Story Tools
In 1982, 28 percent of all the bay scallops eaten in the United States came from Peconic Bay. Actually two individual bays separating two of the most beautiful and expensive areas of the world (the twin forks of Long Island), Peconic Bay is a tidal estuary system that is fed at the western end by the Peconic River. Called one of the “Last Great Places” in the Western Hemisphere by The Nature Conservancy, the Peconic Estuary is also one of the most environmentally protected areas on Earth.
As the aquatic link between two powerhouse summer areas—the North Fork, with its lush vineyards, and the Hamptons, with its multimillion-dollar beach retreats—the Peconic Estuary is managed under the guidance of the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP). This program has no shortage of environmentally conscious donors and government friends. Its management committee is a veritable “who’s who” of Suffolk County and New York State local government figures as well as high-level Environmental Protection Agency, Nature Conservancy, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service bureaucrats. To the credit of the PEP, the Peconic Bay Estuary is one of the most pristine bodies of water in the world, with more than 95 percent of the bay meeting or exceeding water-quality standards.
So, the bay should be a perfect habitat teeming with life, right? Well, that’s the problem. Once the source of a massive shellfish industry comprising huge annual oyster, hard-shell clam, and scallop harvests, Peconic Bay has been virtually bereft of shellfish for the past quarter century—and there is no evidence that it is coming back anytime soon. An industry that produced an average scallop harvest of more than 300,000 pounds per year from 1950 through 1985 has been in decline even though the bay has become cleaner.
Although it’s politically incorrect to say, the problem with Peconic Bay might be that it’s too clean. There’s one lonely voice in the Peconic Bay area suggesting that this just may be the case. Like an intellectually honest Al Gore, Roger Tollefsen has been giving his “Song of the Scallop” presentation for years—to any group that will listen, such as interested visitors at the Shinnecock Canal Maritime Heritage Center. Tollefsen’s presentation details what the traditional experience of the Long Island “baymen” was like not too long ago. Once a thriving export industry that provided more than 8,000 full eight-hour days of work in a single season just from scallops, in addition to a thriving oyster and clam industry, the combined harvest is now too small to export from the state. Local baymen have to work infinitely harder just to get by; and with continually rising fuel costs, more and more baymen are keeping their boats on moorings or leaving the industry.
Tollefsen—who graduated from Bucknell University with degrees in chemical engineering and chemistry and has been intimately involved with every aspect of New York’s seafood industry—is convinced that Long Island’s shellfish problem has a straightforward and understandable solution: Put more food into the water to nurture the algae upon which shellfish feed. The problem? Although the algae in our waters are limited by nitrogen, some estuaries have too much of it. Because excessive nitrogen can create problems for the marine ecosystem, the EPA considers any introduction of nitrogen by man into a marine environment to be a pollutant. Canvas asked Roger why allowing for slightly more pollution into the world’s most pristine estuary system might make sense.
Q: What happened in 1985 to cause the sudden lack of shellfish in the Bays?
A: The collapse of the shellfish population in Peconic Bay was not really as sudden as many may think. While the Brown Tide bloom of 1985 did decimate the scallop crop, the beginning of the loss of shellfish in our bay can be traced back almost 100 years. Harvests had already fallen by 90 percent since the early 1900s.
Q: What happened in 1994—the one good year in the last 25?
A: Scallops reproduce by releasing thousands of babies into the water. The babies float near the surface and scatter throughout the bay. During this time, the baby scallops must eat every day. If they get their food, they grow rapidly and become heavy enough to sink into the bay. In less than a year, they can be large enough to harvest. In 1993, there was a major rainfall event that dropped more than four inches of rain on eastern Long Island. That rain filtered through the land and forced groundwater into our bay. The groundwater was high in the type of nitrogen that is deficient in our bay and it would have promoted the growth of the algae upon which the baby scallops depend. Luckily, the rain occurred during the scallop spawn. That successful “set” became the 1994 harvest. It is ironic that the nitrogen our managers most try to eliminate from our bays is the one thing upon which the future of our shellfish depends.
Q: What are the other factors that could cause the lack of shellfish?
A: There could be many explanations for the lack of shellfish; however, we can focus on four possible causes: toxins, disease, predation, and food availability. Peconic Bay, relative to other estuaries, is remarkably “clean.” According to the PEP, there are few concerns with toxins (we have no industry and an extremely small watershed); scientists have not documented any scallop disease; while predation is possible, this cannot explain the 1994 crop success. Insufficient food has been documented, and we should not be surprised by this since we have systematically reduced the nitrogen upon which the scallops’ food depends.
Q: What do shellfish eat?
