Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York

February 2009

US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District Table of Contents

Section Page

Table of Contents...... 1 List of Appendices ...... 1 1.0 Introduction...... 1 2.0 Purpose...... 1 3.0 History of Duck Farming on Long Island...... 1 4.0 Environmental Impacts ...... 2 4.1 Duck Waste Statistics ...... 2 4.2 Off-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation...... 3 4.2.1 Duck Sludge Deposits...... 4 4.3 On-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation...... 5 5.0 Sediment Sampling Results ...... 5 5.1 Sediment Sampling Efforts...... 5 5.2 Primary Nutrients from Duck Waste ...... 6 5.3 Pathogens ...... 7 5.4 Metals, SVOAs, VOAs...... 7 6.0 Restoration Methods and Concepts ...... 8 6.1 Evaluating Duck Farm Sites for Ecosystem Restoration Candidacy...... 8 6.2 Dredging ...... 10 6.3 Wetland and Streambank Restoration...... 11 7.0 Planning Matrix ...... 12 8.0 List of Preparers and Stakeholders ...... 18 9.0 References...... 19

List of Appendices

Appendix

Appendix A Long Island Duck Farming History Appendix B Mud Creek Section 206 Preliminary Restoration Plan Appendix C Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Sampling Report Appendix D Duck Farm Industry and Impacts Report prepared by Suffolk County

Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report February 2009 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (District), in partnership with the Department of Planning, Suffolk County, New York has developed this report to assist the County in evaluating and prioritizing acquisition of former duck farms for open space purposes. The County anticipates that these properties will be acquired as park lands and requested the District’s planning assistance to develop a screening tool to aid in the identification of properties suitable for ecosystem restoration, in conjunction with passive recreational activities. This study is authorized under the Planning Assistance to States (PAS) authority which is executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 as amended. This law authorizes the Corps to provide technical assistance to support the preparation of comprehensive water and related land resources development plans including watershed and ecosystem planning. 2.0 Purpose Suffolk County is currently considering acquiring ten former duck farms for the purposes of water conservation, open space preservation and passive recreation. During the mid-1900s, duck farming on Long Island was a major economic industry; producing approximately two-thirds of the duck consumed in the nation. However, the lack of regulations and the absence of conservation practices aimed at controlling non point source pollution in the form of effluent during the height of the industry resulted in the degradation of wetlands, floodplains and adjacent upland areas, and water quality to streams and receiving bays.

The objective of this report is to assist Suffolk County in detailing the environmental concerns associated with past duck farming and their implications for ecosystem restoration, to outline ecosystem restoration measures that can be implemented on the sites and to provide a tool in assessing and prioritizing restoration of former duck farms. 3.0 History of Duck Farming on Long Island A comprehensive account of the history of duck farming on Long Island is included in Appendix A. As a summary, the Long Island duck industry appears to have begun on Long Island in the Speonk/Eastport area. The raising of ducks did not become a full-time industry on Long Island until sometime between 1880 and 1885; prior to that time the raising of ducks was a supplemental activity to farming and fishing.

Februrary 2009 1 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Production peaked around the late 1950s and early 1960s with an annual yield of 7.5 million ducks. The number of active farms had been reduced to 48 by 1963. Of this total, three farms were located on tributaries to Bellport Bay; 30 farms were on tributaries and coves along Moriches Bay; one farm was located on Mecox Bay; and 14 farms were on tributaries to and the shoreline of Flanders Bay.

A number of factors contributed to the decline of the duck industry on Long Island. However, one of the primary causes was the implementation of animal waste pollution control programs and regulations implemented at the local, state and Federal levels to prevent effluent from directly discharging into waterbodies. These programs and regulations spanned over twenty years and included:

Phase 1: Removal of ducks from open waters (diking duck runs from main stream).

Phase 2: Removal of settleable solids and floating solids from the waste stream (lagoon system) before discharge to surface waters.

Phase 3: Disinfecting effluent.

Phase 4: Removal of nutrients. Treatment facilities had to be constructed and in operation by April 1968. (Cosulich 1966)

As a result of the continuing costs of upgrading their treatment plants to comply with the ever more stringent pollution control requirements, many of the duck farmers folded or relocated to the Midwest, where costs were cheaper and environmental regulations less rigorous. 4.0 Environmental Impacts Inventory work by the County indicates that approximately 2,000 acres of upland property and almost 20 miles of shoreline along freshwater creeks/rivers and estuary tributaries – primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton – were utilized during the last century in Suffolk County for duck production. Given that the peak of the duck farming on Long Island predated the laws and regulations that were meant to control runoff and pollution, much of the effluent ran untreated into streams that then discharged into Long Island’s bays.

As environmental laws and regulations were created, duck farms began implementing conservation practices to reduce waste runoff into waterbodies. Common conservation practices on the farms included waste lagoons, artificial swim areas, fencing to prevent the ducks from accessing the streams, and dikes to prevent farm runoff from entering the stream. Although these conservation measures addressed the more broad environmental impacts, it did not account for site specific impacts such as the loss of floodplain and wetlands as well as changes to stream morphology, sediment composition and water quality resulting from the development of the farm prior to implementing these measures.

4.1 Duck Waste Statistics To better characterize the impact the duck farm industry has had on regional ecology, the amount of effluent produced by duck farms has been computed. The pollution load from the 34 duck

Februrary 2009 2 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report farms operating in Suffolk County during 1968, which raised about 7 million ducks that year, was calculated. In total, the loads were as follows (Davids and Cosulich 1968): 70 tons total solids/day (43 tons suspended solids/day); 11 tons of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)/day; 4 tons phosphates/day; 2.5 tons nitrogen compounds /day; and 40 billion-trillion M.P.N of coliform organisms/day.

According to Dr. William Dean, the former director of the Cornell University Duck Research Laboratory, an average human excretes about 7,300 grams (g) of nitrogen (N) per year, or 20 g N per day. One market duck excretes 93.6 g N over its seven week life cycle, or 1.91 g N per day. Including the N fraction attributed to one breeder duck for each market duck produced (0.029 g N per day) gives a total N loading rate of 1.94 g N per day for each market duck (W. Dean, personal communication). Dividing 20 g by 1.94 g gives a nitrogen equivalency of 10.3 market ducks per one person.

To illustrate this further with respect to land use, the Robinson Duck Farm in South Haven adjacent to the Carmans River will be used as an example. At its peak, this farm utilized 13.4 acres of pens (including swim pond area) to grow 200,000 ducks per year, and the average density of ducks at any one time was calculated to be 6,716 ducks per acre of pens (Eberhard n.d.). Using the relationship above, the daily nitrogen output from 6,716 ducks per acre during the growing season would be equivalent to the daily nitrogen output from 652 people. The corresponding human population density of 652 people per acre is over six times the population density of Manhattan Island (105.3 people/acre) in 2002. In comparison, the overall population density in Suffolk County was 2.47 people per acre in 2002.

4.2 Off-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation The off-site impacts of duck farms were apparent in both the degraded quality of receiving surface waters, as well as by the alteration of stream and tributary bottom habitats as a result of the deposition of thick layers, or so-called blankets, of duck sludge. The off-site impacts also manifested themselves in the curtailment of commercial and recreational activities due to the contravention of water quality standards for shellfishing and swimming, and the use of shoreline sites (many located in parkland) for the upland disposal of duck sludge dredged from creek bottoms by Suffolk County (Travelers Research Corp. 1970).

On the order of 7.5 million ducks per year were grown in Suffolk County during the peak of the duck industry circa 1960. The magnitude of production was reflected in the significant effluent waste loadings in the forms of suspended solids, nutrients, and coliform bacteria, much of which entered Flanders Bay, Moriches Bay, and Great South Bay via streams and tributaries. The effluent discharged from the duck farms dramatically impacted the water quality of the freshwater streams and bays, altering phytoplankton assemblages, benthic communities, and the biogeochemistry of the systems.

