decreased by about 270 pounds. (77% decrease from 1976 levels). This notable decrease in nutrient loading was due primarily to Corwin Duck Farm, which ceased directly discharging to Meetinghouse Creek in June, 1987. Three other duck farms discharging to tributaries of Flanders Bay (Terry's and Sawmill Creeks) have also gone out of business between. 1976 and 1988, and have also contributed to the decrease in nutrient loading. While Peconic River nitrogen loading decreased by an estimated 60 pounds per day in this time frame, Riverhead STP nitrogen loading increased by approximately 20 pound per day due to a slight increase in effluent nitrogen .concentration. However, the decreases in both Peconic River and Riverhead STP loading appear to be small compared with duck farm loading reductions. Furthermore, the STP flow has remained relatively unchanged (approximately 0.7 mgd in both 1976 and 1991) while the Peconic River flow and nitrogen loadings experience great temporal fluctuations since they are dependent on climatological (i.e., rainfall intensity) patterns. Thus, current Peconic River and Riverhead STP nutrient loadings may not be significantly different from 1976 conditions. The surface water quality modeling consulting firm has observed that nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay have remained about the same in the 1976 through 1990 period, .while total phosphorus has decreased since 1976. Although sampling data regarding actual historical source loadings prior to 1976 is sparse, records indicate that, of 21 duck farms that were in business in 1938, most were out of business by 1976. In addition, a laundry facility which discharged to the Peconic River in 1938 had gone out of business by 1976; data regarding additional, direct commercial and industrial discharges to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system prior to the SPDES permit program is scarce. However, earlier accounts from the 1800's identify several additional industries, including numerous fish -processing plants throughout the estuarine system and .several mills (grist mill, saw -mill, fulling mill, woolen mill, etc.) and an iron forge on the Peconic River. 7-38 Data reported in 1938 related pollution contribution to dissolved oxygen levels of 0 to 0.1 mg/l in the Peconic River headwaters and tidal areas, respectively. These dissolved oxygen levels have improved significantly, especially in the freshwater portions of the river, since the cessation of duck farming discharges. Although such long-term nutrient data -is not available for the Peconic River, nitrogen concentrations in creeks such as Sawmill and Terry's also decreased dramatically (to levels of about 2 mg/1) after cessation of duck farming activities. In addition, earlier duck farm activities undoubtedly did not utilize the waste treatment systems of settling and chlorination which would be required to reduce pathogen discharge; these treatment systems were later required by the SPDES' permit program, which began regulating duck farms in the 1970's. Conclusion IV Significant improvements in Flanders Bay water quality with respect to nitrogen concentrations have not been observed although- total nitrogen inputs to Flanders Bay have decreased substantially between 1976 and 1990. However, the most significant of these reductions (Meetinghouse Creek) occurred in 1987 (see Subsection 7.2.4.C); without an understanding of the temporal response of sediment flux to point source abatement, it is impossible to determine, whether all water quality benefits from the Meetinghouse Creek pollution loading reductions have been realized. Although historical water- quality data prior to 1976 is scarce, it would appear that conditions in the Peconic Estuary system, in terms of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and other contaminants, have improved significantly since the, cessation of industrial discharges to the estuary. In contrast to nitrogen, apparent improvements in water quality with respect to phosphorus have been observed in conjunction with a decrease in total phosphorus loading to Flanders Bay. Extensive computer modelling, management alternatives were not performed for phosphorus, but the greater decrease of phosphorus point source loading (77% compared • with 53% nitrogen decreases) may explain the improvements in surface water phosphorus concentrations. The fact that historical trends are not precisely ascertainable is due largely to the lack of an extensive and reliable historical database on the Peconic Estuary system. Additionally, the absence of a fundamental understanding of the temporal response of sediment flux to variations in point source loading further hampers the precise quantification of historical impacts. Despite the fact that the past trends may not be perfectly clear, the analysis of current conditions for the purpose of assessing future management alternatives is considered to be reliable in that the analysis is based on a state-of- the-art model which has been calibrated and verified utilizing a plethora of existing data. It should be stressed that 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 duck farms which discharged to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay had already gone out of business by 1976. Extensive duck ' farming activity in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay area reportedly resulted in intensive pollution and, subsequently, severely degraded water quality which 7-39 has apparently improved significantly with the cessation of the discharges. Pollutants discharged in large quantities by duck farms include nutrients, coliforms, BOD, and suspended solids. 7.2.4 Major Point Sources A) Sewage Treatment Plants I) Surface Water Discharges and Nitrogen Loading Finding I Six wastewater treatment facilities discharge effluent directly to Peconic Estuary system surface waters. Discharges to the Peconic River include the Riverhead sewage treatment plant (1.06 mgd as Y per flow data provided by sewage treatment plant in 1988-1990; revised flow measurement of approximately 0.7'mgd discussed below), Brookhaven National Laboratory (0.82 mgd and 25 pounds per day total nitrogen in 1989), and Grumman (0.058 mgd and 9 pounds per day nitrogen in 1989). (See Section 7.2.6.B, Hazardous Materials and Industrial Discharges; for more information regarding Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory sites.) The Riverhead sewage treatment . plant (STP) scavenger treatment process contributes only about 0.04 mgd of the total STP flow.. Of the remaining surface water -discharging facilities., Sag Harbor Village discharges approximately 0.057 mgd and 9 pounds per day total nitrogen, while Shelter Island Heights discharges less than two pounds per day total nitrogen. The process stream of 0.081 mgd at the Plum Island facility is remote enough to be considered a minor influence on the Peconic system. In the spring of 1991 the Riverhead STP discovered that its flow measurement was defective, and that actual flow is currently approximately 0.7 mgd rather than the 1:06 .mgd which was .previously reported. At the revised flow estimate, the current nitrogen loading from the Riverhead STP is approximately 140 pounds per day total nitrogen rather than the previous estimate of 200 pounds per day total nitrogen; less than _10 pounds..per day of nitrogen are- attributable to the scavenger waste treatment facility. Although .reduced, the Riverhead STP nitrogen contribution is comparable to the average nitrogen loading of the Peconic River (130 pounds per day) as measured at the USGS gauge station, which is•upstream of the STP outfall location. - Conclusion I Because of quantity and location of its discharge, the Riverhead STP is by far the most significant STP in terms of nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary system and, along with the Peconic River [see Peconic River, 7.2.4.B:III] and Meetinghouse Creek [see Meetinghouse Creek, 7.2.4.C.II1],.is one of the major point, sources to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system. Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory, although discharging significantly less `nutrient loading, are , also of concern because they discharge into the environmentally sensitive Peconic River [see Peconic River; 7.2.4..B.II1]. 7-40- The other STP's discharging to Peconic Estuary surface waters are not a threat to the western portion of the system's water quality because of their remote locations with respect to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay and their relatively low nitrogen loading rates. However, the other STP's may be of local significance with respect to water quality. For example, 'Sag Harbor Village STP may have localized impacts on Sag Harbor water quality, and requires additional evaluation. II) Groundwater Discharges Finding H Of the four groundwater -discharging sewage treatment plants in the study area, only Heatherwood at Calverton is in close proximity to surface waters in the western part of the Peconic River -Flanders Bay area. The Heatherwood plant, discharging 0.027 mgd, does not currently utilize a denitrification process because its average discharge is less than 30,000 gpd; however, the need for upgrading of the facility to accommodate denitrification will be assessed on the basis of an evaluation of groundwater quality data obtained from wells being installed on-site as required by NYSDEC. The Manor at Montauk and Rough Riders at Montauk, which have a combined design flow of 0.062 mgd, both utilize an oxidation ditch denitrification process. Although these facilities experienced occasional nitrogen violations of SPDES permit requirements, their actual flow appears to be an insignificant volume with respect to pollutant loading to the overall Peconic Bays system. Finally, the East Hampton Scavenger Waste facility (0.022 mgd) had some excessive nitrogen and coliform levels in its effluent prior to May 1988, but the distance from this facility to the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system precludes the likelihood of any imminent, extensive effect on these surface waters. Conclusion 11 Of the four groundwater -discharging sewage treatment plants, the Heatherwood at Calverton discharge is the only wastewater treatment facility of immediate concern with respect to potential surface water impacts due to its proximity to the Peconic River. However, the relatively low flow at the Calverton facility, coupled with the prospect of a denitrification requirement if adverse groundwater impacts are detected, ensure that the facility will not be a long-term problem with respect to surface water 'impacts. III) Nitrogen Loading Impacts Finding III This section deals with impacts relating to the mitigation or intensification of pollution stemming from the Riverhead STP., The Riverhead STP is presently in the process of applying for a SPDES permit modification to allow for an increase in facility flow. Originally, the Riverhead Town consultant had targeted 2.0 to 3.0 mgd as the ultimate facility flow to accommodate an expanded service area (i.e., to serve the western Route 58 corridor and potential future development). Thus, the computer modelling alternatives analyzed the impacts of such an increase; -this analysis is reflected in 7-41 the following discussion of management alternatives.' Currently, short-range expansion plans have been abandoned; the proposed long-range expansion plan is not known at the time of this writing. However, .the management alternatives discussed below, although not precisely conforming with a current permit modification application, are valid as planning tools and as indicators of water quality trends should additional pollution be introduced from the Riverhead STP. . As depicted by the computer model, diversion of the existing Riverhead STP flow to groundwater would reduce total nitrogen in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay by up to 0.20 mg/1 at summer conditions (Model Run 5); improvements would be as high as 0.16 ' mg/1 during summer months when resulting groundwater degradation is incorporated into the model (Run 6). If the STP were to expand to treat an additional 0.94 mgd; reductions over existing surface water nitrogen concentrations are as high as 0.1 mg/1 with a groundwater discharge (Run 8). At existing flow, a groundwater discharge would result in a summertime surface water nitrogen concentration of approximately 0.5 to 0.55 mg/1 throughout the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay system (with the exception of small creeks, tributaries, etc.). At the higher groundwater discharge flows, the summertime surface water nitrogen concentration would be approximately 0.6 mg/l. Relocation of the STP discharge at existing levels to central Flanders Bay_ would improve total nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay by up to 0.28 mg/1 in summer months (Run 22). If the STP were to expand to treat an additional 0.94 mgd, reductions over existing surface water conditions would be as high as 0.25 mg/1 with a discharge at central Flanders Bay (Run 30). Even at the Higher discharge levels, a relocated discharge would result in a summertime surface water nitrogen concentration of at or below approximately 0.5 mg/1 throughout the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay system (with the exception of small creeks, tributaries, etc.). Biological nutrient removal to a level of 9 mg/1 and 4 mg/1 total nitrogen at the existing_ flow and discharge location would result in improvements in surface water quality nitrogen concentration, of up, to 0.17 and 0:24 mg/l, respectively,. in summer months (Runs 25 and 24). If the STP were t6. expand to treat an additional 0.94 mgd with a discharge at central Flanders Bay, reductions over existing surface water conditions would be approximately 0.05 mg/1 and 0.17 mg/1 at 10 mg/1 and 5 mg/1 total nitrogen discharge concentrations, respectively (Runs 27 and .26). At existing discharge rates, biological nutrient removal to 4 mg/1 and 9 mg/1 total nitrogen would result in a summertime surface water nitrogen concentration of at or below approximately 0.47 and 0.56 mg/l, respectively. At flow rates which are 0.94 mgd higher than existing conditions, advanced treatment to below 5 mg/1 would ensure surface water nitrogen concentration of approximately 0.57 mg/l, while a discharge at 10 mg/1 would result in a surface water nitrogen, concentration of as high as 0.66 mg/1 (with the exception of small creeks, tributaries, etc.). It must be noted that management alternative computer modeling analysis performed by the consultant was, based on a current flow of 1.06 mgd at the Riverhead STP. As noted above, the 7-42 current flow is believed to be approximately 0.6 to 0:7 mgd rather than the 1.06 mgd which was previously reported by the Riverhead STP. The result of this change in data is that the re -calibrated base modeling run differs slightly in the immediate vicinity of the STP. However, the consultant believes that the new flow rate brings the model into even "better agreement with observed total nitrogen data, which is above the guideline [see Marine Surface Water Quality, 7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.11] in portions of the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay system. Given the relatively minor variation associated with these differences, these differences may be neglected for purposes of this analysis. Thus, the preceding management alternatives are valid in terms of relative system -wide impacts which would be experienced if incremental increases or decreases in pollutant loadings occurred. (Note: Final, updated computer modelling runs are contained in Section 7.6) It is expected that the decrease in the deposition of pollutants associated with point sources would result in additional improvements in surface water quality due to an associated decrease in sediment flux nutrient loading [see Sediment Flux, 7.2.5.A.III)]. The cumulative run (Run 46) illustrates that a 50% reduction in sediment flux would reduce nitrogen concentrations by up to 0.1 mg/l in addition to other improvements experienced as a result of point source reductions. However, a prediction of precise levels of improvements over, time due to a decrease in point source loading cannot be predicted without additional data and modelling. Conclusion III Observed total nitrogen data is above the nitrogen guideline for portions of the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay system [see Marine Surface Water Quality, 7.2.3.1 and 7.2.3.11]. However, from spring, 1988 through spring, 1991, the Peconic estuary did not demonstrate symptoms of a severely stressed ecosystem from the perspective of nutrient enrichment, indicating that the system may be near the limits of the factors of safety incorporated in the determination of the nitrogen guideline [see Marine Surface Water Quality, 7.2.3.11]. Computer . modelling of management alternatives indicates that, at existing conditions, improvements in wastewater treatment and disposal at the Riverhead STP. would result in a reduction of summertime surface water total nitrogen concentrations to near the 0.5 mg/l guideline throughout the tidal areas of the Peconic Estuary system (with the exception of small creeks, tributaries, etc.). These operational improvements could be in the form of a groundwater discharge, a surface water discharge relocated to central or eastern Flanders Bay, or a surface water discharge at the existing location with an effluent nitrogen concentration of 4 mg/l. If the flow rate were increased by 0.94 mgd over existing conditions through substantial increase of the service area, only a relocated outfall would result in a summertime surface water nitrogen concentration which meets the 0.5 mg/l total nitrogen standard. Additional improvements in surface water quality could be expected to result from a decrease in sediment flux nutrient loading which would be associated with a decrease in the Riverhead STP point source discharge. The dynamics of the relationship between point source discharge abatement and 7-43 sediment flux -response have not been well documented. However, it would appear that a groundwater discharge would be desirable from a sediment flux reduction perspective in that additional filtration of solids and organic matter remaining in the treated effluent stream would be provided, thereby further lessening the potential for sediment flux pollution. In determining the most viable alternative to handle short-term and long-term sewering needs, cost concerns would have to be analyzed in conjunction with environmental impacts including, but not limited. to, benefits to - surface water quality, disturbance and destruction of natural resources, and impacts on open shellfish beds and bathing beaches, etc. From a natural resources and surface water quality perspective, groundwater recharge would be the most desirable alternative due to the additional filtration of effluent through, soil, the elimination of the potential of surface water contamination during upset conditions, and the resulting likelihood of the opening of currently closed shellfish beds.. IV) Historical Trends Finding IV - At the USGS (noxi -tidal) Peconic River gauge station, upstream of the Riverhead STP discharge, average Peconic River surface water total nitrogen loading appears to have decreased by about 60 pounds per day between 1976 and 1988-1990. However, observations over a limited time period are not definitive with respect to historical trends, since nitrogen loading from the river is quite variable, fluctuating between 20 pounds, per day (4/24/89) and 500 pounds per day (10/4/89) between December, 1988 and March, 1990. However, Peconic River nitrogen concentrations rarely exceed 1 mg/l; thus, the river's nitrogen loading is heavily dependent on flow and, thus, temporal climatological trends. The apparent decrease in Peconic River average nitrogen loading may be attributable in part, to a decrease in Grumman nitrogen discharge from approximately 70 pounds per. day in 1976 to approximately 10 pounds per day in 1989, due mostly to flow decrease from 0.26 mgd .to 0.06 mgd in the same period. The Brookhaven National Lab STP nitrogen discharge has remained relatively unchanged at about 25 pounds per day total nitrogen. In addition, the three duck farms which discharged wastes containing nitrogen and phosphorus into the Peconic River in 1976 have gone out of business (see Section 7.2.4.B). In general, nitrogen concentrations in the combined Riverhead STP and scavenger waste outfall appear to be in the same range in 1988-1990 as in 1976, increasing slightly from 19 mg/l in 1976 to 23 mg/l in 1988-1990. The slight increase in concentration resulted in an estimated increase of approximately 20 pounds per day total nitrogen in the STP discharge in -the tidal, eastern portions of the Peconic River. The surface water quality modeling consulting firm, which also performed the modeling for the 1978 L.I. 208 Study, have observed that nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay have remained about 'the same in the 1976 through 1990 period, while total phosphorus has decreased 7-44 since 1976. It must be noted that 1976 point source sampling data is extremely limited as compared with the data regarding current conditions. Conclusion IV Over the past fifteen years, Brookhaven National Laboratories STP nitrogen loading has not changed appreciably, while a reduction of Grumman STP nitrogen loading and the termination of duck farm discharges may have slightly improved Peconic River water quality with respect to nitrogen. Riverhead STP nitrogen loading did not change significantly between 1976 and 1990, and Flanders Bay surface water nitrogen concentrations have not demonstrated any clear trends as a result of point source variations between .1976 and 1990. V) Coliform Loading Finding V The average Riverhead STP coliform load, (1.8 E12 to 3.2 E12 between 1988 and 1990 based on a flow of 0.7mgd) approached the average daily stormwater runoff coliform load for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay area. In the spring of 1991, Riverhead STP implemented measures, including process optimization and the installation of additional chlorine contact tanks to improve disinfection, which are examples of positive efforts to control pollution to the Peconic system. Modelling indicates that, if the Riverhead STP were to consistently maintain a level of 700 mpn/100 ml as per permit conditions, the shellfish area boundary which meets the 70 mpn/100 ml shellfishing standard would be moved approximately, an additional 1.4 km westward (Run 52). However, the modelling was based on the reported discharge of 1.06 mgd. Since the flow is actually only about 0.7 mgd, the benefits of coliform control can be expected to be less than predicted in Run 52 but are most likely still significant (i.e., on the order of an additional 1 km in shellfish standard attainment area). The elimination of the surface water STP discharge would result in little incremental benefit over the 700 mpn/100 ml discharge (Run 53). Conclusion V Although stormwater runoff has historically been considered to be the primary source of coliform loading to surface waters, the Riverhead STP has been a major contributor of coliforms to the Peconic Estuary system. Recent efforts by the Riverhead STP should mitigate the adverse impacts of this pollution. Although a groundwater discharge would not result in additional areas attaining the 70 mpn/100 ml shellfishing standard, it might result in the increase of open shellfish beds, since the regulations prohibiting shellfishing in the vicinity of sewage treatment plants are based on potential migration of STP effluent in upset (i.e;, failure -to treat or disinfect) conditions rather than solely on existing surface water coliform concentrations. A groundwater discharge would eliminate the potential for surface water discharge in upsets, and,'thus, might result in the opening of shellfish beds. 7-45 B) Peconic River I) Existing Water Quality Finding I Average total nitrogen in the Peconic River in the 1988-1990 time period was approximately 0.5 mg/l, as measured at the U.S.G.S. gauge station. Conclusion I Water quality in the Peconic River is excellent with respect to nitrogen concentration. In light of the low nitrogen concentrations and the dubious feasibility of further significant improvements in Peconic River water quality, mitigation of existing conditions west of the U.S.G.S. gauge station does not appear to be a priority. II) Historical Water Quality Trend Finding II Sampling data from 1976 showed a 1.0 mg/1 nitrogen concentration in the Peconic River. Since 1976, three duck farms which operated. on the Peconic River have gone out of business. Additionally, Grumman sewage treatment plant (STP) effluent discharge decreased by approximately 60 pounds per day in terms of total nitrogen in this time period. It should be noted that 1976 data is scarce, with only three sampling dates on record. However, USGS quarterly sampling data also indicates that nitrogen concentrations may have decreased in the Peconic River between 1976 and present conditions. Conclusion II Over the past fifteen years, reduction of nitrogen loading from historical pollutant sources may have improved Peconic River water quality with respect to nitrogen. However, the temporal variability of flow due to climatological conditions (see Finding/Conclusion III) precludes definitive conclusions regarding these historical improvements. At the very least, there has been no observable degradation of Peconic River water quality in this time period. III) Nitrogen Loading and Impacts Finding III The Peconic River contributes an average of approximately 130 pounds per day of nitrogen to Flanders Bay; 34 pounds per day are attributable to the Grumman and Brookhaven National Lab STP's and 5 pounds per day are contributed by stormwater runoff. Thus, the majority of the average nitrogen loading to the river is attributable to groundwater contribution. However, nitrogen loading from the river is quite variable, fluctuating between 20 pounds per day (4/24/89) and 500 pounds per day (10/4/89) between December, 1988 and March, 1990. Since Peconic River nitrogen 7-46 concentrations are generally well below 1.0mg/l, the elevated loadings are generally due to increases in flow. Thus, Peconic River loading is highly variable and dependent on temporal climatological conditions. The computer modelling management alternatives account for this variability by utilizing extensive, actual field data in model calibration. If groundwater in the Peconic River watershed were to degrade and if the Peconic River nitrogen concentration were to elevate to 1.0 or 2.0 mg/1 (Runs 1 and 2, respectively), management alternative modeling results indicate that significant increases in surface water nitrogen concentrations would occur in Flanders Bay. For example, an increase to 1.0 mg/1 in Peconic River water quality would result in a 0.16 mg/1 nitrogen increase through central Flanders Bay. Conclusion III Due to its significant pollutant loading at an environmentally sensitive location (i.e., the westernmost portion of the Peconic Estuary system), degradation of the Peconic River water quality would have serious adverse impacts on the Peconic Estuary system. Thus, preventing additional pollution to the river from groundwater and other point and non -point sources (e.g., see "fertilizer", "groundwater underflow/septic systems," etc.) is of paramount importance. 