THE EFFECTS OF SEWERING ON
LONG ISLAND'S SHELLFISHING INDUSTRY
Long Island Sound
Atlantic Ocean
A Supplement to the 1972 Final Environmental Impact Statement
on Waste Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants
for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York
February 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
USB,1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V .,-r REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
MAR 3 1
To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
We are herewith transmitting to you for your information a copy of a report we
have prepared concerning the effects on Long Island's shellfishing industry of
certain large-scale sewering projects on the island. This report was prepared as a
supplement to the final Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water
Treatment Facilities Construction Grants' for Nassau and SuffoIFBounties, New
York (July 1972). Although, this report is a supplement to the 1972 EIS, it is noTa
comprehensive reconsideration of all of the issues addressed in that EIS; it is
strictly an informational update on the subject of sewering's effects on the
shellfishing industry.
This supplement was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on February 17, 1978 in fulfillment of a court requirement. The
Environmental Protection Agency has decided to distribute the report to all those
who expressed an interest in these sewering projects at the time the final EIS was
issued and to all those involved in the development of the 208-Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Plan for Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Since the nature of the supplement is to provide information, and since the
supplement neither alters the findings of the original EIS nor proposes any new
action on the part of EPA, comments are not being solicited. However, EPA
would yr&Lcome any new data or information that may become available in the
futupe /and that might be appropriate in the consideration of future agency
actions./
"Beck
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
THE EFFECTS OF SEWERING ON
LONG ISLAND'S SHELLFISHING INDUSTRY
A Supplement to the 1972 Final Environmental Impact Statement
on Waste Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants
for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York
February 1978
Eckardt C. Beck /bate
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope of the Report 1
Summary of Information from the 1972 EIS .... 4
II THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE IMPACTS OF
OUTFALL SEWERING ON THE LONG ISLAND SHELLFISHING
INDUSTRY 1H
Background 14
Sewering Programs of the Area 18
Hydrologic and Oceanographic Characteristics
of the Estuary 24
Long Island1s Shellfish Resources 27
Information Needs 32
III CHANGES IN BASELINE CONDITIONS SINCE 1972 ... 40
Hydrologic Studies of Long Island 41
Water Table Fluctuations and Aquifer
Storage 51
Areas Closed to Shellfishing 53
IV STUDIES TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL DATA 58
Nassau-Suffolk Streamflow Augmentation
Study 59
Prospective Study of the Hard Clam Resources
of Great South Bay 64
V CONCLUSION 69
APPENDIX 73
ABBREVIATIONS USED 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY 90
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Title Page
Bivalve Mollusk Harvest, New York Marine
District, 1970-1976 . 30
Bivalve Mollusk Harvest, Great South Bay
Complex, 1970-1976 31
Acreage Uncertified for Shellfishing,
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, 1972-197? . 54
Appendix
Table 1
Industry of Employment of Bi-County
Residents, 1970 ...
Appendix
Table 2
Estimated Employment By Industry, 1960-1970,
Nassau-Suffolk 75
LIST 0? FIGURES
Number
1
2
Title
Great South Bay Complex
Page
9
Areas Closed to Shell fishing, as Reprinted
in the 1972 Final EIS 12
Nassau County Water Pollution Control
Facilities 15
Suffolk County Water Pollution Control
Facilities .„
16
Flow Projections For Study Area Sewer
Districts 1977-1986 22
Areas Closed to Shell fishing in August
1977
55
-------
THE EFFECTS OF SEWERING ON
LONG ISLAND'S SHELLFISHING INDUSTRY
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope of the Report
In December 1971, the Region II office of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) on the proposed federal funding of several
sewage treatment projects on Long Island. The projects under
consideration ranged from additions and alterations to existing
facilities to construction of new treatment plants and related
facilities. After public review and comment on the draft EIS,
the statement was revised and a final EIS was issued in July
1972. The final EIS concluded that on balance the projects were
necessary and environmentally acceptable and, therefore, should
be funded.
Approximately two and a half years later, in December 1974, a
number of environmental and other organizations, led by the
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., brought a lawsuit challenging
the practice of using ocean outfalls to dispose of wastewater
treatment plant effluent, and alleging a lack of proper planning
by EPA and the State of New York concerning the management of
water resources on Long Island. That action, Environmental
1
-------
Defense Fund, Inc., et al.f v. Costle. et *i. L 74-C-1698 (1974),
had as a principal focus the adequacy of the 1972 final EIS.
On September 16, 1977, the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern District of New York issued its Opinion
and Order in this lawsuit. While the court upheld generally the
program of ocean disposal of treated effluent and rejected many
of the claimed inadequacies of the 1972 final EIS,, it did find a
reasonable basis for concluding that information advances since
1972 would warrant EPA's taking another, harder look at the
potential impact on commercial shellfishing on Long Island.
Therefore, the court directed EPA to prepare and file, by
February 15, 1978, a supplement to the 1972 EIS discussing and
analyzing adequately the effect of outfall sewering* upon Long
Island's shellfishing industry.
Despite the fact that five years have passed since the final
EIS was issued, no further study of the specific effects of
outfall sewering on Long Island's shellfishing industry has been
undertaken. The agency did not consider the potential effects on
shellfishing as significant as those on water supply and surface
waters. Moreover, potential effects on the shellfishing industry
are so far removed from the initial action of sewering that a
logical cause and effect relationship cannot be established
*The term outfall sewering was used by the court to refer to a
complete management practice for sanitary and industrial
wastewater in which the wastewater is collected and conveyed by
sewers to a centralized treatment plant where it undergoes
treatment before being discharged to surface waters through an
outfall pipe.
-------
except through the network of primary and intermediate effects.
This then is where the agency has chosen to concentrate its
efforts.
With the cooperation of state officials and of local
officials on Long Island, EPA is seeking solutions to the more
immediate and more significant potential effects of outfall
sewering, principally depletion of the potable groundwater
supply. The rationale for this approach is not only that primary
effects are more important, but also that they are the route
through which secondary effects, including those on the
shellfishing industry, will be either induced or avoided.
The purpose of this supplement is to provide, within the
limits of available information, an up-to-date discussion of the
present sewering programs and their potential effects on the
shellfishing industry. Since EPA itself had not conducted
specific studies on the shellfishing industry, it turned to other
sources for the necessary information. However, it became
apparent that substantially more information on this subject has
not been collected during the last five years.
The supplement takes a more or less chronological approach:
it is divided into four sections, describing what information was
available in 1972, what information would be needed to adequately
analyze effects on the shellfishing industry, what information
has been acquired to date, and what further information is now
being sought.
-------
This supplement to the 1972 EIS is being prepared in
accordance with the court's order. it must be emphasized that
this supplement is not a comprehensive reconsideration of all
issues addressed in the 1972 EIS. It is strictly an
informational supplement on a particular subject — the
shellfishing industry.
Summary of Information from the 1972 EIS
Discussions of the effects of outfall sewering on Long
Island's shellfishing industry usually focus on the possibility
of salinity changes in the south shore bays, the island's prime
shellfishing area. These bays provide the mixture of fresh to
salt water favored by clams, oysters, and other desirable
shellfish species. Outfall sewering poses a potential threat to
this balance and, therefore, to the shellfishing industry.
In essence, the problem is as follows. Long Island's
groundwater aquifers account for 90 to 95 percent of the
freshwater flow in streams that eventually discharge into the
bays and 100 percent of the subsurface flow into the bays.
Individual wastewater disposal systems, such as cesspools and
septic tanks, return used water to the groundwater system; sewers
do not. Therefore, if cesspools and septic tanks are replaced by
sewers that carry wastewater to a treatment plant and thence to
the ocean, millions of gallons a day of potential groundwater
-------
recharge will be lost to Long Island's hydrologic system. Unless
this loss is counterbalanced by natural means, such as increased
precipitation, or by other means, such as artificial groundwater
recharge, the outflow of fresh water to the bays will eventually
decline, upsetting the fresh to salt water balin^e. In time,
salinity levels in the bays may exceed the tolerance level of
desirable shellfish species, which will then be replaced by more
salt tolerant but less valuable species.
While the potential for these effects was acknowledged in the
1972 EIS, discussion of them was limited by two factors in
particular: 1) the importance of the shellfish question relative
to the many other issues that had to be considered, and 2) the
lack of sufficient information to reliably predict such effects.
At the time the EIS was written, the overriding concern was
that widespread use of cesspools and septic tanks for waste
disposal coupled with accelerating development on Long Island
could seriously contaminate the groundwater aquifers. Long
Island's sole source of potable water. More recent data have
shown that the problem of drinking water contamination was
somewhat overestimated, at least in certain areas on Long Island
(Ragone et al. , 1976). This does not alter the fact that
contamination was, by and large, correctly perceived as a
potentially serious problem. Under the circumstances, secondary
sewage treatment followed by ocean disposal of the effluent was
considered the prudent choice for the immediate future. However,
as the EIS pointed out, this alternative would not only prevent
-------
cesspool and septic tank effluents from polluting the
groundwater, it would also prevent them from replenishing the
groundwater.
The EIS acknowledged that the diversion of fresh water from
Long Island's hydrologic system could alter the salinity, the
nutrient concentrations, and the bottom characteristics of the
bays, but the EIS could not categorically state whether the
overall effect would be beneficial or adverse:
The continuous discharge of treated effluent, which is
essentially fresh water, into Long Island Sound or the
Atlantic Ocean would prevent this fresh water from flowing
into the north shore and the south shore bays. The effects
of this by-pass on bay waters could be:
A. Change in Salinity - The salinities of the bays are
complex phenomena influenced by (a) surface water
runoff, (b) direct discharges into each bay, (c)
ground-water underflow and (d) the circulation
patterns in each bay. If the amount of fresh water
discharged into the bay system is radically
reduced, the bays will gradually become more
saline. Since salt concentration is one of the
most critical factors governing this ecosystem, an
increase in salinity could alter the ecosystem of
the bay.
B. Change in nutrient input - If overland runoff,
sewage treatment plant effluent and ground-water
underflow are directed away from the bay, the
amount of nutrients and other biostimulants and
bioinhibitors entering the bay would be reduced.
The bay productivity would be reduced if extra
biostimulants needed to maintain high productivity
were no longer available. If bioinhibitors present
in the existing water input were no longer
available, then productivity could increase.
C. Change in bottom characteristics - The diversion of
sewage effluent from the bays would protect the
bottoms from becoming muddy or silty in areas of
present outfalls. The clear sand or hard sand
bottom community is far more productive and
-------
desirable than the overly muddy or silty bottom
community. (EPA, 1972) .
As the preceding passage shows, information about the long-
range effects of outfall sewering on shellfish was indecisive.
It was known that the fresh to salt water ratio in the bays was
an important factor, but the optimum ratio for productivity of
desirable shellfish species remained a question. Likewise, it
was known that ocean disposal of treatment plant effluent might
eventually cause an increase in the salinity of the bays, but the
rate of change and the magnitude of the effect were unpredict-
able. Furthermore, it was clear that in some ways outfall
sewering could have a beneficial effect on the bays: notably
through the elimination of septic discharges into the groundwater
system and the consequent reduction of pollutants entering the
bays.
Although the precise conditions needed for optimum shellfish
maintenance were undefined, it was apparent that the south shore
bays were particularly productive shellfish areas, and the EIS
described the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of these areas in some detail. These areas are collectively
known as the Great south Bay complex, which can be defined as all
waters lying between the mainland and the barrier islands from
the Atlantic Beach Bridge at the Queens—Nassau county line in the
west to the Smith Point Bridge in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk
County, in the east. Proceeding from west to east, the
individual bays in the Great South Bay complex are Hempstead Bay
-------
- extending from the Atlantic Beach Bridge to Long Beach Road,
Middle Say - extending from Long Beach Road to the Meadowbrook
Parkway, East Bay - extending from the Meadowbrook Parkway to the
Wantagh Parkway, South Oyster Bay - extending from the Wantagh
Parkway to the Nassau-Suffolk county line, and Great South Bay -
extending from the Nassau-Suffolk county line to the Smith Point
Bridge (see .Figure 1) .
The EIS emphasized that conditions within the bays varied
greatly depending upon a host of factors, among them: depth;
communication with the ocean and with other bays; tidal cycles,
circulation patterns, and flushing rates; seasonal changes; and
freshwater inputs from direct rainfall, land runoff, groundwater
flows, tributaries, and wastewater. In general, the bays were
described as shallow with considerable tidal flats and wetlands.
Circulation patterns and flushing rates ranged from good for
Hempstead Bay, which is relatively shallow and has extensive
communication with the ocean and with bays to the east, to poor
tor Great South Bay, which is a large, open body of water having
only a small inflow of tidal waters confined to the deeper
channels.
With regard to wastewater effluents, the final EIS said:
Unlike the ocean, the south shore bays are all
influenced to some degree by wastewater effluents (effluents
from sewage treatment plants, cesspools and septic tanks,
recreation vessels and duck farms). The concentrations of
biostimulants — nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon
compounds and vitamin Bfs — are all present in high
concentrations. The concentrations are much greater than
those found in the ocean and/or required by plants for good
growth.
-------
t 0 N
FIGURE 1
GREAT SOUTH BAY COMPLEX
-9-
-------
The open waters and the western section of Great South
Bay are of good quality. However the eastern section,
Bellport Bay and Moriches Bay, is not. Pollution enters
these areas as sewage treatment plant effluent, septic tank
and cesspool effluent, duck farm runoff and sanitary waste
from recreation vessels. Furthermore, the pollution is
confined to the area by prevailing winds and currents. The
most significant contributions are made by the duck farms and
septic tanks and cesspools. (EPA, 1972).
With regard to salinity and productivity of the bays, the EIS
reported:
The salinity of the bays varies with the relative
influence of fresh or salt water. In the past, bay
salinities have varied drastically in response to natural
changes in the barrier beach inlets. (Flynn, oral
communication, 1972). In Great South Bay, the western and
eastern extremities have salinities of 25 to 30 ppt. The
central portion, under the influence of waters entering Fire
Island Inlet, has a salinity range between 32 and 35 ppt. In
areas under the influence of streams or ground-water flow
from the headlands, values decrease to 3 or 4 ppt. (U.S.