Februrary 2009 3 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Consequently, blooms as concentrated as tens of billions of cells per liter turned the bay a pea green color during the summer months due to the green tides (Carpenter et al. 1991).

The algal shifts were directly correlated with the increase in nitrogen-rich excretory products generated from the local duck farms. The most common excretory product, uric acid, is converted to urea via bacteria in seawater (Carpenter et al. 1991). Unlike larger phytoplankton, smaller forms are able to directly assimilate urea due to the presence of specific enzymes, giving them a competitive advantage over many of the common diatom species (Carpenter et al. 1991). Additionally, the physical nature of the south shore estuaries including, low flushing rates and shallow water depths, led to a rise in water temperatures in back-bays and a retention of large concentrations of nutrients, further fueling algal growth (Ryther 1954).

The increase and decomposition of organic matter, derived directly from the duck waste as well as the increase in algal biomass, contributed to anaerobic benthic conditions impacting flora, such as submerged aquatic vegetation; and fauna, such as benthic invertebrates and foraminifera. Dense algal blooms prevented light penetration to the benthos, causing plant decay and additional organic deposits (O’Connor 1972). These organic rich sediments, often several feet deep, became soupy, black, clayey silt that had a rich odor of hydrogen sulfide, so potent that homeowners adjacent to Moriches and Great South Bays complained that the paint on their homes was being discolored (Nichols 1964; O’Connor 1972). Ecological degradation that was associated with the accumulation of nutrients throughout the estuarine bays continued throughout the history of the duck industry, and was heightened when the Moriches Inlet was temporarily closed (Nichols 1964; Lively et al. 1983) in the early 1950s.

4.2.1 Duck Sludge Deposits As previously discussed, prior to the late 1950s/early 1960s, duck farm operations were not legally required to install facilities to eliminate the discharge of settleable solids to surface waters. Therefore, thousands of tons of duck farm waste had freely entered, accumulated and polluted streams and adjacent wetlands for decades prior to implementation of a regulatory program.

As the duck waste entered surface waters, heavier suspended particles settled to the bottom near the discharge point, while lighter particles were distributed tidally until they too settled throughout the estuaries. These settled particles of decomposing organic matter created blankets of sludge that consisted of a homogeneous, black, plastic material with a strong, unpleasant odor. Duck waste is a concentrated source of bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and BOD. The organic content of duck sludge deposits is typically higher than that found in naturally occurring muds.

The decomposable organic matter depleted dissolved oxygen, and anaerobic digestion resulted in generation of hydrogen sulfide gas (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 1966). The anoxic condition during warm summer months reduced species diversity, biomass and numbers of benthic invertebrates in those areas that were highly impacted. The high organic content and fine grained texture of duck sludge also made it an unsuitable substrate for shellfish setting and growth.

Februrary 2009 4 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report The volume of sludge in these creeks was significant. A 1968 field survey estimated that over 7.3 million cubic yards of sludge were deposited on creek bottoms tributary to Moriches Bay (Forge River, Old Neck Creek, Terrell River, Tuthill Cove, Seatuck Creek, East River, etc.) at that time (Dona 1968). Deposits were reported to be up to 10 feet thick in some areas, and the sludge was covered by only a few inches of water.

The enforcement of additional wastewater treatment requirements in the 1960s/1970s resulted in the decline in the number of operating duck farms and a substantial reduction in the volume of effluent discharged. However, duck sludge deposits are still prevalent in tidal creeks and tributaries in local waters.

Former duck farm sites have been developed for private residential and commercial uses. These new uses often mask the origin of shoreline features that were created when the farms operated. In many instances, the relict shoreline features (berms, swim ponds, etc.) remain left as is, to avoid complicated and expensive environmental review/permit procedures. Opportunities in the future may exist for coordinating the restoration of these privately owned shoreline areas in conjunction with management of adjacent underwater lands that are owned by the public.

4.3 On-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation Duck farms needed access to a source of fresh water which necessitated their location along freshwater streams and the upper reaches of tidal tributaries (where waters were only slightly brackish). Typical site modifications involved various types of disturbance, e.g., vegetation clearing, land surface elevation changes for construction of buildings, pens and yards; hydrological modifications for water flow/control in swim ponds and tidal lagoons, and for waste treatment. Some of the larger duck farms included areas devoted to the production of field crops.

Duck farm operation and abandonment created conditions that are ideal for invasive species. As an example, dense stands of Phragmites have colonized former swim ponds and along the shores of tidal lagoons. Conditions that favor Phragmites establishment include soil disturbance and upland buffer removal, hydrological changes /land surface elevation in wetlands due to the placement of fill for construction of berms and dikes; and high nutrient loading in fresh water/low salinity environments associated with duck waste discharge. 5.0 Sediment Sampling Results Waste from contained animal feeding operations such as duck farms contain certain nutrients and pathogens that in excessive levels, cause adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats as well as posing health concerns for humans.

This section will discuss, as representative examples, the results from sediment sampling of the Gallo Duck Farm, Mill Pond and Robinson Duck Farm, predominant nutrients and pathogens of concern, and any special considerations that should be given during restoration activities.

5.1 Sediment Sampling Efforts Understanding the site conditions at each candidate farm will be crucial in prioritizing ecosystem restoration efforts. To determine the presence and extent of nutrients, pathogens and other

Februrary 2009 5 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report contaminants resulting from duck farm operation, the District and Suffolk County conducted sub-surface soil and sediment sampling on the former Gallo Duck Farm located along the eastern branch of Mud Creek, Mill Pond along the Forge River and Robinson Duck Farm along the Carmans River.

Sediment samples were analyzed for Volatile Organics (VOAs), Semi-Volatile Organics (SVOAs), Pesticides, PCBs, Priority Pollutant Metals (PP Metals), E-Coli, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and Total Percent Solids. Overall, the findings of the sediment sampling were consistent with the types of contaminants found in contained animal feeding operations; increased levels of nitrogen, phosporus, organic carbon and E.coli. In regards to E. coli, it should be noted that the sediment sampling on the Gallo farm only reported the presence of fecal coliform but not colony volume. Tests that can identify the amount of E. coli in the soil may want to be conducted on the candidate farms in order to understand the full extent of fecal coliform content on the site.

More serious contaminants such as VOAs, SVOAs and metals were not found on most of the sites. The exception is Mill Pond, which was found to have levels of beryllium and nickel that exceed the standards outlined in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) and warrants further testing to determine the full extent of the contamination. A more detailed discussion of the sampling results is included in Appendix C.

5.2 Primary Nutrients from Duck Waste Phosphorus: In general, since phosphorus sorbs onto soil particles, it is primarily introduced into waterbodies as surface runoff. This in turn can increase the concentration of bioavailable phosphorus in surface waters leading to eutrophication. Phosphorus leaching through the soil into groundwater is typically uncommon, although it can occur in sandy soils or soils with high water tables.

There are a few options in remediating soils with high phosphorus levels. In some instances, a fixing compound such as aluminum sulfate, iron sulfate or gypsum can be incorporated into the soil to make it biologically inactive. This method does not remove phosphorus from the soil, but rather makes it unavailable for the long term and would only be effective as long as the area is not subject to erosion. Another option is planting specific plant species such as switchgrass that are effective in uptaking nutrients (Sanderson 2000).

Vegetated buffers can prevent soil runoff from entering into surface waters and thereby reduce the amount of phosphorus entering into a waterbody. Studies have shown that a vegetated buffer at least 13 feet wide in the form of a riparian wetland or grass can trap approximately 85 percent of sediment.

Nitrogen: Ammonium, nitrate and nitrite are the compounds of concern when assessing the environmental impacts of nitrogen. Both forms contribute to eutrophication, depletion of available oxygen in water systems resulting in fish kills and a reduction in biodiversity, and the promotion of algae

Februrary 2009 6 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report growth. Nitrate is highly mobile and can leach downward through the soil profile and into groundwater while surface runoff is the primary transport mechanism for ammonium.