1V) Nitrogen Impacts of Development Finding IV While, the Peconic River surface water total nitrogen concentration is approximately 0.5 mg/l, a development density of 1.0 and 0.5 units per acre will result in a groundwater nitrogen recharge concentrations of approximately 3.8 and 2.6 mg/l, respectively ("Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y.," Trautman et al, Cornell University, 1983). Meaningful nitrogen recharge data for lower development densities was not reported and has not been collected for BTCAMP, but predicted nitrogen concentrations at lower densities would surely be even lower, especially if significant portions of development lots were left unfertilized. In comparison, sewered, medium -density (2.9 units per acre) residential development results in a .groundwater nitrogen recharge concentration of approximately 2.2 mg/l. Actual field data collected during the "Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan" (CWRMP) was compared with the Cornell Southold modelling data as applied to the study area. Agricultural areas studied in the CWRMP were found to be underlain with groundwater containing a concentration of approximately 7.9 mg/l, comparing well with the Cornell projection of 8.1 mg/l. Residential areas also correlated reasonably well, especially at lower land use densities, with actual concentrations of 3.9, 5.9, and 7.9 mg/1 for low, medium, and intermediate/high density residential land uses comparing with 3.8, 7.0, and 11.7 mg/1 for low, medium, and high- density land uses as projected by the Cornell study. 747 Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code limits development in non-sewered areas to 40,000 square feet per single family home (or its equivalent in terns of 300 gpd of sanitary flow) in Hydrogeologic Zones 3, 5, and 6, and 20,000 square feet in non-sewered areas in all other Zones. These limitations are based on empirical data contained in the Long Island 208 Study, which correlates development -of 40,000 square feet per unit (low-density) and 20,000 square feet per unit (medium -density) with average groundwater nitrogen concentrations 'of 4 ppm .and 6 ppm, respectively (comparing well with the CWRMP acid Cornell reports). Most of the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area is in Hydrogeologic Zone 3, except for a large portion of the Peconic River East region (east of Roanoke Avenue and north of NYS 24), which is in Zone 4. Conclusion IV Groundwater contribution from the substantial quantity of developable land in the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic River could adversely impact groundwater quality if the. land were developed; subsequently, Peconic River nitrogen concentrations could be elevated. A development density of 1.0 unit per acre will result in an average groundwater nitrogen concentration of about 4.0 mg/l, which is well in excess of the existing Peconic River surface water nitrogen concentration of 0.5 mg/l. Therefore, even snore stringent land use control (i.e., at least two acre zoning) would be required to maintain the current level of excellent water quality in the Peconic River. V) Land Use and Impacts: Vacant, Open Space, and Developable Land Funding V As of 1989, a total of 26% of the land use in the Peconic River region is in open space/recreational categories, while 25% of the laud is vacant. However, 34% (5408 acres) of the 15,900 acres in the Peconic River area is in the developable category (as of 1989). Mathematical modelling and sampling (see Finding/Conclusion IV) have established that increased development intensity adversely impacts groundwater quality. The L.I. 208 Study modelling indicates that slight changes in groundwater quality have significant impacts on Peconic River nitrogen concentrations; as per current modeling (see Finding/Conclusion III), Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations are very sensitive to Peconic River loadings. Conclusion V The high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed has undoubtedly spared the river system from the adverse impacts of anthropogenic pollution in recent years. However, the relationship between land use and surface water quality, coupled with the amount of developable land in'the study area, highlights the need for stringent development controls to prevent degradation of Peconic River and Flanders Bay. An additional benefit of land use controls would be the added protection of invaluable natural resources of the study area. 7-48 C) Meetinghouse Creek I) Existing Water Quality Finding I Average total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in Meetinghouse Creek (as measured in the 1988-1990) time period are 15 and 1.2 mg/1, respectively. Meetinghouse Creek also consistently exhibits high coliform concentrations. Other creeks in the immediate vicinity of Meetinghouse Creek, including Sawmill and Terry's Creeks, have average total nitrogen concentrations of less than 2 mg/l in the same time frame. Conclusion I The elevated nitrogen, phosphorus, and coliform concentrations in Meetinghouse Creek indicate that water quality in the creek is substantially degraded. II) Historical Water Quality Trend l Finding II Sampling conducted in 1976 indicates that total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in Meetinghouse Creek were 53 and 13 mg/1, respectively. Since June, 1987, .when the Corwin (a.k.a. Crescent) duck faun permanently ceased routine discharges to Meetinghouse Creek, the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations have been significantly lower, at 15 and 1.2 mg/l, respectively. However, coliform concentrations rose from below 500 inpn/100 ml in May, 1987 to consistently above 1000 mpn/100 ml, and were often as high as 16,000 mpn/100 nil. While quantitative sediment flux data for the creek is unavailable, there is apparently a deep sludge blanket of duck waste outside of Meetinghouse Creek. The Corwin Duck Farm voluntarily has ceased discharges to the creek in their renewed SPDES permit. The new Corwin SPDES permit states that, in the event that the facility is found to cause adverse water quality impacts due to seepage through wastewater containment/treatment structures, the permittee will be required to institute and implement additional controls needed to correct the situation. Conclusion II Efforts taken by the Corwin Duck Farm to eliminate direct discharge to Meetinghouse Creek have substantially improved water quality in the creek with respect to nutrients. However, nitrogen, phosphorus, and coliform concentrations in the creek continue to be high. While some of the nutrient loading may be 'attributable to sediment deposits in the Creek, the continual coliform loading indicates that the duck farm may still be responsible for pollutant loading to the creek despite the on- site containment system. 7-49 III) Pollutant Loading and Impacts Finding III Total nitrogen loading from Meetinghouse Creek in the 1988-1990 time range was approximately 360 pounds per day. Additionally, Meetinghouse Creek currently contributes approximately 1.1 E11 to 9.3 Ell mpn/day of total coliforms in a dry and wet year, respectively. Modeling runs indicate that an improvement in water quality in Meetinghouse Creek to 2.0 mg/1 total nitrogen would improve water quality system -wide from Little Peconic Bay to the head of tide in Peconic River by about 0.05 mg/1 during summer months (Runs 12 and 13). However, modeling runs showing the cumulative water quality improvement resulting from Meetinghouse Creek loading reduction and Riverhead STP diversion to groundwater (Runs 15 and 16) show maximum decreases in nitrogen of approximately 0.24 to 0.26 mg/1. Riverhead STP groundwater -discharge management alternatives alone, while predicting significant potential improvements in water quality to near 0.5 mg/1 total nitrogen, do not ensure that a 0.5 mg/1 nitrogen guideline will be met over the entire system (Runs 5 and 6; STP groundwater discharge). However, the cumulative runs which include Meetinghouse Creek loading reductions and a Riverhead STP groundwater discharge predict that water quality essentially would be improved to below a 0.5 mg/1 guideline for the entire system (Runs 15 and 16). With respect to coliform loading, a cumulative coliform analysis has demonstrated that, while the removal of the Riverhead STP outfall would have significant impacts on open shellfishing grounds (approximately 1.5 additional km below 70 mpn/100 nil shellfishing standard), the incremental removal of Meetinghouse Creek as a pollutant source would result in only slight improvements in Flanders Bay coliform concentrations (Runs 53 and 54). Conclusion III Meetinghouse Creek is a significant point source of nutrients and coliforms to the Peconic Estuary system. Substantial reduction of Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen loading would result in moderate improvements in system -wide water quality (about 0.05 mg/1 total nitrogen). These improvements would be even more significant if they were effected in concert with other pollution abatement efforts, such as the elimination of the Riverhead STP surface water discharge. Improvements in coliform concentrations would result in localized water quality benefits but would probably be of little system -wide water quality significance. 7-50- 7.2.5 Major Nonpoint Sources A) Sediment Flux I) Sediment Flux Pollution Contribution Finding I Preliminary investigation of sediment -water exchanges of organic matter, oxygen, and inorganic nutrients (ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and silicate) performed by Dr. Jonathan Garber (Chesapeake Biological Library) during the summer (July) and fall (October) of 1989 found that Peconic Bay sediments exhibited significant net fluxes of dissolved oxygen and inorganic nutrients during the sampling periods in question. _Based on the limited sampling which occurred, the total nitrogen loading for the eastern Peconic River and Flanders Bay from benthic flux during summertime conditions has been estimated to be approximately 2,350 pounds per day, which is greater than the sum of all other point and non -point source loads of nitrogen. Sediment flux rates averaged over an entire year were estimated to be approximately 730 pounds per day. The Garber report identified two "hot spots" of sediment -water exchange, one near the mouth of the Peconic River and one in Noyack Bay. In general, the coarser sands and gravel of nearshore margin sediments exhibited low fluxes; higher fluxes corresponded with deeper depositional areas of the bay system. , Conclusion I 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. Additional data on annual rates of phytoplankton productivity, nutrient inputs, and benthic fluxes on Peconic Bay system productivity and water quality would be needed to better quantify the impact of benthic fluxes on Peconic Bay system productivity and water quality. Although it is estimated that summertime sediment flux nitrogen contribution is greater than all other point and non -point sources of nitrogen contribution combined, the estimate is based on limited data and should not be considered as an absolute quantification of nitrogen loading from sediment. II) Sediment Flux and Point Source Loading Finding II 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 7-51 sewage treatment plant and tributary contribution. 'However, the dynamics of sediment flux response to variations in point source loadings are not well-documented. Conclusion II Changes in point source loading resulting from the implementation of management alternatives will eventually change the sediment flux rate of oxygen and nutrients. However, more study is needed to better characterize the dynamics of the relationship between pollution contribution and sediment flux. III) Surface Water Impacts Finding III Modelling runs which incorporated an improvement in Meetinghouse Creek water quality to 2.0 mg/l and diversion of Riverhead STP to groundwater showed additional improvement in demonstrating a maximum total reduction of 0.26 mg/l when a sediment flux reduction of 30% was factored into the model (Run 16). The cumulative run (Run 46) illustrates that a 50% reduction in sediment flux would reduce nitrogen concentrations by up to 0.1 mg/1 in addition to other improvements experienced as a result of point source reductions. However, these sediment load reductions are assumptions in the absence of a submodel which can predict benthic fluxes as a function of sedimentary particulate organic matter decay along with the mass transport and kinetics of dissolved nutrients. Conclusion III Reductions in sediment flux would result in water quality improvement. However, because the dynamics of the relationship between pollution contribution and sediment flux are not well understood, the actual magnitude and timeframe of benefits to surface water quality which would result from pollutant reductions are uncertain. B) Stormwater Runoff I) Nutrient Loading Finding I Total nitrogen loading to the surface waters from stormwater runoff into the Peconic River and Flanders Bay was estimated to be approximately 30 pounds per day (lb/day). Only about five pounds of this total occurred in the Peconic River region, with the remainder fairly evenly distributed between the North Fork and South Fork. Total phosphorus- loading from stormwater runoff was approximately one-tenth of the total nitrogen loading. By comparison, the total point and non -point source nitrogen loading from all sources for the Peconic River and Flanders Bay area was estimated to be 3,800 pounds per day during summertime conditions. 7-52- Conclusion I Relative to overall point and non -point source loads to the Peconic River and Flanders Bays system, stormwater runoff does not appear to be a significant source with respect to nutrient loading. II) Coliform Loading Finding II Estimates of stormwater runoff fecal and total coliform loadings for the study area were 840 billion and 5.5 trillion mpn per day, respectively. In comparison, total coliform loadings attributable to the Riverhead STP were 1.8 to 3.2 trillion mpn/day in a dry (April 1988 -March 1989; 40.0 inches rainfall) and wet (April 1989 -March 1990; 60.5 inches rainfall) year, respectively, while Meetinghouse Creek total coliform loadings were less than one trillion mpn/day.. Although the Riverhead STP total coliform contribution has been estimated to approach that of the stormwater runoff contribution (see "Sewage Treatment Plants" section) for the period 1988-1990, in the spring of 1991 the Riverhead STP instituted STP'chlorination improvements which the Town of Riverhead consultant reports has resulted in marked reductions in the amount of coliform discharged. Moreover, unlike stormwater runoff, the Riverhead STP discharge is in one discreet location. In addition to runoff from residential areas, other localized sources of coliform pollution may include wildlife waste (see Finding/Conclusion V) and improperly installed sanitary systems. Conclusion II Stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant source of total and fecal coliform loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay'. III) Pollutant Loading Sources, Distribution and Relationship to Land Use Finding III Sources of contaminants which are transported by stormwater runoff include animal wastes, decay products of vegetation and animal matter, fertilizers, pesticides, and highway deicing materials. Stormwater runoff coliform loading projections were approximately 50% higher in both the North and South Forks than in the less 'intensively developed Peconic River area; actual wet -weather sampling at the Peconic River did not demonstrate significant increases in coliform loadings from the river during storm events. Medium density residential land use accounted for 2.9 trillion mpn/day total coliform, more than half of the projected total coliform load and more than double any other land use. Conclusion III Stoimwater runoff pollutant loading is correlated with the intensity of land use, with land use and pollutant loading analysis indicating that North and South Forks, with substantial acreage in 7-53 residential land use, contribute a greater overall .coliform load than the less intensively developed Peconic River watershed. M Coliform Loading impacts Finding IV As of 1990, 3,053 acres of shellfish beds are -closed in the Pec onic system. The areas closed to shel fishing are generally situated in semi -enclosed embayments and near shore locations or are located adjacent to STP discharges or major riverine inputs such as the Peconic•River. , Model results indicate that if existing stormwater runoff coliform loading were reduced by 50% i (Run 49), violations of the 70-mpn/100 ml shellfishing standard would move about 0.5 km westward. If overall coliform loading from stormwater runoff were to increase by 25% over present loading rates, the 70 mpn/100 ml standard would move eastward by approximately 0.2 km, closing additional - shellfish acreage. Conclusion IV The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study maintained that on an area -wide basis, the opportunities for preserving water quality in currently certified waters were better than the opportunities for improving water quality in uncertified or conditionally certified -waters. In light .of the computer modeling results, it appears that the benefits from decreased coliform loading (0.5 km increase in -shellfishable. waters) are relatively insubstantial with respect to the massive efforts that would be -required to reduce current coliform loading by 50%. It'would appear that stormwater runoff control efforts should be primarily concentrated on the prevention of future degradation of surface waters. However, localized benefits might be realized from site-specific remediation in given areas. = V) Animal Wastes Finding V Studies such as the Long Island 208 Study have determined that animal waste, which contains nutrients, bacteria, fecal streptococcal bacteria, and other pathogens, is a primary source of non -point source coliform loading. Dogs were identified as major contributors of pollution, especially in urban and paved areas where stormwater runoff is a concern. Waterfowl were also recognized in the. Long Island 208 Study as a significant, direct source of coliform loading in certain locations. For example, prior studies have demonstrated that high coliform concentrations have been ,observed in creeks and embayments in natural settings due to flushing action, stream bank erosion, etc. Although BTCAMP did not undertake an extensive program of site-specific coliform sampling beyond the major point sources, such sampling would be 7-54 _ - an integral component in determining .localized coliform loading patterns so that site-specific management options could be assessed. In 1975, the Soil Conservation Service' (SCS) estimated the bi-county dog population to be 425,000, with an annual increase of 4 percent. Based on this estimate, the present bi-county dog population would exceed 700,000. The sources of pollution attributed to waterfowl are caused by white Pekin ducks; semi -wild ducks, Canada geese, wild ducks, and gulls. -The white Pekins and semi -wild duck populations (both nonmigratory) rely heavily on feeding by humans for survival. Because of limited study resources and other priorities which needed to be addressed, BTCAW did not consider an extensive, site-specific inventory of waterfowl or pets. Conclusion 5 In general, animal waste is a major source of coliform loading which results in the closure of shellfish beds discussed in Finding V. Both domestic pets and waterfowl are significant sources of coliform loading in stormwater runoff. Waterfowl coliform contribution, may even result in the closure of shellfish beds in areas which are in a relatively natural state. To better understand and manage the contribution of animal waste to surface water coliform loading, duck and pet populations in the Peconic system could be better monitored and animal waste controls should be evaluated and, if feasible, instituted or improved. In addition, site-specific sampling could be conducted to determine localized coliform loading sources so that site-specific management options could be assessed. C) Groundwater Underflow I) Groundwater Quality Finding I a) Nitrogen A regional groundwater quality overview characterized average groundwater total nitrogen concentrations in the Peconic River East (Riverhead) and North Flanders Bay Inland and Coastal regions as 5.1 to 6.6 mg/1 (1973-1988) based on private well samples. Eastern North Fork regions also showed high levels of total nitrogen, ranging from 5.7 to 6.2 mg/1(1987-1988). All other regions were considerably lower in total nitrogen concentration, averaging between 1.0 and 2.8- mg/l. South Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations were approximately 2.0 to 2.5 mg/l, while Peconic River headwaters, west, and middle regions had nitrogen averages ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 mg/l. b) Organic Chemicals Organic chemical detection in private wells was relatively low, with a detection rate of 4 to 15 per cent in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region (1977-1988). Organic chemical detection rates were similar in the eastern study area regions (1987-1988), except, for the Gardiners Bay North.area 7-55 where a localized organic chemical problem elevated the overall detection rate. Detections of over 30 ppb organic chemicals were noted in Riverhead, Jamesport, Flanders, and East Marion. c) Pesticides Average _total pesticide levels in all private well samples, reflecting both aldicarb and carbof iran concentrations, ranged from 6.4 to 14.4 ppb in the North Fork, North Flanders Bay, and Peconic River East groundwater quality regions. Detection rates in the North Fork regions were highest, averaging between 24% and 43%. While there was insufficient sampling data for the Peconic River Headwaters, some of the central Peconic River areas also showed pesticide contamination. Sampling on the South Fork side of the study area was much more limited, with lower average pesticide concentrations. Pesticide samples taken in East Creek, a North Fork creek which contributes to Flanders Bay, had between 3 and 7 ppb aldicarb. ,s Conclusion I a) Nitrogen North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastern Peconic River regions have groundwater nitrogen concentrations which are substantially elevated, while western and central Peconic River have relatively low- total nitrogen concentrations indicating excellent groundwater quality. The South Flanders Bay.region groundwater quality is slightly elevated with respect to nitrogen concentration. b) Organic Chemicals A review of organic chemical data indicates some localized occurrences of groundwater contamination. However, there is no evidence of extensive organic chemical contamination problems or surface water impacts [exception: see Rowe Industries site contamination in Subsection 7.2.6.B), "Hazardous Materials and Industrial Discharges"]. c) Pesticides Pesticide contamination of private water supply wells is locally common in the eastern Peconic River, North Flanders Bay, and North Fork regions, especially throughout the North Flanders Bay and North Fork where agricultural chemical usage was historically prevalent. Detectable pesticide levels in surface water of East Creek indicate that pesticide contamination has to some degree reached surface waters of the study areas; the impact of these pesticides has not been determined. H) Fertilizer and Sanitary System Nitrogen Contributions to Groundwater Finding II a) Total Agricultural and Residential Loading Approximately 1,200 pounds per day total nitrogen was estimated to recharge to groundwater and surface waters as a result of leaching and stormwater runoff from residential and agricultural land uses in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay groundwater -contributing areas. Of this total, 7-56 approximately 56% (660 pounds per day) was a direct result of fertilizer application in agricultural and residential areas, with the remainder (530 pounds per day) consisting primarily of nitrogen from residential sanitary waste. A much smaller percentage of the overall nitrogen contribution to groundwater can be attributed to soil mineralization, direct precipitation, and animal waste. b) Nitrogen Loading Distribution Total nitrogen loading in the North Flanders Bay regions constituted 46% (99 tons per year or 540 pounds per day) of all residential and agricultural nitrogen contributed in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay groundwater -contributing areas. The next most significant regions in terms of nitrogen contribution were the Peconic River Mid and East regions, which accounted for 31% (67 tons per year or 365 lbs/day) of the overall nitrogen recharge load. The Peconic River West and Headwaters nitrogen contributions (10% of total) were nearly all agricultural, while the South Flanders Bay region nitrogen recharge (12% of total) was exclusively residential. c) Land Uses and Nitrogen Loading North Flanders Bay Inland and Coastal areas had approximately 1,530 and 880 acres of agricultural land, respectively, while the Peconic River Mid and East areas had a total of 1,580 acres developed residentially. Nitrogen loading factors for agricultural and medium density residential land uses are 57.5 and 61.0 pounds nitrogen per acre per year, respectively. Approximately 60% of the residential acreage is in the medium density category. Approximately 55% (4,370 acres),of the total acreage in the Peconic River West is in vacant - and open space land uses, while 83% (7,634) of the total acreage in the South Flanders Bay regions is classified as vacant and open space. Agricultural nitrogen loading in the North Flanders Bay regions accounted for 362 pounds per day, about 67% of the nitrogen loading of 540 pounds per day in the area. In contrast, agricultural loading accounted for only 116 pounds per day (32%) of the nitrogen loading of 365 pounds per day in the Peconic River, with the bulk of the remainder attributable to residential nitrogen loading. Conclusion II a) Total Agricultural and Residential Loading Residential on -lot sewage disposal and residential and agricultural fertilizer application contribute substantial total nitrogen loading to groundwater. b) Nitrogen Loading Distribution In the Peconic River/Flanders Bay areas, nitrogen loading to groundwater was heaviest in eastern Peconic River and North Flanders Bay regions, with substantially less loading .in South Flanders Bay regions and even less in western Peconic River regions. Thus, higher nitrogen loading rates correlate with groundwater quality degradation noted in Finding Ia. 7-57 0 Land Uses and Nitrogen Loading Nitrogen loading rates from medium density residential land use (the most prevalent residential land use in the study area) and agricultural land use are roughly equivalent. Both residential and agricultural land uses are responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay regions. North Flanders Bay nitrogen loading was due largely to the significant agricultural contribution, especially in the inland areas north of the bay. Residential areas played a more prominent role in pollutant loading in eastern Peconic River regions. The high degree of open space in the Peconic River Headwaters and West areas and South Flanders .Bay regions resulted in the low nitrogen loading rates in these areas. These patterns demonstrate that the intensity of land usage in given areas is directly related to nitrogen loading, which in turn correlates with groundwater quality (Conclusion Ilb). Thus, the