Dept. of the Interior et al., 1970).
Estuaries are generally extremely productive because of
the great diversity of highly specialized and widely
adaptable species which thrive in these rich dynamic regimes.
(Manganaro et al., 1966). The inhabitants of the estuaries
are mainly adaptable marine species with a few truly
estuarine species. The marine species favor inlets and the
typically marine niches while the fresh water species favor
mouths of streams and creeks and niches that are similar to
fresh water. These populations can generally inhabit
adjacent waters but cannot co-exist in the same waters.
(U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1970). In addition to being
extremely productivef the estuary plays an important role in
the life cycle of marine organisms by serving as a feeding
ground and shelter area, and as an acclimatization area
between salt water and fresh water.
High concentrations of mineral and organic matter
derived from the coastal sea, runoff and human contributions
cause high productivity. This fertility is distributed
throughout the estuary by tidal and wind mixing which
effectively dilutes the materials to non-toxic concen-
trations. The shallow sun-bathed waters, protected from
severe tidal and wave stress, provide an ideal habitat for
many species. With regard to temperature and salinity, the
estuaries exhibit greater stresses than do fresh waters, but
10
-------
estuarine organisms are able to cope with these changes.
(Shuster, 1966). [in EPA, 1972],
The EIS reported that the organic matter in the bays supports
a large population of diverse species, including many shellfish
species: hard clams, soft—shell clams, oysters, bay scallops, and
mussels. But the EIS also pointed out that direct pollution had
caused the closure of about 10 percent of the area to shell-
fishing. Most of the closures involved the inshore areas of the
bays, the westernmost bays because of their proximity to the
metropolitan area, and the easternmost bays because of the large
volumes of untreated duck farm waste they received (see Figure
2).
As an alternative means of effluent disposal, the EIS
considered the use of a bay outfall. According to the EIS, this
method "would hopefully preserve the current salinity in order
that the estuarine population, so dependent upon the existing
narrow range of salinity, would not be altered." However, the
overabundance of nutrients that this would have added to the bay
would probably have negated any potential advantage:
Increases in biostimulant concentrations and avail-
ability are inevitable. The effects of these changes have,
in general, been extremely minimized or maximized. In a
middle of the road opinion, Foehrenbach (1969) states that
the large assimilative capacity... [of Great South Bay] for
some forms of pollution is reaching a point where additional
loads will adversely affect its ecology and its economic and
recreational value.
The bays are already severely eutrophicated in many
areas; additional inputs of biostimulatory material will turn
them dystrophic. This is the major difficulty in pouring
additional wastewater into the bays. (EPA, 1972).
11
-------
FIGURE 2
AREAS CLOSED TO SHELLFSSHING
as reprinted in the 1972 Final EIS
ro
i
STATE OF NSW TOKK
CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
eUlfiAV O9 MAfiiNI PIIHS81BS
Mcrlne Oiilrlo
-------
On balance, secondary wastewater treatment followed by ocean
disposal of the effluent was considered environmentally
acceptable. Adverse hydrologic effects, including reduced
freshwater outflows to the bays, were seen as necessary short-
term trade-offs to preserve groundwater quality. It was reasoned
that these adverse effects of outfall sewering could be offset in
time through the implementation of groundwater recharge, which
was and is under study on Long Island.
13
-------
CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE IMPACTS OF
OUTFALL SEWERING ON THE LONG ISLAND
SHELLFISHING INDUSTRY
Background
Ecological concerns about the effects of outfall sewering on
the shellfishing industry center on the development of three
large south shore sewer districts: Nassau County Disposal
District #2 (which is served by the Bay Park plant), Nassau
County Disposal District #3 (which is served by the Cedar Creek
plant in Wantagh), and Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District #3
(which will be served by the Bergen Point plant). Other
potential sewering projects in Suffolk County, notably the West
Central sewer District program, could add to this concern if and
when they are implemented (see Figures 3 and 4).
Commercial users of the shellfish resources of the Great
South Bay complex and of the nearshore ocean zone between Jones
Inlet, Nassau County, and Smith Point, Suffolk County, are
concerned because of 1) the area's high productivity, 2) the
special hydrologic and oceanographic characteristics of the
estuary, and 3) the size of the sewering projects.
11
-------
FIGURE 3
NASSAU COUNTY
Water Pollution Control Facilities
1359 Operational
J222 Under Construction
• Treatment Facility
•— Outfall
SCALE IN MILES
012345
i
en
N
COLD SPRING HARBOR
WASHINGTON
MANHASSET BAY
LAWRENCE
LONG BEACH So. Oyster Bay
Atlantic Ocean
-------
I
en
StAMfORD
K *
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Water Pollution Control
Facilities
Operational
Under Construction
• Treatment Facility
— Outfall
-------
While more information is available now than was available in
1972, most of it is peripheral to the central question of effects
on the shell fishing industry- A definitive assessment of all of
the potential ramifications of outfall sewering remains as
impossible now as it was in 1972.
Most of the studies undertaken after publication of the final
EIS are long-term studies that have not yet yielded definitive
results. Moreover, no study has been initiated for the distinct
purpose of determining the effects of outfall sewering on the
shellfishing industry. Such effects would be outgrowths of other
direct and indirect effects, namely diversion of fresh water from
Long Island1s hydrologic system and reduction of freshwater
outflow to the bays. Since potential effects on the shellfishing
industry are at least three times removed from their root cause,
they cannot reasonably be determined or mitigated until the
intermediate effects of outfall sewering are dealt with. Ongoing
studies are directed at such things as recharge of the
groundwater and augmentation of the fresh and estuarine waters,
consistent with the proposition that if potential primary effects
on the hydrologic system are avoided or mitigated, secondary
effects will likely follow suit.
At this point in time, it is possible to describe the
projects and, in general terms, their relationship to the
hydrologic system on Long Island, as well as the characteristics
of the bays and their shellfish resources. But attempts to
quantity the impact on commercial shellfishing are still hampered
17
-------
by a lack of information, both about the industry itself and
about the precise interactions of the environmental factors
affecting shellfish. The extent of the information that would be
needed to answer such a highly specific question will be made
clear following updates on the pertinent sewering programs and on
the shellfish resources of Long Island.
Sewering Programs of the Area
Until recently, most of Long Island relied upon septic tanks
for wastewater disposal; large-scale sewering programs commenced
with the development of the Nassau County Disposal District #2
(NCDD #2) system in the early 1950fs. Sewering programs are
sometimes an inducement to development, but this is not generally
the case on Long Island, where sewering of new areas has followed
population growth and development. Sewering is a typical
corollary of development because as population densities
increase, the ground is less able to absorb septic tank
leachates, and action may be necessary to preserve groundwater
quality.
As development proceeds, increasing volumes of water are
withdrawn from the groundwater system for domestic, commercial,
and industrial use. Long Island relies almost exclusively on its
aquifers for water supply. Before sewering, most wastewater is
returned to the upper layers of the aquifer through septic tank
18
-------
seepage. This consumption and disposal process causes some minor
reductions in the volume of the aquifer and minor redistributions
of the water within the aquifer, but alters the natural
hydrologic system very little. As development accelerates and
sewering takes place, water consumption and withdrawals grow
while recharge from septic systems is eliminated. This results
in increased outputs to the water supply system and decreased
gross inputs to the aquifer system; eventually, outputs to the
estuarine system must decrease accordingly. The foregoing
assumes, of course, a constant rate of precipitation.
Development also directly affects recharge to the aquifer
system by increasing the amount of impermeable surface and
reducing infiltration. The more land area that is covered over
with roads, parking lots, and other types of construction, the
less rainfall that can infiltrate into the ground. Rainfall that
cannot infiltrate is converted to surface runoff, which picks up
contaminants as it runs overland and deposits them in the streams
and estuaries into which it flows. This has been partially
combatted by the development of a stormwater recharge basin
system that collects the water and then gradually introduces it
into the aquifer.
Since the aquifer system responds as a unit, sewering
programs in any part of Long Island necessarily have some effect
on the Great South Bay complex. The only significant past
sewering was the development of the NCDD #2 system in the 1950's.
Pre-sewering hydrologic and estuarine data would be needed to
19
-------
assess the impacts of a sewering program on original pre-sewering
conditions. Since these data were not collected for the NCDD t2
system, it is impossible to retroactively assess that program's
impacts. As of 1976, a small portion of NCDD #3 had been sewered
with approximately 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/day) being discharged
through an ocean outfall. Given that the aquifer responds as a
unit, the sewering in NCDD #3 will have already begun to affect
the entire system.
In order to assess the effects of future sewering programs,
hydrologic conditions at the beginning of the study period must
be determined to form a basis of comparison. Ideally, all future
sewering west of Riverhead should be assessed, including projects
north of the groundwater divide, because all of these programs
would affect outputs to the Great South Bay complex to some
extent. In reality, however, plans for sewering most areas on
Long Island are tentative at best. The extent of sewering,
populations, wastewater flows, dates of sewering, and even the
effluent disposal systems are not defined in most cases, making
attempts to assess their hydrologic impacts academic and possibly
misleading. The exceptions are NCDD f2, NCDD #3, and SWSD #3,
where programs are well defined and being implemented. It is
therefore important to analyze the effects of these programs in
/
detail now, and to expand the analysis to include subsequent
sewering programs as they become clearly defined.
These three sewer districts are similar in design, with a
single treatment facility giving secondary treatment to
20
-------
wastewater flows at a location within the sewer district on the
south shore of the mainland portion of the island. Wastewater is
collected by lateral sewers beneath the streets of residential
and commercial areas and discharged to large diameter interceptor
sewers that convey the wastewater generally southward by gravity
to the treatment facility. After treatment, the effluent is
discharged through a long outfall pipe, six feet (1.8 m) or more
in diameter, extending southward across the estuaries. The NCDD
#2 outfall currently terminates in Reynolds Channel within the
estuary, but may be extended in the future to discharge in the
Atlantic Ocean. The NCDD #3 outfall now discharges in the
Atlantic Ocean approximately 1.5 miles (2.U km) seaward of the
barrier island. When complete, the SWSD #3 outfall will also
discharge in the ocean approximately 2.5 miles (U.O km) seaward
of the barrier island.
The sewering programs in these three sewer districts are in
distinctly different stages of development. Figure 5 shows the
flow projections for the three districts through 1986. The NCDD
#2 system has reached its design capacity and is about to enter
its second-generation development. A program is being developed
to upgrade and expand the treatment plant, and possibly to bring
into the system several smaller local sewer districts in the
southwestern part of the Town of Hempstead. In addition, a
proposal has been made to extend the outfall into the Atlantic
Ocean. A federal grant for portions of this work has been
applied for, but details of the future NCDD #2 developments have
21
-------
175
150.
125.
100
75J
FIGURE 5
FIDW PROJECTIONS FOR STUDY AREA
SEWER DISTRICTS, 1977-1986
-22-
Total Flow [NCDD #2 + NCDD #3 + SWSD #3]
NCDD #2
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
-------
not yet been resolved. The system will be designed to accommo-
date increased growth and wastewater flows from the sewer
district on the order of 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d).
The NCDD #3 system is halfway through its first-generation
development. The first half involved the completion in 1973 of
the 45 mgd (170,000 cu m/d) treatment plant at Wantagh, the
essential completion of the outfall in 1975, and the installation
of collection and interceptor sewers delivering 15 rngd (57,000 cu
m/d) of flow. At present, the collection system is being
expanded rapidly to cover the entire sewer district and to
deliver the design flows to the treatment facility. This work
may be completed in about five years; more precise estimates are
not realistic. The design capacity of 45 mgd (170,000 cu m/d) is
expected to be reached in the year 1984. Expansion of the
facility beyond that capacity falls into the category of tenta-
tive plans that will have to be assessed if and when they are
defined.
All components of the SWSD #3 system are currently under
construction, including the treatment facility at Bergen Point in
the Town of Babylon, the outfall, and the collection system. No
wastewater is being accepted by the system, and house connections
are awaiting the completion of the treatment plant and outfall
systems. Preliminary evaluations foresee the treatment and
discharge of approximately 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d) by 1981, and 30
mgd (114,000 cu m/d) by 1984. Completion of the collection
system and introduction of flows into the system are expected to
23
-------
proceed in a generally west to east and south to north fashion
within the sewer district. The interceptors are sized to accept
flows from the proposed West Central Sewer District to the north,
so the treatment facility may someday require expansion. These
plans would be contingent upon future developments, and are,
therefore, not included in the present problem analysis.
In summary, there are two major sewering programs impacting
on Long Island's hydrologic system, and a third sewering program
will soon be contributing to the cumulative effects. The three
sewering programs of concern are similar in their basic design
concept, ultimate size, and effect on the hydrology of the area;
they differ mainly in terms of their timing, including initiation
arid rate of program development. The cumulative hydrologic
effects of these and of any future sewering programs would have a
bearing on the salinity balance in the bays, and therefore on
shellfish and the shellfishing industry.
Hydrologic and Oceanographic Characteristics of the Estuary
The Great South Bay complex is a barrier—bar type estuary
system; it is bounded on the north by the mainland part of Long
Island and on the south by a barrier bar that is intermittently
broken by inlets allowing communication between the bay and the
ocean. The bay is a mixing zone for salty ocean water and
relatively salt-free water originating in precipitation falling
-------
on the surface of Long Island and falling directly on the bay
surface. Salty ocean water enters with the tide through four
widely-separated inlets: Rockaway Inlet, Jones Inlet, Fire Island
Inlet, and Moriches Inlet east of Great South Bay (see Figure 1).
Salty ocean water can also enter the bay through breaks in the
barrier bar caused by hurricanes, erosion, and other natural
phenomena.