As with phosphorus, vegetation can be used to reduce nitrogen soils in the soil. For example, poplar trees are typically used in phytoremediation of sites with high nitrogen and other contaminants (Volland, et al. 2003). The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Baltimore County of Environmental Protection in Maryland conducted a case study that found that nitrogen levels in impacted surface and groundwater can be reduced through floodplain and riparian corridor restoration, stream reconstruction and bank stabilization (Mayer 2004).

In both soil and water, nitrogen is broken down by bacteria and released into the atmosphere in an anaerobic process called denitrification. The denitrification process in aquatic sediments is complex and is dependent on many factors including but not limited pH, geology, organic matter, stream velocity, etc. A study of the Mississippi River indicated that nitrogen is naturally removed from small streams much more quickly than in large rivers. A primary reason is that the amount of nitrogen removed from water depends on the amount of water in contact with bottom sediments. Since shallow streams have more contact with the bottom sediments than water in deep, large rivers, more nitrogen is removed. Additionally, the study noted that soils immediately adjacent to streams which are wet because they receive surface or subsurface flows from higher elevations, are the most effective at removing nitrate from agricultural and other runoff waters.

5.3 Pathogens Since the former duck farms will most likely be used for passive recreation, aerating and exposing any soil to sunlight should be sufficient to reduce the pathogens of concern. Composting has also been shown to be effective in pathogen inactivation as long as it reaches temperatures of 50OC or over. In addition, vegetated buffer strips and wetlands are also effective in preventing pathogens from entering surface waters (James 2003).

Although the ability of riparian buffers to reduce pathogen contamination to waterbodies has not been widely studied, a study conducted in Minnesota using row crops indicated that a vegetated buffer at least 118 ft wide reduced total coliform bacteria to levels acceptable for human recreational use. Additional studies showed that a 2 foot wide grass strip removed 83 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria, while a 7 foot filter strip removed nearly 95 percent (Klapproth 2000).

Pathogens typically do not survive for long periods upon entering surface waters. However, their survivability can be extended if they come into contact with sediment or organic matter or in areas containing high nutrient levels and turbid water by providing a source of nutrition and reducing the amount of sunlight which penetrates the water (Klapproth 2000).

5.4 Metals, SVOAs, VOAs Depending on the results of additional sediment testing, Mill Pond could require the development of a specific remediation plan. Some factors that need to be weighed when

Februrary 2009 7 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report determining appropriate remediation methods include considering the current ecological and human health risk the contaminants pose, the ecological and human health risk they may pose when implementing the remediation plan, and remediation cost.

Common remediation methods include capping the affected area with clean material and dredging. Capping the contaminated sediment with a layer of clean material is usually the more cost effective method if it is determined that it would eliminate exposure, although this would not address any potential ground water contamination issues.

Dredging is typically performed when it has been found that the contaminants pose a significant ecological and human health risk and that their removal outweighs the environmental impacts that dredging itself can create. One item to note when considering dredging is that the sediment would require disposal at a facility specifically permitted to receive contaminated material and measures would have to be employed to reduce sediment resuspension and movement to areas outside of the remediation site. 6.0 Restoration Methods and Concepts The presence of pathogens and elevated levels of nutrients should not prevent the County from performing ecosystem restoration on the farms particularly if the main objective is to restore native habitat and utilize the area as passive recreation. As an example, the Watershed Conservation Authority of Los Angeles is proposing to convert a former duck farm along the San Gabriel River in La Puente into a park that includes walking trails, an equestrian center, a plant nursery, and educational wetlands riparian corridor restoration. An Environmental Impact Statement was developed and can be found at http://www.wca.ca.gov/notices/duckfarm/Duck%20%Farm%20Final%20MND%WEB%20REA DY.pdf

The District and Suffolk County partnered in a Section 206 aquatic ecosystem restoration project to assess ecosystem restoration measures on the former Gallo Duck Farm located along Mud Creek in East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven. A Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) outlining several ecosystem restoration alternatives was prepared and a feasibility study was initiated but has been suspended since 2004 due to lack of Federal funds. Currently, the County is proceeding independently. The preliminary alternatives that were developed to restore the Gallo duck farm should have applicability to other duck farms being considered by the County for acquisition subject to site specific conditions.

Restoration measures proposed for the Gallo Duck Farm included restoration of floodplain conditions through the removal of farm structures, eradicating invasive plant species and replanting with native wetland and riparian species. The PRP also proposed restoring the hydrological connections between the floodplain and stream, and streambank restoration. The Mud Creek Section 206 PRP that discusses the alternatives in greater detail is located in Appendix B of this report.

6.1 Evaluating Duck Farm Sites for Ecosystem Restoration Candidacy A general evaluation to prioritize sites can be made through site visits, a review of aerial maps and a review of current watershed and regional management plans. Two forms, the Site

Februrary 2009 8 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Evaluation Form and the Planning Matrix, were developed to assist prioritizing the acquired duck farms for ecosystem restoration and are included in Section 7.0. The Site Evaluation Form is to be completed during site visits to help provide a basic characterization of site conditions and will ultimately be used with the Planning Matrix to rank the farms’ restoration potential. The Planning Matrix covers the more administrative aspects of determining restoration priority and will be used to score the farms.

The location and current ecological condition of a candidate farm will be a factor in determining priority sites. The ideal candidate site would have the potential of creating multiple habitat types such as upland, floodplain forest and emergent wetland and provide connectivity to similar native habitats surrounding the site or will complement other restoration initiatives within the watershed. Additional benefits would be those farms that could be restored to provide habitat for Federally and State endangered, threatened and special concern species. For example, the Mud Creek Section 206 project proposed to enhance aquatic habitat for brook trout, a rare New York heritage species. Conversely, duck farms that are situated between developed parcels or have reverted to a natural state of mostly native vegetation (e.g. floodplain forest) would be viewed as a lower priority.

One of the primary concerns the County has in performing restoration measures on the duck farms is the potential exposure of contaminants. Unfortunately, as evidenced in the soil samples taken at the Gallo Duck Farm, Mill Pond and Robinson Duck Farm, there can be a great variability of what contaminants may occur on a site. Therefore, it is recommended that all duck farms being evaluated for ecosystem restoration be tested for nutrients, pathogens, SVOAs and VOAs to characterize and quantify contaminant issues that may limit restoration measures. If the County is concerned with the cost and time of this effort, it is recommended that sediment sampling be performed on only those farms that score high in the Planning Matrix and therefore have greater potential for being restored.

In regards to cultural resources, Federal, State and many local regulations require that any project that uses public funds must undertake some form of cultural resource survey to determine potential significance and impact to these historic sites.

As each individual project arises, at least a Phase I Project, including the IA - Documentary Report and the IB - Field Survey Report, would be undertaken to determine the potential significance of the individual site.

As part of the Phase I survey, several issues that should be addressed include but are not limited to: a) Does the site(s) retain any visual reminders of the former farm that may include structures Are they structures? Landscape features? If these remain, when were they constructed? b) What is the projected plan for these former structures and/or landscapes? c) Is there a potential for buried cultural resource? d) What was on the site prior to becoming a duck farm? e) Was a significant/historic person residing on the property? f) Did the former farm contribute towards a significant industry or cultural history/event of the region?

Februrary 2009 9 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report g) Can any of the former features be retained in the proposed plan?

Further, beyond the standard regulatory questions outlined above, there are a myriad of research oriented questions that can be asked of these sites. For example, from an historical perspective: a) How did they farms develop and evolve over time? b) Were the changes based on cultural, geographic, economic or regulatory concerns?