intuitive notion that land use intensification degrades groundwater had been illustrated by relating: 1) land use to pollutant loading, and 2) pollutant loading to actual groundwater data. - III) Groundwater Nitrogen Loading and Surface Water Quality Impacts Finding III The groundwater nitrogen concentrations discussed in Finding la were applied to USGS estimates of groundwater underflow. The USGS estimates groundwater inflow to be 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 on South Fork, with relatively negligible contributions east of these regions. Based on these estimates, the total Peconic River/Flanders Bay -groundwater underflow contribution of 580 pounds per day of nitrogen (excluding groundwater underflow west of USGS gauge station which contributes to Peconic River point source loading) constitutes approximately 15% of the total summertime point and non -point source nitrogen load to the Peconic River/Flanders Bay. Groundwater contribution to the North and South Forks was not quantified due to significantly lower groundwater infiltration rates and better circulation patterns in the eastern portions of the surface water system. Preliminary sampling efforts of Dr. Capone to determine the actual contribution of groundwater to the marine system further indicate that groundwater nitrogen input may be less substantial than estimated by USGS groundwater underfloor estimates. Although significant improvements in Peconic River water quality do not appear to be feasible [see "Peconic River," Subsection 7.2.4.B], if groundwater in the Peconic River watershed were to degrade and if the Peconic River nitrogen concentration were to elevate to 1.0 or 2.0 mg/l (Runs 1 and 2, respectively), Tetra -Tech management alternative modeling results indicate .a significant increases in surface water nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay, with summer nitrogen 7-58 -� -j concentration rising to above 1.0 mg/l in western portions of the -system and significant impacts occurring for about 4 kilometers. Modeling runs showing improvements to North and South Flanders Bay groundwater total nitrogen concentrations (Runs 20 and 21) showed a maximum improvement of only 0.03 mg/l. Thus, the model has shown the system to be" fairly insensitive to groundwater quality variations in North and South Flanders Bays regions. Conclusion III The apparent significance of groundwater nitrogen contribution is tempered by evidence such as surface water quality data, computer modelling analysis, and groundwater infiltration sampling, all of which indicate that groundwater nitrogen contribution is not having a significant adverse impact on the Peconic River and Flanders Bays system. There are two distinct reasons for this phenomenon: the extent of open space in the Peconic River area resulting in excellent Peconic River water quality with respect to nitrogen, and the presence of more significant sources (due to location and amount of nitrogen contribution) in Flanders Bay. Additionally, the portions of the study area east of Flanders Bay do not appear to be negatively impacted )by groundwater nitrogen contribution due to greatly increased flushing from the seaward boundary of the system as well as a much lower rate of groundwater infiltration into the system. Although mitigation of existing groundwater conditions does not appear to be an imperative priority with respect to overall surface water quality improvement, the prevention of substantial future degradation of existing groundwater quality is an important goal, especially in the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area [see "Peconic River," Subsections 7.2.4.B.IV and V]. IV) Current and Historical Land Use A. Peconic River/Flanders Bay Finding W.A. For the entire Peconic River and Flanders Bay drainage areas, 1,046 acres of vacant and agricultural land changed use between 1976 and 1988. This constitutes only 3.5% of the total acreage (30,214 acres) in the BTCAMP western study area. A total of 27% of the land in the western study area (Peconic River and Flanders Bays region) is in open space and recreational land use as of 1989. The total developable acreage in agricultural and vacant lands (as of 1989) is 38% in the western study area. 7-59 B. Eastern Portions of Study Area Finding N.B. There are roughly 83,600 acres in the North and South Fork regions east of Flanders Bay; eastern study area estimates are more approximate than the rigorously derived western study area estimates. The net change in all land use categories for the South Fork, Shelter Island and North Fork basins combined was about 7,157 acres of land (approximately 8.5% of. total); 1,846 acres (2% of total) were converted to recreation/open space land uses, and 5,215 acres (6% of total) changed to residential uses, mostly on the South Fork. A total of 23% of the land in the eastern study area (North and South Forks east of Flanders Bay) is in open space and recreational land use as of 1989. The total developable acreage in agricultural and vacant lands (as of 1989) is 48% in the eastern study area. Conclusion IV The character of the study area did not change drastically between 1976 and 1988. However, in light of the relationship between land use intensity and water quality degradation (Conclusion II), the substantial amount of vacant and developable land in the study area highlight the need for planning future development and pollution control strategies to protect surface water quality, especially in the sensitive Peconic River region. 7.2.6 Other Sources of Pollution A) Landfills I) Environmental Status of Landfills Finding I There are nine landfills in the groundwater -contributing area of the Peconic system. At the time of report preparation; five of these landfills are active and four are closed. The active landfills include: East Hampton (Accabonac Site), East Hampton (Montauk Site), North Sea (Majors Path), Sag Harbor (Sag Harbor T_umpike), and Shelter Island (Bowditch Rd.). Closed landfills are East Hampton (Bull Path Site), Greenport (North and Kaplan St.), Hampton Bays (Jackson Ave), and North Sea (Majors Path). It should be noted that this information was collected prior to the required December, 1990 shutdown of landfills in the study area pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law. Therefore, while the general data regarding landfills in this section is valid, the active status of the landfills as designated in this section may have changed by the time of publication of this report. The North Sea site is the only site classified by NYSDEC as Code 2 (in October, 1987 "NYSDEC Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites), which signifies 7-60 required action due to a significant threat to the public health or environment. All of the other landfills, except Shelter Island were classified as Code 2a, which is a temporary classification j denoting insufficient data for inclusion in other classifications. The Shelter Island site has been delisted from the State Hazardous Waste registry pursuant to a NYSDEC Division of Hazardous Waste recommendation. Conclusion I Of the landfills in the Peconic Estuary groundwater -contributing area, the North Sea Landfill is the `only landfill which is considered to be a documented threat to the environment. With the exception of Shelter Island, other landfills are classified as potential environmental hazards. II) North Sea Landfill Impacts Finding n A February, 1990 report prepared for the Town of Southampton indicates that the plume of contamination emanating from beneath the North Sea landfill has reached the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system. This plume is characterized by elevated concentrations of a number of contaminants which include ammonia, iron, and manganese; USEPA also reports lead, cadmium, and volatile organic compounds in the leachate. Surface water and sediment sampling activity conducted by a consultant for the Town of Southampton has shown that the groundwater leachate from the landfill has upwelled in an area of approximately .four acres which exhibits high concentrations of leachate constituents. The consultant's preliminary, draft recommendation (February, 1990) in the absence of a formal Feasibility Study report was a "no action" alternative. However, USEPA subsequently reported the presence of contaminants such as volatile organic compounds and heavy metals in groundwater and cadmium in water samples taken at Fish Cove (August, 1991), and the Town commenced additional sampling activities. 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. Conclusion 11 Of the landfills in the Peconic Estuary system, the North 'Sea landfill is of the greatest immediate concern because its plume of contaminants has reached the Peconic system. III) Impacts of Other Landfills Finding III Of the remaining landfills in the study area, several are situated near the groundwater divide. These landfills include East Hampton (Accabonac), East Hampton (Montauk), East Hampton (Bull Path), Hampton Bays, and Greenport. 7-61 The East Hampton (Accabonac) landfill has had documented violations of SPDES permit conditions during the period in which they accepted scavenger waste. Methylene chloride, toluene, and phenol were also discovered in septic sludge sampled from an on-site pit. The remaining landfills in the study area include Sag Harbor and Shelter Island, which were active at the time of report preparation. A cursory NYSDEC inspection of the Sag Harbor landfill in 1984 revealed a number of rusted and empty 55 -gal. drums protruding through the refuse and brush on-site. The Shelter Island site accepted scavenger waste until 1986. The NYSDEC Division of Hazardous Wastes has recently recommended the delisting of the landfill site from the State Hazardous Waste Registry. Conclusion III In addition to documented contamination from the North Sea landfill, an evaluation of the remaining landfills in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic Bays system revealed potential contamination from the other landfill sites. Although the potential for short-term groundwater contribution from beneath a number of these sites to the Peconic Bays system is reduced given their proximity to the groundwater divide and their relatively distant location with respect to the surface waters of the Peconic Bays system, surface water impacts should nonetheless be considered in future remedial investigations of landfill sites.. B) Hazardous Materials and Industrial Discharges I) Point Sources Finding I The major active industrial discharges in the Peconic Estuary facility are Grumman Aerospace and Brookhaven National Laboratory. In addition, there are a number of other active and inactive industrial point source discharges. a) Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) discharges treated sanitary waste to the headwaters of the Peconic River and industrial non -contact cooling water and waste treatment backwash into groundwater. The STP effluent has exceeded permit limits for radium 226 and radionuclides have been found in the upstream surface waters of the Peconic River and in on-site groundwater, but measured concentrations were below -applicable standards for radionuclides. Tritium concentrations in on-site groundwater reportedly primarily comes from the Lab's two landfills. BNL has also detected several other regions of contaminated groundwater that contain small amounts of radioactivity or chemicals. The most significant location was discovered in 1984: a plume of chemicals located in the southeast quadrant of the Lab traveling in a southerly .direction. As ! 7-62 of 1990, this plume, which contained organic solvents such as trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, was undergoing remediation. . b) Grumman Aerospace Corp. Of the industrial wastes produced at the Grumman facility, the majority consist of non -contact cooling water and process wastes that cannot be recycled. These wastewaters are treated before discharge to surface and groundwater. The industrial wastewaters produced at Grumman are predominantly the result of aircraft paint stripping and paint cleanup and contain chromium and phenol from the paint and organic solvents from the stripping and cleaning operation. The industrial wastewater is treated on-site by the oxidation of phenols and synthetic organics and the reduction and precipitation of chromium. The industrial sludge from this process -is transported to the Grumman, Bethpage facility where it undergoes further treatment. Contamination at the Grumman site is discussed in Section 6 and Appendix L. c) Other Active Industrial Discharges Additive Products, located near the northern edge of the groundwater -contributing area for Flanders Bay (i.e., near the groundwater divide) in Aquebogue, conducts on-site reclamation of trichloroethane and methylene chloride. The facility trucks approximately 12,000 gpd of of treated industrial process effluent to the Greenport STP, which discharges to Long Island Sound. The facility is also permitted for 0.9 mgd of cooling water discharge, a limitation which was frequently violated with an average cooling water flow of over 1.1 mgd. NYSDEC and SCDHS samples of the Additive Products sanitary pool have shown high levels of trichloroethane, and SCDHS sampling has also shown significant levels of toluene, dichloroethane, and methylene chloride. Recently, organic chemical contamination allegedly resulting from operations at the Additive Products site has been found in private drinking water supply wells. Four other facilities in the Peconic system study area presently have SPDES discharge permits, all of which are for groundwater discharges. No monitoring is required for the LILCO Riverhead Operating Center (sanitary, drains and non -contact cooling water), and the Southampton Town Police Garage has not been discharging from its permitted oil -water separator. Discharge from the Suffolk Agway results from a semiannual boiler blow down, while the New York State DOT is permitted for discharge of 750 gpd for an oil -water separator and 1650 gpd for sanitary waste. d) Inactive Industrial Sites Rowe Industries is the site of a former- industrial operation which has been identified as a source of significant groundwater contamination. The plume of contamination from this site has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor Cove and is characterized by high concentrations of trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene. The "Noyack Investigation Report" (SCDHS, 1984) recommended site excavation and removal of contaminated material and soil, as well as continued monitoring of groundwater. In addition, the report detailed the 7-63 extension of public water to residents with affected water supplies. Currently, the Rowe Industries site is still on the Superfund list with remedial action pending. Several other facilities in the study .area no longer have active SPDES permits or were not required to obtain permits during their period of operation. Operations conducted at these facilities included furniture stripping, duck research, laundering, and fish processing. Information regarding these facilities is scarce. Conclusion I a) Brookhaven National Laboratory Historical point source_ industrial discharges and waste disposal practices at Brookhaven National Laboratory have resulted in significant contamination of groundwater. While measured concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater and upstream portions of the Peconic River have been below applicable standards, organic chemical contamination at the laboratory has prompted continuing remedial action. Surface water impacts of BNL -generated pollution on the Peconic River have not been documented. b) Grumman Aerospace Corp. Historical hazardous material use, storage, and/or discharge have resulted in groundwater contamination and continuing_ remediation. However, surface water impacts on groundwater and on the Peconic River as a result of point source industrial discharges at Grumman Aerospace have not been documented. c) Other Active Industrial Discharges Additive Products Division is the only significant active industrial discharge, other than Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory, in the study area. Organic chemical discharges allegedly resulting from operations at the Additive Products . site have reportedly contaminated groundwater. However, the location of the facility near the northern edge of the groundwater- . contributing area of the Flanders Bay region minimizes the potential for short-term impacts on the surface water system. d) Inactive Industrial Sites Information regarding the numerous inactive .industrial sites in the study area is scarce. However, one site known as Rowe Industries is the source of a significant plume of organic chemical contamination which has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor Cove with unknown impacts. MM H) Nonpoint Sources Finding H a) Spills. Leaks. and Storage Tanks Over 20 leaks from storage tanks in the study area were reported between January, 1986 and July, 1988; there are over 20,000 registered storage tanks in Suffolk County and 1.8 million gallons of storage capacity in aboveground, outdoor storage tanks in the Town of Riverhead alone. In cases where the material that leaked from a storage tank was identified, the predominant material involved was petroleum products. Twenty-five spills or leaks from sources other than storage tanks within the study area were reported between October 1985 and August 1988. The predominant type of spill or leak during this review period were electrical transformers on poles that spilled or leaked coolant oil; most of these spills were reported to be one gallon or less in size. There has been no evidence that spills or leaks occurring in this time period have impacted surface waters. The sporadic occurrences of incidences of organic chemical contamination of groundwater is discussed in Subsection 7.2.5.C, "Groundwater Underflow, Organic Chemicals." Storage capacity at Brookhaven National Laboratory is almost 1.5 million gallons, and the Grumman, Calverton facility has a storage capacity of 712,000 gallons. Historically, a number of spills in the study area took place at the Grumman, Calverton, and Brookhaven National Laboratory facilities. However, there is no evidence that these spills have adversely affected surface waters, even though groundwater contamination has occurred at both the Grumman and Brookhaven National Lab sites. The problem of leaks and spills has led to the development of Suffolk County's Articles 7 and 12 of the Sanitary Code. Article 12 specifies requirements for storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials, including tank testing, design, and construction. Article 12 also .contains a schedule for testing of tanks and upgrading of underground storage tanks to double -walled fiberglass or cathodically protected steel construction. The exception to these regulations are residential heating tanks with a capacity of less than 1100 gallons. Article 7, "Water Pollution Control," restricts the storage and discharge of toxic and hazardous materials, especially in deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas. Since 1987, Brookhaven National Lab and Suffolk County have been conducting a program of SCDHS inspections of BNL to ensure compliance with applicable environmental requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. bl Household Hazardous Materials Household hazardous materials, which usually comprise less than 1% of the municipal solid waste stream, represent a potential significant nonpoint source of pollution to groundwater through sanitary systems, sewage treatment plants, or direct dumping. Examples of household pollutants of concern include paint and paint thinner, drain and sanitary system cleaners, solvents and cleaners, aIV pesticides, antifreeze, and motor oil. While the impact -of household hazardous materials on surface waters has not been demonstrated, organic chemical contamination of groundwater, some of which is due to household hazardous materials, is noted in Subsection 7.2.5.C, "Groundwater Undertlow, Organic Chemicals." In order to remove these materials before they become a source of pollution, S.T.O.P. ("Stop Throwing out Pollutants") programs have been developed in all East End Towns. While all of the Towns have developed and begun to implement plans for household hazardous materials containment facilities for the temporary storage of the collected materials, S.T.O.P. events have been held by the Towns in conjunction with a licensed hazardous waste hauler. Conclusion II a) Spills. Leaks, and Storage Tanks The SCDHS record of spills and leaks from 1985 through 1988 shows a relatively low number of minor spills and leaks of toxic and hazardous materials in the study area. There is no evidence of surface water impacts resulting from these spills and leaks. Because of the large storage capacity for hazardous materials in the study area and the history of leaks and spills, particularly at BNL and Grumman, hazardous waste storage and handling remain a concern with respect to potential leakage and spillage. However, Suffolk County Sanitary Code Articles 7 and 12, which regulate toxic and hazardous materials storage and discharge in Suffolk County, address the toxic and hazardous materials problem and should help to minimize the adverse impacts of potential future hazardous materials pollution in Suffolk County. b) Household Hazardous Materials Although household hazardous materials comprise a relatively small portion of the waste stream, household hazardous materials are potential sources of pollution. A precise characterization of the impacts of household hazardous materials pollution impacts on the Peconic system is impossible based on limited data. However, efforts by Towns to implement S.T.O.P. ("Stop Throwing Out Pollutants") programs are positive efforts to foster public education and to help to reduce the amount of hazardous materials which pollute the environment. C) Marinas and Boating I) Existing Boating Facilities, Economic Impacts, and Future Marina Demands Finding I Although statistics for the number of boats which utilize the Peconic system are not available, the system is relatively intensively used by boaters. Fourteen public boat launch ramps exist in the 7-66 Peconic Estuary system, and approximately 1400 mooring permits were, issued by. the five East End Towns. The 69 marinas in the Peconic Estuary system 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. Annual gross revenue for the marinas in the Peconic Estuary system is estimated by the Association of Marine Industries to be 115 million dollars, with overall direct revenues which are derived from boaters exceeding 229 million dollars. During the period 1972-1983, the Peconic Bay area experienced a 28% increase in berths as compared to 8% for the north shore and 4% for the south shore of Long Island. The demand for recreational marinas is high in the coastal area and will continue to increase. However, efforts at further establishment and expansion of marinas in the Peconic system will be hampered by a limited supply of available land, the high cost of land acquisition, and environmental constraints on marina siting. Conclusion I Marinas and boating -related activities play a vital role with respect to important economic, recreational, and aesthetic aspects of the Peconic system. Opportunities for marina expansion generally have been greater in the Peconic Bay area than' elsewhere on Long Island. Although a rigorous planning study of site-specific marina demands was not performed as part of BTCAMP, it appears unlikely that the increasing demand on the part of boaters for additional shorefront facilities in the Peconic system can be met. II) Marine Sanitation and Related Pollution Finding II Because of limited study resources and other priorities which needed to be addressed, BTCAMP did not consider an extensive, site-specific study of marine pollution resulting from boating activities. However, it is well-established that sanitary boat waste contains ammonia, nitrates, phosphorous, BOD, COD, and dissolved and suspended solids. Untreated sanitary waste may contain significant amounts of fecal coliform and other types of bacteria, viruses, fungi and worms. Most of the total and fecal coliforms entering marine waters in Suffolk County have historically been considered to be a result of stormwater runoff. However, several studies have shown that high concentrations of boats in poorly flushed water bodies can contribute to increased coliform bacteria levels. Although the potential exists for -adverse environmental and health impacts from boat sewage, a connection between boating activity and increased oxygen depletion, nutrient levels and/or incidences of disease has not been demonstrated (EPA, 1985). �Td The extent of pollution of a water body by, sanitary wastes from boats is a function of the number ' of boats anchored or docked in the area and the capacity of the waters to assimilate the wastes. Suffolk County has addressed boating and marina concerns with a local law (Resolution #946-88) which directs the SCDHS to investigate potential nuisances at marinas; this law has not been enforced due to staffing limitations.. Conclusion 11 Although stormwater runoff has historically been considered to be the primary source of coliform loading to marine surface waters, there exists concern regarding potential pollution stemming from marinas and boating activities, especially in constrained and poorly -flushed water bodies. The effects of sanitary waste discharges from boating activities are site-specific.and not well documented. The implementation of the Suffolk County law to investigate potential nuisances at marinas would be a useful first step in addressing the need to better understand and manage the contribution of marinas and boating to surface water pollution in the Peconic system. - Eventually, data gathered from such a program could be utilized in specifically identifying boating and marina problems and management needs and conducting an informed evaluation of the feasibility of potential control alternatives. - III) Marine Waste Disposal and Pump -Out Stations Finding III Approximately 89% of the total Suffolk County recreational boating fleet is less than 25 feet and is not required by the Coast Guard to have marine toilets. Portable toilets are frequently used by smaller vessels and these toilets have a small, detachable tank which can be emptied at dockside rest rooms. Larger boats of greater than 25 feet, which are often used for overnight stays and weekend trips, are required to have Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD's) that are designed to hold raw sewage for shore -based disposal or to treat the wastes onboard prior to discharge. Under the Clean Water Act, the state can .petition the EPA to declare "no discharge zones" where all craft with installed toilets would be required to have holding tanks or sanitation systems that are secured to prevent overboard discharge. At the time this study was prepared, 10 pump -out facilities were identified in the 69 marinas in the Peconic Estuary system. Although extensive site-specific analysis for the Peconics has not been performed, the present documented County -wide demand for pump -out facilities does not appear to justify the installation of pump out facilities at each of the. over 200 marinas in Suffolk County (Tanski, 1989). However, additional stations may be warranted in areas with heavy boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive waterways with poor flushing (Tanski, 1989). 