In general, the bay is a very shallow, protected area of
reduced salinity and high nutrient levels, giving rise to high
life support capacities. The bay owes its reduced salinity to
fresh water from the adjacent land masses. Without this, the
precipitation falling on the estuarine surface would be offset by
evaporation, and estuarine salinities would approximate ocean
salinities or even exceed them if evaporation exceeded precipi-
tation. The latter situation occurs in certain hypersaline
lagoons on the Texas Gulf Coast. The character of the estuary is
therefore heavily dependent on the hydrologic system of the
adjacent land masses. The hydrology of Long Island, except for a
small portion in the northwestern part of the island, is
dominated by deep, unconsolidated sand, gravel, and rock
materials that lie between the surface and the impermeable
bedrock. These porous materials underlie the island and extend
seaward beneath the estuary; they contain enormous amounts of
precipitation, forming an extensive aquifer system.
Under natural conditions, over 90 percent of the rainfall
that is not lost through evapotranspiration, that is through
25
-------
evaporation and plant consumption, enters this aquifer system.
Sea water enters the unconsolidated deposits from the ocean side;
however, because the groundwater level is higher than sea level,
a hill or mound of fresh water has built up, holding back the
salt water through hydrostatic pressure. As precipitation
infiltrates into the aquifer, water is simultaneously discharged
from the aquifer, under pressure, to the estuaries and to the
streams, which flow directly into the estuaries. The groundwater
divide is situated such that approximately two-thirds of the
width of the island drains to the south shore through the aquifer
and southward-flowing streams. However, the entire Long Island
aqutter system, from Riverhead westward, responds as a unit, with
changes in hydrostatic pressure in one area being felt to some
degree throughout the system. Under natural conditions, 90 to 95
percent of total streamflow is derived from the aquifers.
Discharge to the salt water zones includes diffusion into the
salty groundwater and movement as subsurface flows into the
streams and the estuary. Thus, under natural conditions most
freshwater inputs from the mainland to the bays are routed
through the aquifer.
Over time, an equilibrium has been established between the
inputs to the aquifer through precipitation and the outputs to
streams and estuaries. This equilibrium shifts slowly in
response to natural fluctuations in precipitation, with reduced
precipitation being followed by reduced storage in the aquifer
and reduced outputs to the estuary. Human actions, such as
26
-------
development, that reduce inputs to the aquifer or increase
withdrawals or outputs to other uses also result in shifts in the
equilibrium. Most of the area has already experienced some
changes of this nature.
As a corollary, the quality of the water entering the estuary
from the mainland is also significant, and under natural
circumstances this is strongly conditioned by the role of the
aquifer in transmitting the water. Human actions, such as waste
disposal, that affect the quality of the water in the hydrologic
system also necessarily impact upon the estuarine system.
In summary, the Great South Bay complex is naturally
dependent upon mainland precipitation and upon aquifer outputs
for the reduction of salinity that occurs. The quality of these
outputs also influences the estuary. Any change in the quantity
or quality of the outputs from the aquifer, whether they are
changes caused by variations in precipitation or by human
actions, will affect the estuary.
Long Island's Shellfish Resources
Official records classify numerous organisms as commercial
shellfish: crabs, lobsters, squid, clams, oysters, scallops,
mussels, conchs, and even sea turtles. However, concern is
generally limited to the bivalve mollusks: the clams, oysters,
scallops, and mussels that inhabit Long Island's bay or ocean
27
-------
wan^rs and are the basis for a significant and viable industry.
Hereafter, the term shellfishing industry will be used to refer
to the harvest of bivalve mollusks only, rather than to the
Harvest, of mobile arthropods, such as crabs and lobsters, or of
the free-swimming cephalapod mollusk, the squid. A. further
distinction must be made between the bay shellfishing industry,
which operates exclusively in estuarine areas using specialized
methods to capture particular species, and the ocean shellfishing
industry, which has different operating areas, methods, and
products.
Commerical Shellfish of the Area
Bay Species Ocean Species
Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
Soft clam (Mva arenaria) Surf clam (Spisula solidissima)
American oyster (Ostrea virginica)
Razor clam (several species) Sea scallop (Pecten magellanicus)
Bay scallop (Pecten irradians)
Mussel (Mytilus edulis)
Conch (various species)
In their adult forms, the clams dwell burrowed in the bottom
sediments from which they are extracted by dredging either with
hand tools or with mechanical dredges. Scallops, oysters, and
mussels live on the surface of the bottom. The scallops can swim
about by opening and closing their shells, but the oysters and
28
-------
mussels are attached to the bottom where they remain relatively
immobile. Mussels are harvested along with clams and oysters.
Both sea and bay scallops are harvested from moving boats with
wire trawls; this method is more closely akin to snellfish
digging than to lobsterina and crabbing, so the scallops will be
grouped with the clams, oysters, and mussels for discussion. A.
few conchs, which are gastropod mollusks capable of moving about
on the bottom, are incidentally taken in the harvest of the
bivalve mollusks and will be included in the harvest totals for
completeness.
Table 1 shows the total annual harvest of bivalve mollusks in
the New York Marine District for the years 1970 to 1976. The
value of the harvest averaged $16 million per year dockside
during the first seven years of this decade. About 75 percent of
the yield was from bay areas, with the Great South Bay complex
accounting for about half of the total harvest value (see Table
2), a much higher proportion than its areal extent relative to
the entire area exploited by the Long Island industry. Virtually
all of the yield from the Great South Bay complex was in hard
clams taken from the waters of the towns of Babylon, Islip, and
Erookhaven. The preeminence of Great South Bay in hard clam
production is evidenced by the fact that in 1974, 50 percent of
the hard clams harvested in the United States came from Long
Island waters, and 80 percent of that from Great South Bay proper
(NSRPB, 1974). In other words, 40 percent of the entire U.S.
hard clam production came from Great South Bay in 1974.
29
-------
TABLE 1
BIVALVE MOLLUSK HARVEST
NEW VORK MARINE DISTRICT
ORGANISM
Hard Clams
Soft Clams
Oysters
Razor Clams
Bay Scallops
Mussels, Sea
Conchs*
Subtotal
Surf Clams
Sea Scallops
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
ORGANISM
Hard Clams
Soft Clams
Oysters
Razor Clams
i;ay Scallops
Mussels, Sea
::0nchs*
; uototal
i yirf Clams
If 3 Scallops
; no total
UP AND TOTAL
1970
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
7,906
73
520
5
365
200
40
9,109
4,182
534
4,716
13,825
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
8,977
28
1,074
2
470
60
8
10,619
490
703
1,193
11,182
1974
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
8,028
102
1,554
1
668
483
54
18,408
3.951
206
4,157
15,057
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
13,425
113
3,800
.3
848
205
16
11,500
719
310
1,029
19,437
1971
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
8,549
154
779
10
114
318
38
9,992
3,688
402
4,090
14,044
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
10,757
56
1,682
4
234
96
7
12,832
438
609
1,047
13,879
1975
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
8,688
63
2,107
3
444
106
109
11,500
4,580
270
4,850
16,350
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
14,301
76
5,176
1
713
45
38
20,350
768
390
1,158
21,508
1972
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
8,500
92
1,113
9
93
496
41
16,169
2,713
222
2,935
13,279
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
13,234
80
2,466
4
215
161
9
9,646
313
430
743
16,912
1976
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
9,028
47
1,901
2
438
85
89
11,590
3,455
758
4,218
15,808
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
18,120
61
4,764
.9
816
37
30
23,830
1,089
1,236
2,325
26,155
197.1
Thousand Ib.
Meat Weight
7,246
104
1,392
5
169
685
45
14,891
3,319
153
3,472
13,118
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
10,910
115 i
3,260
3
395
195
13
10,890
413
307
720
15,611
*Conchs are gastropod mollusks, not bivalve
mollusks. They are included in the harvest
totals for completeness.
Source: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service
1970 - 1976
i
i
-30-
-------
TABLE 2
BIVALVE MOLLUSK HARVEST
GREAT SOUTH BAY COMPLEX
ORGANISM
lard Clams
Soft Clams
)ysters
3azor Clams
Bay Scallops
Mussels, Sea
Conchs*
TOTAL
ORGANISM
Hard Clams
Soft Clams
Oysters
Razor Clams
Bay Scallops
Mussels, Sea
Conchs*
TOTAL
1970
Thousand
Bushels
578
3
.1
0
9
.1
.1
590
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
6,936
48
.2
0
54
1
1.5
7,041
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
5,393
15
1
0
13
.3
.4
5,423
1974
Thousand
Bushels
617
.02
1
0
.4
.08
1.5
620
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
7,404
.3
7.5
0
2.4
.8
22.5
7,438
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
12,351
.4
24
0
,4
.4
7
24,760
1971
Thousand
Bushels
629
1
2
0
9
1
.2
642
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
7,548
16
15
0
54
10
3
7,646
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
9,521
7
30
0
14
2
.7
9,575
1975
Thousand
Bushels
653
0
2
0
0
.4
2.5
658
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
7,836
0
15
0
0
4
37.5
7,889
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
12,921
0
40
0
0
1.7
13
12,976
1972
Thousand
Bushels
625
.2
1
0
14
0
.2
640
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
7,500
3.2
7.5
0
84
0
3
7,598
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
11,691
2
21
0
37
0
.8
11,752
1976
Thousand
Bushels
700
0
2
0
0
.05
2
704
Thousand 1 Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
8,400
0
15
0
0
.5
30
8,446
Dollar -
Value
16,873
0
39
0
0
.2
11.5
16,925
1973
Thousand
Bushels
572
0
2
0
0
0
.3
574
Thousand
Ib. Meat
Weight
6,846
0
15
0
0
0
, 4.5
6,884
Thousand
Dollar -
Value
10,518
0
36
0
0
0
1
10,555
Source: NYSDEC, 1970-1976.
*Conchs are gastropod
mollusks, not bivalve
mollusks. They are included
in the harvest totals for
completeness.
-3-1-
-------
Information Needs
We have established that the practice of disposing of treated
effluent in the ocean could in time have an effect on Long
Island's shellfishing industry by altering the fresh to salt
water balance in the south shore bays. Likewise, we have
established that the shellfishing industry on Long Island,
particularly the bay shellfishing industry, is an important one,
though certainly it is not the second largest private industry on
Long Island (NSRPB 1971; NSRPB 1973), as one observer has
commented (Lane, 1975). In fact, the inaccuracy of describing
the shellfishing industry as the second largest on Long Island
points up a problem that was encountered repeatedly during
preparation of this report — that is, the dearth of information
about the industry itself.
Given that this report was undertaken to determine the
effects, including the ultimate economic effects, of outfall
sewering on the shellfishing industry, there was an obvious need
for at least the elementary facts about the industry. However,
recourse to both published and unpublished sources proved
unproductive (see Appendix). It became apparent that no trade
organization, government agency, or public interest group has
gathered basic statistical information on the industry. Even the
answer to such a fundamental question as the number of persons
employed by the industry was unobtainable from any known source.
This may or may not be indicative of the real value of the
32
-------
shellfishing industry, but it does illustrate the extensive
groundwork that would have to be laid before such a refined and
narrowly focused analysis as "the effects of outfall sewering on
Long Island's shellfishing industry" could be attempted. The
question thus becomes one of time and resources: whether the
potential effects on the shellfishing industry specifically
warrant such an effort.
Subsequent chapters present what pertinent information is
available and describe what further information may become
available as a result of current or proposed studies. Great care
should be taken in interpreting this information as it does not
deal directly or comprehensively with the central question of
shellfishing. To do that, a vast amount of information would
have to be collected, as outlined below. At present, too little
is known about Long Island's shellfish resources and about the
dynamics of the shellfishing industry to draw any reliable
conclusions about the particular impact of sewering programs on
the industry.
Progress is being made in this area, but it may be many more
years before answers to the following questions are available.
This information would be essential to any in-depth analysis of
the eff_ects__oJL.Qiit£aXl sewe-ring on the shellfishing industry.
I. How will the sewering programs affect the water quality of
the Great South Bay complex?
A. What are the constituents of the wastewater stream?
33
-------
1. What are the effects of the constituents, such as
nutrients, organic matter, microorganisms, toxic
chemicals, and water as it relates to salinity?
2. What water quality constituents are potentially
significant to the shellfish?
B. How are pertinent water quality factors affected by
existing septic systems?
1. What are the pathways and mechanisms whereby these
contaminants enter the bay? What physical and
chemical changes do they undergo in the process?
2. What is the quantitative contribution of
contaminants and molecular water to the bay system
at different locations?
3. What is the relative contribution of contaminants
and molecular water from septics relative to other
sources, such as storm runoff?
U. How do inputs of contaminants and water to the bay
affect water quality there? What is the relative
effect of septic sources, other mainland sources,
and background conditions in the bay in determining
water quality.
C. How will sewering alter the contribution of contaminants
and water to the bay? What quantitative changes will
occur as a result of the elimination of septic systems?
D. How will alterations in contaminant and water inputs to
the bay alter water quality?
-------
II. What will be the impacts of water quality changes due to
sewering on the shellfishing industry of the Great South Bay
complex?
A. What are the characteristics of the industry?
1. How many people are employed by the industry?
2. What part does the self-employed bayman play
compared with the organized shellfishing firms?
3. How valuable are state and local license statistics
in determining employment levels?
4. How does employment compare with that of the entire
Long Island shellfishing industry and with total
Long Island employment?
5. What are the characteristics of the labor market?
What are the costs of labor, alternative oppor-
tunities, and the skills required?
6. How much employment is generated in marketing the
industry's products and supplying the industry with
capital goods and services?
7. How much employment is generated in processing and
conversion of the shellfish harvest to consumer
goods?
8. What are the characteristics of the market? What
are the characteristics of demand? What role do
substitute products play in the demand for and
price of each type of shellfish? How does
production vary with changes in demand?
35
-------
9. What is the significance of the industry based here
to the regional shellfishing and the overall
regional economy?
10. What factors control access to the resources? What
are the ownership rights, harvesting rights, and
licensing procedures? What is the impact of the
state regulatory programs, including the
certification of areas open to shellfishing?
11. How does the harvest from the area compare with
harvests from other areas, in terms of species,
volume, and value? How does the area compare with
the region, the state, and the nation in these
respects? How has this picture varied over the
years?
12. What are the boundaries of the shellfishing
industry, and what parameters are the most
effective indicators of its health?
13. What harvesting and resource management methods are
used? What developments and improvements are on
the horizon?