From an environmental perspective: a) Did the farmscape (landscape) changes occur because of regulations alone, or did some other environmental concern cause a change in layout? For instance, farms started out as open field where the ducks could roam and discard waste material directly into the watershed. This resulted in the creation of ponds that were surrounded by a series of dikes to insure that the effluent did not flow into the rivers and streams. From there, as regulations increased, separate pools were created to insure that no direct run-off made it into the waterway.

These research questions can, and should be included as part of any Scope of Work and/or plan for the reuse of these former sites. These questions can be undertaken in corporation with research institutions (i.e. colleges and universities), the County or local municipality and/or as joint efforts with other agencies (Federal and non-Federal).

6.2 Dredging Large scale dredging projects to remove duck sludge from the bottoms of impacted waterways have been conducted in the past. The Suffolk County Department of Public Works removed about 1.5 million cubic yards of material from the tributaries in Moriches Bay prior to 1968; and about 1.6 million cubic yards after 1968 (Suffolk County Department of Planning 1985). The dredged spoil was disposed in upland sites on the mainland and barrier island, on the beach and in the ocean surf zone.

No survey designed to measure the extent of duck sludge deposits in the tributaries to Flanders Bay (Peconic River, Sawmill Creek, Terry Creek, Reeves Creek/Bay, Meetinghouse Creek) was conducted, although anecdotal information suggests that such deposits were quite substantial. The Suffolk County Department of Public Works dredged over 2.0 million cubic yards of material from these tributaries prior to 1985, all of which was placed in upland disposal sites (Suffolk County Department of Planning 1985). The extent to which aged sludge remains on the bottom in these areas is not known.

In Seatuck Cove, about 400,000 cubic yards were removed in 1972 and pumped across Moriches Bay and the barrier island for disposal in the surf zone. This strategy and method for managing duck sludge was endorsed by all government levels at that time. In another case, approximately 400,000 cubic yards of duck sludge were pumped to a disposal site in Indian Island County Park adjacent to Flanders Bay in the Peconic Estuary after removal from near-by Terry Creek, Reeves Creek and Meetinghouse Creek. Three dredging projects were conducted, with the first occurring in 1948, and the third in 1975. Typically, such sites do not re-vegetate quickly, due to fine grained, compacted, poorly-drained, organically enriched sediment, which is acidic and has a high salt content.

Februrary 2009 10 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is currently conducting a feasibility study to dredge about 250,000 cubic yards of duck sludge deposits that have accumulated in Meetinghouse Creek since the last dredging cycle in 1975. Dredging, although an option in removing duck waste from waterbodies, has its own environmental impacts which include resuspension of sediments, removal of benthic species, modification of substrate and finding a suitable disposal site and can be potentially costly. Although the impacts from dredging are typically short term, both impacts and cost should be weighed against whether the long term benefits are significant enough to offset them.

Some factors that should be considered when deciding whether or not to dredge include water quality degradation issues occurring within the watershed, such as combined sewage outfall discharge, cesspool leakage and other anthropogenic pollutants. Scenarios where dredging duck waste would be beneficial are if anadromous or catadromous fish pathways will be enhanced or increased, tidal flow or hydrologic connection to wetlands will be reestablished and/or if it is substantiated that the duck sludge is the primary contributor of water quality degradation within a watershed or sub-basin.

It is recommended that as part of the Meetinghouse Creek Feasibility Study, water quality assessments be conducted within the areas that were part of the previous large scale dredging efforts to determine if dredging the duck waste has improved the water quality to an extent that impacts caused by dredging are offset. Further, a review of the current watershed management plan of the particular area under consideration for dredging should be conducted to understand what other water quality issues are occurring within the watershed.

6.3 Wetland and Streambank Restoration Constructed wetlands are increasingly being used on contained animal feeding operations as a successful secondary treatment method for livestock effluent. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Agricultural Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Protection in New York State recommends reducing nonpoint source pollution through best management practice such as grassed buffers, riparian corridor and constructed wetlands (NYSDEC 1996). Further, results from a demonstration project involving stream channel restoration and riparian buffer creation in Maryland indicated an overall reduction in nitrogen in the stream (Mayer 2004). Given this, restoring riparian buffers and wetlands on former duck farms should be successful with minimal effort and without extensive soil remediation.

Existing ponds could potentially serve as valuable nesting and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl and should be evaluated as to the feasibility of converting them into emergent wetlands through enhancement of native vegetation and re-establishing hydrologic connections with the stream and or modifying dams and berms to prevent the ponds from stagnating. Coordination should occur with groups like Ducks Unlimited to determine the potential habitat value of existing ponds and effectiveness of different restoration goals/techniques.

Additionally, it is recommended that the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the local Cornell Cooperative Extension office be included in the planning and design process given both agencies’ focus in dealing with environmental impacts associated with agricultural practices.

Februrary 2009 11 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report These agencies should be able to provide recommendations of plant species that are the most effective in nutrient uptake and soil stabilization along with suggesting restoration techniques that are cost-effective and optimize habitat value.

For areas where high levels of metals, SVOAs and VOAs are not an issue, common erosion and sediment control best management practices will be sufficient during construction. Consideration should be given to phasing any earthmoving activities to prevent runoff into adjacent waterbodies. Vegetated buffers in conjunction with erosion and sediment control best management practices should be implemented and maintained between upland work and adjacent waterbodies.

For any streambank stabilization or stream channel modification, work should be performed in dry conditions to the greatest extent possible and should be limited to only what could be accomplished in one day. The use of erosion control matting to provide instant stabilization should be incorporated into any streambank stabilization projects. Additionally, any instream work should be performed outside of any critical fish spawning periods. 7.0 Planning Matrix An example planning matrix and a supplemental site evaluation form were developed to assist in prioritizing the acquired duck farms for on-site ecosystem restoration. The Site Evaluation Form is meant to serve as the first step in completing the Planning Matrix as it will provide an initial characterization of restoration potential.

The matrix was modeled after and incorporates many of the criteria used in the Suffolk County Open Space Rating System for Natural Environments and the Suffolk County Open Space Rating System for Active Recreation, Hamlet Park, Historic and /or Cultural Park Uses lists included in the Open Space Acquisition Policy Plan for Suffolk County. Modifications to the matrix may be made if the County develops other appropriate criteria as they progress with Meetinghouse Creek and are encouraged to fit the County’s goals and objectives for incorporating duck farms into their open space plan. It should be noted that the matrix can be either applied to an entire site or a component of the site if overall site restoration is not desired.

Februrary 2009 12 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Site Evaluation Form Farm Name:

Location:

Watershed:

Percent Coverage of Invasive Species: <25%; 25-50%; 50-75%; 75%<

Dominant species:

Percent Coverage of Shrubs: : <25%; 25-50%; 50-75%; 75%<

Dominant species:

Percent of Mature Trees: : <25%; 25-50%; 50-75%; 75%<

Dominant Species:

Number and Condition of Structures on Site:

Condition of Existing Ponds on Site (Dry, Inundated/ Stagnant, Inundated/Aerated)

Are the Existing Hydrologic Conditions Apparent (e.g. tidal, runoff, flood events, groundwater, stream fed)?

Condition of Streambanks (Eroded, Stable, Incised)

Have wetlands developed or are beginning to develop within the site?

What are the land uses of adjacent areas (Undeveloped, Residential, Commercial, Highway, etc.)?

Are there any other restoration projects currently being constructed or proposed in the vicinity of the site?