7-68 Conclusion III Although the potential for boat sanitary waste pollution is apparent, existing data is inconclusive regarding the impacts of sanitary boat waste (see Conclusion II), and the current demand for pump -out facilities does not appear to warrant requiring the widespread installation of pump -out facilities. However, the marine .waste disposal situation in the Peconic Estuary system should be further evaluated. Until a comprehensive assessment of sanitary boat waste disposal can occur, the installation and use of pump -out facilities should be promoted as a prudent environmental protection measure, especially in areas with heavy boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive waterways with poor flushing. The implementation of other measures, such as designation of no discharge zones and expanded efforts in boater education, may also help increase usage of pump -out facilities and reduce the direct discharge of sanitary waste to marine waters. In comprehensively addressing the pump -out station and marine waste disposal problem, practical, economical alternatives for disposing of collected boat wastes must be identified and evaluated. 1V) Oil and Gasoline, Marine Paints, Floatables and Other,Debris Finding IV Site-specific study of the impacts of oil and gasoline, marine paints, and floatables, on the Peconic Estuary system are beyond the scope of BTCAMP. However, these are documented sources of pollution which merit mention with respect to boating -related pollution. Hydrocarbon discharges to surface waters may result from the operation of boat engines, release of bilge water, and careless or improper pumping or filling practices and leaking gasoline tanks at marine fuel docks and oil storage facilities. Oil released into the water forms droplets of an oil -water mixture, which can adhere to the surfaces of benthic organic sediments, sand, silt and debris, and have detrimental effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The ingestion of water containing low levels of gasoline and oil have been known to affect the taste of clam meat. Additionally, various hydrocarbons have been found to be carcinogenic and the severity of their impact may be magnified at each trophic level. At present, however, there is very little information regarding the long-term sublethal effects associated with chronic, low-volume spillage. The marine paints utilized for painting the bottoms of boats and navigational aids usually contain a marine biocide that inhibits the growth of marine plants, barnacles and other organisms. Marine antifoulant paints may contain toxic compounds; low concentrations of organotin compounds, popularly used in the past in marine paints, have been shown to be lethal to oyster larvae and fiddler crabs. While Tributyltin (TBT) has the ability to degrade into harmless compounds, -it usually concentrates faster than it can dissipate due to the large number of vessels present in marinas and harbors. In 1988 Federal legislation (Public law 100-333) prohibited the use of TBT on vessels under 25 meters (82 feet) in length. This ban would cover the vast majority of boats found in the Peconic System. 7-69 Large amounts of crew wastes, gear, and cargo are lost or dumped into the oceans every year from marine vessels. Debris can have detrimental impacts on marine life, which may mistakenly ingest debris or be entangled or mutilated by it. Floatable debris can also be a hazard to recreational and commercial fisherman and boaters and their equipment, and can be detrimental to aesthetics and tourism. The Peconic System as a whole has not been impacted by floatables to the same extent as urban areas. In some locations, however, floatable debris may be a problem. In 1989, the Long Island Chapter of the Water Pollution Control Foundation prepared and implemented a public education campaign to reduce floatable and marine debris. The Peconic system was one target area of this campaign. Conclusion IV Oil and gasoline, marine paints, and floatables and other debris are marine pollution sources which may warrant future evaluation in the Peconic Estuary system. Although TBT has been prohibited on boats under 25 meters and there is very little information regarding the long-term sublethal effects associated with chronic, low-volume oil and gasoline discharge, these pollution sources have been shown to have detrimental environmental impacts and should be considered as candidates for inclusion in potential future studies of boating and marinas in the Peconic Estuary system. - Additionally, although floatables and debris have not been as severe a problem in the Peconic system as in other urban areas, the foreseeable increases in marinas and boating populations may further the likelihood in future years of escalating floatable debris problems in the Peconic Estuarysystem. Therefore; public education campaigns should be continued. V) Dredging and Other Environmental Impacts Finding V Site-specific study of dredging, boat wake disturbance, and noise pollution are beyond the scope of BTCAMP. However, these issues may have a significant impact on the marine ecosystem and merit mention with respect to general findings. Impacts from dredging may include increases in turbidity at the dredging and disposal sites, changes in .bottom topography, and the remobilization of contaminants in bottom sediments at the dredge and disposal sites. Topographic changes in channels can produce changes in tidal range, currents, shoaling/scouring patterns, and salinity levels in back bay areas. Biological effects may also include the obvious destruction of habitats including wetlands, spawning grounds, and grass beds and the direct,burial of benthic, nonmotile organisms, such as clams and mussels. More subtle biological effects include the chronic impacts of suspended sediments on filter feeders and the potential uptake. and concentration of released contaminants through the food chain. Narrow navigational channels located in tidal marshes are subject to excessive wave action from boats that may erode marsh vegetation and cause slumping and collapsing of channel edges. Other environmental impacts that can result from boat wakes and propeller wash include the release 7-70 of toxins (when sediments containing these substances are disturbed) and 'the reduction of light penetration causing reduced productivity. Boating activity can also significantly impact the nesting areas of waterbird colonies, such as terns, plovers and gulls. Noise pollution is another factor which has been associated with boating activity. Conclusion V The potential environmental impacts of dredging warrant further study, especially with respect to the relationship between dredging and sediment flux [see Subsection 7.2.5.A), "Sediment Flux"]. Additionally, regulation, enforcement, and public education regarding boating disturbance in environmentally sensitive areas should continue. D) Atmospheric Deposition I) Nutrient Contribution Finding I Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface water systems is approximately 160 pounds per day (wetfall and dry deposition); this estimate is approximately 5% of the system's overall (summertime) non -point source loading. Modelling indicates that changes in regional air quality would have limited impact on the system's marine waters. Conclusion I Although atmospheric deposition contributes an apparently significant nitrogen loading to the Peconic Estuary system, atmospheric deposition is not a primary management concern with respect to Peconic Estuary surface water quality in terms of direct nutrient contribution. II) Acidity Contribution Finding II Marine surface water buffering capacity mitigates any potential impacts of direct contribution of rainfall acidity. However, other acidity related impacts of acid rain have not been fully examined, including solubility and transport of contaminants through sediments. Conclusion II Acidity of rainfall is not a primary concern with respect to direct impact on marine surface water pH due to the buffering capacity of the marine system. However, acid rain may directly impact the fresh waters in the study area and may indirectly impact marine waters by affecting the solubility/transport of material through sediments. 7-71 7.2.7 Land Use The land use analysis has been presented in detail in Section 6.3, "Land Use and Impacts." Specific findings, conclusions and recommendations are listed throughout Sections 7.2 and 7.3. This subsection presents a distilled summary of major conclusions and recommendations regarding land use information and references to where they can be found in this section. Summary of Conclusions The intensity of land usage (both agricultural and residential) in given areas is directly related to nitrogen loading, which in turn correlates. with groundwater quality [Groundwater Underflow, 7.2.5.C.II1. Areas with significant residential or agricultural influence, such as North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastern Peconic River regions, have groundwater nitrogen concentrations which are substantially elevated due to fertilizer usage and sanitary system effluent, while western and central Peconic River areas, which are relatively undeveloped, have relatively low total nitrogen concentrations [Groundwater Underflow, 7.2.5.C.IIJ. Stormwater runoff pollutant loading is also correlated with the intensity of land use, with residential areas in the North and South Forks contributing a greater overall coliform load than in the less intensively developed Peconic River watershed [Stormwater Runoff, 7.2.5.B.IIIJ. Pesticides have also been identified as problems in agricultural areas [Groundwater Underflow, 7.2.S.C.I.c]. - 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 [Hazardous Materials and Industrial- Discharges, 7.2.6.BJ. Increases in sewage treatment plant waste generation [Sewage Treatment Plants, 7.2.4.A] can also be directly correlated with population growth and development proliferation. The high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed, which has not undergone drastic land use changes between 1976 and 1988 [Groundwater Underflow, 7.2.5.C.IVJ, has undoubtedly spared the river system from the adverse impacts of pollution [Peconic River, 7.2.4.B.IV]. However, the amount of vacant and developable land in the study area highlight the need for planning future development and pollution control strategies to protect surface water quality, especially with respect to nitrogen loading in the sensitive Peconic River region [Groundwater Underflow, 7.2.5.C.III; Peconic River, 7.2.4.B.IVJ. A development density of 1.0 unit per acre will result in an average groundwater nitrogen concentration of about 4.0 mg/l, which is well in excess of the existing Peconic River surface water nitrogen concentration of 0.5 mg/l [Peconic River, 7.2.4.B.V]. 7-72 7.3 Recommendations 7.3.1 Brown Tide Recommendation I Continue monitoring the water quality and Brown Tide concentrations in the Peconic Estuary and South Shore bays systems. Recommendation II To assess the causal factors related to the onset, duration, and cessation of the Brown Tide bloom, continue, and expand, where applicable, research on the organism's physiology and in the following specific areas: a) The degree to which Brown Tide growth is stimulated by organic nutrients, which may act as carbon and nutrient sources as well as chelators. b) The potential for other agents such as citric acid to act as chelators. c) The role of trace metals such as selenium, iron, vanadate, arsenate and boron in Brown Tide growth. d) The interactions between the Brown Tide organism and other phytoplankton and zooplankton, including the possibility that acrylic acid produced by the Brown Tide could be toxic to the zooplankton population which would graze. on the Brown Tide organism. e) The role of viruses in the growth dynamics of the Brown Tide. f) The impact of meteorological and climatological conditions on the Brown Tide. Recommendation III Where feasible and applicable, research of the factors listed in Recommendation II should have greater emphasis on field studies. A surface water monitoring program should be - conducted . to establish an actual surface water database for the parameters in question. Once specific causal factors are identified by a combination of research, monitoring, and pollutant source identification, mitigation alternatives specific to the Brown Tide could be evaluated. 7.3.2 Natural Resources Recommendation I Restoration and monitoring of natural resources which have been adversely impacted by the Brown Tide should occur in conjunction with other pollution control measures outlined in this 7-73 section. Priority restoration and monitoring targets should be scallop reseeding and eelgrass replanting. Recommendation II Surveys and research on the toxic, mechanical, and/or poor nutritional impacts of the Brown Tide on shellfish should be continued. Recommendation III Surveys of finfishery resources in the Peconic system should be continued. Brown Tide impacts on shellfish such as hard clams, oysters, and blue mussels should also be monitored. Recommendation IV . Because of the close and dependent relationship that exists between surface water quality and the invaluable natural resources in the study area, major water quality -related management decisions, such as stormwater runoff control and sewage treatment plant outfall relocation, should be accompanied by the maximum practicable level of protection and enhancement of affected natural resources. Recommendation V A Peconic Estuary -specific natural resource inventory and management plan should be pursued for the Peconic Estuary system. 7.3.3 Marine Surface Water Quality Recommendation I The L.I. 208 Study marine surface water quality guideline of 0.4 mg/1 total nitrogen should be revised to 0:5 mg/1 for Flanders Bay and the tidal portions of the Peconic River. Recommendation II Substantial groundwater degradation and new and incremental inputs of point and non -point source nitrogen pollution should be strictly prohibited in the poorly flushed and environmentally sensitive Peconic River and western Flanders Bay areas. Recommendation III As a long range goal, efforts at pollution -control and abatement should be effected in the western portions of the surface water system so that the nitrogen guideline can be attained. Such efforts should be considered .as preventive measures to protect the integrity of an ecosystem which may be near its capacity with respect to nutrient assimilation. 7-74 Recommendation IV Pollution to the eastern portions of the Peconic Estuary system should be controlled such that existing water quality in the bays east of Flanders Bay is maintained. In tributaries and small embayments, pollution sources and facilities such as Sag Harbor Village STP require additional evaluation to determine localized impacts and potential remedial measures. Recommendation V Further monitoring and study should be conducted, especially regarding sediment flux. 7.3.4 Maior Point Sources A) Sewage Treatment Plants Recommendation I Prevention of Degradation Peconic River and Western Flanders Bay ("No Net Increase of Nitrogen") Pollution from sewage treatment plants discharging to the Peconic River should be strictly controlled such that there is no net increase in nitrogen loading to surface waters from a given facility. This policy should be instituted immediately to ensure the environmental integrity of the Peconic Estuary system. In balancing environmental needs with legitimate municipal and commercial concerns regarding timing and financing, the "no net increase of nitrogen" program should be implemented as follows: a) Riverhead STP i) Threshold Which Necessitates Denitrification Denitrification of incremental flow to the Riverhead STP should occur at the lowest practicable incremental flow level, based on a detailed feasibility analysis of tertiary treatment options. Historically, 30,000 gpd has been used by SCDHS as a guideline to determine the minimum flow at which an STP can be feasibly constructed. Therefore, in the absence of more detailed analysis considering site constraints and the availability and cost of denitrification technologies, the 30,000 gpd threshold has been used for illustrative purposes in this recommendation. Assuming a 30,000 gpd threshold guideline, no new connections to the Riverhead STP should be permitted if the incremental nitrogen loading from the plant exceeds 4.7% (i.e., 0.03 mgd incremental flow divided by 0.64 mgd current flow, multiplied by 100) of current average monthly 7-75 nitrogen loading levels. Thus, assuming nitrogen discharge levels remain constant, the plant should have a 0.03 mgd flow "envelope" within which it can accept connections without having to denitrify the additional flow. ii) Short -Term Plan (Flow Ceiling Under "No Net Increase" Recommendation) A short-term plan for moderate flow increases should be developed by the Town, subject to this "no net increase of nitrogen discharge" recommendation. The moderate flow increases proposed in such a short-term plan would represent the maximum incremental flow permitted under the "no net increase" .plan; `any subsequent, additional flow would occur pursuant to the comprehensive upgrading discussed in Recommendation III. iii) Acceptable Mitigation Measures - The following two alternatives are acceptable mitigation measures to effect the "no net increase" policy. i) Any incremental flow (greater than the .0.64 mgd baseline flow) which is added to the current process stream should be denitrified and discharged to groundwater. To ensure that there is "no- net increase" in surface water pollution from the Riverhead STP; groundwater degradation and subsequent adverse surface water impacts should be prevented. Therefore, denitrification of the incremental flow should occur to the maximum practicable extent, optimally to an average effluent nitrogen concentration of no more than 4 mg/1. ii) In the alternative, the Riverhead STP could denitrify the incremental flow plus a portion of the existing flow and discharge the entire effluent stream at the current outfall, provided that the total quantity . (i.e., pounds per day) of nitrogen discharged does not exceed current nitrogen discharge levels (i.e., nitrogen currently discharged at 0.64 mgd). Of the two "no net increase" alternatives, the groundwater recharge of incremental flow is preferable from a nitrogen and/or other contaminant (e.g.`, coliform) standpoint due to the additional filtration of effluent through soil as well as the reduced potential of surface water contamination from upset conditions. b) Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory To ensure that routine operational expansions that increase flow (which might not routinely require agency approval or SPDES modification) do not significantly elevate nitrogen loadings to the Peconic River, a one-year set of nutrient discharge data from the Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory facilities should serve as the basis for a ,total nitrogen discharge limit based on existing nitrogen discharge levels. This limit should be set in terms of quantity (pounds) of nitrogen discharged in a given time period. Given the current knowledge of the sensitivity of Flanders Bay to 7-76 fluctuations in Peconic River nitrogen, concentrations and the limited data -regarding the river's sensitivity to Grumman and Brookhaven National Laboratory STP discharges, it is prudent to prohibit any expansion or modification of operations or significant increases in discharges which result in substantially increased nitrogen loading. Of course,. this recommendation is subject to refinement if further evaluation occurs, including site-specific investigation and additional modelling and monitoring of the impacts of the, STP discharges on the Peconic River system. c) Other Proposed Sewage Treatment Plants In general, the construction of additional groundwater -discharging, sewage treatment plants in the groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic River is contrary to the recommended large -lot zoning policy, which is designed to prevent substantial groundwater degradation for surface water, protection purposes. No new groundwater -discharging treatment facility should be considered unless it replaces and upgrades, an older facility. However, in special circumstances, groundwater - discharging sewage treatment plants may be considered, subject to the following conditions: i) Best available technology is utilized (e.g., denitrification to 4mg/1); ii) The proposed project is associated with significant groundwater, natural resources, and/or surface water quality benefits; and iii) Additional environmental analysis and/or modelling indicate that the adverse unpacts on the Peconic River system will be negligible d) Additional Measures Best management practices, such as low -maintenance lawns, slow-release nitrogen fertilizers, modification of fertilizer application rates, and fertilizer use restrictions should be promoted, especially in the Peconic River watershed. Recommendation II Prevention of Degradation, Eastern Study Area Pollution from sewage treatment plants discharging to portions of the Peconic Estuary system east of Flanders Bay should be controlled such that existing water quality in the surface waters east of Flanders Bay is maintained. 7-77 Recommendation III Pollution Abatement =-Peconic River and Flanders Bay As 'a long-term goal, the Riverhead STP should be upgraded so that the surface water quality nitrogen guideline of 0.5 mg/l,for Flanders Bay can be.attained. This upgrade could be in the form of conventional denitrification (to effluent total nitrogen concentrations of 10 mg/1) with a groundwater discharge, existing treatment with a surface water discharge relocated to central or eastern Flanders Bay; or a surface water discharge at the existing location with advanced denitrification treatment resulting in an average effluent nitrogen concentration of 4 mg/l. In determining the most viable alternative to handle short-term and long-term sewering needs, .cost .concerns should be analyzed in conjunction with environmental - impacts including, but not limited to, benefits to surface water quality, disturbance and destruction of natural resources, and impacts on open shellfish beds and bathing beaches, etc. From the perspective of BTCAMP, the groundwater recharge of incremental flow is preferable with regard to several contaminants (with a major exception of nitrogen) due to the additional filtration of effluent through soil, the elimination of the potential of surface water contamination from bacteria during upset conditions, and the resulting likelihood of the opening of currently closed shellfish beds. Although the need for nitrogen guideline attainment, is important to ensure the long-range environmental integrity of the Peconic River/Flanders Bay system, it is not compelling enough to justify the requirement of immediate upgrading, which would impose a severe burden on the Town. Therefore, to accommodate the Town's needs to determine future sewering requirements and procure funding, the implementation of the long-range upgrading should not be required during the period of the short-term plan discussed in Recommendation Ia. In terms of timing, the long-range plan should be implemented at the soonest practicable time. Any incremental flow or nitrogen loading increases which are in excess of the short-term plan's increases, or which occur after the short-term plan's timeframe, should be prohibited unless the Town implements a program to upgrade the entire plant flow. Recommendation N Pollution Abatement - Eastern Study Area . Although the STP's in the eastern study area apparently do not impact western. Flanders Bay and the Peconic River, these STP's may be of local significance with respect to water quality. Therefore, -facilities such as Sag Harbor Village STP require additional evaluation to determine localized impacts and potential remedial measures. 7-78 Recommendation V SPDES Permit Nutrient Monitoring Requirements The State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits for the Peconic River - discharging sewage treatment plants, which include the Grumman, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Riverhead wastewater treatment facilities', should be modified to require the reporting of effluent nitrogen concentrations (total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia -nitrogen, and nitrate -nitrogen) on a monthly basis. Other sewage treatment plants discharging to surface water in the Peconic Estuary system should be required to monitor for nitrogen at least on a quarterly (seasonal) basis. Recommendation VI Sediment Flux Monitoring and Study Additional monitoring and study regarding sediment. flux should be conducted to further document sediment flux loading and its relationship to, short-term and long -tern variations in point source -deposition. B) Peconic River Recommendation I In preventing substantial increases in non -point source nitrogen pollution associated with new development in the Peconic River groundwater -contributing area, developable lots in non-sewered areas of this region should be upzoned to a minimum of two acres per unit. Additional natural resource protection could be attained by even more stringent land use controls, such as three to five acre zoning. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses should be controlled so that nitrogen impacts on groundwater are comparable to that of two -acre residential zoning. Zoning controls should be implemented in conjunction with the following recommendations. Recommendation II Land use planning, management, and regulation which would minimize the potential for Peconic River surface water quality degradation should be promoted. In addition to upzonings, potential land use management techniques include: a) Utilizing cluster zoning to preserve open space in the river corridor. b) Transferring development rights out of areas in the groundwater -contributing region to the Peconic River. c) Programs related to preservation, acquisition, and enhancement of land in the groundwater - contributing area to the Peconic River should be continued. 7-79 d) Employing the highest possible standards .in the review of development plans in the river region, such as requiring open space dedications, maximum practicable setbacks from the river, and natural landscaping techniques to minimize turf areas and fertilizer use. e) Considering the above recommendations in future management programs such as special groundwater protection area. programs, which may recommend specific minimum management control techniques. Recommendation III Any new or incremental point source discharges which would result in a net increase in direct nitrogen loading to the Peconic River should be prohibited. Recommendation IV Preservation and enhancement of Peconic River water quality should be promoted through information and public participation programs regarding pollution sources such as fertilizers. . C) Meetinghouse Creek Recommendation I Monitoring and remedial investigation of pollution at Meetinghouse Creek should be continued and remediation should be effected when technologically, economically, and environmentally feasible. Recommendation 2 Evaluation of the effectiveness of on-site duck waste containment and treatment processes at the Corwin Duck Farm should be continued. Recommendation 3 Sediment flux study should be conducted in Meetinghouse Creek'to quantify actual impacts of sediment flux on water quality and to evaluate effectiveness of potential remedial measures. Recommendation 4 .Efforts at pollution control and abatement which would reduce nitrogen concentrations in Meetinghouse Creek should be effected where technologically, economically, and environmentally. feasible. The Corwin Duck Farm's voluntarily ceasing discharges to the creek is an example of such a positive measure. The new SPDES'permit for Corwin provides for further improvements in duck farm operation should on-site storage and treatment facilities be found to be inadequate. 