B. What is the yield potential of various portions of the
bay?
1. How much has been taken in various areas
historically? Where are the most productive beds?
36
-------
2. What is the potential of areas now closed to
shellfishing? What about areas threatened with
closure?
C. How does shellfish biological productivity affect the
industry?
1. How does biological productivity affect yields?
2. What is the growth potential for species other than
the hard clam in the area?
3. What are the factors affecting biological produc-
tivity and standing crop of the hard clam and the
other mollusks?
U. What is the importance of mollusk size
distributions, as well as total volume of the
standing crop?
5. What effect does harvesting pressure have on the
resource?
6. What effects do public and private management
programs have?
D. How do environmental conditions affect biological
productivity in various areas?
1. What is the effect of substrate characteristics,
including vegetation, sediment texture, and other
factors?
2. What is the role of circulation, particularly with
respect to larval distributions and setting
patterns?
37
-------
3. What is the role of various water quality factors
such as salinity, nutrients, organic matter,
temperature, suspended solids, and toxic chemicals?
4. What future water quality changes are likely which
are not due to sewering? What changes in other
environmental factors?
5. What are the effects of present water quality
impacts related to septics?
6. What will be the effects of future water quality
changes due to sewering?
7- What will be the direct physiological responses of
the organisms?
8. How will the predators and prey of the shellfish be
affected, and how will this affect shellfish growth
and survival? What specific effects will there be
upon phytoplankton, starfish, oyster drills,
whelks, and other organisms?
III.How will outfall discharges affect the ocean shellfish
industry?
A. What are the characteristics of the industry?
B. What water quality constituents are potentially
significant to the surf clam and the sea scallop? At
what concentrations?
C. What is the location of the beds with respect to the
outfalls?
38
-------
What modifications in critical water quality parameters
will result from the discharges at average and peak
design flows? What about during treatment process
failures?
How large an area will be closed to shellfish taking as
a consequence of the cumulative discharges?
What will be the quantitative effect of water quality
degradation on biological productivity in terms of area
affected and level of effect?
What will be the effect of changes in areas open for
shellfish taking and changes in biological productivity
on the potential harvest yield and upon the industry?
39
-------
CHAPTER III
CHANGES IN BASELINE CONDITIONS SINCE 1972
In the preceding chapters we have seen how valuable Long
Island's shellfish resources are, what the pertinent sewering
programs on Long Island are, and how they could theoretically
affect the shellfishing industry. We have also seen the amount
and kind of information that would be needed to determine what
effects outfall sewering would actually have on the shellfishing
industry. The required information would take years to collect
and analyze, and it would also be an enormously expensive
endeavor.
Lacking this information, we can look at existing studies
that do not have the shellfishing industry as their primary
focus, but that do discuss related issues, principally hydrology.
We can also look at the current situation on Long Island in an
attempt to discern what changes have taken place in the
hydrologic system and the shellfishing industry since 1972. This
discussion can be kept in perspective by remembering two things:
first, that the potential effects on the shellfishing industry
are both long-range and indirect and may not as yet have
manifested themselves, and second, that ocean outfall sewering is
at present a fact only in NCDD #3.
40
-------
Hydroloqic Studies of Long Island
As discussed earlier, the aquifer system underlying Long
Island, with the exception of the North and South Forks, responds
as a unit. The basic relationship describing its behavior is its
groundwater budget in which:
INFLOW = OUTFLOW + CHANGE IN STORAGE
Our prime interest is aquifer outflow because it accounts for 90
to 95 percent of the streamflow and 100 percent of the subsurface
flow into the bays. A more detailed model is:
INFLOW OUTFLOW
PRECIPI-
TATION
RECHARGE
+
"SEPTIC
RECHARGE
=
""DISCHARGE
TO SPRINGS
§ STREAMS
+
""SUBSURFACE
OUTFLOW
+
r-
PUMPAGE
+
"EVAPO-
TRANSPI-
RATION
CHANGE
+ IN
- STORAGE
In the Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources (New York State
Water Resources Commission, 1968), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) developed a groundwater budget for Long Island, except for
some of the coastal areas, the North and South Forks, and the New
York City portion of the Island. Average inflow and outflow were
calculated for the period 1940 to 1965, based upon average
precipitation and average storage conditions during the period.
The change in storage factor was assumed to be zero. An average
inflow to the aquifer of 820 mgd (3.1 million cu m/d) was
calculated, balanced by an average outflow of 820 mgd (3.1
million cu m/d) , consisting of 335 mgd (1.3 million cu m/d) of
41
-------
discharge to springs and streams, 170 mgd (1.8 million cu m/d) of
subsurface outflow, and 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d) of evapotranspira-
tion. Pumpage and septic recharge were not estimated because
they were assumed to be equal, and therefore would cancel each
other out in the equation. Thus the equation became:
PRECIPI-
TATION
RECHARGE
820 mgd
+
rSEPTIC ~
RECHARGE
__X--
X
'
—
DISCHARGE"
TO SPRINGS
§ STREAMS
335 mgd
+
SUBSURFACE
OUTFLOW
470 mgd
M
+
r /
PUMB<
-------
Despite the validity of their sources, the values for
precipitation recharge and discharge to springs and streams both
involved a certain unknown error factor. Consequently, the
subsurface outflow value contains considerable uncertainty, which
may be due to compounding the errors in the other terms. The
usefulness of this outflow value is further limited by the
following:
1. It is the average value for a twenty—five year period;
time-variable outputs are not assessable.
2. It is the average value for a large water budget area:
the effects of pumpage and other local conditions are
not assessable, and the outputs are not particularized
for the Great South Bay complex or any of its
subdivisions.
3. The water budget area is not comprehensive.
Much more sophisticated modeling capabilities have recently
been applied to the regional aquifer system as part of the
development of a 208 plan for Nassau and Suffolk counties. The
term 208 plan is shorthand for Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plan, a program authorized by section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA).
Section 208 provides funds in the form of EPA grants to encourage
and facilitate a comprehensive and farsighted approach to the
waste treatment management needs of areas that have substantial
water quality control problems because of urban-industrial
concentrations or other factors. The Nassau-Suffolk Regional
43
-------
Planning Board (NSRPB) is directing the 208 plan for Nassau and
Suffolk counties.
For the Nassau-Suffolk 208 study, the USGS ran an analog
model that uses the flow of current through an electrical network
to simulate the flow of water through Long Island's aquifer
system. The analog model permits time-variable prediction of
aquifer storage and outflow under variable inflow conditions,
including changes in precipitation and septic recharge. Specific
pumpage outflows can also be included in the system assessment.
The Finder models, which are computer-based models developed for
the 208 study by a Princeton University group, have very similar
capabilities. A detailed description of the way the analog and
computer models work is given in a recent 208 report by the NSRPB
(1977).
In the 208 models, the water budget area has been expanded to
include the coastal areas of Nassau and Suffolk counties and the
New York City portion of the island. The North and South Forks
are once again excluded. The water budget area is divided into
approximately 2,000 grid squares, 6,000 feet (1,829 m) on a side.
The aquifer is then subdivided vertically into five separate
layers representing hydraulically distinct zones, resulting in
approximately 10,000 three-dimensional cells, each of which is
assigned specific storage and transmission properties and linked
to other surrounding cells.
First the model is loaded with an assumed baseline storage
level that corresponds to a desired point in time or to an
44
-------
average condition for some period. Inflow from precipitation,
septic recharge, and any other sources is then loaded into the
topmost layer, and withdrawals are specified for particular zones
in the model corresponding to pumping wells. The response of
water tables and hydraulic heads in the aquifer system to this
loading can then be observed in the model, and the response of
streamflow analyzed. Streams are modeled as gaining streams with
flow being strictly proportional to the elevation of the water
table above the streambed. When the water table drops below the
streambed at any node, streamflow is assumed to be zero at that
point. This allows predictions of streamflow declines to be
made, as well as stream shortening predictions to the nearest
node.
These modeling applications are accompanied by explicit
qualifications on the area—specificity of output information.
First, percentage streamflow declines are not applicable to
individual streams, due to limitations in the model. They are
limited to evaluating average flow declines in adjacent parallel
stream groups, 10 to 20 miles (16 to 32 km) wide. Subsurface
seepage has been inferred only for the length of Great South Bay
as a whole and not further subdivided. Subsurface outflows are
roughly computed for the entire model based upon the equation-
balancing principle and are not further subdivided.
Two open-file USGS reports (75-535 and 76-441) summarize
printed exercises using this modeling system. The first exercise
(75-535) calculates the percent reduction in streamflow into the
45
-------
south shore bays caused by the loss of septic recharge due to the
progression of the sewering programs in NCDD #3 and SWSD #3. The
effects of pumpage and other factors in the New York City portion
of the water budget area are not considered. In NCDD #3, the
period under study runs from 1975 to 1995, or from 0 mgd (0 cu
m/d) of diversion of wastewater to the treatment plant to 45 mgd
(170,000 cu m/d), the design capacity of the treatment plant; in
SWSD t3, the period under study runs from 1979 to 1985, from 0 to
30 mgd (0 to 114,000 cu m/d). This sewering regime is similar
but not identical to the one contemplated (see pages 21-24).
For the purposes of the exercise, sources of recharge other
than septic recharge are assumed to be constant, as is pumpage.
Changes in the water table, hydraulic head, and streamflow can
then be demonstrated. No subsurface flow estimates accompany
this report. The model predicts streamflow declines of 10
percent in Hempstead, Middle, and East bays, 55 percent in South
Oyster Bay, 35 percent in western Great South Bay, and 14 to 18
percent in eastern Great South Bay. By comparing the streamflow
declines predicted by the model with the total average streamflow
into the five large bay subdivisions, a very rough estimate of
post-sewering average surface water inputs into each of these
broad sectors can be obtained. The surface input results can be
combined with total average streamflow into the five large bay
subdivisions to get estimates of post-sewering average surface
water inputs in each of these broad sectors.
46
-------
The second exercise (76—441) predicts similar percentage
decreases in average surface water discharge for the same stream
segments. It, however, is based upon sewering of broad areas in
addition to the three sewer districts of concern, and therefore
is not relevant.
Salinity in the bays correlates with the rate and location of
freshwater inputs from the mainland. As we have seen, the
aquifer is the primary source of these flows, both through direct
discharge into the estuary and through discharge into streams,
which empty into the estuary. With mathematical modeling it is
possible to determine salinity levels for as small an area of the
Great South Bay complex as desired given varied inflow
conditions. The only limitation is the level of effort
justified. The model results can be checked against known field
conditions on the day of sampling.
A modeling study of the Great South Bay complex salinity
response and other water quality parameters has been undertaken
as part of the Nassau-Suffolk 208 study (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1977).
This study evaluates salinity at ninety locations (nodes) in the
complex, fairly evenly distributed. Each reading value
represents the average salinity for a polygon or cell surrounding
the node; each cell is formed by the connection of the mid—points
of lines drawn between the nodes. Just as average salinity in
the bay as a whole is determined by the relative size and source
of the mixing waters, the salinity reading for each cell is
47
-------
determined by the inputs from the surrounding cells or through
the model boundary.
This is a typical surface water model which has been used as
part of the 208 study. It was successfully calibrated to
salinity conditions existing on September 18, 19, and 21, 1976.
For comparative modeling purposes, average freshwater input rates
and evaporation rates were set and then mainland—origin input
rates were arbitrarily changed by multiples of 0.5 and 1.5 while
holding direct precipitation and evaporation at constant average
levels. The same procedure was repeated while reducing
precipitation to zero and holding evaporation constant.
Mainland inputs included surface and subsurface flows.
Baseline or average surface inputs were calculated using flow
records for each of the forty streams discharging into the Great
South Bay complex. The streams were treated as point sources,
and flow information on them was put into the system according to
their real locations. The total gauged flow for the forty
streams amounted to 189.7 cfs (322.5 cu m/min). Another 145.0
cfs (246.5 cu m/min) was added to streamflow below the gauges to
simulate seepage to streams in the tidal areas. Subsurface
seepage from the aquifer to the bays, based upon rough USGS
estimates, was 134.6 cfs (292.0 cu m/min), which was evenly
distributed over the east-west length of the system out to a
distance of 500 yards (457 m) from the mainland shore. Thus,
total estimated subsurface flow from the aquifer to the Great
South Bay complex was 279.6 cfs (475.3 cu m/min). Total
48
-------
estimated flow, surface and subsurface, was 469.3 cfs (797.8 cu
m/min) .
In the development of the 208 model, it was found that the
portion of Great South Bay west of Robert Moses Causeway is a
hydrodynamically distinct subsystem from the portion east of the
causeway. The eastern subsystem reacts slowly to changes in
inputs, requiring several month's time to stabilize at a new
equilibrium when inputs are altered. Therefore, steady-state
modeling was used for this area. The western subsystem responds
rapidly to altered input conditions, reaching equilibrium over
the course of a few tidal cycles, due to good mixing character-
istics. Therefore, dynamic modeling of tidal cycle behavior was
used here.
Two hypothetical cases were modeled and the results compared
to normal inflow salinity profiles for the dynamic and the
steady-state subsystems:
1. Fifty percent reductions in surface and subsurface
inflows with average rainfall (rainfall held constant)
directly to the bay surface.
2. Fifty percent reductions in surface and subsurface
inflows with zero rainfall directly to the bay surface.
In case #1, dynamic modeling showed an average salinity
increase of about 0.5 ppt in the western subsystem. Steady state
modeling in the eastern subsystem showed a net increase of about
2 ppt at the boundary with the western subsystem, rising to about
5.5 ppt at the eastern boundary. In case #2, only the eastern
49
-------
subsystem was modeled and compared. The results showed an
average salinity increase of about 3 ppt at the boundary with the
western subsystem, rising as high as 17 ppt around Bayport, and
then decreasing in differential east of Bayport.
These case studies are valuable in that they show the
responsive characteristics of the system. However, they are not
based on actual inflow decreases associated with sewering or on
historical precipitation probability analysis; they are modeling
exercises based on hypothetical assumptions. In addition, the
subsurface inflow rates and locations are based on even
distribution of rough overall estimates rather than on measured
input rates. Streamflow inputs are more soundly based, but even
so there is some variability in the quality of the data. For
these reasons, the possibility of error in the model results is
considerable.