Februrary 2009 13 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Planning Matrix Score Subtotal Site Characteristics

1. Property Size

a) 40+ acres. 10 points

b) Between 26-39 acres. 6 points

c) Between 5 and 25 acres. 3 points

2. Location a) Site is located adjacent to another existing public recreational area where

restoration will enhance the recreational uses of both sites. 8 points b) Site and its proposed use will provide a recreational opportunity in an area

that is presently deficient in this use or similar recreational uses. 4 points

3. Contamination a) Site contains no metals, SVOAs or VOA and levels of nutrients and pathogens are either low throughout the site or are in high levels only in distinct areas of site. 10 points. b) Site contains no metals, SVOAs or VOA but has high levels of nutrients

and pathogens throughout the site. 5 points c) Site has high levels of metals, SVOAs and VOA requiring further investigation into characterizing the problem and developing a remediation plan. 1 point

4. Historical/ Cultural Resources Features a) Historic features can be integrated into restoration design for recreational

and educational purposes. 5 points b) Restoration of the site will not negatively impact historic features. 3 points

c) Historic features on the site will impact ability to restore site. 1 point

Februrary 2009 14 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Planning Matrix Score Subtotal Ecosystem Restoration

1. Habitat Connectivity Opportunities

a) Site will connect adjacent properties of similar habitat. 8 points

b) Site will expand habitat type on one side. 4 points c) Site is located between privately owned and already developed land. 1 point

2. Habitat Diversity a) Multiple habitat types (upland, wetland and open water) can be potentially restored on site. 8 points b) Site restoration will enhance habitat for Federal or State endangered, threatened or special concern species. 4 points

c) Site restoration will enhance habitat for migratory waterfowl. 4 points

3. Sustainability a) Immediate upstream and adjacent areas will not negatively impact the sustainability of the site if restored. 8 points b) Site is adjacent to areas containing extensive invasive species that could invade the area. 4 points c) Site lies downstream of an area that could negatively impact restoration success. 1 point

Februrary 2009 15 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Planning Matrix Score Subtotal Ecosystem Restoration (Continued)

4. Potential Exposure of Contaminants

a) Restoration of site will not expose contaminants. 8 points b) Restoration will involve exposing some contaminants, but can easily addressed. 4 points

c) Restoration will require a detailed remediation plan. 1 point

5. Migratory Pathways for key anadromous and catadromous species (i.e. brook trout, American eel)

a) Restoration of site will enhance migratory pathways. 8 points

b) Restoration of site will maintain existing pathways. 4 points

c) Restoration of site will have no effect on existing pathways. 1 point

6. Contribution to Watershed Management or Regional Comprehensive and Conservation Management Plans:

a) Restoration of the site will advance the goals and objectives of an existing Watershed and Regional Management Plan. 10 points

b) Restoration of the site will advance the goals and objectives of a Watershed Management Plan but may not contribute to a Regional Management Plan. 5 points

c) Restoration of the site will provide localized benefits, but will not contribute to watershed or regional management goals. 1 point

Februrary 2009 16 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report Planning Matrix Score Subtotal Ecosystem Restoration (Continued)

7. Operations and Maintenance a) Inter-municipal management agreement with Federal, state, town and/or village. 5 points b) Management agreement with non-profit environmental organization. 3 points

Total (Maximum 100 Points)

Februrary 2009 17 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report 8.0 List of Preparers and Stakeholders Agency Name Title Role Suffolk County Thomas A. Director Administered County Isles participation on project. Suffolk County Department of DeWitt S. Chief Environmental Prepared Appendix D. Planning Davies, Ph.D Analyst

Suffolk County Department of Ronald Assisted in Planning Verbarg Preparation of Appendix A. Suffolk County Department of Michael Mule Environmental Coordinated logistics Planning Planner of soil/sediment sampling. Suffolk County Department of Robert Waters Assisted with field Health Services survey work. Suffolk County Department of Michael Assisted with field Health Services Jensen survey work.

Suffolk County Department of Nicholas Sr. Environmental Coordinated access to Parks, Recreation & Gibbons Analyst Suffolk County Conservation parkland. U.S. Army Corps of Roselle Henn Chief, Environmental Project delivery team Engineers, New York District Assessment Section leader and County coordination. U.S. Army Corps of Kimberly Biologist Prepared Main Report Engineers, New York District Rightler U.S. Army Corps of Christopher Archaeologist Prepared Appendix A Engineers, New York District Ricciardi, Ph.D. U.S. Army Corps of Richard Dabal HTRW Specialist Conducted soil Engineers, New York District sampling.

Februrary 2009 18 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report 9.0 References Carpenter, E.J., Brinkhuis, B.M., Capone, D.G. 1991. Primary production and nitrogenous nutrients in Great South Bay. In: Schubel, J.R., Bell, T.M., Carter, H.H. (eds.), The Great South Bay. SUNY Press. Albany, NY. 33-42.

Cosulich, William F. 1966. Treatment of Wastes from Long Island Duck Farms. William F. Cosulich, Consulting Engineer. Syosset, NY 61 pp.

Davids, Herbert W. and Cosulich, William F. 1968. Water Pollution from Duck Farms and Recent Developments in Treatment. Paper presented at the June 10, 1968 meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control Association, Montauk, NY. 9 pp.

Dean, William [email protected] . N Output Humans vs. Ducks. Private e-mail message to DeWitt Davies, 7 February 2005.

Dona, Robert B. 1968. Duck Sludge in Moriches Bay Conference Area. Memorandum to Acting Director, NAWQMC, dated May 23, 1968. 3 pp.

Eberhard, Donald, J. n.d. Duck Waste Treatment Facilities. Ronald J. Eberhard, Professional Engineer. Hauppauge, NY.

EDAW, Inc. July 2007. Duck Farm Park Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Found at http://www.wca.ca.gov/notices/duckfarm/Duck%20%Farm%20Final%20MND%WEB%20R EADY.pdf

James P.S. Sukias and M. Long Nguyen. 2003. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. Inactivation of E. Coli in Riparian and Non-Riparian Soils. http://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme03/theme03_15.PDF

Klapproth, Julia C. and James E. Johnson. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality. Virginia Cooperative Extension. October 2000. article found at: http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/forestry/420-151/420-151.html

Lively, J.S., Kaufman, Z.G., Carpenter, E.J. 1983. Phytoplankton ecology of a barrier island estuary: Great South Bay, N.Y. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 16, 51-68.

Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). Emerging Phosphorus Management Options for Maryland Agriculture. http://www.mda.state.md.us/resource_conservation/nutrient_management/consultant_inform ation/emerging_phosphorus_management.php

Mayer, Paul and Elise Strize. 2004. U.S. E.P.A Effects of Ecosystem Restoration on Water Quality in an Urban Stream: Minebank Run Stream Restoration Project as a Case Study. http://www.epa.gov/ada/research/eco/research_28.pdf

Februrary 2009 19 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1996. Agricultural Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Protection in New York State.

Nichols, M.M. 1964. Characteristics of sedimentary environment in Moriches Bay, N.Y. In: R.L. Miller (ed.), Papers in Marine Geology Shepard Commemorative Volume. 363-383.

Ryther, J.H. 1954. The ecology of phytoplankton blooms in Moriches Bay and Great South Bay. Biol. Bull. 106, 198-206.

Sanderson, Matt A. Ronald M. Jones, Marshall J. McFarland, Jason Stroup, Roderick L. Reed and James P. Muir. February 2000. Nutrient Movement and Removal in a Switchgrass Biomass-Filter Strip System Treated with Dairy Manure. http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/210?ck=nck

Travelers Research Corp. 1970. Fourteen Selected Marine Resource Problems of Long Island, New York. Descriptive Evaluations. Report prepared for the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Hauppauge, NY. 128 pp.