A: Scallops feed by filtering the water and capturing the food in it. Baby scallops can capture only particles greater than 5 microns in size. That may sound small, and it is. In the 1970s, the average size of the algae in Peconic Bay was around 8 microns; that algae was food to the scallops. However, by 2000, the average size of the algae found in Peconic Bay was around 2.5 microns. The scallops could not capture it by filtration. It is likely that this reduction in the average algae size in Peconic Bay is directly related to the continued reduction in the concentration of nitrogen in the water.
Q: But what is the source of the nitrogen? Sewage? Lawn fertilizer? Aren’t we talking about real pollutants here?
A: Everything alive uses nitrogen as a component to build organic complexes. When that living entity dies, it first decomposes into organic forms of nitrogen. This is also true for everything we eat and digest. After a while, bacteria break down the organic nitrogen into ammonia and nitrates (these are called inorganic nitrogen sources). When these sources are dissolved in water, they are called dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). Most of the algae that make up the necessary food for shellfish require DIN. The largest source of DIN comes from groundwater. Septic pools degrade the material into inorganic nitrogen and that joins the groundwater that pulses into the bays driven by the hydraulic pressure of rainfall. Lawn fertilizers also contain nitrogen and this is added to the groundwater flow. Sewer systems have changed this traditional path of DIN. These large systems capture the nitrogen and either remove it (such as Riverhead does) or divert it around the bay by depositing it directly to the ocean (as happens in the Great South Bay). When DIN in our bays is low, our regular algae production can be so low that other species jump into the biological vacuum. This is how the Brown Tide develops. Without competition from other algae, it can use the organic form of nitrogen before it has the chance to decompose to DIN.
Q: What are the biggest obstacles to getting our shellfish industry back?
A: Unless we can provide the proper food for our baby shellfish, our shellfish industry will not recover. This food must be available for the spawning cycles that routinely occur during the spring and early fall. However, solutions that could provide this required food have not even been considered due to prejudicial ideas about nitrogen and its role in the marine environment. Each bay is unique and we must guard ourselves from adopting management strategies that are based upon generalizations. In order to move forward, we must be willing to have an open mind and seek out demonstration projects that could provide important validation of methods.
Q: How many jobs and how much money is involved (i.e., what are the incentives for getting the industry back)?
A: It is estimated that if historic levels of shellfish harvesting were possible today, those harvests would contribute more than $200 million in economic activity to Long Island. But those figures are only for shellfish.
Q: How does the presence of shellfish promote the environment in general, such as the presence of larger finfish or other aquatic life?
A: In very simple terms, all life in our bays can be seen as part of a food web or pyramid. The base of the food web is composed of algae and plankton. The filter feeders that capture this food source are shellfish, baby finfish, and grazing fish such as bunker. Almost all other finfish eat the filter feeders. Without the support of the algae, the entire food web will collapse. Fish that spawn in our bays, such as winter flounder and weakfish, will leave their next generations here to starve. The only immediate benefactors will be the predatory fish, such as striped bass and bluefish, that will enjoy easy hunting in the clear waters.
Q: What about mariculture? Is this budding industry standing in the way of natural shellfish development?
A: Mariculture means farming of the marine waters. As wild harvests have declined, most fishermen have left the industry, but some have chosen mariculture. In this process, businesses spawn and grow baby shellfish in a controlled environment until the juvenile shellfish can be “planted” in dedicated parts of our bay. The “planting” involves placing the juvenile shellfish in protected meshing and maintaining them until future reharvesting. The entire process can take at least a year (for scallops) and several years (for oysters and hard clams), with a considerable investment of time and effort; there are many risks. Under the right conditions and with knowledgeable management, the product may be sold for a profit. As mariculture efforts expand in Peconic Bay, we must be careful that the investment in that infrastructure does not become an impediment to restoration efforts. Under the best of circumstances, mariculture cannot compete with a successful
wild spawn.
Q: What can the canvas reader do to help get the Bay back on track? Whom do they talk to? To whom do they write?
A: When the Peconic Estuary Program and the South Shore Estuary Reserve were formed, special emphasis was given to public outreach and comment. Unfortunately, as the plans became more complex, the average citizen tended to withdraw from the process. Canvas readers should write to their estuary management program and also to the New York State Department of Conservation (dec.ny.gov) and ask a simple question: Do our bays have too little or too much nitrogen? The simplicity of the question can be unsettling because it depends on what we are managing our bays to be, but since the managers developed the plan, they should know the answer.
Q: What do you want our Bay to be?
A: I ask you to consider that food web or pyramid we discussed earlier. If algae form the base, what is the top predator of the Bay? If you thought our bays’ top predator was a shark or a bass, you have designed a preserve—a system for which man is not a part. By definition of a food web, this design means anything we add to the bay is a pollutant and anything we take out is over-fishing. If, however, you placed man as the top predator of the pyramid, then the food web can only remain sustainable if we replace the energy we remove. One way to sustain this type of design that allows finfish to use our bays as a nursery and recreational and commercial fishermen to fish is to seasonally add nitrogen. When you contact your bay managers, ask them if they ever considered adding nutrients to our bays to increase ecosystem productivity.