In summary, this type of modeling effort could be quite
useful in projecting salinity responses if it were specifically
adapted to the problem at hand:
1. The size of the grid and the parameter specificity
(whether mean, monthly average, or daily average
salinity) would have to be those required to make
biological predictions about shellfish.
2. Model sensitivity to the location of freshwater inflows
would have to be explored in terms of the system1s
response and the potential significance to the
biological resource.
50
-------
It might then be necessary to conduct systematic
localized evaluations of subsurface aquifer conditions
to set more precise subsurface output parameters for the
aquifer abutting the Great South Bay complex.
Water Table Fluctuations and Aquifer Storage
The water table is not static; it rises or falls in response
to many factors, including variations in precipitation, decreases
in infiltration due to urbanization or sewering, and changes in
consumption patterns. Water table fluctuations are of course
reflected in fluctuations in the aquifer's freshwater output to
the bay.
Based on information collected from fourteen observation
wells widely-distributed over Nassau and Suffolk counties, it is
apparent that average storage and water table levels on Long
Island were above normal during the years 1940 to 1962. This
paralleled above-normal rainfall during that period. Below-
normal raninfall during the 1962 to 1966 period was associated
with reduced average water levels during the years 1962 to 1971.
Since 1972, water table levels and storage have risen in response
to increased precipitation (USGS, as cited in New York Times,
November 27, 1977; Kantrowitz, USGS, December 20, 1977). Losses
in recharge due to sewering were apparently offset by the
51
-------
increased precipitation. Of course, the sewering programs
planned for Long Island have not yet been fully implemented.
Precipitation patterns are the most important single
influence on aquifer storage and outputs. Where recharge has
been reduced by sewering, above-normal precipitation can
compensate for the loss, averting declines in aquifer storage or
output; on the other hand, below-normal precipitation can
compound the effects of sewering. This means that a direct link
cannot be constructed between sewering and aquifer declines; if
such a link existed, the water table would now be lower than it
was in 1972, not higher. Predictions of the aquifer's response
to sewering must, therefore, take into account other sources of
recharge variation, primarily precipitation, but also development
and water consumption trends. Different aquifer response
scenarios would have to be derived using reliable projections of
population and development trends as well as sound meterological
data. Assumptions about precipitation rates should be based upon
historical precipitation probability analysis. Within this
analytical framework, it would be possible to predict the range
of effects sewering might have on the aquifer under different
precipitation conditions, and the probability of any one of those
effects occurring.
52
-------
Areas Closed to Shellfishing
More of Long Island1s waters are closed to shell fishing now
than were closed in 1972. The primary reason for these closures,
according to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), is pollution due to stormwater runoff.
The NYSDEC reported that by the end of 1972, 13.8 percent, or
163,700 acres (66,300 ha), of the New York Marine District was
uncertified for shellfishing. By 1977, the total had increased
to 17.5 percent, or 207,900 acres (84,200 ha), (Schneck, NYSDEC,
December 20, 1977).
Of the 44,000 acres (18,000 ha) closed since 1972, 14,050
acres (5,700 ha) were in the Great South Bay complex, where
uncertified areas rose from 9,365 to 23,415 acres (3,800 to 9,500
ha), or from 11.4 to 28.6 percent of the total Great South Bay
complex area of 81,915 acres (33,200 ha). Table 3 shows that
large decreases in certified acreage occurred in 1972-1973, 1974-
1975, and 1976—1977. Reversals in this general trend have not
occurred, although 535 acres (217 ha) of eastern Great South Bay
proper that had been closed to shellfishing were reopened in May
1977. Figure 6 shows the areas now closed to shellfishing.
Changes in certification are related to changes in coliform
levels which are, in turn, related to the contributions from
point and nonpoint sources in the area. The general trend in
closures in the Great South Bay complex has been from west to
east, with closures in Nassau County virtually eliminating
53
-------
TABLE 3
ACREAGE UNCERTIFIED FOR SHELLFISHING
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES
1972 - 1977
AREA
Hempstead Bay
(Hempstead, Middle,
and East Bays)
South Oyster Bay
(Wantagh State
Parkway to
Amityville Channel)
Great South Bay
Proper (Amityville
Channel to Howell
Point)
Bell port Bay
Subtotals
Atlantic Ocean to
3-Mile Limit
Nassau County
Suffolk County
Subtotals
Long Island Sound to
Adjacent State Lines
Nassau County
Suffolk County
Subtotals
ANNUAL TOTAL
1972*
5,650*
700
2.5152
500
9,365
0
0
0
20,950
2,800
23,750
33,115
1973*
10,950"
1,015s
3,605
500 3
16,070
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,070
1974*
10,950
1,015
3,807
1,030
16,802
340
0
340
0
0
0
17,142
1975*
11,850
4,020
3,807
1,030
20,707
3,140
0
3,140
0
0
0
23,847
1976*
11,850
4,020
3,807
1,030
20,707
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,707
1977*
11,850
August
4.0201 4,620
3.8072 5,450
May 6
1,030 +495
20,707 22,415
0 0
0 0
0 0
37,150 0
300 0
37,450 0
58,157
TOTAL Marine Acreage
11,850
6,190
58,280
5,595
81,915
28,700
231,500
260,200
342,115
*As of Jan. 1 (year) unless otherwise noted.
1. Offshore extension of uncertified areas.
2. Offshore extension of uncertified areas GSB.
3. Unspecified areas, although duck waste problems were acute about this time.
4. Closure around Jones Inlet.
5. Closure around Cedar Creek Outfall.
6. Opening of areas, duck waste situation improved.
Source: Schneck, December 16, 1977.
-------
FIGURE 6
Scale: l" •=4mi.
Area closed to shellfishing
AREAS CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING
IN AUGUST 1977
-55-
-------
certified waters there. In Suffolk County, there has been a
marked increase in the width of the band of uncertified waters
along the mainland coast between the county line and the Babylon-
Islip town line. Shorefront area closures east of this point
have also increased.
Between January 1972 and January 1975, 11,342 acres (4,600
ha) of the Great South Bay complex lost their certification.
Most of this loss, 9,520 acres (3,900 ha), occurred in the Nassau
County portion of the bays. Certification losses in Nassau
County included 6,200 acres (2,500 ha) in Hempstead, Middle, and
East bays, eliminating all of the shellfishing waters in those
bays, and 3,320 acres (1,350 ha) in South Oyster Bay. The South
Oyster Bay closure was necessitated by a break in the NCDD #3
outfall pipe in 1974. Of the 1,822 acres (740 ha) of
shellfishing waters lost in Suffolk County, 530 acres (215 ha)
were closed because of acute problems with duck farm wastes
running off into the extreme eastern section of Great South Bay.
Between January 1975 and January 1978, most of the closures
in the Great South Bay complex were in Suffolk County waters,
again in a west to east pattern. Suffolk County lost 1,708 acres
(692 ha) , of which 1,643 acres (665 ha) were in western and
central Great South Bay proper. Another 600 acres (243 ha) were
lost in Nassau's South Oyster Bay. Recent water quality
improvements as a result of treatment of duck farm wastes allowed
the certification of 535 previously closed acres in extreme
eastern Great South Bay proper in May 1977.
56
-------
In 1972, Nassau County had 28,360 acres (11,500 ha) of
certified shellfishing waters in the near-shore Atlantic Ocean.
In 1974, 2,800 acres (1,100 ha), or about 10 percent of these
waters, were closed. This closure represents the dispersion area
and buffer zone for the NCDD *3 outfall, which went into
operation in 1974. As long as the outfall remains in use, these
waters will remain closed. To date, no ocean zone waters have
been closed in Suffolk County, but the same precaution of closing
the area around the SWSD #3 outfall will be taken when that
outfall goes into operation.
Despite the continuing pattern of pollution-related closures,
the shellfishing industry has remained relatively stable in terms
of harvest yields and value (see Tables 1 and 2) . What changes
may have occurred in employment patterns are unknown, but the
number of shellfish digging permits issued by the state has been
on the increase since 1972 (Hendrickson, NYSDEC, December 16,
1977) .
Shellfish Digging Permits*
Full and Part Time
1970 5,547 1974 8,027
1971 6,026 1975 9,216
1972 5,832 1976 9,792
1973 6,462
*Issued to residents only; figures do not include permits issued
for lobstering and crabbing.
57
-------
CHAPTER IV
STUDIES TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL DATA
Although the central question posed by this report - "what
are the effects of outfall sewering on the shellfishing
industry?" - cannot now be answered, significant progress is
being made toward answering the intermediate questions outlined
in Chapter II. Two studies, one underway and the other proposed,
are of special interest. The first is an EPA-sponsored study,
generally known as the Nassau-Suffolk Streamflow Augmentation
Study, that was initiated in early 1977, Its purpose is to
identify and to develop interim methods of mitigating any
significant adverse impacts of the sewering programs in NCDD f2,
NCDD #3, and SWSD #3 on the hydrology or ecology of the
freshwater and marine resources of the area. The second study is
one proposed by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to provide the basic scientific data needed to
develop a management program for the hard clam resources in Great
South Bay.
58
-------
Nassau-Suffolk Streatnflow Augmentation Study
Concern about the potential impacts of increased groundwater
use in NCDD #2 and of the present sewering programs in NCDD #3
and SWSD #3 on freshwater and marine resources led EPA and Nassau
and Suffolk counties to undertake a joint study in early 1977.
This study, the first of its kind funded by EPA, is a major
effort to apply state—of—the—art analyses to potential
environmental impacts. The streamflow augmentation study area
encompasses the three major sewer districts and adjacent areas.
It also includes the Great South Bay complex from the Atlantic
Beach Bridge in Nassau County to Smith Point in Suffolk County.
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent of the
impacts of the sewering programs prior to their occurrence and to
evaluate and implement any interim alternatives necessary to
mitigate those impacts. Mitigation alternatives fall into three
groups: 1) methods of augmenting the freshwater flows in streams
and lakes only, 2) methods of augmenting the freshwater flows in
streams and lakes and in the estuarine systems, and 3) methods of
augmenting the freshwater flows in the estuarine systems only.
Any one of these alternatives is possible depending upon the
nature of the impacts identified.
The counties are responsible for all aspects of the study
except the estuarine assessment, which is being directed by EPA
through a consultant. Funding for the counties' portion of the
study has been provided by EPA through a Step I wastewater
59
-------
facilities construction grant, amounting to 75 percent of the
total estimated study cost of $6.5 million (2.8 million for
Nassau County, and $3.8 million for Suffolk County). AS of
January 10, 1978, the counties were in the process of selecting
consultants, and EPA's consultant was preparing a plan of study
for the estuarine assessment. Since the studies are just getting
underway, descriptions of them will be necessarily preliminary
and general, based upon the goals and objectives established by
the participants.
The study calls for actual data collection and analysis to
begin in early 1978, with an anticipated completion date of June
1980. The completion date was selected to permit the design and
construction of any facilities necessary to mitigate impacts by
June 1984. In order to insure that any mitigating measures
recommended by the study are implemented, EPA has retained the
right to withhold 20 percent of the 1977 grants for construction
of collection systems in NCDD f3 and SWSD f3. Payment of the
remainder of the grants is contingent upon implementation of the
mitigating measures.
The preliminary plan calls for the counties to analyze the
groundwater aquifer and surface water quality and quantity
responses to the NCDD #2, NCDD #3, and SWSD #3 sewering programs.
Streamflow models will be refined to predict quantity and quality
responses for each stream in the study area. The effects of flow
declines upon the environmental values of the freshwater streams
and lakes will be analyzed as a possible basis for action. No
60
-------
grant funds have been allocated to refine aquifer subsurface
underflow values because of the complexities of aquifer — bay
bottom interrelationships. Another component of the county study
is the modeling of bay water quality response to input changes
from the mainland.
The EPA component of the study will determine the environ-
mental impacts of water quality changes in the bays related to
changes in the quantity and quality of the freshwater inputs.
This estuarine assessment was prompted in part by the preliminary
results of the Nassau—Suffolk 208 study's water quality model for
the south shore bays. The Directive of Work for the estuarine
assessment summarizes the preliminary results:
... salinity changes of less than one ppt near the
western end of the study area to nearly nine ppt near
the eastern end are associated with a fifty percent
reduction in surface and groundwater inflows. A
generalized assessment of the significance of these
salinity changes in the area is being completed as part
of the 208 study. The degree of resolution regarding
the effect on localized biological communities is
expected to be low in this analysis. A minimal level of
analysis will be done regarding salinity and shellfish
productivity, nutrient changes and phytoplankton
productivity, salinity and wetlands extent, finfish
productivity, and coliform contamination and area closed
to shellfishing.
The limited 208 assessment of estuarine resources should be
completed in early 1978, but it is not expected to provide
definitive answers to the question of effects on the shellfishing
industry. The EPA component of the streamflow augmentation study
should be of greater significance in this regard because it is
61
-------
intended to determine the critical water quality characteristics
and the information on them that is needed to adequately assess
their effect on bay resources. The sampling and modeling
programs that will be used to accomplish this task will be better
defined during the course of the study.
The EPA component of the study focuses on the economically
significant organisms and the potential impacts upon them of
water quality changes in the Great South Bay complex. Initially,
both finfish and shellfish were considered. The EPA consultant,
having evaluated the feasibility of studying the various bay
organisms and the relative economic significance of those
organisms, has determined that the study should concentrate on
shellfish. The preliminary plan calls for an inventory and
productivity analysis of the entire area, including the status of
the study organisms and the critical physical, chemical, and
biological factors in their environment that may be affected by
the possible changes due to sewering. The extent of these
investigations will depend upon the number of critical organisms
identified and their particular environmental requirements.
In addition to a biological survey of the critical organisms,
the economic value of these resources will be assessed from
historical data and field data. Industries dependent on these
resources will also be identified and evaluated. Both commercial
and recreational resource industries will be included as
appropriate.