Volland, C., J. Zupancic, and J. Chappelle. 2003. Cost of Remediation of Nitrogen - Contaminated Soils Under CAFO Impoundments. Journal of Hazardous Substance Research,Volume Four. http://www.engg.ksu.edu/hsrc/JHSR/v4_no3.pdf

Februrary 2009 20 Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Report

APPENDIX A

Long Island Duck Farming History

A Brief History of the Eastern Long Island Duck Farm Industry

1 Introduction

The duck farm industry during the twentieth century was an important segment of the agricultural economy in Suffolk County. It was also a period of extremely intensive land use along stream and bay shorelines. There were ninety duck farms located in the Towns of Brookhaven, Southampton and Riverhead in 1940. The impacts of duck farming were dramatic, both on-site and off-site. Extensive landform alterations were made to construct animal pens, feed lots and swim ponds, which were often located directly on or adjacent to streams/coves of the bays. Waste effluent discharges from the farms created thick organic matter deposits, degraded water quality and altered phytoplankton and benthic populations of the area immediately surrounding the discharged drains. The significance of the impacts is reflected by the magnitude of the industry and the waste load generated. The total annual production from the duck farms in Suffolk County peaked at nearly eight million ducks in 1959. By this time, effluent waste loadings from the farms, in the form of suspended solids, nutrients and coliform bacteria, were a problem (Davies 1993; Civiletti 2005). Between 1951 and 1968 several regulations and laws were enacted that required use of treatment technology to treat the waste. The legacy that the duck farming industry left behind was one of degraded shoreline sites, altered bay and creek hydrology, and bay bottoms that are soft and oxygen depleted. These conditions on many former duck farm sites made them less desirable for development, as compared to other locations. Had the duck farms not existed on these now valuable waterfront areas, most likely many of these properties would surely have been residentially developed by now.

Development of the Long Island Duck Industry

The history of the Pekin duck in the United States dates back to 1873. Legend has it that the nine Pekin ducks that were brought to the United States were obtained from the Chinese Imperial City of Pekin by Ed McGrath in 1873. In the spring of 1872 Mr. McGrath saw some white ducks of extraordinary size, and was able to obtain some eggs from this stock. He took these eggs with him to Shanghai, had them incubated and raised from them fifteen ducks. Mr. McGrath arranged with James E. Palmer, an American poultry fancier, to take these ducks with him. Six of the ducks were lost in a storm at sea. The remaining nine ducks, three drakes and six ducks, arrived in New York City on March 13, 1873, after a voyage of 124 days (Anonymous 1930:15).

Duck growers quickly discovered the economic advantages of raising Pekin duck over other varieties of duck and began to replace their existing stock with Pekin ducklings as fast as the stock could be obtained. The Pekin duck quickly became the most popular market duck in the United States because of its favorable market characteristics and profitability. An article in the Sunrise – The Magazine of Long Island from September 1929 states that the Pekin duck is a quick-growing, tender, juicy bird that only requires 10 to 12 weeks to grow to a market size of between 5.5 and 6 pounds, while their closest competitors, the Western ducks, take from five to six months to mature. It also indicates that the Western ducks are smaller and tougher and sell for much lower prices per pound than Long Island duck (Flatow 1929:14)

2 Market ducks had been grown on Long Island on a small scale prior to the introduction of the Pekin duck in 1873, but it was the meaty, quick-growing Pekin, so suitable for large-scale commercial farming, that made the thriving industry possible. Long Island was the perfect environment for the production of Pekin duck with its moderate growing climate, extensive shoreline property, sandy soil, abundant fresh water and ability to produce its own grain. Proximity to New York City and other east coast cities was also a significant advantage in marketing fresh duck to a population that was comprised of duck-loving immigrants. The duck industry thrived on many of the waterways in eastern Suffolk (De Silva 1992:59).

The duck industry appears to have begun on Long Island in the Speonk/Eastport area. The raising of ducks did not become a full-time industry on Long Island until sometime between 1880 and 1885; prior to that time the raising of ducks was a supplemental activity to farming and fishing. Duck farmers experimented with different methods of productions in the late 1800s and early 1900s before the duck industry began its steady production expansion. The great increase in productivity on individual duck farms can be attributed primarily to the use of artificial methods in hatching and brooding (Wilcox 1949:2:441).

Long Island and eastern Massachusetts were the production centers of the early duck industry. The Massachusetts farmers started raising ducks via the dry duck farming method, which did not utilize creeks or streams. In contrast, most ducks grown on Long Island were raised on ranches that utilized adjacent streams and ponds. In the 1880s and 1890s there were a number of early duck farms - located primarily in the Remsenburg area - that were dry operations located entirely upland. Allowing ducks access to streams and ponds proved to be more economical than dry duck farming. By 1949, only one duck farm on Long Island was located upland (Wilcox 1949:2:441).

By 1900, approximately thirty duck farms were in operating in the Moriches, Eastport and Riverhead. The first duck farm in the Riverhead area was begun by Asa Fordham in an old ramshackle building on what was to become known as the A. B. Soyars Duck Farm, located on the Peconic River. In 1902, Mr. Soyars bought the duck farm from Mr. Fordham and eventually it became one of the larger duck farms. Mr. Soyars had previously worked at the A.J. Hallock Duck Farm in Speonk. The Atlantic Duck Farm, located in Speonk on the Speonk River and operated by the Hallock family, grew to become one of the largest duck farms under continuous operation since the 1880s. From 1916 until 1938 the Atlantic Duck Farm was the largest duck farm in the world producing 125,000 ducks in 1916 and 260,000 ducks in 1938. The farm was destroyed by the 1938 hurricane. After 1938, Hollis Warner of Riverhead became the largest producer of ducks with a peak annual production of 500,000 ducks per year (Yeager 1972:144).

Martin Maurer, an early duck farmer from Riverhead, found a unique way to market his product. He had what is now known as the Big Duck built on his farm (later purchased and operated by Carmine Bruno) in Upper Mills, Riverhead, on the north side of Route 25. The Big Duck, approximately 20 feet high, 30 feet long and 15 feet wide, officially opened for business in June, 1931, selling both eggs and ducks. The duck structure was constructed to attract more business during the Depression and its prime location, on one of the main roads leading east from NYC to the Hamptons, earned it a lot of attention. The 30 ton Big Duck, which was constructed from wood, wire mesh, and concrete, has been moved twice. In 1936, Mr. Maurer purchased a duck

3 farm in Flanders (property on Reeves Bay now owned by the Town of Southampton) and had the Big Duck moved to his new location some four miles to the east. In 1988, the Big Duck was moved to its current resting place at the entrance to Sears Bellows County Park, which is located several miles further east on the south side of Route 24 (Yeager 1972:144).

The Big Duck’s uniqueness and longevity has resulted in its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, it is known not only on Long Island but throughout the nation as an example of what is commonly referred to as “roadside architecture”. The Big Duck has gained notoriety in the world of architecture, since any building shaped like its product is referred to as a “duck.” In November, 1932, the Big Duck was featured in Popular Mechanics under the title “Concrete Bird Draws Attention to Duck Farm.” The Atlas Cement Company used it on their Promotional calendar for 1931, and the Drake Cake Company erected a smaller version of the Big Duck for the 1939 NYC World’s Fair. Mr. Maurer wanted to keep control over the rights to the Big Duck, so he had the design patented with the US Patent Office. Mr. Maurer’s farm is long gone, but his Big Duck sits by the side of the road in Hampton Bays as a reminder of a once thriving industry on Long Island (Davies 1993:35).

Eastport had the largest number of early duck farms and continued to have the highest concentration of duck farms on Long Island until the 1970s. Early commercial duck farms were established in a number of Long Island hamlets including Rockville Center, Wantagh, Amityville, Islip and Fishers Island. However, the Eastport and Riverhead areas grew to become the centers for duck raising on Long Island. Although fewer in number, sizable duck farms existed on tributaries to the eastern reaches of the Great South Bay (Gallo Bros. Duck Farm on Mud Creek, Leskowicz Duck Farm on Little Neck Creek which is a tributary to the Carmans River and Robinsons Duck Farm on the Carmans River.) The Egnatz Leskowicz Duck Farm, actually three farms located on both sides of Little Neck Creek, was probably the third largest duck farm operation in Suffolk County in the late 1940s. In the post WW II era, commercial duck farms extended no further west then Mud Creek, East Patchogue (Wilcox 1949:456). Interestingly, municipal zoning had little influence on determining where the duck farms would locate, since zoning ordinances for the Towns of Brookhaven, Southampton and Riverhead were only first adopted in 1937, 1957 and 1959, respectively.