7.3.5 Major Nonpoint Sources A) Sediment Flux Recommendation I Further monitoring and study regarding sediment flux should be conducted to further document sediment flux loading and its relationship to short-term and long-term . variations in point source deposition. Recommendation 2 In conducting such study, the computer model of the estuarine system should be improved to include a sediment submodel which predicts benthic fluxes as a function of sedimentary particulate organic matter decay along with the mass transport and kinetics of dissolved nutrients. B) Stormwater Runoff Recommendation 1 Any action which would result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff coliform loading to the Peconic Estuary system should be 'strictly prohibited. Proposals for new development within the stormwater runoff -contributing area to the Peconic Estuary system should be reviewed under the strictest scrutiny. In addition to on-site stormwater runoff containment requirements, vegetative buffers and sediment and erosion control plans should be considered as part of the approval process, with enforcement through the issuance and revocation of permits. Recommendation 2 Efforts at stormwater runoff remediation should be evaluated and undertaken on a localized basis when they are demonstrated through site-specific studies to be technologically, economically, and environmentally feasible. Recommendation 3 Public awareness of stormwater runoff problems should be heightened through public education programs, especially with respect to animal wastes and fertilizers (see "Groundwater Underflow," Subsection 7.2.5.0 and 7.3.5.C, for fertilizer discussion). Recommendation 4 Where feasible, best management practices should be instituted to minimize the adverse impacts associated with animal waste coliform loading. As cited in the Long Island 208 Study, these practices include promoting and improving ordinances requiring clean-up of dog waste, repealing any existing dog curbing ordinancesi controlling waste storage and handling at domestic animal stabling facilities, and discouraging the feeding of waterfowl by humans. 7-81 C) Groundwater Underflow Recommendation I Future degradation of groundwater quality should be averted, especially in the Peconic River watershed [see "Peconic River," Subsection 7.3.4.B) for specific land use and management recommendations]. Recommendation 2 Preservation and enhancement of groundwater quality should be promoted through information and public participation programs regarding pollution sources such as residential and agricultural fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. Best management practices, such as low -maintenance lawns, slow-release nitrogen fertilizers, and modification of fertilizer application rates, should be promoted. Additional controls, such'as fertilizer use restrictions, should be 'promoted in the Peconic River watershed. Recommendation 3 Groundwater monitoring programs and the study of surface water impacts of groundwater should be continued, especially with respect to areas with known contamination [see Rowe Industries in Subsection 7.2.63), Hazardous Materials, and Industrial Discharges, and North Sea Landfill -in l Subsection 7.2.6.A), "Landfills"]. 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. Because of detectable pesticide concentrations in a creek in the study area, organic and pesticide contamination related to agricultural practices is an area of special concern which warrants further monitoring and evaluation. 7.3.6 Other Sources of Pollution A) Landfills Recommendation 1 The remediation program at the North Sea landfill; as required by USEPA; should be conducted as expeditiously as possible with full consideration of short-term and long-term surface water impacts of the landfillleachate plume on Fish Cove and the Peconic Estuary system. Monitoring of groundwater and the surface waters of Fish Cove should be continued. Recommendation 2 Other landfills in the study area should be monitored to provide early detection of leachate plumes. Potential short-term and long-range surface water impacts should be, considered in conducting future remedial investigations of the other landfill sites. These programs should 7-82 incorporate surface water and sediment monitoring, where appropriate, and should consider potential surface water impacts as important factors in future management decisions. B) Hazardous Materials and Industrial Discharges Recommendation I Groundwater monitoring programs at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Grumman Aerospace, and other sites of present and historical point source discharge should be continued; the relatively small store of data regarding hazardous materials impacts on surface waters should be expanded. These programs should incorporate surface water and sediment monitoring, where appropriate, and should consider potential surface water -impacts as important factors in future management decisions. Such surface water analysis should be an integral part of the remedial investigation at the Rowe Industries site, which has generated a plume of organic chemical contamination that has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor Cove. Recommendation 2 Although non -point source spills and leaks presently do not appear to be a system -wide concern with respect to surface water impacts, the strict enforcement of Articles 7 and 12 should continue as a means of minimizing the potential for leakage and spillage which could adversely impact surface water systems. Recommendation 3 "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" programs should be continued and, where possible, enhanced as a means foster public education and to help to reduce the amount of household hazardous materials which pollute the environment. C) Marinas and Boating - Recommendations Recommendation 1 Although marinas, boating, and boating -related activities are of tremendous economic and recreational significance, potential pollution problems associated with these marine activities should be evaluated, especially in constrained and poorly flushed water bodies. The purpose of such study would be to identify the scope and magnitude of potential problems such as marine sanitary waste disposal. Recommendation 2 The Suffolk County law which mandates the investigation of potential pollution at marinas should be implemented in the Peconic Estuary system. Data gathered from such a program could be utilized in specifically identifying boating and marina problems and management needs and in conducting an informed evaluation of the feasibility of potential control alternatives. 7-83 Recommendation 3 Until specific recommendations regarding marina and boating management can be generated through comprehensive study, prudent environmental management practices are warranted and should be promoted. In determining best management practices, the need for marina and boating controls should be evaluated with respect to the degree of potential pollution which the controls are designed to mitigate. Viable controls should then be undertaken when ,they are demonstrated to be technologically, economically, and environmentally feasible. .Based on current information, .the following controls should be considered in formulating best management practices: a) Greater. use of shore -based toilets, holding tanks on boats, and existing and additional pump - out stations should be promoted, especially in areas with heavy boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive areas. b) Implementation of other measures, such as designation of "no discharge zones" and enforcement for non-compliance with discharge regulations, may also increase usage of pump -out facilities and should be considered, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. - c) The highest possible standard of review for marina projects should be employed to assure minimal adverse environmental impacts from marina construction and operation. d) Sources of floatables and marine debris should be identified, and mitigation measures, such as shorecleanup and additional waste receptacles, should be implemented. Recommendation 4 Public education should be an integral component of boater -related surface water protection programs. Recommendation S Monitoring and study regarding dredging should be conducted to better determine the environmental impacts of dredging. Of particular interest is the effect of dredging on sediment flux and the remobilization of contaminants in bottom sediments. D) Atmospheric Deposition - Recommendation Recommendation I Monitoring of the direct and indirect impacts of acid rain on the surface waters of the study area should be conducted and studied, where appropriate'. 7-84- 7.3.7 Land Use Future degradation of groundwater quality should be averted, especially in. the Peconic River watershed. [Groundwater Underflow, Rec. 7.2.5.C.IJ. In preventing substantial increases in non point source pollution associated with new development in the Peconic River groundwater - contributing area,- developable lots in non-sewered areas of this region should be upzoned to a minimum of two acres per unit [Peconic River, Rec. 7.2.4.B.IJ; additional natural resources benefits would be realized from three to five acre zoning. Zoning controls should be implemented in conjunction with other natural resource management management techniques which could include cluster zoning, open space dedication, transferring of development rights; preservation and acquisition of land, and stricter review standards of development plans in the river's groundwater - contributing area [Peconic River, Rec. 7.2.4.B.II]. Such standards could include requiring maximum practicable setbacks from the river and natural landscaping techniques to minimize turf areas and fertilizer use [Peconic River, Rec. 7.2.4.B.IIJ. In the entire groundwater -contributing area to the Peconic Estuary system, the preservation and enhancement of groundwater quality should be promoted through . information and. public participation programs regarding pollution sources such as residential and agricultural fertilizers and otheragricultural chemicals [Groundwater Underflow, Rec. 7.2.5.C.II]..Best management practices (e.g., low -maintenance lawns, slow-release nitrogen fertilizers, etc.) should be promoted; additional controls, such as fertilizer use restrictions, should be promoted- in the Peconic River watershed [Groundwater Underflow, Rec. 7.2.5.C.IIJ. 7.4 Implementation. BTCAMP has been conducted effectively by SCDHS as a cooperative effort between a Management Committee and a Citizens' Advisory Committee which have been diverse in representation and active and productive as project participants. In the same vein, the implementation of BTCAMP recommendations would best proceed as .a -cooperative effort between all levels of government with the support and guidance of the private citizenry. Because of the dynamic nature of environmental problems, research, ,and citizen and government response, the implementation program would be most effective with mechanisms to re- convene the BTCAMP Management Committee. In this way, the Committee could periodically assess the progress of implementation of. BTCAMP recommendations, address potential future environmental concerns, and identify funding sources for additional monitoring, research, and remediation. As a water quality and management study, BTCAMP did not confer authority on SCDHS to implement additional regulatory measures for surface water quality protection. Thus, implementation 7-85 of regulatory and/or remediation recommendations should be conducted by -parties -that have current responsibilities and should be enacted/enforced by the agencies with current jurisdiction over, the subject matter of given recommendations. The regulatory framework to implement the recommendations is currently in place. Sewage treatment plant recommendations should be enforced by NYSDEC and SCDHS through,the SPDES permit process, with STP owners responsible for compliance. Meetinghouse Creek pollution should be addressed by NYSDEC and, the Corwin Duck Farm with the assistance and guidance of SCDHS and -the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Land use regulations fall within the province of the Towns' regulatory authority, and stormwater runoff should be addressed at the town level at the subdivision review stage and by State, County, and town governments when concerning roadways in their respective jurisdictions. To ensure consistency with this study's recommendations, all local regulations, plans, policies, and practices (e.g., master plans, zoning codes, subdivision review procedures) should be reviewed and, where necessary, amended. Review of development applications is currently handled by a number of agencies with the authority to- consider and implement BTCAMP_ recommendations. The review authority rests primarily, at the Town level, with SCDHS and NYSDEC vested with approval authority over'Suffolk County Sanitary Code and wetlands issues, respectively. In addition, the NYSDOS has the regulatory authority known as "consistency" under the New York Coastal Management Program (NYSCMP) which was approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1982 pursuant to Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Through the consistency process, and by using the 44 policies and accompanying standards and criteria, the NYSDOS .can agree or object to proposed federal permits, 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). ALWRP 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. A LWRP expresses local circumstances, needs, and objectives and sets forth design, location, and environmental standards for coastal development in a municipality's .waterfront area. 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 to the extent that it does not conflict with other ; regulations. The LWRPs being prepared by the Peconic Bay municipalities can serve as an additional mechanism to implement Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management- Program recommendations. 7-86 In the case of non -regulatory issues, implementation shod be conducted by organizations ul which are qualified in given areas of concern. Funding for research should be provided by all levels of government, and public education should be continued by the Citizens' Advisory Committee (a.k.a. "Save the Bays") and groups such as the Cornell Cooperative Extension. Monitoring of groundwater and surface waters should be continued by SCDHS with respect to BTCAMP-type monitoring and NYSDEC and USEPA, where appropriate (e.g., shellfish program and finfish, superfund sites, etc.)., In general, local investigations and pilot remediation- projects should be cooperative efforts between town, County, State, and federal governments. 7.5 Compliance With Clean Water Act Objectives BTCAMP was supported with $200,000 of federal funding procured pursuant to Section 2050) of The Clean Water Act As Amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4. These are funds provided by USEPA and administered by NYSDEC; a 25% local matching requirement was greatly exceeded by over one million dollars in SCDHS in-kind services and approximately $350,000 of Suffolk County Capital funds which were ultimately provided for the BTCAMP study. The goals of Section 2050), which deals with water quality management planning, are reproduced as follows. Underlined materials have been added for clarification. 205(j)(2) Such sums Lot Section 205(1) money shall be used by the Administrator to make grants to the States to carry out water quality management planning, including, but not limited to - (A) identifying most cost effective -and locally acceptable facility and non point measures to meet and maintain water quality standards; (B) developing an implementation plan to obtain State and local financial and regulatory commitments to implement measures developed under subparagraph (A); (C) determining the nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems in various areas of the State and interstate region, and reporting on these annually; and (D) determining those publicly owned treatment works which should be constructed with assistance under this title, in which areas and in what sequence, taking into account the relative degree of effluent reduction attained, the relative contributions to water quality of other point or nonpoint sources, and the consideration of alternatives to such construction, and implementing section 303(e) of this Act [dealing with water quality standardsl. 7-87 As evidenced by the preceding findings, conclusions, and recommendations, -the BTCAMP process has adhered to the goals of Section 2050). Subparagraph (C) calls for determining the nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems. These issues are basically addressed in the summary findings and conclusions, which are based on- an extensive collection of information presented in previous sections regarding monitoring, land use, modelling, and pollutant source identification and assessment. Subparagraph (A) of Section 2050)(2) calls for identifying cost effective and locally acceptable point and and non -point measures to meet and maintain water quality standards. While formally addressing the water quality classifications and standards of each water segment in the Peconic Estuary system is far beyond the scope of this study, BTCAMP was heavily involved not only with the Brown Tide, but also with conventional water quality issues such as nitrogen, coliform, and dissolved oxygen levels. In this regard, the BTCAMP approach was to evaluate the effectiveness of feasible management alternatives in attaining water quality goals in the Peconic River and main bays system. Examples of these goals include insuring adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations and maximizing open shellfish grounds. The recommendations for point and non -point sources have been presented in Section 7.3 of this report. Section 7.4 addresses the implementation of these recommendations, identifying, agencies with responsibility to implement specific recommendations such as land use control and point source pollution abatement. Thus, subparagraph (B) dealing with developing an implementation plan has been addressed. The final subparagraph of Section 2050)(2) is subparagraph (D), which calls for determining those publicly owned treatment works which should be constructed with assistance under this title, based on relative pollutant impacts and an evaluation of alternatives. As part. of BTCAMP, extensive analysis and study regarding the Riverhead STP were performed, resulting in detailed recommendations regarding the short -teen and long-range upgrading of the facility. Clearly, these recommendations fall within the parameters of this subsection. 7.6 Updated Modelling Runs In the summer of 1991, the Town of Riverhead discovered a major defect in the measurement of flow at the Riverhead STP which up until then had been reported at slightly in excess of 1.0 mgd. The resultant substantial revision of the flow necessitated additional computer modelling runs. The modelling consultant's re -verified model, utilizing existing conditions for the Riverhead STP (0.64 mgd, 25 mgjl total nitrogen) was previously presented in Figures 7.1-6 and 7.1-7; the cumulative improvement- graphic based on these conditions was presented in Figure 7.1-8. This subsection presents the additional, final modelling runs performed by the consultant pursuant to latest available information regarding Riverhead STP discharge conditions. J_ _ 7-88 ' Recently, NYSDEC 'renewed the Riverhead ; STP SPDES permit, which now contains a maximum flow limit of 1.3 mgd (the plant design. capacity) without any requirement of additional levels of treatment, subject to a review of BTCAMP's final recommendations. Therefore, the consultant assessed the impacts of incremental flow to a total discharge at 1.0 and 1.3 mgd (Figures 7.6-1 and 7.6-2, respectively) at existing nitrogen discharge levels. The modelling results show that, at 1.0 mgd, the summertime total nitrogen increases significantly (up to an additional 0.1 mg/1). At 1.3 mgd, the summertime total nitrogen concentration is elevated by up to approximately 0.2 mg/l to a total nitrogen of over 0.8 mg/l, which is well above the nitrogen guideline. In both scenarios, the effects of the increase occur over several kilometers of the system. These latest modelling results reinforce the importance of the immediate implementation of the "no net increase" of nitrogen recommendation for the Riverhead STP. As previously discussed, the system already exceeds the nitrogen guideline and occasionally suffers from localized dissolved oxygen depletion. This information indicates that serious adverse impacts may occur if nutrient loading rates increase in the poorly flushed and environmentally sensitive Peconic River and western Flanders Bay. Pollution abatement is recommended as the eventual goal for the Riverhead STP so that nitrogen levels will be lowered to near the nitrogen guideline and permanent, system -wide water quality integrity is assured. Recently, Riverhead Town has announced that it will voluntarily impose a "no net increase of nitrogen discharge policy on its sewage treatment plant (STP) in order to be consistent with BTCAMP recommendations. The cost for the required denitrification will be bome by the projects which result in new connections. In committing to this policy, the Town has taken an important step towards ensuring non -degradation of Peconic Estuary surface water quality. 7-89 1000 800 J 600 3MO 0 0 20C 0 40 Winter Average (Nov 1 — Jan 31) \ I 1 R — — R N000c: Bae N055: Riverhead Run STP Q=1.0 MCD, TN=25 mg/L 1 1 i 1 1 1 ' 1000 M J 600 nW5l1f a 41 O H 400 35 30 25 20 15 1 Q 5 0 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Summer Avernae (Jul 1 — SeD 30) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.6-1 Impacts of Riverhead STP Flow Increase to 1.0 mgd 7-90 IC \ 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.6-1 Impacts of Riverhead STP Flow Increase to 1.0 mgd 7-90 IC 1000 800 J 600 C N OM O L z 400 0 0 1-- 4110 4110 0 40 Winter Average (Nov 1 — Jan 31) 1 1 1 R — — R N000c: Base N056: Riverhead Run STP 0=1.30 IVGD, TN=2 mg/L 1 1 1 1 \ i[6I41,1111 800 J 600 200 0 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Figure 7.6-2 Impacts of Riverhead STP Flow Increase to 1.0 mgd 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Distance from Block Island Sound (km) Summer Averaae (Jul 1 — Sep 30) 7-91 9 I\ \ 7-91 9 8.0 CITIZENS' PARTICIPATION 8.0 CITIZENS' PARTICIPATION 8.0.1 Citizens' Involvement in Peconic Estuary Manage ment The BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is comprised of representatives from industry, civic, homeowners, and environmental organizations, baymen, boaters, sportfishermen and other estuary users, and interested citizens. The CAC was formed to assure public involvement in BTCAMP and to include citizens as the key component in the public education process. This section of the BTCAMP report was drafted by the CAC (Jeanne Marriner, principal author) to summarize its activities and to formally record its position regarding BTCAMP and related issues. 8.0.2 Section 205(j) and Citizen Input The public participation component of BTCAMP was mandated by the water quality management planning contract between SCDHS and NYSDEC pursuant to allocation of 2050) funds. The pertinent language of the contract is as follows: The CAC will have an integral role in the study to assure (1) public information and education; (2) an opportunity for interested persons to be involved in the decision making process; (3) a formal mechanism for incorporating public opinion into the planning process and the review of interim and draft reports; and (4) response to comments posed by the public. The chairperson of the CAC will serve as liaison to the Technical Steering Committee (TSC). In order to insure that citizen concerns were addressed, from 1987-1991 monthly or bi- monthly meetings were held in the Legislative Auditorium at County Center, Riverhead. The meetings were publicized in the print and electronic media. At 'these open forums, citizens expressed their concerns. The CAC integrated these concerns into the overall Action Plan. To bring information from the Technical Task Force and the Management Committee to the public, the CAC recommended the most effective vehicle to inform the public and solicit participation. These vehicles included conferences, workshops, special events and meetings, a Speakers' Bureau and printed materials, videos, displays, attendance at fairs and boat shows, etc. In addition, public service announcements and letters to the editor have provided an avenue to the public and have resulted in meetings with local editors and news directors. From 1991-1992, the CAC met periodically as action was needed. 8.0.3 BTCAMP CAC Goals & Objectives The CAC has been working toward the following short-term and long-term goals: 8-1 Long Term: 1. A management strategy to ensure clean, protected waterways and resources and viable habitats for the Peconic Estuary system. 2. Institutional public education. 3. "Lifestyle Changes" education program. Short -Term and On going_: 1. Inclusion of the Peconic System in National Estuary Program. 2. Promotion of greater recognition of the estuary's problems and solutions to the problems to increase awareness and generate political action. 3. Identification of pollution problems that can be solved without further research and implementation of financially feasible solutions. 