62
-------
This streamflow augmentation study, specifically the
estuarine assessment, is relevant to the question of the effects
of sewering on shellfish in that it focuses on both the
appropriate sewering programs and the appropriate estuarine
zones. However, the level of detail of the biological
investigations and the extent of the investigations into effects
on the shellfishing industry are indeterminate at present.
The timing of this study with respect to the sewering
programs is the major limiting factor regarding its predictive
value. The study concept is based upon measuring baseline
conditions prior to any sewering in SWSD f3 and prior to
increases in wastewater flows beyond 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d) at
the NCDD #3 treatment plant and beyond 60 mgd (227,000 cu m/d) at
the NCDD #2 plant. However, total flows to these plants are
projected to increase steadily throughout the 1977-1981 period,
which means that conditions in the bays will be increasingly
affected throughout this period. For example, the average flow
to the NCDD #3 treatment facility increased from 12.4 mgd (47,000
cu m/d) in 1976 to about 16 or 17 mgd (61,000 or 64,000 cu m/d)
in 1977. The rapid completion of lateral sewer systems is
projected to result in flow increments of more than 4 mgd (15,000
cu m/d) during the next few years. All but 5.5 mgd (21,000 cu
m/d) of the actual flow to the NCDD #3 treatment plant will be
discharged through the outfall in 1979, when a demonstration
recharge facility is expected to become operational.
63
-------
The recently stepped-up pace in sewer construction can be
attributed to changes in the State of New York's priority system
for use of federal funds. Before federal funds began to be used
for lateral sewer systems in New York, flows to the NCDD #3
treatment plant were expected to increase at only 2.6 mgd (10,000
cu m/d) per year. They are currently increasing at about 5.2 mgd
(20,000 cu m/d) per year. In addition, flows from the Village of
Freeport sewer district, which now discharges about 5.0 mgd
(19,000 cu m/d) to the bay, are expected to be routed through the
NCDD #3 treatment and ocean disposal system by 1980.
Consequently, the streamflow augmentation study is attempting
to evaluate a situation in flux. Baseline conditions during this
period will not be technically baseline because they will reflect
alterations caused not only by weather and other natural
phenomena but by the sewering programs themselves. Nevertheless,
the streamflow augmentation study is the most practical means of
evaluating potential effects and developing mitigative measures
in a timely manner.
Prospective Study of the Hard Clam Resources of Great South Bay
The NYSDEC is contemplating an in—depth study of the
environmental conditions of Great South Bay proper as they relate
to hard clam productivity and availability. The stated purpose
of this study is to build a scientific knowledge base on the hard
64
-------
clam resource that can be used, first, to improve assessments of
the impacts of natural and man-made changes upon the resource
and, second, to develop rational programs to manage the resource.
The NSRPB, with the assistance of a team of experts, is preparing
a technical statement of work that NYSDEC can use in soliciting
proposals from consultants wishing to perform the actual study.
A. preliminary version of the technical study plan was
completed in December 1977. It calls for in-depth investigations
of the hard clam resources and the environmental factors
affecting them, including nutrient budgets, surficial sediment
distributions, present and future coliform levels, salinity, and
possibly other environmental factors. Investigations would
generally begin with a thorough compilation of existing data
possibly supplemented by sampling programs to complete the
coverage of the study area.
The preliminary study plan projects a three-year study
period. If a decision is made to proceed with the study, work
may begin by late spring or early summer 1978. Tasks completed
during the first year would probably include a field study of
non-tidal current and local wind relationships, a survey of hard
clam larvae sources, and a literature search and development of a
sampling grid for the study of nutrient—phytoplankton
relationships. Other tasks undertaken, but not completed, during
the first year would probably include analyses of the habitat
values and spawning relationships for the hard clam (two-year
duration), identification of seasonal salinity distributions
65
-------
(three—year duration), studies of eelgrass as a significant
factor in nutrient budgets (three-year duration), sediment
surveys (three-year duration), and hard clam resource surveys
(three-year duration).
Tasks undertaken during the second year would probably
include an analysis of tidal exchange relationships (one-year
duration) , a sampling program for nutrients and phytoplankton
(one-year duration), an analysis of transplant programs (two-year
duration), and coliform modeling with regard to waste treatment
(two—year duration).
During the third year, the task of modeling nutrients and
phytoplankton with regard to pollution control alternatives (one-
year duration) would probably be undertaken. Monitoring of
tides, salinity, and nutrients would extend throughout and
possibly beyond the study period.
Since a final decision on this study has not yet been made,
and since the plan of study is preliminary, the potential
contribution of the study to the evaluation of the effects of
outfall sewering on the shellfishing industry is difficult to
judge. Additions, deletions, and modifications are possible both
in technical scope and schedule. Nevertheless, some general
observations can be made. The scope of the study promises
considerable improvement in the understanding of hard clam
ecology in Great South Bay proper. However, the study will not
provide information on hard clams in the western portions of the
Great south Bay complex, nor will it consider the potential
66
-------
habitat, value for other commercial shellfish species in the area.
It appears that the study will not attempt to relate biological
productivity to harvest yields or to the economic status of the
industry, either quantitatively or qualitatively. On the other
hand, information on environmental factors, particularly nutrient
budgets, phytoplankton, coliform bacteria, salinity, circulation,
and sediment distributions, is a key element in answering the
shellfishing question, as is information regarding the sources of
larvae.
Once again, the major limiting factor on the relevance of
this study is its timing in relation to the sewering programs.
By 1981, a flow of 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d), or approximately half
of the design flow, will be reached in SWSD #3; about 33.8 mgd
(120,000 cu m/d), or approximately two—thirds of tne design flow,
will be reached in NCDD t3; and possibly 15 mgd (57,000 cu m/d)
will be added to the NCDD #2 system. The groundwater aquifer
responds continuously to the decreasing volumes of septic
recharge; the response is expressed in terms of storage and
output decreases, other input sources being equal. The USGS has
estimated that the complete response of the aquifer to any net
recharge level in year X will occur within three to five years.
That is, the aquifer will reach equilibrium within three to five
years after a decrease in total recharge in year N. Moreover,
the aquifer will move gradually toward that equilibrium during
those three to five years. Therefore, declines in freshwater
inputs to the bays associated with these sewering programs will
67
-------
be increasingly manifest from 1977 to about 1986-1988.
Similarly, changes in coliform, nutrient, and organic matter
contributions brought about by elimination of septic recharge
will occur as the local sewer systems are gradually tied into the
district systems and the treatment plant during this period. The
response of the estuarine system to these changes will be rapid,
on the order of a few days to a few months.
Therefore, any baseline physical, chemical, or biological
measurements or conclusions derived from the subject study
between 1978 and 1981 will necessarily be reflections of
conditions in a state of flux.
The most relevant portion of this study to the overall
shellfish question may be the long-term water quality monitoring
information it produces. The monitoring program may reflect
changes over time, permitting qualitative association with
sewering programs and other causal factors in the area.
68
-------
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
In 1972, when EPA proposed the funding of several sewage
treatment projects to protect the quality of Long Island's water
supply, it was with the realization that their effects would not
be wholly beneficial. Gradual depletion of the groundwater
reservoir was the most significant potential adverse effect
because of Long Island's almost total reliance on groundwater for
water supply. When the draft EIS was issued in 1971, a
groundwater recharge study, funded in part by EPA and its
predecessors, had been underway at the Bay Park treatment plant
in NCDD tt2 for several years. Before the final EIS was issued in
1972, EPA had initiated a recharge feasibility study in NCDD t3
as well. In the final EIS, EPA recommended that the feasibility
study be followed by a demonstration recharge facility; that
facility is scheduled to go into operation at the Cedar Creek
plant in 1979.
These and other studies are steps toward the ultimate
objective of instituting large-scale groundwater recharge
projects to insure Long Island of a continuing high-quality water
supply. Of course, because of the vital role that the aquifer
plays in contributing fresh water to the bays, groundwater
69
-------
recharge will also be of benefit in maintaining the fresh to salt
water balance there. The outfalls that are now used for ocean
disposal of treatment plant effluent will be retained only as
backup facilities when groundwater recharge becomes a feasible
alternative. When that will be depends on the progress that is
made in overcoming technological problems, such as well clogging.
In the meantime. Long Island will probably be incurring a
groundwater deficit, but the aquifer system is vast and the
above-normal precipitation of recent years should help to offset
adverse effects.
Similar concerns about the potential for drawdowns in surface
waters led to the Nassau-Suffolk Streamflow Augmentation Study
described in Chapter IV. Direct streamflow augmentation does not
present the technological problems that groundwater recharge
does. As such, streamflow augmentation, meaning the augmentation
of fresh or estuarine waters as necessary, is a suitable interim
response to the effects of the present sewering programs on
surface waters. As with ultimate recharge, this interim response
will have the benefit of contributing to the maintenance of the
fresh to salt water balance in the bays. Any facilities that
will be needed to conduct a direct streamflow augmentation
program are scheduled to be completed in 1984, well before the
time when significant effects might be expected to occur.
If the present sewering programs were proceeding in the
absence of efforts to develop mitigating measures, there would be
reason for concern about the potential effects, including
70
-------
possible injury to the shellfishing industry. However, both
short- and long-range mitigating measure are being formulated
through the cooperative efforts of the federal, state, and local
governments. Moreover, specific measures, such as groundwater
recharge and streamflow augmentation, are not being developed in
a vacuum. Planning programs, notably the Nassau-Suffolk 208
plan, represent a concerted effort and more importantly a
continuing effort to insure that the wastewater treatment needs
of Long Island, present and future, are planned for and responded
to in a timely, effective, and comprehensive manner.
Until all plans are fully implemented, some degree of adverse
effect must be expected, as set forth plainly in the 1972 EIS.
It is reasonable to assume that any adverse hydrologic effects
that did occur would extend in time to the shellfishing industry,
but the specific effects of the present sewering programs on the
industry are not assessable with the information available.
Nevertheless, actions already underway, by identifying specific
adverse hydrologic effects of the programs and providing for
their timely mitigation, should go a long way toward ensuring
that activities such as commercial shellfishing, which rely on a
balanced environment, are protected. Since the shellfishing
industry will be among the beneficiaries of these on—going
actions, further specific studies of the potential injury to that
industry do not seem warranted.
The need for adequate sewage treatment on Long Island is
clear. The EPA's commitment to assist Long Island in achieving
71
-------
this objective in an environmentally sound manner remains the
prime focus of the studies, programs, and plans underway in
Nassau and Suffolk counties.
72
-------
APPENDIX
LIST OF CONTACTS
In an attempt to determine the status of the Long Island
shellfishing industry, particularly with regard to employment,
several persons and publications were consulted. No one was able
to offer even a rough estimate of the number of persons employed,
although the absence of the shellfishing industry from the
NSRPB*s 1971 and 1973 surveys of employment by industry indicate
that it is not among the major industries on Long Island (see
Appendix Tables 1 and 2). Dr. Pearl Kamer, the NSRPB's Chief
Economist and the author of both NSRPB reports, indicated in a
telephone conversation that to her knowledge no one had compiled
employment figures for the shellfishing industry.
In an affidavit submitted to the court on behalf of the
plaintiffs on October 2, 1975, Stephen G. Lane stated, "The
shellfish industry of Great South Bay is extremely important for
the economy of Long Island. It is the second largest private
industry on Long Island employing some 12,000 people...."
Appendix Tables 1 and 2 show that the shellfishing industry could
not possibly be the second largest on Long Island. The NSRPB
reported that in 1970 the total employment in Nassau and Suffolk
counties for the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries industries
73
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 1**
INDUSTRY OF EMPLOYMENT OF BI-COUNTY RESIDENTS, 1970*
Industry Total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries - 8,913
Mining - 839
Construction - 58,808
Manufacturing - 198,838
Durables - 119,583
Non-Durables - 79,255
Transportation, Communications,
Public Utilities - 83,836
Transportation - 44,583
Communications - 20,180
Utilities, Sanitary Services - 19,073
Wholesale & Retail Trade - 209,156
Wholesale Trade - 46,356
Retail Trade - 162,800
Services - 340,738
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate - 64,538
Business & Repair Services - 41,145
Personal Services - 29,499
Entertainment & Recreational Services - 11,150
Professional & Related Services - 194,406
Public Administration - 57,055
TOTAL - 958,183
*Refers to persons age 16 and older; industry categories
not completely comparable to those shown in Appendix B •
Table 6.
Source: U.S.' Bureau of the Census
**Extracted from Appendix B - Table 7 (NSRPB, 1973)
-74-
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2*
ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY - 1960-1970
NASSAU-SUFFOLK (000)x
i
Industry
Civilian Work Force
Unemployment
Employment
Total Non-Agricultural Wage &
Salary Employment
Manufacturing
Durables
Ordnance & Accessories
Lumber & Wood Products
Furnilurc & Fixtures
Stone, Clay, Glass
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery, except Elcc.
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Instruments
Non-Durables
Food
Textiles
Apparel
Paper & Allied Products
Printing £ Publishing
Chemicals &. Allied Products
Petroleum
Rubber & Plastics
Leather
Miscellaneous Mfg.
Non-Manufacturing
Contract Construction
Transportation & Public
Utilities
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance & Real
Estate
Service & Misc.
Government
1. Data consists of annual averages of estimated total non-agricultural employment
2. Figures may not add to totals because of rounding
Source: New York State Department of Labor, Office of Research & Statistics
* Extracted from Appeddix B - Table 4 (NSRPB, 1971).