Historically, duck growing was a seasonal business that began in late March and ended in the beginning of December. Duck farmers have always practiced selective breeding by choosing only the healthiest, meatiest birds to serve as breeders for the next generation of ducks. The Pekin duck is a good breeder laying about 150 eggs in its laying span each year. After being laid, the eggs were placed in large coolers until needed for hatching. Before the introduction of the first incubators in 1890, “broody” hens were used to hatch out ducklings. The incubators that replaced the setting hens were fire hazards since they were fueled by kerosene. The eggs in these early incubators all had to be turned each day by hand. The technology then advanced to hot water incubators and, finally, the electric incubator came into use on Long Island in the 1920s. After 28 days in the incubator, the ducklings peck their way out of their eggs and were placed in a heated indoor nursery, known as a brooder house, for two to six weeks depending upon the season. As the ducks matured, they were herded into larger stream front pens where they developed for market. The ducks lost their yellow, fuzzy appearance at about four weeks but haven’t yet grown their adult feathers. Through selective breeding and improved management

4 practices over the years, the growing cycle for a five to seven pound marketable duck has been reduced from ten to twelve weeks to only six to seven weeks. After reaching market size, the ducks – which consume an amount of food equal to five times their market weight – are either sent to the processing plant or set aside as breeders. Most Long Island duck growers sent their marketable ducks to the Long Island Duck Growers Cooperative Processing Plant that had been located in Eastport (Yeager 1972:144).

During the late 1940s, when the duck industry on Long Island was thriving, duck growers requested help from Cornell University in conducting research on all aspects of raising ducks. With financial support from the growers, the Cornell Duck Research Laboratory was established in Eastport in 1949. By the late 1950s, production of ducks outpaced consumer demand. By 1959, most duck farm operations were no longer profitable and at the beginning of the 1960 season faced serious financial problems. To more effectively promote and market Long Island duck, 44 duck farmers founded the Long Island Duck Farmers Cooperative, Inc. in May 1960. The farmers found they had over five million pounds of duck in storage. With the assistance the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, a full-scale nationwide promotional campaign was launched. To effectively process and market the ducks, the Cooperative established two processing plants – one located in Eastport and the other in Riverhead. The two plants would process, flash freeze and immediately ship the product to market via refrigerator trucks (www.longislandgenealogy.com/ducks 2007:4).

Duck farms abounded on Long Island during the majority of the twentieth century, and Long Island duck was among the most famous of the world’s regionally named products. During the peak production years of the Long Island duck industry, which spanned the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, duck farms could be found on almost all the freshwater streams in the Riverhead, Eastport and Moriches areas. Duck farms continued to spring up on Long Island until the 1950s. By the end of the 1930s, about six million ducks were produced on approximately 90 farms located in Suffolk County. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, the approximately 70 duck farms located in Suffolk County produced about two-thirds of all the ducks eaten in the United States. At that time, the duck industry was as valuable as the entire commercial fishing industry in the State. Production peaked around the late 1950s and early 1960s with the production of 7.5 million ducks per year. The number of active farms had been reduced to 48 by 1963. Of this total, three farms were located on tributaries to Bellport Bay; 30 farms were on tributaries and coves along Moriches Bay; one farm was located on Mecox Bay; and 14 farms were on tributaries to and the shoreline of Flanders Bay. The geographic distribution (and number) of these farms is shown is shown in Table 1. Even by the mid-1960s, as environmental regulations were slowly strangling the duck industry, there were 1,500 people working on Long Island’s duck farms, and between six to seven million ducks were sent to market annually. The annual duck production on Long Island in contrast to the number of duck farms on Long Island from 1897 to 2004 is graphically depicted in Figure 1 (Dean 2005).

Bellport Bay: Mud Creek (1) Carmans River (2)

Moriches Bay: Swift Stream (3) Forge River (3) Old Neck Creek (2) Terrell River (7) Tuthill Cove (2) Pamachee Creek (1) Little Seatuck Creek (1) Seatuck Cove (5) Seatuck Creek (2) Speonk Cove (1) Speonk River/Tanners Neck Creek (3)

Flanders Bay: Peconic River (4) Sawmill Creek (4) Terry's Creek (3) Meetinghouse Creek (1) Peconic Bay (1) Peconic Creek (1)

Mecox Bay: Mecox Bay (1)

Table 1. The Geographic Distribution and Number of Active Duck Farms in 1963.

The duck industry on Long Island began to decline in the 1960s due to a number of factors. First, it was generally accepted that summer residents and suburbanites, both appearing in ever greater numbers, found the odor and waste emanating from local duck farms offensive. Second, the pollution control measures that duck farmers were required to comply with significantly added to the cost of production, and many of the smaller duck farm operations that could not afford to comply with the requirements were forced out of business. Third, steeply increasing property taxes and utility rates also added to production costs. Fourth, as more of Long Island changed from farmland to suburbs, grain increasingly had to be imported from the Midwest, thereby making the growing of ducks on Long Island more expensive. Fifth, Long Island duck farmers, who once cornered the market, faced increasing competition from out-of-state duck farms. Finally, as the building boom rolled east in Suffolk County, many duck farmers found it more profitable to sell their waterfront property for residential development (De Silva 1992:62).

Figure 1: annual duck production on Long Island

With the smell came concerns about the harm the farms were doing to local streams and bays. The untreated excrement from millions of ducks polluted many of the receiving streams, which emptied into the bays and, subsequently, ruined these waterbodies for bathing and fishing. The demand for clean water became great and, as a result, the State instituted regulations to curtail pollution of the steams and bays. The history of pollution control within the Long Island duck industry dates back to 1951, when local civic associations sent petitions to the governor requesting that the State hold hearings to classify the surface waters within the State of New York as environmentally susceptible to the increasing pollutants being deposited in the waters. The result was a four point plan requiring duck farmers to remove their ducks’ access to open water, remove the settleable excrement, disinfect waste water and remove nutrients, namely nitrogen and phosphorus. However, it was not until 1968 that treatment plants became a reality, marking the first substantial step toward the removal of duck wastes from surface waters (Wegner 1974:11). Prior to the government required wastewater treatment systems, commercially grown ducks swam in pens in the local creeks and discharged their wastes directly into the streams that eventually flowed into the bays. Environmental regulations, by the 1970s, prohibited the discharging of waste by-products into estuaries. As a result of the continuing costs of upgrading their treatment plants to comply with the ever more stringent pollution control requirements, many of the duck farmers folded or relocated to the Midwest, where costs were cheaper and environmental regulations less rigorous.

In the 1960s, county officials sought to close duck farms because of such environmental concerns as pollution of surface waters. Many closed and some, such as the Hollis Warner Duck Farm in Riverhead, were acquired by the County for active parkland purposes. The County took title to the Hollis Warner property in 1964 and redeveloped it into the Suffolk County Indian Island Golf Course. Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison, an ardent opponent of the duck industry, was quoted in 1970 as having said that “one of the wild-eyed dreams I’ve always had is an absolutely duckless county” (Gilgoff 1972:A32). In a 1971 New York Times article, Dennison stated that “without question, the value of the duck to private industry is far outweighed by resulting cost to the general public in pollution, nuisance, losses in bathing, recreation, fishing and lowering of real estate values.” Dennison labeled the duck farms as “major contributors to the pollution of the county’s waterways” and an “undesirable private industry” that he would like to eliminate from the County. In a move in this direction, Dennison asked the County Legislature to appropriate $2 million to buy 600 acres of duck farms around Flanders Bay. He asserted that that Flanders Bay was so polluted from duck wastes that the County has had to restrict swimming at its Indian Island Park, which the County developed in the mid-1960s. The duck farmers were highly resistant to the idea of the County buying them out and vowed that, if the Legislature appropriated the money, their farms would have to be taken by condemnation. Dennison’s request for the $2 million was subsequently denied by an economy- minded County Legislature (Bird 1971:75).