Questions? Comments?
For more information, you can reach Roger Tollefsen directly via e-mail or snail-mail with your questions about the Peconic Bay and its sustainability.
Roger C. Tollefsen
New York Seafood Association
23 Bay Avenue
Hampton Bays, NY 11946
nyseafood@msn.com
Chris O’Hara fishes regularly in Cold Spring Harbor from his boat, the Krusty Krab.
Gary P. Joyce, Monday, July 07, 2008 at 05:13 PMHear, hear!
Tollefsen is like the meteorologists not buying into the global warming "conspiracy."
Unfortunately, no one's going to listen to him so long as "green" is a religion and the prophets are misinformed (if not dishonest) politicians such as Al Gore (I hope the writer's "intellectually honest" remark was a shot!)
Tollefsen has his finger on a valid question. But valid questions don't get answers from the emotionally-driven know-it-alls.
Chris, Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 12:38 PMI don't know if Tollefsen is right or not, but his argument is pretty compelling. Regarding Gore,I don't know how right he is either, but I do know that he presents only one side of a highly complicated argument, which provoked my "intellectually dishonest" remark. All I really want is to get a decent oyster on the Island, and they seem mighty hard to come by lately!
tom, Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 07:00 PMDoes anyone know where Chris can get some good oysters on Long Island?
Chris O'Hara, Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 02:32 PM[I posted this on the Canvas blog also]
Interesting how Newsday had coverage of the shellfish decline a few weeks after Canvas reported on it. Note that they make reference to the lack of nutrients in the water as a possible cause. My source from the story (Roger Tollefsen of the New York Seafood Association) also notes:
“In the intro on the left page, Smith makes the comment under “Brown Tide’s Role” that it is difficult to link the clam decline to the Brown Tide since the decline proceed the bloom by a decade. On the contrary, there is a direct link. The major reduction to the concentration of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) in the GSB began when the Southwest Sewer System came on line in 1985. This system caused an immediate reduction to the amount of algae available for the shellfish and began the decline of shellfish populations. The remaining populations temporarily were able to control the remaining algae (including any Brown Tide) until the collapse reached a critical limit. The limit was reached in 1995 with the advent of the Brown Tide.”
I thought that was a fascinating–-and salient–-point. Thanks, Roger
Chris O'Hara, Monday, July 28, 2008 at 04:18 PMI also wanted to share this letter from The NY Seafood Association to Nick Anastasi of the Suffolk County Fisheries Task Force, which I was CC'd on:
To Nick Anastasi - Suffolk County Fisheries Task Force
Hi Nick,
I recently saw the Newsday article concerning the possible replacement of the failing outfall pipe from the Southwest Sewer District. I understand the approximate cost of the replacement is 150 million dollars. There is another possibility to consider that may allow major improvements to our bay rather than just a return to the status quo.
The sewer district discharge has dramatically affected the water quality of the Great South Bay. Because the outfall by-passes the bay and discharges directly into the ocean, over 20 million gallons of fresh water a day has been removed from the groundwater flow into the bay. That groundwater had previously provided important nutrients to our bay upon which our bay's resources depended. I strongly believe that this removal of groundwater and the inorganic nitrogen it contained is the direct cause of lost shellfish populations and the Brown Tide. Simply repairing the outfall pipe will only prolong these problems.
The current NYS SPEDES permit requires that the system's treated effluent be discharged into the ocean. However, if treated to a different level, the effluent could be directly discharged into the bay and provide an important source of necessary nutrients. By up-grading the sewer system to tertiary treatment, we would be able to seasonally nitrify or denitrify the effluent and provide our bay with the necessary nutrients to prevent Brown Tides and promote shellfish repopulation.
Engineers and scientists in Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island are now considering a similar approach for a sewer system upgrade there. They have found that the nutrients from the current sewer system provide over 50% of the nitrogen used by this bay's thriving hard clam population. Since these populations could collapse if all the nitrogen from the sewer plants were removed, there are considering a seasonal dinitrification method that would provide them the opportunity to manage nitrogen additions rather than simply reducing them. The concept would be to reduce nitrogen inputs during the summer months (when nitrogen may be excessive) but provide them during the spawning and growth cycles in the spring and fall (when then may be limiting).
Because Suffolk County has already allocated the monies for the outfall repair, we now have the unique opportunity to consider another method that could yield substantial gains to our bay's water quality and shellfish populations. In addition, an upgrade of the Southwest sewer system to seasonal denitrification may even be less expensive. Now is the time that we should look to the future and consider this alternative.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Tollefsen