-75-
, % Change
1960Z
600.6
23.5
577.1
448.5
124.1
95.2
1.4
O.S
2.0
2.1
1.6
7.2
6.4
18.2
32.9
22.6
29.0
4.4
1.3
6.8
2.1
6.9
2.2
0.1
1.5
0.4
3.2
324.4
34.9
21.6
99.6
17.4
72.0
78.8
1961
628.2
29.2
599.0
464.0
126.6
96. S
1.4
O.S
1.9
2.1
1.6
7.2
7.3
19.9
32.7
22.0
29.8
3.9
1.4
7.1
2.2
7.5
2.3
0.1
1.6
0.4
3.3
337.4
35.4
22.2
104.1
18.5
75.2
81.9
1962
663.9
28.1
635.8
496.3
132.9
100.4
1.6
0.9
2.2
2.3
1.8
7.8
7.9
21.4
32.8
21.6
32.5
3.7
1.5
7.6
2.6
8.2
2.3
0.1
2.0
0.3
4.1
363.4
39.0
23.0
114.7
19.3
80.9
85.9
1963
696.3
32.0
664.3
524.8
139.2
104.7
1.3
0.8
2.5
2.2
1.6
7.7
8.3
20.1
39.5
20.7
34.5
3.6
1.5
7.8
3.1
8.9
2.5
0.1
2.1
0.4
4.4
385.4
37.1
23.9
124.5
21.4
86.8
91.9
1964
715.9
36.0
679.8
539.5
131.8
95.6
1.0
O.S
2.7
1.9
1.6
7.7
8.1
18.1
34.9
18.9
• 36.2
3.8
1.5
S.2
3.3
9.3
2.6
0.1
2.0
0.4
4.9
407.7
37.4
25.0
132.6
23.0
92.6
97.0
1965
747.8
34.6
713.2
571.3
135.9
95.9
1.0
O.S
2.8
1.8
1.9
8.1
8.9
18.5
34.9
17.0
40.0
4.0
1.8
8.9
3.6
9.9
3.3
0.1
2.5
0.4
5.5
435.4
38.0
25.8
143.6
24.4
100.1
103.5
1966
785.0
32.9
752.1
612.1
151.0
10S.O
1.3
0.8
2.9
1.9
2.1
9.1
10.2
23.1
39.8
16.8
43.0
3.8
2.2
9.6
3.7
10.5
3.7
0.1
2.9
0.4
6.0
461.1
38.1
25.6
151.0
25.6
106.4
114.4
1967
817.0
35.0
781.9
642.8
159.5
114.3
2.0
0.9
2.9
1.8
1.9
9.6
1 1.1
26.3
41.3
16.5
45.2
3.8
2.3
10.3
4.0
11.4
3.7
0.1
3.1
0.5
5.9
483.3
38.2
27.3
158.3
26.4.
112.4
120.8
1968
844.7
33.7
811.0
672.5
164.0
116.8
2.3
0.9
3.0
1.9
1.9
10.1
11.6
27.6
42.0
15.4
47.2
3.8
2.6
11.2
4.1
11.7
3.9
0.2
3.3
0.5
5.9
508.8
38.2
28.0
168.3
27.8
119.1
127.4
1969
884.8
36.0
848.8
707.0
165.0
116.6
2.8
0.9
3.1
2.1
2.2
10.8
12.5
28.5
39.2
14.5
48.4
3.8
2.6
11.3
4.5
11.8
4.2
0.3
3.5
0.4
6.0
542.0
38.4
30.4
181.9
30.5
125.4
135.4
1970
917.7
46.7
871.0
728.3
154.4
106.1
2.2
1.0
3.1
2.0 ,
2.2
10.1
12.6
26.0
34.0
12.9
48.3
3.9
2.6
11.4
4.4
11.7
4.6
o.:
3.2
0.4
5.S
573.9
37.2
33.5
193.0
33.1
133.2
143.8
60-70
+52.8
+98.7
+50.9
+ 62.4
+24.4
+ 11.4
+57.1
+25.0
+55.0
- 4.S
+37.5
+40.3
+ 96.9
+42.9
+ 3.3
-42.9
+66.6
-1 1.4
+ 100.0
+67.6
+ 109.5
+69.6
+ 109.1
+ 100.0
+ 113.3
0.0
+81.2
+ 76.9
+ 6.6
+55.1
+93.8
+90.2
+ 85. 0
+ S2.5
69-70
+ 3.7
+ 29.7
+ 2.6
+ 3.0
- 6.4
- 9.0
-21.4
+ 11.1
0.0
- 4.8
0.0
- 6.5
+ O.S
- S.S
-13.3
-11.0
- 0.1
+ 2.6
0.0
+ 0.9
- 2.2
- 0.9
+ 9.5
-33.3
- S.6
0.0
-33.3
+ 5.9
- 3.1
+ 10.2
+ 6.1
+ S.5
+ 6.2
+ 6.2
-------
combined was only 8,913 (see Appendix Table 2) . While it is
possible that in 1975 the shellfishing industry alone employed
about 12,000 persons, this still would not bring it within the
range of the major industries on Long Island. On December 5,
1977, we wrote to Mr. Lane asking for his assistance in preparing
this supplement. His affidavit and our request are presented as
Attachments 1 and 2. Mr. Lane did not reply to our letter, but
the reply of the Bluepoints Company, received on February 14,
1978, is included as Attachment 3.
At Dr. Kamer's suggestion, we contacted the Long Island
Association of Commerce and Industry. The association was unable
to supply employment figures for this particular industry, but
suggested that we check with the Long Island Business Review and
with The Fisherman, a trade magazine. Neither was able to help.
We also checked with NYSDECfs Bureau of Shellfisheries in
Stony Brook, Long Island. Steven Hendrickson of the bureau
indicated that the only way to obtain an approximate employment
figure would be to contact each company directly. Canvassing the
industry would have taken far more time than we had in preparing
the supplement; it would also have required the complete
cooperation of the companies involved. A further complication is
that individuals may work for a company only part of the year,
preferring to work independently at other times. The only
information we could obtain was the number of permits issued by
NYSDEC each year for shellfish digging (see page 57) . Here again
76
-------
a complication arises because while individual fishermen require
shellfish digging permits, companies do not.
Hendrickson, Steven, NYSDEC, Division of Marine Resources, Bureau
of Shellfisheries, Stony Brook, New York; telephone conver-
sation between Mr. Hendrickson and Gregory M. DeSylva,
Ecologist, EPA-Region II, New York, New York; December 16,
1977-
Kamer, Dr. Pearl, NSRPB, Hauppauge, New York; telephone conver-
sation between Dr. Kamer and Joann M. Brennan, Environmental
Protection Specialist, EPA—Region II, New York, New York;
December 15, 1977.
Long Island Association of Commerce and Industry, Melville, New
York; telephone conversation between the Research Librarian
and Joann M. Brennan, EPA—Region II; December 15, 1977.
Long Island Business Review; telephone conversation between LIBR
representative and Joann M. Brennan, EPA-Region II; February
8, 1978.
Muller, Dr. William, Marine Biologist, The Fisherman, telephone
conversation between Dr. Muller and Joann M. Brennan, EPA-
Region II; December 16, 1977.
NSRPB; Long Island Economic Trends: Technical Supplement — The
Long Island Economy: Anatomy of Change; December 1971;
Hauppauge, New York.
NSRPB; Long Island Economic Trends: Technical Supplement — A
Profile of the Nassau-Suffolk Labor Force; March 1973;
Hauppauge, New York.
77
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK *
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. )
et al. )
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
AFFIDAVIT
Civil Action No. 74 C 698
RUSSELL E. TRAIN, et al.,
Defendants. )
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
S3
Stephen G. Lane, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am Vice President of Bluepoints Company, Inc., and serve as President
of the Long Island Shellfish Farmers Association. I am also President of the Regional
Advisory Council for the New York State Department of Environmental Consenvation,
have acted as an Advisor to the Federal Drug Administration and a member of the
New York Sea Grant Advisory Board. I obtained my B. A. from Colgate University
in 1964.
2. I am familiar with the shellfishing industry and the water quality problems
of Great South Bay which affect that industry. These waters have been farmed for shell™
fish during.the past'-S5 years'"by. the- Bluepoints Company which owns some .13,000 acres.
of Bay bottom located below the mouth of the Connetqubt River. The company''depends
on Ray waters to sustain the conditions necessary for the growth of these shellfish.
rhHvo.%oV£C&ory\the-Bay:--^
die lust seven years.
3. The shellfish industry of Great South Bay is extremely important for the
economy of Long Island. It is the second largest private industry on the Island
employing soms 12,000 people, with a gross value in excess of $100 million per year.
The dock-side landed value of these shellfish was $1.1 million in 1973. Some 40
-------
percent of the hard clams, including little necks, cherrystones and quahogs, harvested
in the United Slates every year come from Great South Bay waters. Furthermore, hard
clam landings from Great South Bay represent some 4Q% of the total value of all
commercial fish landings in New York State. The areas of Great South Bay which
arc most important for the growth and harvesting ot these natural food resources are
those located within the town waters of Islip, Babylon and Brookhaven.
4. Hie long term health of this valuable shellfish resource depends on the
water quality of Great South Bay and on proper fishery management.
5. Water quality in the Bay is affected in the following ways;
(a) Increasing population produces many stresses on the Bay.
These include increased recreational and commercial uses, increased seepage of
industrial, residential and animal wastes and increased runoff, due to paving of the
surrounding area, to the Bay.
(b) Sewering designed to collect wastes produced by expanding
populations, inhibits seepage from cesspools and industrial discharges from reaching
the Bay, thus icuucing a portion of the pollutants discharged into the Bay. These
pollutants include fecal coliforms, nitrates and various other chemical constituents.
However, sowenrg itself will not control discharges of nori--point sources of pollution,
particularly storm v.ater runoff which may cany more total conform bacteria into the
Bay than, cesspool seepage.
,(c)...The use. of ppe^h outfalls, to -dispose of treated^ wast'ewater1..
will reduce fresh water'discharges into the Bay by the lowering of the w^ter table.'
-As. a..'resulty '.aitc rations "in-, tlie'.s.a'iiriity' ire ginre.will-'p^cui:.'
(dj'-Dredfffng'influences''-both the :bi'ol-ogloal and physical'parameters
of the Bay". Physical changes:. .\vliich".pccur.include alteration in •current'flbsv.'patt'e'rris
and.flushing- rates which in turn-alter Bay: salinities:.
6. Although numerous water quality parameters of die Bay waters are important
for production of the shellfish resources, salinity may be the most important. Thus
the use of outfalls, to dispose of treated wastewater,- deserves close scrutiny. For
the ha.rcl shell.clam, salinities for"'optimum-spawning and.larval suryivaLappe'artp be :,
-------
between 18 ppt and 27 ppt with best results found in the range of 20-24 ppt. This
salinity range has baen observed in out hatchery to provide the maximum rate of
spawning coupled with the maximum rate of survival of the larvae. In addition,
through field studies conducted by Bluepoints Company employing plankton tows to
obtain samples of developing larvae within the Bay, we have noted that there are
greater numbers of larvae present when salinities fall within, this aforementioned
range.
7. Similarly, the reproductive patterns and survival of shellfish predators
such as starfish ii.ive a very real bearing on the chances of economically valuable
shellfish reaching commercial sizes. Starfish, for example, will spawn in die warm
waters of shallow bays like Great South Bay, but developing larvae will not survive
when the higher ranges of temperatures arc combined with lower, 20-25 ppt, salinities.
If, however, salinities are higher particularly in the 28-32 ppt range, the starfish
larvae can withstand the higher temperatures and survive to reach adulthood. The
pnesent salinity level which ranges from 22 to 26 ppt in most parts of the Bay is
therefore at a maximum level for the sustained production of the hardshell clam and
the exclusion of the various predators which include starfish and oyster drills. If
salinities were to increase beyond present levels, extreme harm could come to the
hardshell clam inc.-isoy through a combination of increased predation coupled with
decreased rcpcoduenon. Thus, the Bay is in a precarious balance. Any significant
increase in .salinity cculd therefore be detrimental.
^y.-:^^
salinity measurements showed.a marked increase some two to three, years-after the. ;
drought; 'due, presumably, 'tb-tli'e. lag in'groundwatcr levels arid'gradients in responding1
to the. reduction iir rainfall,.with, ayecigc salinity values reaching.an.upward;.limit.of
29 ppt or 3 ppt greater tlian that normally observed. Associate';! with the elevated
salinity was an observed starfish and oyster drill population explosion greater than
that ever experienced before. In fact, at considerable cost, Bluepoints ran a
-------
mopping operation to control the influx of starfish \\/ich infested all company owned
areas of the Bay under cultivation. Furthermore, in conjunction with the State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, and other shcllfishing corporations, intermittent
starfish surveys were conducted. At the same time, \ve observed that clam spawning
rates declined substantially. V/e also observed a change in circulation patterns in die
Bay resulting, I suspect, in large part from changes in fresh water inflows to the Bay.
Thfse circulation changes were marked in particular by an. extension of the influence
of Fire Island inland eastward towards Patchogue Bay raising salinities in these Ray
waters.
9. Since harvestable clams are 4 to 6 years old, the abnormally large number
of predators coupled with the increased mortality of clam larvae and the reduced
spawning rates of adult clams in die late 1960's, as described immediately above,
have combined to reduce the total shellfish production of the Bay in the 1970's. Since
the early 1970's, the harvest of -1 to 6 year old clams spawned during the drought
period have decreased dramatically. Bluepoints has noted this decrease because of the
significant increase in its fishing efforts required to maintain harvests in accordance
with its management practices. For example, during the Latter part of the 1960's,
the average proilucll'.Ti rate of each of cur vessels harvesting clams spawned 4 co 6
years earlier wh~n average salinity conditions existed in the Bay was 10 bushels per hour.
Since the early 1970's, production stands at a rate of about 5 to 5.5 bushels per hour
: per;boa,t... .Quite simplyi>th.is-..me^as_^hat ..wevhay.e:to.pu.t,iaj:tvace..a.3_n\ucri:ieffon;,tp.
obtain the same level of harvesting. Our management practices have not changed during
•;tlVls--perib3 .p£:trii^^
' yet to.return to' pre-dro'ught condition's".- '-'I am also'av/are-'of-the fact.triat'harvests'Of
.'.other, sheUfishlpg "firms" have dQcl.in.ed dunng.this.pe"ri.od,:"'For'example'. harvests, qf
the Fire Island Fisheries,. Inc.,t which. Iqases .450 acres of Bay bottoms from the'Town
of Is lip, 'and purchases shellfish from' other clammers, have declined from "16,000
bushels in 1970 to some 7,000 bushels in 1974.