8.1 Organizational Activities 8.1.1 CAC Inception and Development In 1985, when the Brown Tide fust invaded the Peconic Estuary, Dr. Jean Lane of Sag Harbor, a member of the Sierra Club and Southampton League of Women Voters (LWV), sought help from the Group for the South Fork (GSF). Steve Meger, Hydrologist/planner with GSF, suggested Jean compile a statement in support of a National Estuarine Sanctuary, modeled on the 1978 proposal made by the New York State Department of State. This was a starting point for what later became a resolution put forth by the Bay Emergency Action Coalition (BEAC). Dr. Lane contacted Jeanne Marriner, President of the Riverhead/Southold LWV and member of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council, and Ruth Oliva, President of the North Fork Environmental Council (and later a Southold Town Councilwoman). Together they organized a position statement based on the East End tourist/fishing economy. The statement was completed in April, 1986. Citizen groups and baymen signed on to the statement and the Bay Emergency Action Coalition was formed. During the summer of 1986, Dr. Lane, as BEAC Chairman, and Jeanne Marriner, as LWV President, solicited support from county officials and local town officials. On August 25, 1986, the BEAC held a press conference to launch their call to public officials on all levels to protect the environmental quality of Peconic/Gardiners Bays. At the 8-2 press conference it was announced that a resolution calling for the establishment of a Task Force . to develop an overall management plan for the Bay had been endorsed by thirty civic, environmental and business organizations as well as by baymen organizations, senior citizen groups, and others representing over 6,800 residents of the East End. The Town Boards of East Hampton, Southampton and Southold also endorsed the resolution. The Governor's office also had been asked to take a leadership role in calling for preventative action for the Peconic estuary. By November, 1986, forty organizations representing 7,100 residents had endorsed the resolution as well as Riverhead and Shelter Island Town Boards and the Greenport Village Board. In May 1987, the Suffolk County Legislature held an open hearing at Riverhead Town Hall attended by representatives of BEAC organizations who urged the Legislature to provide funding for: 1. Research 2. An adequate water quality monitoring program 3. A comprehensive assessment of land use impacts 4. Development of a program to product the estuary's water quality and resources. Also, in May, 1987, at the request of GSF and others, Jeanne Marriner, as a marketing professional of Marriner Associates, addressed the East End Chambers of Commerce to ascertain effects of the Brown Tide on the tourist industry. Chamber members filled out questionnaires detailing losses which indicated that the wineries, restaurants, and service businesses had been affected as well as commercial fishing, marine and motel businesses. In August, 1987, the County Legislature allocated money for the BTCAMP and established two task forces --one technical and one citizens' advisory --aimed at combating the bay's problems. Original appointees to the CAC.were: - Steven Meger, Group for the South Fork - Larry Penny, East Hampton Office' of Natural Resources - Dr. Martin Garrell, North Fork Environmental Council - Jeanne Marriner, Riverhead/Southold League of Women Voters - Robert McAlevey, Red Cedar Point Association - Dr. Lyn Buck, Save Good Ground Water - Cathy Lester and Arnold Leo, East Hampton Baymen's Association - Dr. John Kelly, Shelter Island Association - Peter Wenczel, Southold Baymen's Association and Green Seal -.Mal Nevel, Shelter Island Baymen's Association - Dr. Ral Welker, Southampton College Marine Research Department 8-3 - Dr. Jean Lane, Sierra Club, Southampton LWV - John Holzapfel, Southold Conservation Advisory - Heather Reylek, Shelter Island Conservation Advisory - Bruce Anderson, Town of Southampton Aquatic Specialist - Carol Morrison, Concerned Citizens of Montauk - George Bartunek, Riverhead Conservation Advisory - Betty Brown, North Fork Environmental Council -West - Peter Needham, Marina Industry - Roger Tollefson, Seafood Industry During the course of BTCAMP, many additional participants contributed to the CAC, and a few persons ceased their other involvement. Members currently on the CAC mailing list include: -Jeanne Marriner -Jean C. Lane -Kevin McDonald, Group for the South Fork -Larry Penny, Office of Natural Resources, Town of East Hampton -Bruce Anderson, Office of Natural Resources, Town of Southampton -John Holzapfel, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council -George Bartunek, Riverhead Conservation Advisory -Joan Robbins, New Suffolk Civic Association -Peter Wenczel, Southold Town Baymen's Association and L.I. Green Seal -Cathy Lester,East Hampton Town Baymen's Association -Arnold Leo, East Hampton Town Baymen's Association -Oliver Griffin, Jamesport Bagmen's -Mal Nevel, Shelter Island Baymen's Association -Lynn Buck, Save Good Groundwater - -Robert McAlevy, Red Cedar Point Association -Betty Brown, North Fork Environmental Council -West -Dr. John Kelly, Shelter Island Committee -Group for the South Fork -Chris Smith, Suffolk County Cooperative Extension, Marine Program -Robert Pike -Ellen Latson, Southold Town -Roger Tollefsen, Marine Resources Council -Kathleen McGinnis -Steve Latson, Southold 2000; Secretary of the Southold Towns Baymen's Association; Secretary, Treasurer of L.I. Green Seal -Marge Acevedo, Congressman George Hochbrueckner's Office -Vito Minei, SCDHS, Office of Ecology -Helen DiPietro, Suffolk County Legislature -Peter Needham 8-4 -Carol Morrison, Concerned Citizens of Montauk -Sharon Kast, Shelter Island CAC 8.1.2 Committee Management Structure and Operation The BTCAMP CAC is one of three major committees involved in BTCAMP. The three committees, and their interrelationship is summarized as follows: 1. BTCAMP Management Committee - This committee is responsible for providing continual technical and administrative oversight throughout the duration of the project. Membership includes SCDHS, LIRPB, NYSDEC, USEPA, the chairman of the BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee, and the chairman of the Brown Tide Technical Task Force. 2. BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - The CAC, comprised of representatives from environmental organizations, civic groups, baymen and other interested citizens, has been formed to assure public involvement in the project. 3. Brown Tide Technical Task Force - This task force was first convened in early 1987 to help the county decide future brown tide research and management needs. Members include the BTCAMP Management Committee plus representatives of the NYS Dept. of State, Sea Grant Institute, SUNY at Stony Brook Living Marine Resources Institute (LMRI), and Cornell Cooperative Extension Service. A CAC organizational meeting was held on September 10, 1987, at the County Center, Riverhead. Steve Meger was appointed Chairman by the County Legislature and named Jeanne Marriner as Communications Chair. Members represented the five towns who share the Peconic Estuary and had an equal voice in the decision-making process. Christopher Smith, Cornell Cooperative Extension Marine Scientist, was appointed Chairperson of the Technical Task Force and liaison to the CAC. Meetings were to be held monthly. The first order of business was to educate the CAC to the problems involved and to list the concems of all the members and the general public that was invited to the ineetings. 8.2 General Problems From September to December, 1987, the various groups represented on the CAC argued over procedures and action to be taken, and eventually resolved their differences. According to a newspaper clip, the initial meetings were like "arms negotiations" as members fought about whether basic research on the brown algae should have all the money, or whether funding should 8-5 go for monitoring the bays for suspect chemicals and nutrients and for control of run-off and sewage "Battle Plan Against Brown Tide Shifts" Newsday, Nov. 22, 1987, p. 21). Cosensus was finally achieved and a decision made to go with the monitoring program. A few members dissented but .agreed to abide by the majority. Previous County funds had been given to MSRC at Stony Brook. Under .the plan devised by the CAC, only $50,000 would go to MSRC for Brown Tide research and the remaining $200,000 would go to the monitoring program to be headed by SCDHS. The monitoring focus was a victory for those groups who wanted action and did not want to wait for the final word from the scientists as to what make the Brown Tide organism grow before taking action. During this time period, the MSRC scientists, headed by Elizabeth Cosper, indicated that the monitoring program would only identify the nutrients and their sources but would not discover how the nutrients combine with other factors (meteorological, etc.) to create the "Brown Tide." Cosper's hypothesis was as follows: the algae thrives in water with high salinity, glycerophosphate, and possibly other nutrients, in dry spells when there is not enough rain to flush those nutrients from the bays. CAC members Roger Tollefsen (seafood purveyor and restaurant owner with a marine biology background), Robert McAlevey (engineer/scientist residing in the Red Creek area of Flanders Bay), Mal Nevel (Shelter Island bayman and former Town Supervisor), and others targeted the sewage treatment plants (in particular, the Riverhead STP) as the primary causes of the Brown Tide. Suffolk County Presiding Officer Gregory Blass (who also resides on Flanders Bay) helped organize a drive to correct the suspected Riverhead STP problem. CAC members endorsed -this action as well as Blass' "Five Point Program" which included local town government identification of stormwater runoff sources and no -discharge zones and pumpout stations. All of the above possible contributing factors to the bays' problems and possible solutions for the problems were discussed at CAC meetings. Christopher Smith continued to update the CAC as to the work of the Technical Committee and the BTCAMP application and work plan. The proposal to DEC for 205j funding was also reviewed by the CAC and approved. 8.3 Activities and Achievements After three months of heated discussions, the CAC wanted to take some positive action to fulfill their mission to establish good two-way communications with the public. Chairman Steve 8-6 Meger asked Jeanne Marriner to prepare a, Communications Plan that the Task Force could follow in educating the public so citizens could be involved in the decision-making process. The ultimate goal of the plan and the CAC's mission: To achieve public support for the BTCAMP recommendations and continued preservation of the vitality of the Peconic Estuary system. The Communications Plan was based on in-depth research of other estuary citizen programs and other successful public education campaigns, and the premise that the public must be well-informed to participate intelligently in the decision making process. The plan identified target publics and presented strategies for establishing two-way communications. The target publics all had common interests or opinions that could .affect the successful achievement of the CAC goals. The Plan had three components:. 1. An Education Program 2. An Action Campaign 3. Media Attractions/Special Events Incorporated into the plan was a\list of priority tasks for the first year and a schedule of events/publications. It included the following specific short-term objectives: 1. Acceptance into the National Estuary Program 2. Establishment of an organized public education program 3. Establishment of a lobbying force based on identification of legislation needed for pollution control. The long term goal was as follows: Preservation of the Peconic Estuary and a permanent organization to insure estuarine viability for the future. Funding for the plan would come from 2050) monies and monies raised by the CAC. The "Marketing Plan to Save the Bays" was presented to the CAC by Jeanne Marriner in January, 1988, after Steve Meger had resigned as Chairman due to an out-of-state job relocation and Lang Penny assumed the chairmanship. The first year priorities in the Plan were to: 1. Establish on-going two-way communications with current and potential support . network through personal contact, direct mail and a newsletter. 2. Establish open communications with those public officials needed to help reach goals through personal contact, direct mail and special events. 8-7 3. Support Technical Task -Force objectives and help present their findings to the public through meetings, newsletter and media contact. 4.• Organize a five -town support system to be- involved in sponsoring "Save the - Bays" events and raise money for these events and educational materials. 5. Begin work on getting accepted into the NEP. The Plan set up: 1.' Steering Committee (Penny, Marriner, Lane, Holzapfel, Smith) 2. Education Committee (Lane, Penny, Marriner, Brown) 3. Legislative Committee (Dr. Kelly., Latson) 4. NEP Committee (Penny, Marriner, McGinnis) 5. Speakers' Bureau (Penny, Smith, Marriner, Nevel) 6. Action/Lobby Corps (Nevel, Tuthill) 7. Communications (Special Events/Media Contacts/Newsletter; Marriner and Wacker) Each committee was to develop their own action plan based on the overall Plan. The Education Committee and the Communications Committee followed a "Marketing Promotion Plan" developed by Marriner to create a groundswell of public opinion in support of BTCAMP and measure to save the Peconic estuary. Communications were targeted to the following: 1. BEAC organizations and supporters 2. Bay "lovers "/"users" 3. Opinion Leaders 4. Business leaders and organizations 5. Marina owners, .boaters 6. Fishermen, baymen 7. Town officials 8. Schools, churches; libraries 9. Media 10., Government officials on all levels and government agencies 11. The general public Mailing lists were developed that included the above. This was the first priority task. The other first year tasks included: 1. 'Set up files (issues, etc.) 2. Contact public officials for NEP 8-8 3. Identify sources and raise money for education 4. Produce: 'Fact sheets; oral presentations, position papers, educational displays, handouts, direct mailers, newsletter and a conference 5. Establish communications with: a. Five towns, and villages and key community leaders b. Business and service organizations c. Boaters/marina/industry d. Schools 6. Conduct opinion survey to determine what is important to people about the bays and creeks 7. Expand BEAC and form alliance's During the first part of 1988, implementation of the plan was begun. Committees met bi- weekly and the entire CAC met monthly to discuss progress and receive public comments and information from the Technical Task Force. Outside speaking dates were arranged - as many as feasible - and filled by Penny, Nevel, Marriner and Smith. In April, 1988, Kevin McDonald was assigned by Group for the South Fork to fill Meger's, spot, after Meger's original replacement Laura Newgard, left the organization. McDonald was added to the Steering Committee and the Speakers' Bureau, Education Committee and Legislative Committee. During this time, April through June 1988, Lane, Penny, McDonald, and Marriner attempted to raise money to fund a, State of the Bays Conference to be held July 27, 1988, at Southampton College. Sufficient dollars were raised from east end businesses, BEAC members, and the NYSDOS to fund both the conference and the first Information Guide. The State of the Bays Conference was attended by 300 concerned citizens and numerous public officials. The preliminary findings of BTCAMP were presented. Congressman Hochbrueckner was lobbied again to work for getting the Peconics into the NEP. Fran Flanigan of the Alliance for the Chesapeake addressed the BEAC at a dinner following the conference. In October 1988, the Peconic Estuary received priority listing for NEP inclusion. Also in 1988, through CAC efforts and leadership of County Legislator Fred Thiele, the Peconic Estuary was declared a Critical Environmental Area by the County. A few of the notable BTCAMP CAC (a/k/a "Save the Peconic Bays, Inc.") activities and achievements are summarized as follows: * 1988: State of the Bays Conference - Focused public attention on the Peconics and encouraged Congressional designation of .the Peconics as a candidate for National Estuary Status * 1990: "Clear Water - A Guide to Reducing Water Pollution" :5 48 -page public education booklet examining .the history of the Pecomc Bays, and discussing sources of, and solutions to water quality problems in the Peconics * 1990: Save the Bays Video - Educational video focusing on the cultural and ecological importance of- the Peconics. Currently available at all local libraries; sent to new members, and available through Cornell Cooperative Extension * 1989 -Current: "Around the Bays" Newsletter - Quarterly newsletter focusing on current events, planning efforts, public and political issues taking place in, or effecting the Peconic Bay region. * 1989: "Boaters Guide to Help Save the Bays" - Educational brochure for boat owners. Information regarding ways to minimize water quality impacts from improper waste disposal, chemical usage, and boat operation. (Published in cooperation with the Associated Marine Industries.) * 1989: "Citizens -Guide to Help Save the Bays" - Educational brochure for citizens. Information regarding ways to minimize water quality impacts from pesticides, household hazardous products, animal wastes, and garbage. *1989: "Citizens Guide to Sewage and Wastewater Disposal" Educational brochure for citizens. Information regarding ways to properly maintain and operate septic systems, reduce sources of pollution, and conserve water usage. * Public Education Programs - Educational presentations for school and civic groups - Cooperating organization and sponsor for conferences and workshops 8.3.1 Public Education In the winter of 1989, at the suggestion of CAC member George Bartunek, the Education Committee developed a series of educational workshops and print materials for public officials and the general public. Since little money was available through other avenues, the CAC enlisted the help of Cornell Cooperative Extensions's Marine Program office to help produce the workshops. At this time, a decision was made by the Steering Committee to create a 501(c)3 education organization, Save the Peconic Bays, Inc., as a vehicle for fund-raising, etc. Members of the original BEAC agreed to form the base of -the new organization and serve as officers and directors. Lane agreed to be President and Marriner agreed to direct the . operations of the organization. The CAC approved this action. By forming Save the Peconic Bays, Inc., the CAC broadened citizen participation and knowledge of the bays' problems and possible solutions. The 1989 workshops dealt with specific problems: boater pollution, non -point sources (land use, stormwater runoff, human -induced pollution) and sewage waste. In addition to the workshops which brought in experts to address the problems; information guides and fact sheets were developed and distributed at the workshop and through libraries and speaking engagements. Five thousand copies of the Boaters Guide have been distributed to boaters through marinas, I 8-10 yacht clubs, and at special events. With the Boater workshop, Peter Needham of the Association of Marine Industries joined the Education Committee and helped to provide funds for the. Boater's Guide and with its distribution. The workshops were well -attended, and the media gave good coverage. This also helped to disseminate information to the public. Throughout the entire BTCAMP study, the media has been kept well-informed and have been very responsive. Many requests came to Save the Bays from Long Island schools for speakers and materials. With the assistance of Save the Bays board member and educator Marianne Tillman, Marriner developed "Seven Concepts/Goals of Environmental Education" which has served as a guide and has been widely accepted by teachers. Future education materials will be based on these concepts. (At present, a grant has been submitted to EPA for a K-6 education project). In 1990, through the assistance of NYS Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki, Save the Bays received a grant from the NYS Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to produce a video and accompanying print materials. Matching funds were needed and several fund raisers were held by Russell Tillman and Jim Dreeben of Peconic Paddler and others. The project began in June, 1990, 'and was completed by August, 1990. One hundred copies of the video have been distributed to Long Island libraries, schools and colleges, and it has been aired on Cablevision on an on-going basis. Eleven thousand copies of the booklet "CLEAR WATER: A Guide to Reducing Water Pollution," have been distributed to schools, through libraries, and through Cornell Cooperative Extension, North Fork Environmental Council, Group for the South Fork, and Save the Bays. Churches and organizations such as Custer Institute have also requested copies for distribution. In July, 1990, the CAC sponsored the 2nd State of the Bays Conference at which the findings of BTCAMP were presented and local officials presented their efforts to control pollution. From 1990 through 1991, efforts were undertaken by McDonald and Marriner to educate the public and public officials. Congressman Hochbrueckner continued to push for inclusion of the Peconic Estuary system in the NEP. When the State failed to prepare the nomination document, -the County arranged to have the SCDHS Office of.Ecology do the work and include their efforts on BTCAMP. The benefits of inclusion in the NEP were presented.to the public and public officials at several open forums including State of the Bays. The nomination document was distributed in the fall of 1990 and a public hearing was held at the Riverhead County Center in January 1991. After much deliberation and discussion, the five towns and the various villages who share the 8-11 estuary signed on to the March 1991 revised document which was then sent to the Governor to forward to EPA in May 1991. [At this writing, we are waiting for the final word on acceptance.] The CAC has summarized its Seven Concepts/Goals of Environmental Education (as presented to L.I. Schools at Scope Conference of March, 1991) as follows: 1. Humans are able to damage and destroy the environment and its ability to sustain life. Our modem consumer economy is directly opposed to taking care of resources. 2.- Humans are products of the natural world. In order to have a world, we must care for it. 3. Humans depend for their health and well-being on the biological organisms with which they share Planet Earth. - Humans are biological organisms themselves. 4. The natural world and the human world are extremely complex with many interacting 'parts, all of which are interdependent. .All parts of the system must function properly or the whole system suffers. 5. All things in nature must be cycled so that they can be used over and over again. In our .economic, social and political worlds, we cannot continue to think that natural resources are limitless. 6. Natural environments are important to humans for quality of life. Quality of life is defined by people within the context of cultural, social, economic and political values. 7. To ensure a high quality of life, we must have within ourselves a sense of awe and wonder and develop feelings/attitudes friendly to nature. When we view nature as a friend, we take care of natural systems..."People protect what they love." . -Jacques- Yves Cousteau 8.3.2 BTCAMP Guidance - From 1988 to 1990, Larry Penny, as Chair of the CAC, was a member of the BTCAMP Management Committee and also brought the concerns of the citizens to the attention of the, Technical Committee. Penny's recurring Lyme disease forced him to withdraw from active participation mid-1990 and Jeanne Marriner took over as Acting Chair, continuing to integrate citizen input with BTCAMP and bring technical information to the CAC. I _J 8-12 8.4 CAC Operation - Evaluation and Recommendation The CAC has operated throughout as an open forum for discussion. Inadequacies as well as benefits of BTCAMP and other estuary issues have been brought out and consensus has been achieved. Members of the CAC have continued to act as .stewards of the estuarine resources and in the bays' best interests and have had a long-term commitment to finding financially feasible solutions. Members have supported all public education efforts, both financially and in-kind. Many of them serve on the Board of Save the Peconic Bays. The CAC Steering Committee and the Education Committee have developed much of the education activities, with concurrence from the members. Communications with the CAC have been both through scheduled meetings with mailed notices and agendas, and through the "Around the Bays" newsletter. The CAC has a broad-based representation from various segments of the public. Each town has five to six representatives, including a public official. The CAC may be lacking in opinion leaders from the business community and this should be rectified; school and church leaders also need to be included to help with further education efforts. The CAC made some overtures in these directions in 1991-92. Perhaps the best evaluation of .the success of the CAC is present in a recent opinion research survey taken by SCCC and the Roper Organization. The results indicate that water quality is the Number 1 concern on eastern Long Island, placing above the economy. Perhaps this is because most eastern Long Island residents recognize the bays as the "engine of the economy". Because citizens are concerned about water quality, the CAC may conclude that pollution solutions, if financially feasible and properly presented, can have widespread acceptance in the five East End towns. One of our major concerns is instilling stewardship concepts in school children so that future generations will be concerned. The CAC hopes to present some ideas for environmental education to our NYS representatives. At present, the CAC has also established a working relationship with the Long Island Sound Alliance and is coordinating some public outreach efforts (public service announcements and grant proposals) with their efforts for maximum effect and use of dollars available. We all recognize the tremendous need for more financing of education efforts and the need to work with the schools and local municipalities. We also recognize the need for more education regarding land use, growth management and open space preservation, and more emphasis on stonnwater control and other non -point source pollution and lifestyle changes. And we recognize the need for continuous monitoring of the bays and the sewage treatment plants. We know we must continue to work toward attitudinal changes among the people who live and work in the watershed area. We also recognize the need for paid staff to help continue the public education and outreach to ensure that a regional management plan for the Peconic estuary becomes a reality. 8-13 8.5 CAC Policy Positions 8.5.1 Administration Funding Public Participation and Management Rationale: Because the economy and recreational and food needs at the two Forks and Shelter Island depends to a great extent on the vitality of the Peconic Estuary System, and because the Estuary plays an important role in the regional food chain, the CAC believes that the Peconic Estuary System must be managed properly in order to insure the ecological integrity of the bays, creeks and shorelines for this and future generations. Therefore: The CAC supports policies to achieve improved water quality of the Peconic Estuary System essential both for protecting the public health and welfare and for maintaining the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystems. The CAC supports: 1. The designation of a "Critical Environmental Area" -for the entire estuary. 2. Measures to protect wetlands and in -stream flows. 3. Measures to reduce water pollution from direct (point source) and indirect (non -point source) discharges. 4. Coordination among all levels of government. 5. Vigorous and well -funded enforcement measures. We believe that: 1. The inherent characteristics and carrying capacities of the system's natural resources must be considered in the planning process related to all shoreline development. 2. Policy -makers on all levels must take into account the ramifications of their decisions on the east end as a whole. 3. Town, County and State government officials must promote the concept of stewardship of natural resources. 4. Beneficiaries should pay the cost of providing environmental protection and pollution control for all projects that may impact the Peconic Estuary System. With regard to the Brown Tide Technical Task Force and the Comprehensive Management Plan, we believe that: 8-14 1. Research, monitoring and policy should treat the Peconic Estuary as a single interdependent system. 