10. I have read through salient portions of Dr. Frankc's Phase I Report
•(Iii".: .2 to Dr".' FKinke;ls--dcp63itiori,-- at page; 47.)'and: reviewed figures depicting
hydrologic .'changes -due.-to-severing" inthaSouthwest .Sewcrvfiistrict "ancl. the .\Vantagh' •
-------
District producted by USGS' analog model (Ex. 2 to Kimmel's deposition). Dr. Franke's
Report and USGS stream flow data indicate that south shore stream flows \vcre generally
^->j -
reduced by some 50% from their average flows during the drought of the 1960's. The
A
USGS figures indicate that total average streainflows in the areas affected cumulatively
by SWSD and V/antagh outfall sewering will bo reduced by some 26 percent by 1980 and
almost 40 percent: by 1985. The S\VSD outfall sewering alone will reduce these stream-
flows some 20 percent during the 1980-85 period, according to these figures. Thus,
based on these quantitative hydrologic predictions, I would expect to find severe impacts
in affected portions of the Bay and on the shelLfishing industry there approaching those
experienced during and as a result of the drought of the 1950's, the effects of which are
still with us today. Furthermore, the effects of outfall sewering in the Bay will be
long term in contrast to the relatively short-term impacts of the 1950's drought.
Finally, if, during the course of outfall sewering in the anticipated magnitudes, Long
Island again experiences a severe drought, the consequences to the shellfish industry
will be devastating.
11. I h:_vo reviewed the EIS and the specific pages enumerated within the
Federal Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (pages 6, 15, 16, 62-87, 107,
118, 175, 205, 20") and conclude that the texi. does not discuss, except in the most-
cursory and superficial terms, the effects of outfall sewering on the shellfish industry
which have been described within the body of this affidavit. Quantification of the
magnitude".of change: in,the:;salinity 'regiraCvQ'f the Bay/is .ohv.io.usly absent., .K
discussing the impact of changing salinity on the biota of the Bay ecosystem, the
EIS simply'- states:
"If the amount of fresh water' discharge'into thc-'Kiy system".-
is ra d ically re du eed •,"• ,'£h e. to y s:- w i 11' gradu a. Ily- be corn c :m o re.....';
saline... Since, salt concentration is one of the.-most critical..
factors governing- this ecosystem, -an increase in. salinity-could
£Itgffo^ ccosvstcm of the _Bay.'" (EIS, 19727~page 118;' "" '"
cniplmsis added.)
This particular statement is extremely general and superficial. It docs not say anything
about the .effect of salinity changes on shellfish spawning, setting and predators and
-------
about the economic importance of shellfish industry and impact of increased salinity
on that industry. Based on my reading of the EIS, J can only conclude tint any
decision-maker relying on the EIS to assess the cumulative benefits and costs of
outfall sewering and other treatment strategics must have neglected impacts of
changing salinities on the Bay's shellfish resources and the shellfish industry.
12. In addition, it is important to note that die route of the proposed Southwest
Sewer District ocean outfall runs directly through the heavily used clamming area
of the Town of Lslip which is located west of the Captrce Bridge within Great South Bay.
On any one day, dozens of clammers can be seen working this area. Any rupture in
the proposed Southwest Sewer District outfall, like that of the "vYantagh outfall, in this
Bay could be devastating to ths shellfishing industry. A rupture in the ocean section
could affect the surf clam industry and might well have an adverse effect on the Bay.
13. I would like to conclude with the following remarks;
(a) The effects of outfalls will irreparably harm the Bay and
degrade its resources because of the delicate salinity regime which presently exists.
(b) The combined effects of sewering with outfalls when imposed
on drought conditions as experienced during the mid 1960's, would be disastrous both
to the ecology of major portions of the Bay and thus much of the shellfish industry.
(c). Sewering will improve Bay water quality. However, coliforms,
nitrates, oil and other chemical pollution will continue because of the large and
.incrcfisiag.c'phtdbu^ continues-..
Thus, in terms of the need co maintain and protect the shellfish resources of
pbint'and hoh -point
table'and •stream "flows' "rrAist be^deyised and'imple'rnentecl; ''Such •mariagcrnent techniques'
are essen.tial.in. a ground water system v/liere marine surface, and ground v/ater a.re .
integrally interrelated. Otherwise, substantial degradation of the marine resources of
the Bi~County Area will occur.
.... ..... .
'Sworn/to be'fofe'fne ; this Z ' '~ "" 'Stephen £. Lane.
- -.., -. &C.\ .
day of-September 1975 ' ' '• nnn^:0;D!;cic7Ar:M_A _'
J ' ' ' ^'t< M-"^-.'.-- I I .'-.-. ' '•" ^ r' IV* .'^' TC.tr.
Ko 'j ''•Cu-.C-v"-. iuil.TlX Ci'j.-.;y
e.3>.. • -^rt-SxiiiKS ;f.?jrc!r.jo;. :«/•?•: --^- •-••
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
DEC 5 1977
Mr. Stephen G. Lane
17500 SW 86th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33157
Dear Mr. Lane:
In line with Judge Bartel's decision of September 16, 1977, we are preparing
a supplementary report on the effects on shellfish and the shell fishing
industry of outfall sewering on Long Island. Your affidavit of October 2,
1975, indicates that the Bluepoints Company has over the years gathered a
substantial amount of information on the effects of salinity changes in
Great South Bay on shellfish populations there.
I realize that you are no longer associated with the Bluepoints Company,
but perhaps you could direct us to the source of this information or could
provide other data or reports that would be useful. We are endeavoring to
prepare as comprehensive a report as possible, but the fact is that there
is very little specific information available. We have just launched a
study that will provide some of the answers, but it will not be completed
until January 1980. Therefore, we would appreciate any information you
can furnish, no matter how preliminary.
As you know, the deadline for submitting the supplementary report on
shellfishing is February 15, 1978. Please let us know as soon as possible
if you can be of assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara M. Metzger
Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
BLUEPOINTS COMPANY, INC.
TELEPHONES: «S«IIOl»ICf ATLANTIC AVENUE
(sie) SBS-otaa ^ii^^ WEST SAYVILUE, LONG ISLAND
0124 ^*^ N. Y. 11796
February 6, 1978
Ms. Barbara M. Metzger
Chief Environmental Impacts Brach
U.S. T^nvironniental Protection Agency
I'.egion II, 26 Federal Plaza
Mew York, New York 10007
Dear Ms. Metzger:
Your letter to Mr. Stephen Lane has been forwarded to me
for reply.
I am enclosing the information you requested for salinities
on our farm for the years 1933 through 1949, then from 1967
through 1977. Unfortunately there is a gap in the
continuity. It is my understanding that salinities in our
part of the bay, going back to the 1800s, averaged about
22 parts.
After Fire Island Inlet was improved, and Yellow Bar near
Robert Moses Park was removed, for a parking field, our
salinities have risen alarmingly.
Great South Bay raises more hard clams than any other area,
providing work for hundreds of bay men.
I am alarmed about the rise in salinities because the optimum
^or hard clam reproduction is approximately 24 parts. Our
- recruitment of young clams the last few years has been
inirnpl. Also, high salinities encourage the main enemies of
-claras', star fish and drills.
you need more information please let roe knov/.
Very truly yoiirs,
BLUEPOINTS COMPANY, INC.
Emil Usinger
Executive Vice President
eiyth
end.
,A Subsidiary of. THE FIRST REPUBLIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA
-------
TABLE VII
Salinity and % Saturation. Means of 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970
1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975,
1976 and 1977 Surveys.
Station Year
2 1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
n
6
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
6
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
10
n
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sal inity g/kg
23.41
26.03
25.37
25.94
27.17
25.16
23.86
26.16
24.45
26.48
27.52
24.84
26.61
26.47
26.96
28.24
26.43
24.92
27.33
25.99
28.23
29.69
24.20
26.67
26.99
27.18
28.35
25.79
25.08
27.32
26.36
28.72
29.88
n
6
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
6
10
n
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
% Saturation
120.6
98.6
93.5
98.9
106.4
106.1
113.9
110.0
104.7
120.0
136.6
114.0
102.1
92.5
94.7
110.6
115.4
103.8
106.1
104.7
108.9
121 .2
121.5
102.0
93.1
101 .7
119.2
1 23.2
109.4
118.1
125.0
117.0
128.1
NOTE: n = number of samples
-------
TABLE IX
Yearly Average s.llnlt, of Bay Waters at West SayviUe - T933 to ,949
Year
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
Mean
1933-49
Extreme
departure
of yearly
average f
from mean
Yearly
Average
o/oo
23.8
22.7
23.9
22.7
23.6
21 .8
23.1
23.6
24.7
23.3
Departure
from Mean
O / on
*-* / \j \j
+ 0.5
-0.6
+ 0.6
-0.6
+ 0.3
-1.5
-0.2
+ 0.3
+ 1.4
+1.4-1 R
Yearly Departure
-Year. Average from Mean
o/oo o/oo
1942 23.0 -0.3
1943 24.0 +0.7
1944 24.0 +0.7
1945 23.3 o
1946 22.9 -0.4
1947 24.0 +0.7
1948 21.6 -0.7
1949 23.0 -0.3
-------
CAUTION '
1* nol indented on rhti chad Se« Node*
channel* vhov-n by broiwi
SCALE 1 :40.000 /V
NAUTICAL MILES
0 1
STATUTE MILES
YARDS
0 1000 MOO
/
FISH TRAP A8EAS /
^-Aj
Th« control
wafer in Ore
3000 Tard- W43-
S«pt 195* ad
edge to Saf*i
SCALE 1-40.000
^_NAyTICAl MIJ.ES _
BLUE POINTS,CO.
SHELL FISH BEDS
3' STATUTE MILES
Compiled
Feb.1968
Prepared By
Norton Brothers
1000 2*X)" " '. "" 3000 «s
L: Areas determined by'scale
from U.S.C.&G. Bay ehartfp-j^- ~.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED
cf s
cu m
cu m/d
cu m/min.
EIS
EPA
FWPCA
ha
km
m
NCDD #2
NCDD #3
NSRPB
NYSDEC
ppt
SWSD #3
USGS
cubic feet per second
cubic meters
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per minute
environmental impact statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972
hectares
kilometers
meters
Nassau County Disposal District #2
Nassau County Disposal District #3
Nassau—Suffolk Regional Planning Board
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
parts per thousand
Southwest Sewer District #3
U. S. Geological Survey
89
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
EPA. 1972. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Flynn, John M. January 3, 1972. Statement made at Public
Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Waste
Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, New York (December 1971). Commissioner,
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control,
Hauppauge, New York.
Cited in EPA, 1972.
Foehrenbach, J. August 1969. Pollution and Eutrophication
Problems of Great South Bay, Long Island, New York.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 41, No.
8, p. 1456.
Cited in EPA, 1972.
Hendrickson, S. , NYSDEC. December 16, 1977. Telephone conver-
sation between Mr. Hendrickson and Gregory M. DeSylva,
Ecologist, Environmental Programs Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency-Region II, New York, New York.
Kantrowitz, H., USGS. December 20, 1977. Telephone conversation
between Mr. Kantrowitz and Gregory M. DeSylva, Ecologist,
Environmental Programs Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-Region II, New York, New York.
Lane, Stephen G. October 2, 1975. Affidavit submitted to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
the matter of Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v.
Costle, et al., 74-C-1698.
Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln. November 1966. Nassau County
Report: Outfall Sewer Location - Sludge Disposal Facilities -
Disposal District No. 3. Main Report plus Appendices.
Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln, Consulting Engineers. New
York, New York.
Cited in EPA, 1972.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) .
1970-1976. New York — Shellfish Production: Annual
Summaries (by Township). Albany, New York.
New York State Water Resources Commission. 1968. An Atlas of
Long Island's Water Resources. Prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey in cooperation with the New York State
Water Resources Commission. Bulletin 62. Albany, New York.
90
-------
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board (NSRPB). December 1S71.
Long Island Economic Trends: Technical Supplement — The Long
Island Economy: Anatomy of Change. Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board. Hauppauge, New York.
NSRPB. March 1973. Long Island Economic Trends: Technical
Supplement — A Profile of the Nassau-Suffolk Labor Force.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Hauppauge, New York.
NSRPB. 1974. Guidelines for the Management of Long Island Hard
Clam Resources. The Regional Marine Resources Council, a
Committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
Hauppauge, New York.
NSRPB. September 1977- Modeling Studies, Interim Report Series:
2 (Prepared for the 208-Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Program). Nassau—Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
Hauppauge, New York.
Ragone, S. G., et al. 1976. Chemical Quality of Groundwater in
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York, 1952-
1976. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 76-845.
Schneck, R., NYSDEC. December 20, 1977. Telephone conversation
between Mr. Schneck and Gregory M. DeSylva, Ecologist, Envi-
ronmental Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency-Region II, New York, New York.
Shuster, C. N., Jr. 1966. The Nature of a Tidal Marsh, This
Dynamic Unit of Nature Feeds Fish, Fowl and Animal. L-1U5.
New York State Conservation Department, Division of Conser-
vation Education. Albany, New York.
Cited in EPAr 1972.
Tetra Tech, Inc. November 1977. Water Quality Modeling: Hemp-
stead Bay, Middle Bay, East Bay, South Oyster Bay, Great
South Bay; Long Island, New York. Prepared for the Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board by Tetra Tech, Inc.
Lafayette, California.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 1970. Staff Report. House Document
No. 91 286, Part 1: National Estuary Study, V.2, Appendix A.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Cited in EPA, 1972.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et al. 1970. Management Studies in
Specific Estuaries. House Document No. 91 286, Part 2:
National Estuary Study, V. 3, Appendix B. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Cited in EPA, 1972.
91
-------
U.S. Dept. of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service.
1970-1976. Fisheries Statistics of the United States: Middle
Atlantic Fisheries (Catch by States). Annual Summaries.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1972. Environmental
Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment Facilities Con-
struction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York:
Final, July 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Region II. New York, New York.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as cited in New York Times, Long
Island Section, November 27, 1977, "Rising Water Table Poses
New Woe for Homeowners."
92
------- |