2. Policy must be developed in relation to the land, and population, that uses and abuses the estuary. 3. The five towns located on the estuary must work together on the problems of the estuary within the framework of a comprehensive plan. 4. All efforts must be targeted and in context with the total effort and overall goals. 5. Waste disposal in the estuary should be considered in the context of the management plan. 6. Institutional arrangements and resources commitment should, focus on coordination of Coastal Management and Clean Water Act programs and on the development of a long- term funding for program support. 7. The goals of the BTCAMP/NEP should be long-term and the plan should be subjected to periodic review and evaluation. 8. There should be a cooperative approach to waste management' and shoreline management. And we also believe that in order to prevent misunderstanding and opposition to the Comprehensive Management Plan and the National Estuary Program, Public education should be planned and coordinated by the Citizens Task Force and should be sufficiently funded so that all segments of the public can be made aware of the Plan's rationale so that broad consensus is developed on priorities. The above policy statements were developed from research and guidelines established by the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound' and New York Harbor estuarine programs and input from citizens of eastern Long Island and members of the Peconic Bay Task Force and the coalition to Save the Bays. The policy statement was formulated in 1988 and has been distributed at CAC meetings. The Management Committee has acted in concert in overseeing the mission of the CAC. Funding has been a problem, but the CAC has been fortunate to have appropriate professionals as members who have donated services in-kind.' This has enabled us to carry out a sophisticated education program at minimal cost. The assistance of the SCDHS Office of Ecology and Cornell 8-15 Cooperative Extension Marine Program and financial help from NYS Department of State and other assistance has been invaluable. Public Participation has been excellent. Response to newsletter appeals and public announcements has been good, as attendance at open meetings, workshops, conferences and special events indicates. We were pleased to have the addition of the Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center to our education efforts. This has enabled us to hold a Bay Celebration for the past two summers and has broadened the school education possibilities. Concurrent with public education efforts, some members of the CAC have been involved in restoration efforts of the bays' resources. Peter Wenczel and other baymen, through the Green Seal Program and other efforts have helped to reestablish the scallop crop. Working in cooperation with Cornell Cooperative Extension, they have enlisted governmental and private assistance to conduct shellfish relay and transplant programs for the hard clam industry. Cornell Cooperate Extension marine scientists have also assisted various Towns and Villages with projects to control stormwater runoff and harbor management and water quality projects. 8.5.2 Research Needs In summary, the CAC recommendations for research needs can be listed as follows: 1. Establish trends in land use changes and provide a scientific data base for controlling growth in the watershed area. Factor issues such as sea level rise into need to protect habitats, wetlands, open space, etc. 2. Database to provide estimates for change in point and non -point source pollution as related to land use. 3. Evaluation of existing land use protection strategies in the region. 4. Incorporate NOAA's estuaries research reserve into NEP 5. Devise an ecologically based management strategy for the Bay. 6. Develop a bay wide fishery management plan. 7. Strategy to restore, protect and manage Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), including demo project. 8. Habitat and water quality guidelines for the bays' living resources. 8-16 The CAC also supports the table of research needs prepared by the BTCAMP Management Committee, contained in Table 3 of the BTCAMP Summary. The CAC's position on research needs is more fully described in the following statement by Jeanne Marriner on behalf of the CAC to a joint workshop regarding Peconic Estuary Management Needs (November 26, 1991): During . the past five years, the Peconic Bay Brown Tide Citizens' Task Force has held over fifty meetings, forums, and workshops dealing with the Peconic estuary's problems. The Bays are very important to all of us out east. The Peconic estuary has been called the engine of our economy and the heart of our East End quality of life._ As you know, the Nature Conservancy recently designated ,the Peconic Bio -region as one of the "12 Last Great Places in the Western Hemisphere. " We _are pleased to receive this designation. Our pleasure was short lived, however, as another prolonged episode of the Brown Tide enveloped our bays shortly thereafter. It is obvious to us that our paradise is in jeopardy, and we need practical solutions to the pollution that threatens to destroy it. In brief, our major concerns are: 1. Loss of shellfish and finfish productivity which has sorely impacted the commercial and sport fisheries and our tourist economy. 2. Degradation of water quality has had severe and far reaching economic impacts. Our real estate has been devalued and so has our lifestyle. Most of us depend on the bay for recreation and food. We fear that our health may be in jeopardy also. 3. We are concerned about the loss of tidal and inland wetlands which we sorely need because of the land locked nature and loin flushing action of the estuary. 4. We are very concerned about all the "people pollution" that has, affected the Bays during the last ten years of rampant growth. S. Most of all we are concerned that there has been little pollution control and remedial action because the political movers are waiting for the "scientific data" to act. The .citizens believe that the scientific community could help foster the political will necessary to generate action by assessing the research already completed by the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program, 'and in other estuarine studies which substantiate the need for remedial action, land use controls, and enforcement of existing laws. We would like the scientific community to acknowledge that the appearance of the Aureococcus , anouhagefferens in the Peconic Bays is related to human influences. There appears to be enough LOVA evidence in the literature to make that statement. -A 2020 panel for the -Chesapeake Bay recently determined that the causes of the Bay's decline were: _ people and their everyday, actions, and land use decisions. The EPA's Science Advisory Board in an overview report entitled "Reducing Risks, Setting Priorities" has urged the EPA to give greater emphasis to protecting ecological systems. The report states: "There are strong linkages between human health and the health of wetlands, forests and estuaries. Ecological systems have a limited capacity for absorbing environmental degradation caused by human activities. After that capacity is exceeded, it is only a matter of time before those ecosystems deteriorate and human health and welfare suffer (SAB Report A-101 USEPA). Well, we who live in the Peconic Bio -Region feel that our welfare is definitely suffering, and it is just a matter of time before the degradation seriously impacts our health. You may know about the European study of damaging algal blooms. This study begins next year with funding from the Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. The Forum's members have voted to make this major research investment with the ultimate benefit of the community in mind because of their increased awareness of "people pollution" as a cause of concern for ecological and public health. During the past five years, the Peconic Bay Citizens Task Force has done in-depth research into other estuaries in this country. We know our situation is not unique. All over the world coastal waters are in jeopardy. At our 1988 State of the Bays Conference, Francis Flanigan of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay told us that there was enough scientific evidence .available for us to take action. Our actions have led to the upgrading of the Riverhead sewage treatment plant, to education programs and to lobbying for inclusion in the National Estuary Program. As you know we .are waiting to hear from EPA that the Peconic estuary nomination has been accepted. We hope this happens soon because we need the NEP structure and financial resources to develop a plan for the entire estuary. Our recently completed BTCAMP study deals only with..the westernmost stressed.portion of the bay. We want the federal funding for corrective measures so we do not "lose" the bay. But at this time, as we work for acceptance, we are also wary that the federal funding needed for practical, mitigating action will be diverted to research that will not solve the Bay's problems. We maintain active communication with the Long Island Sound Alliance, the Buzzards & Narragansett Bays citizens organizations, with the Chesapeake .and Albermarle & Pamlico Sounds, and with groups in Oregon and California all dealing with environmental problems. We know that research exists from estuary studies that could be applied to the Peconics. We do not need 'the wheel to be reinvented. At this time we need the, scientific community to: 1. Establish trends in land use changes and give us a scientific data base for controlling growth on the East End, including the means to counteract the Governor's recent Proposal for a jetport at Calverton. We know that this can be done because the Union 8-18 of Concerned Scientists helped us win the fight to prevent a nuclear powerplant at Jamesport. The people on the East End know how to use scientific data. The data base could include: a.) centralization of current information, b.) projections of effects of future development on water use, recreational use and the impact on rural/maritime character, which is our'tourist attraction, and c.) factoring issues such as sea level rise into the need to protect and increase. wetlands, habitats, open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Such data base would provide estimates for changes in point and non point source pollution as related to land use. To obtain this data, the water quality carrying capacity of the Peconic watershed area must be determined which includes reviewing waste load allocation, open- space needs of the ecosystem and the use of land use techniques such as greenways. 3. The existing land -use protection strategies in the Peconic Bio -region need to be evaluated as to the need for private acquisition, easements, restoration of wetlands, economic in regulations, local zoning, and other land use programs. We hope the scientific community will co -host a major land -use strategy conference on eastern Long Island in 1992 --the third in a series of State of the Bays. _ 4. With all of the information available we need a regional Cape Cod Commission type model where coastal management decisions are based on the value of the coastal resources --not on real estate values. The citizens last night gave us some of the economic figures, and the resources are worth billions when the bay is healthy and productive. We urge the scientific community to look into NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve Program which is a cooperative federallstate venture that establishes field laboratories within an estuary system. There are several such reserves in the Chesapeake Bay, and one in the Hudson River estuary. I'm sure there are many others nationwide. Establishing such an area in the Peconics, perhaps on Robins Island, would provide a permanent area for estuarine habitat and marine resource research which could be synthesized for use in resource management policy decisions and local government land use decision making policy. The objectives of NOAA's other new -program, the Coastal Ocean Program may also merit investigation. These programs could provide research dollars so that NEP money could be used for demonstration projects and practical research. Last night at the Forum in Riverhead, the citizens spelled it out loud and clear that it is time to take all the studies already completed and use them to engineer solutions and to develop an ecologically based management strategy for the bay. We need to develop a baywide fishery management plan and research will -be needed for this We need to develop water quality and habitat guidelines for the bay's living resources and a baywide plan to monitor ecologically important and endangered species. We need a strategy to restore, protect, and 8-19 manage submerged aquatic vegetation, and demonstration projects to prove what can work. We need the' same for all wetlands in the watershed. Most of all we need a strategy based on sound ecological data for managing growth in the Peconie Bio -region so that it remains one of the 12 last Great Places in the western hemisphere.. We know we need stormwater runoff controls and in confined areas marine impact mitigation measures involving demonstration projects to prove what works. We also need funds for public education. As we heard last night; the citizens of eastern Long Island (and every Town was represented) are tired of the, old excuse and barrier to action that "the research is not complete". They believe there is enough, evidence to take action before we lose the bay --the engine of our economy. They agree that there is some data missing concerning sediment flux and its role in water quality. We know we need to update information about circulation in the various bays, within the estuary to determine no discharge zones. We realize we need continued monitoring to protect the marine- resources. But mainly we need research into understanding the interactions of humans with the coastal environment and the outcome of these interactions. The Brown Tide is one example. We need research into growth management including managing human behavior and developing ways citizens can help. We also believe a -;task, force of marine scientists, and commercial and sport fishing interests should � be convened to develop best management practices for fisheries. Research information should support_: these actions. We also need best management practices for marinas and documentation of effects, if any, of boater pollution on creek and shellfish areas. In conclusion, I repeat: the Peconic estuary is in jeopardy, and we on the East End fear that our nearly land -locked, beautiful bay will become a dead sea very soon. We ask that you find and engineer a solution to the problems brought about by increased population and land development which has brought an increase in every type of environmental assault on the land, air and water of our coastal zone. Your challenge is to help us manage growth; to provide us with the scientific evidence to substantiate growth management policies for the Towns that share the estuary. This is not a new idea. The 208 study of 1.976 indicated that we would lose the bay if we did not implement strict land use controls. Unfortunately few people were aware of the environmental -damage that humans could create back then. So we ask you ladies and gentlemen of the scientific community, to send the message once again and spell it out loud and clear. Tell us that we must change our ways --the ways in which we produce and consume goods, develop and operate our towns, fertilize our farms, lawns, and golf courses, drive our cars, operate our boats, and take care of our waters. The citizens of eastern Long Island have a vision of fishable, swimmable waters, with every person understanding their role as stewards of coastal resources. 'We also fear that time is running -out on the Peconics: Thank you for inviting me to present the citizens' concerns.to you. 8-20 In closing I bring you the message given to me last night loud and clear: we do not need more academic, esoteric research. We need practical solutions to save the bay now.. 8.6 Conclusion All CAC members have had the opportunity to review this document and submit suggested revisions and dissenting opinions. Thus, this report reflects the final product of the collaborative CAC review effort. The CAC hopes that the preceding summary captures the essence of the years of intensive labor and unwavering efforts to safeguard the integrity of the bays system. These efforts have been focused not only on stressing that all feasible remedial actions are taken, but also on emphasizing the need to prevent any further degradation of the estuarine system. The fundamental CAC tenets have been, and will continue to be, public education, practical research, and sensible, expedient management. In conclusion, the CAC hereby formally approves of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations -.;of the BTCAMP report. The CAC also urges all citizens, private organizations, Towns, andcounty and state governments to implement the recommendations of the report, as the:CAC finds_ this study to be an important step in effecting the goals and policies expressed in this section. 8.7 CAC Approval This report has been circulated to all CAC members and comments were Irequested; no negative feedback was -received. In addition, the Citizens' Participation report was unanimously approved by all participants at the BTCAMP CAC meeting of July 14, 1992. The only request for clarification/modification was from R. McAlevy and R. Tollefson, who wished to see the following statement inserted into the CAC report: "The most significant thing that can be done to reduce the likelihood of new occurrences of the brown tide is to reduce the nitrogen inflow". REFERENCES Ambrose, R.B. et al. 1988. WASP4; "A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model -Model Theory, User's Manual and Programmer's Guide." EPA/600/3-87/039. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. Barnett, R.K., H. Barton, and A.B. "Knutson. 1987. "The use of the Oyster Toadfish (Opsanus Tau) as a Predator Control Tool in a Seed Clam Growout Project." Final Report to the New York State. Urban Development Corporation Aquaculture Innovation Program. Town of Smithtown. DEP. Bates, T.S., J.D. Cline, R.H. Gammon, and S:R. Kelly -Hansen. 1987. "Regional and Seasonal Variations in the Flux of Oceanic Dimethyl Sulfide_ to the Atmosphere." J. Geophys. Res -92:2930- 2938. Becherer, Robert A. 1967. "Flanders Bay Hydrographic Study," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Bidigare, R.R., 1989. "Photosynthetic Pigment Composition of the Brown Tide Alga; Unique Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Derivatives." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Bienfang, P.K. 1980. "Phytoplankton Sinking Rates in Oligotrophic Waters off Hawaii, USA." Mar. Biol. 61:69-77. Bierman, V.J. 1976. "Mathematical model of the selective enhancement of blue-green algae by nutrient enrichment." In: Canale, R.P. "Modeling Biocherhical Processes in Aquatic Ecosystems." Chapter 1, pp. 1-32. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI. Bokuniewicz, H. 1980. "Groundwater seepage into Great South Bay, New York." Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 10, 437-444, Academic Press, London. Bowie et al. 1985. "Rates, Constants and Kinetic Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling" (second edition). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/3-85/040. Brennan, D.J. 1973. "Sediment and Water Characteristics, Peconic Bays, Long Island, New York." Geol. Soc. Abstracts of Program, 5(2):139-140. . R-1 Bricaud, A., A. Bedhomme, A. Morel. 1988. "Optical properties of diverse phytoplankton species: experimental results and theoretical interpretation." Journal of Plankton Research, Vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 851-873. Bricelj, V.M. 1986. "Impact of the Brown Tide on Shellfish." In The Emergency Conference on Brown Tide and Other Unusual Algal Blooms,, October 23-24,1986. Hauppauge, N.Y. Bricelj, V.M. and S.H. Kuenstner, 1989. "The Feeding Physiology and Growth of Bay Scallops and Mussels." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Bricelj, V.M., N.S. Fisher, J.B. Guckeit and F.-L.E. Chu, "Lipid Composition and Nutritional Value of the Brown Tide Alga Aureococcus Anophagefferens." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Briggs, P.T. 1965. "The Sport Fisheries for Winter Flounder in Several Bays of Long Island." N.Y Fish and Game Jour. 1291:48-70. Briggs, P.T. 1968.- "The Sport Fisheries for Scup in the Inshore Waters of Eastern Long Island." N.Y. Fish and Game Jour. 15(2):165-185. Briggs, P.T. 1969. "The Sport Fisheries for Tautog in the Inshore Waters of Eastern Long Island." N.Y. Fish and Game Jour. 16(2):238-254. Bruno, S.F., R.D. Staker, and G.M. Sharma. 1980. "Dynamics of Phytoplankton Productivity in the Peconic Bay Estuary, .Long Island." In: Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. Academic Press, Inc., London. Bruno, S.F., - R.D. Staker, G.M. Sharma, and J.T. -Turner. 1983. "Primary Productivity and Phytoplankton Size Fraction Dominance in a Temperate North Atlantic Estuary." Estuaries Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 200-211. Burkholder, P.R. and T.E. Doheny. 1968. "The. Biology of Eelgrass, with Special Reference to Hempstead and South Oyster Bays, Nassau County, Long Island, New York." Contract No. 3, Dept. Conservation and Waterways, Town of Hempstead, L.I. (also Contract No. 1227, Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory, Palisades, Ni.'). Burns, N.M. and F. Rosa. 1980. "In Situ Measurement of the Settling Velocity of Organic Carbon Particles and 10 Species of Phytoplankton." Limnol. Oceanogr. 25(5):855-864. R-2 Buxton. 1988. USGS three-dimensional finite difference model of the Long Island aquifer system. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Syosset, NY. Calloway, R.J., A.M. Teeter, D.W. Browne and G.R. Ditsworth. 1976. "Preliminary Analysis of the Dispersion of Seawater Sludge Discharged from Vessels to the New York Bight Waters." ASLO Spec. Symp. No. 2: 199-211. Caron, D.A., E.L. Lim, H. Kunze, E.M. Cosper, and D.M. Anderson. 1989. "Trophic Interactions between Nano and Microzooplankton and the Brown Tide." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Carpenter, E.J., and E.M. Cosper. 1988. In "A Study of the Growth Physiology of the Brown Tide Alga Isolated From the Long Island Bays", p. 9, Final Report, 1987. Castagna, M., and J.N. Kraeuter. 1981. 'Manual for Growing the Hard Clam Mercenaria." Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 249, Spring 1981. Chervin, M.B., T.C. Malone and P.J. Neale. 1981. "Interactions Between Suspended Organic Matter and Copepod Grazing in the Plume of the Hudson River." Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 13:169-184. Cohalan, P. 1982. Annual Environmental Report: 1982. Report to the Legislature. - Conover, R.J. 1961. "A Study of Charlestown and Green Hill Ponds, Rhode Island." 42(1):119-140 (cited in URI, 1973). Conover, S.A.M. 1956. "Oceanography of Long Island Sound," 1952-54. VI. Biology of Acartia clausi and A. tonsa. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 15,156-233. Conover, S.A.M. 1956. "Oceanography of Long Island Sound," 1952-54. IV. Phytoplankton. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 15,62-112. Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter, and M. Cottrell, 1989. "Primary Productivity and Growth Dynamics of Brown Tide in Long Island Embayments." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Inpacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Cosper, E.M., R.T. Garry, A. Milligan, and M.H. Doall, 1991. "Iron, Selenium and Citric Acid are Critical to the Growth of the Brown Tide Microalga, Aureococcus AnWhagefferens." Second R-3 Announcement for Fifth International Island. Cosper, E.M., V.M. Bricelj, and E.J. ( and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Be: on Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Newport, Rhode iter (Eds.). 1989. "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: -Causes Other Unusual Blooms." Lecture Notes on Coastal and Cosper, E.M., W. Dennison, A. Milligan, E.J. Carpenter, C. Lee, J. Holzapfel,.and L. Milanese. 1989. "An Examination of The Environmental Factors Important to Initiating and Sustaining Brown Tide Blooms." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Cosper, E.M., W.C. Dennison, E.J. Carpenter, V.M. Bricelj, J.G. Mitchell, S.H. Kuenstner, D. Colflesh, M. Dewey. 1987. "Recurrent and Persistent Brown Tide Blooms Perturb Coastal Marine Ecosystem." Estuaries 10(4): 284-290. Council on Environmental Quality. 1 Quality, Washington, D.C." Couturier, C. 1990. "Scallop Aquaculture Cushing, D.H., J.J. Walsh. 1976. "The Deevey,-G.B. 1952. "A Survey of the Coll., 13 (3):65-119. . "14th Annual Report of the Council of Environmental in Canada: Fact or Fantasy T' World Aquaculture, 21:2:54 of the Seas." W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia. of Block Island Sound." Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Deevey, G.B. 1952. "Quantity and Composition of the Zooplankton of Block Island Sound, 1943- 1946." Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., 1 (3):120-164. Dennison, W.C. 1987. "Effects of Light n Seagrass Photsynthesis, Growth, and Depth Distribution." Aquatic Bot. 27:15-26. Dennison, W.C. 1990. "Brown Tide Algae Blooms: Possible Long-term Impact on Eelgrass Distribution and Abundance." Report to Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Dennison, W.C., GJ. Marshall and C. Wij Zostera marina) distributions." Ms. prepar New York at Stony Brook, NY. In: "Noire Brown Tide and. Other Unusual Bloom ." Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine S uc md. 1989. "Effect of Brown Tide Shading on Eelgrass I by Marine Science Research Center, State University of Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and . V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). es. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. I Department of Health & Human Services. "Interim Report of Flanders Bay, New. York, May 1983 Sanitary Survey." Di Toro, D.M. 1975. "Algae and Dissolved_ Oxygen." Summer Inst. Water Pollution Control Notes, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY. Di Toro, D.M. 1989. "A Sedunent Water Digenesis Model Applied to ChesapeakeBay." Presented at US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Modeling Workshop for New York Bight Feasibility Study, World Trade Center, New York, NY, July 1989. Di Toro. 1989. Personal connnunication, July 12, 1989. DiToro, D.M. 1985. "A Diagenetic Oxygen Equivalents Model of Sediment Oxygen Demand." In: Hatcher, K.J. (ed.), "Sediment Oxygen Demand: Processes, Modeling and Measurement." Institute of Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens., pp. 171-208. DiToro, D.M. and J.P. Connolly, 1980. "Mathematical Models of Water Quality in Large Lakes." Part 2: Lake Erie. EPA/ERL/ORD, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, EPA -600/3-80-65. Duxbury, Alyn. 1971. "The Earth and Its Oceans." Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts. Dvirka and Bartilucci, circa 1982. "New York State Part 360 Application for a Permit to Operate a Solid Waste Management Facility," (Grumman Calverton site). Dvirka and Bartilucci, March, 1982. "Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Calverton, New York, Hazardous Waste Storage Facility Concept Design Report." Dzurica, S., C. Lee, E.M. Cosper, and E.J. Carpenter, 1989. "Role of Environmental Variables, Specifically Organic Compounds and Micronutrients, in the Growth of the Chrysophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Easton's Neck Aquaculture, Inc. 1987. "A Comparative Study of the Use of Upweller Systems for the Production of Clam and Scallop Seedling." Final Report to the New York State Urban Development Corporation Aquaculture Innovation Program. Ebasco Services, Inc. 1986. "Remedial Investigations Draft Work Plan, North Sea Landfill." R-5 Emery, K.O. 1969. "A Coastal Pond Inc. NY, 80 pp. Environmental Conservation Law, Article I15. Environmental Conservation Law, Article P. ERM -Northeast and CDM. 1983. North by- Oceanographic Methods." Amer. Elsevier Publ. Co., Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York. Fisher, T.A., Harding, L.W. Fr., Stanley, .W., and L.G. Ward. 1988. Phytoplankton, nutrients, and Turbidity in the Chesapeake, Delaware, aid Hudson Estuaries. Estuarine, -Coastal, and Shelf Science (1988) 27,61-93. Gallager, S.M., D.K. Stoecker, 'and V.M. Feeding Physiology and Locomotory Be] Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Imr Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. B Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Garber, J. 1989. "Sediment Monitoring Grice, G.D. and A.D. Hart. 1962. "Tl Epizooplankton Between New York and H2M Group., 1990. "North Sea Landfill Feb. 1990). Hardy, C. 1970. "Hydrographic Data Research Center, SUNY, Technical Re Hardy, C. 1970. "Hydrographic Data P Science Research Center,.SUNY, Stony Hardy, C. 1971. "Movement and Research Center, SUNY, Technical Hardy, C. 1976. "A Preliminary Descri; Center, SUNY, Stony Brook, New York. Hardy, C., P. Weyl. 1970. "Hydb Sciences Research Center, SUNY, icelj; 1989.."Effects of the Brown Tide Algae on Growth, for of Scallop Larvae (Argopectin irradians)." In: "Novel s of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." :lj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. for Peconic Bay BTCAMP." Abundance, Seasonal Occurrence and Distribution of the ermuda." . Ecol. Mon. 32:287-309. Phase H Remedial Investigation, Fish Cove Study," (Draft, port: Long Island Sound - 1970, Part H." Marine Sciences Series #13. Long Island Sound 1969; Technical Report #4;" Marine y of Long Island Sound Waters," .1971. Marine Sciences Series #17. of the Peconic Bay Estuary." Marine Science Research ial Report No. 3.6S pp. c Data Report: Long Island Sound - 1970, Part I." Marine al Report No. 6. e Harris, E. 1959. ,"The Nitrogen Cycle in Long Island Sound." Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 17, 31- 65. Horne, R.A. 1969. "Marine Chemistry." Wiley Interscience, New York. Hughes and Porter, 1983. "Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, N.Y." Cornell University Center for Environmental Research. HydroQual. 1987. "A Steady State Coupled Hydrodynamic Water Quality Model of the Eutrophication and Anoxia Processes in Chesapeake Bay." Prepared under contract to Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis., MD. Jeffires, H.P., W.C. Johnson. 1973. "Distribution and Abundance of Zooplankton," p. 4-1 -4-93. In: "Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals." Mar. Publ. Ser. No. 2, Univ. Rhode Island. Jensen, H.M. and Soren, 1974. "Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y." U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -501. Judkins, D.C., C.D. Wirick, and W.E. Esaias.._1980. "Composition, Abundance and Distribution of Zooplankton in the New York Bight," September 1974 -September 1975. Fish. Bull. 77(3):669-683. Kanwisher, J. 1963. "On the Exchange of Gases Between the Atmosphere and Sea." Deep Sea Res. 10:195-207. Katuna, M.P. 1974. "The Sednnentology of Great Peconic Bay and Flanders Bay, Long Island, New York." Master of Arts thesis. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, C.U.N.Y. Keller; M.D., W.K. Bellows and R.R.L. Guillard, 1989. "D methylsulfide Production and Marine Phytoplankton: An Additional Impact of Unusual Blooms." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. _ Kellog, H. 1901. "Study of the Clam and Scallop Industries of New York State." Kester, D. R. and R.A. Courant. 1973. "A Summary of Chemical. Oceanographic Conditions: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals." In: URI (ed). "Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory, Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals." Marine Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island, Marine Publication Series No. 2, Kingston, Rhode Island. R-7 Kremer, J.N., and S.W. Nixon. 1978.. '1A Coastal Marine. Ecosystem: Simulation and Analysis." Springer -Verlag, Berlin, W. Germany, .217 pp. Lagna, L. 1975., "The Relationship of S artma Altemiflora to Mean High Water.." - New. York Sea Grant Institute, NYSSGP-RS-75-002. Lettau, B., W.A. Brower, and R.G. Quayle. 1976. - Marine Climatology:- .MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 7, New York Sea Grant stitute, Albany, NY. LILCO. 1989." "Long Island Population St�rvey." Linley, E.A.S., R.C. Newell, and M.I. Phytoplankton, Bacteria, and Herterot LIRPB. 1978. "The Long Island LIRPB. 1981. "Land Use: Quantification . 1983. "Quantitative Relafionships Between - Microflagellates in Shelfwaters." Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 12. Waste Treatment Management Plan." Analysis of Land Use for Nassau and Suffolk County." LIRPB. 1982. "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program." LIRPB. 1984. "Nonpoint Source Management Handbook." LIRPB. 1987. "Estimated Seasonal Population in Eastern Suffolk County." Long Island Pine Barrens Society. 1985. "The Peconic: Pine BalTens River," by J.F. Cryan -and J.L. Turner. Lung, W.S. 1987.: "Developing a Euti Presented at Int. Symposium on River Mahoney, J.B., and J.J. McLaughlin. 1' New York Bay with Hypertrophication." Malinowski, S: 1986. "Small Scale Fan for the New York State Urban Developn i Model for the Patuxent Estuary." Control and Management, Shanghai, China. 7. "The Association 'of Phyto Flagellate Bloom in Lower Exp. Mar..Blol. Ecol. 28:53-65. of the Hard Clam on Long Island, New. York." Prepared Department. Malone, T.C. and M. Chervin. 1979. "The Production and Fate of Phytoplankton Size Fractions in the Plume of the Hudson River, New. York Bight." Limnol. Oceanogr. 24(4):683-696. R-8 Malone, T.C., T.S. Hopkins, P.G. Falkowski and T.E. Whidedge. 1983. "Production and Transport of Phytoplankton Biomass Over the Continental Shelf of the New York Bight." Cont. Shelf, Res. 1(4):305- 337. Marine Sciences Research- Center, State University of New York. 1985. "Suffolk County's Hard Clam Industry: An Overview and Analysis of Management Alternatives." Report of a Study by the Coastal Ocean Science and Management Alternatives (COSMA) Program. Matthiessen, P. 1986. "Men's Lives: The Surfinen and Baymen of the South Fork." Random House, New York. Minei, V.A. 1989. "Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other, Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Mittenberger, R.P., B.A. Royce, and J.R. Naidu (Eds.). 1987. "Environmental Monitoring Report." Brookhaven National Laboratory Safety and Environmental Protection Division. Miltenberger, R.P., B.A. Royce, and J.R. Naidu, Editors, "1987 Environmental Monitoring Report," Brookhaven National Laboratory Safety and Environmental Protection. Division, April, 1988. Also supplied by BNL: "Brookhaven Bulletin," Brookhaven National Laboratory, Vol. 43, No. 2, January 13, 1989; "For the Record: BNL and the Local Groundwater," Bulletin from Brookhaven National Laboratory Safety and Environmental Protection Division, dated July 22, 1988; and "Environmental Protection at BNL, Part II, Doing What Needs to be Done," Bulletin from Brookhaven National Laboratory Safety and Environmental Protection Division, circa Summer 1988. MSRC. 1972. "The Marine Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk County, New York." SUNY Stony Brook. Mueller, J.A., J.S. Jeris, A.R. Anderson and C.F. Hughes. 1976. "Contaminant Inputs to the New York Bight." NOAA Tech. Mem. ERL-MESA-6, Boulder, CO. Murthy, C.R. and A. Okubo. 1977. "Interpretation of Diffusion Characteristics of Oceans and Lakes Appropriate for Numerical Modeling." Li: "Symposium- on Modeling of Transport Mechanisms in Oceans and Lakes," Marine Sciences Directorate, Dept. of Fisheries and the Environment, Manuscript Report Series No. 43, Ottawa, Canada. MWCOG. 1987. "Potomac River Water Quality 1985, Conditions and Trends in .Metropolitan Washington." Annual Report prepared by Department -of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for April. Nagle, C.M. 1978. "Climatology at 50857 UC -ll, Env. Control "Tech. and NY. Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning 1 Fork and Shelter Island, New York." ashington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board, shaven National Laboratory, 1974 through 1977." BNL- Sci. TID 4500, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, 1977. "Assesssment of Geohydrologic Conditions - North National Geographic, "Ducks and Drakes,1' Volume XCIX, No. 3, o. 314, March, 1951. National Marine Fisheries Service Data; 176-1985. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1976. "Who's Minding the Shore?" Prepared.for Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington, P.C. Newsday. 1989. "Will Crowds Come New York State Department of Er Report, Segment #1, April 1, 1979 - New York State Department of Er. Report, Segment #2, April 1, 1980 - New York State Department of Health, 1 Nixon, S.W. 1988. "Physical Energy Ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. =33(4, pa NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Annual Summary, New York 1988," 100:: NOAA, 1976. - "Tide Tables 1976, High America." U.S. Department of Conon National Ocean Survey. Rockville, Maryl NOAA, 1982. "Climatography of the Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling D Nuzzi, R. 1988. 'New York's Brown By Alan J. Wax. April 24, -1989. -nt&Conservation; 1980. Peconic Bay Data from Annual 31, 1980. Project No. 3-309R. -ntal Conservation, 1980. Peconic Bay Data from Annual 31,1981. 5. Peconic River data. iputs and the Comparative Ecology of Lake and Marine 2):1005-1025. Data, and Information Service. 1989. "Climatological Data :3. Low Water Predictions, East Coast of North and South National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ;d States No. 81: Monthly Normals of Temperature, Days, 1950-1981," New York. :." The Conservationist, Sept./Oct., 1988, pp. 30-35. R-10 Nuzzi, R. an M. Zaki, 1982. "Unusual Health Effects Associated With Surface Waters." NYS J. Med. 82(9), 1347-1349. Nuzzi, R., and R.M. Waters. 1989. The Spatial and Temporal Distribution of 'Brown Tide" in Eastern Long Island. In: Cosper, E. (ed). "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and Other Unusual Blooms," SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. Nuzzi, R., and R. M. Waters, 1991. The occurrence of PSP toxin in Long Island, New York, USA. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Toxic Marine_Phytoplankton. NYNEX. 1990. 'Boaters Guide." 10 NYCRR Part 170. 6 NYCRR Part 193.3. 6 NYCRR Part 621. 6 NYCRR Part 701.19. 6 NYCRR Part 701.20. 6 NYCRR Part 703. 6 NYCRR Part 920-925. NYOSL, 1974. "An Interdisciplinary Study of the Estuarine and Coastal Oceanography of Block Island Sound and Adjacent New York Coastal. Waters: Ground Truth." New York Ocean Sciences Laboratory Tech. Rep. No. 0027, February. NYSDEC Division of Water, June 1986. "Long Island Groundwater Management Program." NYSDEC Division of Water, July 1986. "Comsumer Products Project Final Report. NYSDEC, 1987. "Draft Peconic River Study Report." April, 1987. NYSDEC, 1987. "Reclassification of Certain Fresh Waters in the Atlantic Ocean - Long Island Sound Drainage Basin." August, 1987. NYSECL, Article 55. R-11 NYSECL, Section 11-053S. NYSL. Chapter 35 of the Laws of 1884. O'Connor, D.J. 1972. "The Benthic 102. O'Connor, D.J. and D.M. Di Toro. 1 Variation in Streams." J. ASCE Vol. 96, Okubo, A. 1971. Oceanic diffusion di of Moriches Bay, New York." Biol Bull. 142:84 - "Photosynthesis and the Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen April. Deep Sea Res. 18:789-802. Olsen, P. 1988. "Development and Distribution of a Brown Water Bloom in Barnegat Bay." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes d Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M.; E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer -Verlag, Berlin. Olson, R.J., and S.W. Chisholm. 1986."Effects of Light and Nitrogen Limitation on the Cell Cycle of the Dinoflagellate Amphidinimm carteri." Journal of Plankton Research, 8:4:785-793. Park, R.A., M.S. Trehan, P.W. Mausell, Coastal Wetlands." In Smith, J. and D. the United States." USEPA. Parsons, T., and M. Takahashi. 1973 London, UK. 186 pp. Perlmutter, A. 1939. "A Biological S Survey of Young Fish and Eggs Ide York State Conservation Department. Perlmutter, A., W.S. Miller and J.C. and Game Jour. 3(1):1-43. Petipa, T.S. 1966. "Relationship Betm Physiology of Marine Animals, Akad. N Phoel, W.C. 1982. "A Comparison of Environments Along the Northeast Uni 1982/E:23, Mar. Env. Quality Comm. I R.C. Howe. 1989. "The Effect of Sea Level Rise on U.S. ipak (eds). "Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on "Biological Oceanographic Processes." Pergamon Press, of the Salt Waters of Long Island. Section 1: An Ecological I From Tow Net Collections." 28th Annual Report, New 1956. "The Weakfish in New York Waters." N.Y. Fish Growth, Energy Metabolism and Ration in A. Clausi." USSR, Oceanographical Connnission, pp. 82-91. Seabed Oxygen Consumption Rates of Different Benthic States Continental Shelf." Int. Council Explor. Sea. C.M. R-12 PL 100-333. 1988. PL 92-500, Section 208. Poole, J.C. 1966. "Growth and Age of Winter Flounder in Four Bays of Long Island." N.Y. Fish and Game Jour. 13:206-220. Raymont, J.E.G. 1963. "Plankton and Productivitv in the Oceans." Pergamon Press, New York, 660 PP. Redfield, A.C., B.H. Betchum and F.A. Richards. 1963. "The Influence of Organisms on the Composition of Seawater." In: Hill, M.N. (ed), The Sea, Vol.2, pp. 26-77, Wiley Interscience, New York. Riley, G.A. 1952. "Phytoplankton of Block Island Sound." Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., 8(3):40- 64. Riley, G.A. 1970. "Particulate Organic Matter in Seawater." Adv. Mar. Biol. 8:1-118. Riley, J.P., R. Chester. 1971. "Introduction to Marine Chemistry." Academic Press. Riverhead News, "Over 100,000 Ducks This Year's Harvest," p. 1, October 15, 1915. Rowe. 1982. Personal communication, ca. 1982. Ryther, J.H., C.S. Yentsch, E.M. Hurlburt and R.F. Vaccaro. 1958. "The dynamics of a diatom bloom." Biol. Bull. 115 (2):257-268. Sandberg, 1973. "Peconic River System Survey, Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control," 14 pp. Sanford, S.J. 1989. "Wildlife Benefits Associated with Selected Smaller Freshwater Wetlands in Suffolk County." Revised July, 1989. Schubauer, J.P. and D.G. Capone, 1990. "Progress Report for Nutrient Inflow Into the Peconic Bay System via Submarine Groundwater Discharge." Seigel, A. 1988. Brown Tide Proposal. Long Island University - Southampton Campus, Southampton, New York. R-13 Seitzinger, S.B. 1988. "Denitrification Geochemical Significance." Limnol. O Seitzinger, S.B., S.W. Nixon and Production in a Coastal Marine Eco, SEQRA. 6NYCRR Part 617. Freshwater and Coastal Marine Ecosystems: Ecological and nogr. 33 (4, part 2): SPECIAL PUBL. NO. 4. Z. Pilsom. 1984. "Denitrification and Nitrous Oxide " Limnol.Oceanogr.29(1):73-83. Sharp, J. and T.M. Church. 1981. "BloIi, emical Modeling in Coastal Waters of the Middle Atlantic States." Limnol. Oceanogr. 26(5):843-85Short', F.T. 1975. Eelgrass Production Charlestown Pond: an Ecological Analysis and Numerical Simulation Model."MS thesis, Univ. Rhode Island, 124 pp. Short, F.T., B.W. Iblings and C. den Ha Wasting Disease in the 1930s." Aquatic Short, F.T., L.K. Muehlstein and D. Pc of a Maine Epidemic." Biol. Bull. 173: Siddall, S.E. "The Climatology of Long Siddall, S.E. 1986. "Impact of the and Other Unusual Algal Blooms, ] Siddall, S.E. 1986. "Meteorological S Unusual Algal Blooms. Hauppauge, NY, 1988. "Comparison of a Current Eelgrass Disease to the ay. 30:295-304. 1987. "Eelgrass Wasting Disease: Cause and Recurrence -562. " (undated). Tide on Shellfish." Emergency Conference on Brown Tide ige, NY, October 23-24, 1986. " Emergency Conference on Brown Tide and Other ier 23-24,1986. Siddall, S.E. M.E. Vieira, E. Gomez -Reyes, D.W. Pritchard; 1986. "Numerical Model of Lairal Dispersion: Phase I of the East End Algal loom Program." Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY Stony Brook. Sieburth, J. McN., P.W. Johnson, and E. Hargraves. 1988. "Characterization of Aureococcus anophagefferens Gen., et sp. Nov. (Clu ysophyceae): The Dominant Picoplankter during the Summer 1985 Bloom in Narragansett Bay." J. Phytol, 24:416425. Slobobkin, T.B. 1989. "The Null Case Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recun E.J. Carpenter and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Verlag; Berlin. the Paradox of the Plankton." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms." Cosper, E.M., .ecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer - R -14 Smayda, T.J. 1973. Chap. 3, "Phytoplankton." In: URI (ed). "Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory, Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals." Mara Publ. Ser. No. 2, Univ. Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. Smayda, T.J. 1976. "Plankton Processes in Mid -Atlantic Nearshore and Shelf Water and Energy Related Activities." In Manowitz, G. (ed). Effects of Energy Related Activities on the Atlantic Continental Shelf, Proceedings of Conference at Brookhaven National Laboratory, November 10- 12,1975, pp. 70-95. Smayda, T.J. and T.A. Villareal. 1989. "The 1985 Brown Tide and the Open Phytoplankton Niche in Narragansett Bay During the Summer." In: "Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tide and Other Unusual Blooms., 1989." Edited by E.M. Cosper, V.M. Bricelj, and E.J. Carpenter. Volume 35: Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Smayda, T.J., 1989. "Homage to the international symposium on red tides: the scientific coming of age of research on arashiwo; algal blooms; flos-aquae; tsvetenie vody; wasserblute." In Red Tides: Biology, Environmental Science. and Toxicology, Okaichi, Anderson, and Nemoto, eds. Proc. of the First International Symposium on Red Tides, 1987. Elsevier. Smith, L.F., and J. McMahon. 1987. "Field Test of Innovative Bay Scallop Nursery Structures." Final report to the New York State Urban Development Corporation Aquaculture Innovation Program. Southold, New York. 1988. "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Proposed Local Law of 1988 Amending the,Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance." Szepatowski Associates, Inc. State of New York Conservation Department, "A Biological Survey of the Fresh Waters of Long Island," Supplemental to 28th Annual Report, 1938. Steele, J.H. 1974. The Structure of Marine Ecosystems. Blackwell, Oxford. 128pp. Stoddard, A. 1983. "Mathematical Model of Oxygen Depletion in the New York Bight; An Analysis of Physical, Biological, and Chemical Factors in 1975 and 1976." Ph.D. thesis, University. of Washington, Seattle. Stoddard, A. 1988. "An, Innovative Approach for the Synthesis of Large Oceanographic Data Sets with Preprocessing and Postprocessing of an -Ecosystem Model of the New York Bight." In: IEEE Oceans '88 Conference Proceedings, Baltimore, Maryland, October 31 -November 2, 1988., pp. 942- 947. Stoddard, A., J.E. O'Reilly, T.E. Whitledge, T.C. Malone and J.F. Hebard..1986. "The. Application and Development of a Compatible Historical Data Base for the Analysis of Water Quality Management R-15 Issues in the New York Bight." In: Champs M.A. and W.L. Pugh (eds.). National Monitoring Strategies Symposium, Proceedings of CEANS '86 Conference, Vol. 3:1030-1035, Washington, D.C. Suda, J. 1974. Preliminary Investigations of Zostera Community Metabolism and its Implications in Great South Bay Ecosystem Production." MS thesis, State University of New York, Stony Brook, 88 PP• Suffolk County Department of Envirorn series of surface water monitoring data). Suffolk County Department of Health L "Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Health Servi Suffolk County Planning Department, 1 Suffolk County Planning Department. 1 Hard Clam Fisheries in Suffolk County." Suffolk County Real Property Tax statistics provided by Suffolk County Sverdrup, H.U., M.W. Johnson and Cliffs, NJ. Talmage, N.A., "The Growth of book located at Suffolk County F Control, 1974, 1975 to present. Basic Data Reports (a ;C Marine Resources Section, Hauppauge, N.Y. Dvirka and Bartilucci, and Malcolm Pimie, Inc., 1987. es Management Plan." s, 1983. "North Fork Water Supply Plan." 1984. "Report on Water Supply Priorities." 1986. "South Fork Supplemental Resources Study." "Golf Course Study, Inventory and Policy." . "Strategies and Recommendations for. Revitalizing the Agency, "Survey of Oyster Lands" map, 1983; acreage g Department, personal communication. Fleming. 1942. "The Oceans." Prentice Hall, Englewood in Riverhead Town, Suffolk County, New York," 1977; Society. Tetra Tech, Inc. and Creative Enterprises, 1989 (August 31, 1989 Draft). "Interim Progress Report No. 2, Water Quality Modelling for The Peco is Bay, BTCAMP." Tetra Tech, Inc. and Creative Enterl for Water Quality Modelling for The 1989 (February 16, 1989 Draft). "Interim Progress Report is Bay, BTCAMP." R-16 Tetra Tech. 1976. - "Eelgrass Production in Long Island Waters." Prepared for Nassau Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, NY, July; 23 pp. Thomann, R.V. and J.A. Mueller. 1987. "Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control." Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 644 pp. Thomann, R.V. and J.P. Fitzpatrick. 1982. "Calibration and Verification of a Mathematical Model of the Eutrophication of the Potomac Estuary." Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. for Dept. Environmental Services, Government of the District of Columbia, August. Thomas, J.P., W.C. Phoel, F.W. Steimle, J.E. O'Reilly, and C.E. Evans. 1976. "Seabed Oxygen Consumption -New York Bight Apex." ASLO Spec. Symp..No.2:354-369. Throndsen and Kristiansen. 1985.- Pelagococcus Subdirdus as a Major Component of the Nanoplankton at Halkenbanken, Norwegian Sea. July 1982; Abstracts, 2nd International Psychology Congress, Copenhagen. p. 160. Tobiasson, B.O., P.E. 1987. "Boat Parameters, Windage and Fairways for Marina Design." Marina Design and Engineering Conference, Boston, Massachusetts. Todd, D.K. 1980. "Groundwater Hydrology:" Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Trautman, Porter, and Hughes, 1983. "Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens. of Southampton." Cornell University Center for Environmental Research. Tressler, W.L. and R. Bere. 1939. "A Quantitative Study of the Plankton of the Bays of Long Island," NY State Conservation Dept. 28th Annual Rept., Suppl, (1):177-189. Tressler, W.L., R. Bere. 1939. "A Biological Survey, of the Salt Waters of Long Island, 1939." Section 1. Turner, J.T. 1982. "The Annual Cycle of Zooplankton in a Long Island Estuary." Estuaries Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 261-274. Turner, J.T., S.F. Bruno, R.J. Larson, R.D. Staker, and G.M. Sharma. 1983. "Seasonality of Plankton Assemblages in a Temperate Estuary." P.S.Z.N.I: Marine Ecology, 4(1):81-99. United States Department of, Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, In Cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. 1975. "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York." R-17 USEPA; Press Release, October 6, 1992. 'EPA Finds North 'Sea Municipal Landfill Superfund Site in Southampton, L.I. Poses No Further Threat to Groundwater." USEPA; 1991. "Fact sheet for North S a Municipal Landfill, Southampton, N.Y." Prepared for Informational Public Meeting held on 8/1 91 at Southampton Town Hall. USEPA. 1983. "Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load, Allocations. Book ll,- Streams 1;Streams and Rivers: Chap. 2 Nutrients utrophication Impacts." Final Report for Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Monitorinj and Data Support Division, Monitoring Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washii Wash'gton, DC. USEPA. 1985. "Coastal Marinas: An. USEPA. 1987. "Leaking Biorestoration." USEPA. 1985. "Impact Assessment on and Hempstead Bay, New York." USGS. 1986. "Geohydrology and Groud USGS Water Resources Investigations RE USGS. 1974. Atlas HA -501. cental Approach." Storage Tanks: Remediation with Emphasis on In Situ tellfish Resources of Great South Bay, South Oyster Bay, ater Quality in Shelter Island, Suffolk County, New York." in 85-4165. Vesilind, P.A. and J. Peirce. 1983. "Environmental Pollution and Control." Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Maine. Vidal, J. and T.E. Whitledge. 1982. "Rates of Metabolism of Planktonic Crustaceans as Related to Body Weight and Temperature of Habitat.' J. Plankton Res. 4:77-84., Vieira, M. 1989. "Fluctuations in Reside ce Tunes of Long Island Waters Subject to Recurrent Algal Blooms."' In: Cosper, E. (ed). "Novel Phytbplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and Other Unusual Blooms," SUNY, Stony Brook, NY. Virginia Water Resources Research Alternatives, Economics, and Envirc Walsh, J.J. 1975. "A Spatial Simulation 22:201-236. (VWRRC). 1988. "Underground Storage Tank Disposal: Costs." odel of the Peru Upwelling Ecosystem." Deep -;Sea Res. R-18 Walsh, J.J. 1980. "Shelf Sea Ecosystems," pp. 159-196. In: A.R. Longhurst (ed.) "Analysis of Marine Ecosystems" Academic Press, New York. Walsh, J.1., T.E. Whitledge, F.W. Barvenik, S.O. Howe, C.D. Wirick, W.E. Esaias and J.T. Scott. 1978. "Wind Events and Food Chain Dynamics Within the New York Bight." Limnol. Oceanogr. 23 (4):659-683. Weber, A., L. DiTommasso, T. Rauscher, K. Meskill, B. Havens. 1988. "Peconic Bay Juvenile Finfish Trawl Survey: a Mid -Season Report." Weyl, P.K. 1974. "The Pollution Susceptibility of the Marine Waters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York." Mar. Sci. Res. Center, Tech. Rep. No. 20. State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York. 21 p. Wilson, R.E. and M.E.C. Vieira. 1988. "Residual Currents in the Peconic Bays Estuary." In "Circulation Patterns in Estuaries" (ed., B. Neilson). Humana Press, Inc., Clifton, New Jersey. Wilson, R.E., M.E.C. Vieira, and J.R. Schubel. 1986. "Tidal Rectification in the Peconic Bays Estuary." MSRC, SUNY Stony Brook. Wise, W.M. 1986. "Summary of Background Information." In the Emergency Conference on Brown Tide and Other Unusual Algal Blooms, October 23-24, 1986. Hauppauge, N.Y. Yeager, E.H., "Around the Forks," no date; book located at Suffolk County Historical Society. Zaremba, R..and S. Morreale, Rapporteur, 1991. "Critical Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species, Working Group Report." In: Draft of "Development of a Research Program Responsive , to Management Needs for the Peconics Bay Estuary, Phase I, Report of a Workshop, 26 November 1991," sponsored by Marine Sciences Research Center, Nature Conservancy, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, New York Sea Grant Institute, and BTCAMP Citizens' Advisory Committee. R-19