The required construction and operation of treatment plants for duck wastes did not necessarily quiet critics of the duck industry. Duck farm treatment plants did make a difference in water pollution levels, but the effluent from the early treatment plants didn’t always meet state pollution standards for a variety of reasons. In 1975, Dr. George Woodwell, a scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and a member of the Suffolk County Council on

8 Environmental Quality, stated that the pollution of public watercourses resulting from duck farm effluent should be stopped completely. “The public is giving an enormous subsidy – the quality of those creeks – to the duck farmers. It’s an industry that thrives by degrading common resources,” according to Dr. Woodwell (Soper 1976:9).

Long Island Duck Industry Today

Most of the ducks raised in the United States today are the Pekin breed. Almost all ducks are now raised indoors to protect them from predators, to control odors and to manage their manure, which is collected and used elsewhere selectively as fertilizer. Most ducks are now raised in Wisconsin and Indiana and are fed corn and soybeans fortified with vitamins and minerals. Duck represents only a very small portion of the overall domestic poultry market. About 23 million ducks were slaughtered in the US in 2003. Although Suffolk County now only accounts for about 10% of all the ducks grown for the national market, Long Island is still renowned throughout the world for its production of high quality ducklings (Thomas 2004:G10).

From its peak production years of a half a century ago, the Long Island duck industry in Suffolk County has shrunk to currently just three duck farms producing a little over two million ducks annually. These three farms - Jurgielewicz Duck Farm in Moriches, Cresent Duck Farm (owned by the Corwin family) in Aquebogue and the smaller scale Massey Duck Farm in Eastport – currently employ several hundred workers and generate about $25 million in business. The Jurgielewicz Duck Farm and the Cresent Duck Farm are family farms that were founded in 1919 and 1908, respectively, and are currently ranked as the 2nd and 5th largest duck producers in the country, respectively, producing 1.25 million and 0.9 million ducks apiece annually (Thomas 2004:G7). Controlling the means of production on site from beginning to end (from incubation of eggs to the processing of ducks) has helped both farms survive. Both farms have heavily invested in upgrading facilities on site and appear to be viable operations for the foreseeable future.

Environmental regulations now require that waste by-products be contained on-site and not discharged into the estuary as was the practice historically. In order to treat the waste generated at Cresent Duck Farm – where some 140,000 ducks are raised at any given time – the Corwins are building a new state-of-the-art treatment facility that will cost $3.25 million and handle up to 100,000 gallons per day. The effluent from the treatment facility will then be discharged to artificial wetlands located on-site. Sludge and other solids will be composted on about an acre of land at the farm (Civiletti 2005:15).

The remaining duck farm operations on Long Island owe their success to finding a niche in the market and being willing and able to adapt to changing circumstances, including stricter environmental regulations. The Jurgielewicz Duck Farm raises “free range” ducks in outdoor pens, which command a premium price, and ships 12,000 ducks a week to upscale restaurants in the City of New York, including specific areas such as Chinatown. Cresent Duck Farm produces ducks for the upper end of the market and supplies almost half of the New York metropolitan area restaurants that serve duck. Most of the ducks at Cresent are kept inside for their entire life span (Civiletti 2005:15).

9 The duck industry in the United States began on Long Island and a lot of the expertise that went into the development of the overall operation occurred on Long Island. Long Island growers have worked to make their ducks distinctive. Selective breeding year after year to develop better strains of duck is considered the most important factor in differentiating Long Island duck from out-of-state competitors. Famous restaurants in New York City want their duck to be absolutely fresh and of premium quality. The Long Island duck produces continue to fill that bill.

The Acquisition and Restoration Challenge

Over 2,000 acres and nearly 20 miles of shoreline have been utilized during the last century for the commercial production of ducks in Suffolk County. Approximately a dozen former duck farms are now publicly owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State, Suffolk County, and the Towns of Brookhaven, Southampton and Riverhead. A list of these sites, along with two other former duck farm sites containing conservation easements, is shown in Appendix A. The County of Suffolk and the Town of Brookhaven are also in contract to purchase the development rights to four parcels comprising the Jurgielewicz Duck Farm in Moriches. The purchase of development rights to the 47 acre Jurgielewicz Duck Farm, located on the east side of the Forge River between Sunrise Highway and Montauk Highway and west of Barnes Road, will cost each municipality $2.8 million. Suffolk County parkland includes former duck farms located on the Peconic River, Mud Creek, Forge River and Carmans River. Many other former duck farms have been developed for private residential use. However, a significant amount of former duck farm acreage remains underutilized and available for development. Of the approximately 2,000 acres in Suffolk County that have been devoted to the rearing of ducks:

-11% are still used by active duck farm operations -24% are publicly owned -28% are inactive duck farms sites available for development -37% have been redeveloped primarily for single family residential use.

Appendix B displays information on active and former duck farms regarding their location, ownership, acreage, shoreline length, development status and current municipal zoning. The use of these properties in the future poses a unique planning challenge. The duck farm legacy has important ramifications for coastal development, open space acquisition, stream corridor/wetland habitat restoration, and marine resource management. Ten former duck farm sites have been proposed for open space acquisition by the County alone. The sites are listed in Appendix C. The extent to which habitats on former duck farm sites, tributaries and bay bottoms can/should be restored remains a subject for technical evaluation and regulatory debate. To this end, the Suffolk County Planning Department has embarked on a more thorough understanding of the location and extent of former duck farm sites within the County, with the goal of identifying potential restoration opportunities. As part of this several images were uncovered and are presented in Appendix D.

10 As part of this research, an interview was held with the former owner and operators of the Gallo Duck Farm in East Patchogue, New York. This initial interview provided an overview of the Gallo farm, and duck farming in general from the 1940s through the 1980s. Notes and transcripts from that interview are presented in Appendix E.

FUTURE WORK AND RESEARCH POTENTIAL FOR DUCK FARMS

From a governmental point of view, it is easy to answer the question of what to do with former Duck Farm sites. Federal, State and many local regulations state that any project that uses public funds must undertake some form of cultural resource survey to determine potential significance and impact to these historic sites. The potential project on an individual site must be taken into consideration with regard to how the proposal may impact potential significant above and below ground cultural resources.

As part of the Phase I survey’s several issues should have to be addressed. Does the site(s) retain any visual reminders of the former farm? Are they structures? Landscape feature? If these remain, when were they constructed? What is the projected plan for these former structures and/or landscapes? Is there a potential for buried cultural resource? What was on the site prior to becoming a duck farm? Was a significant/historic person residing on the property? Did the former farm contribute towards a significant industry or cultural history/event of the region? Can any of the former features be retained in the proposed plan? These are but some of the questions that will have to be asked/answered for each individual site.

However, for each individual former Duck Farms site, this may not be the most prudent approach. Individually, most of these Duck Farms have undergone major transformations that would most likely destroy their integrity, rendering them ineligible for potential inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Geographically, they are too far apart to be a succinct Historic District.

This does not mean that these former Duck Farms are not significant. In fact, these sites are a testament to an industry that was incredibly significant for Suffolk County, and the overall region. As highlighted in the brief history of duck farming, the industry helped shaped a specific food industry. It employed families, contributed to the economy and, although not the intention, helped, in part, to usher in environmental regulations that would apply to more than just duck farms.

As stated, due to the widespread geographic area, the Duck Farms cannot be lumped into a Historic District. However, using the approach of the determination for Historic Districts should be incorporated for these Duck Farms.

Beyond the standard Section 106-type questions, outlined above, that must be answered, there are a myriad of research oriented questions that can be asked of these sites. For example:

From an historical perspective:

How did the farms develop and evolve over time? Were the changes based on cultural, geographic, economic or regulatory concerns?

From an environmental perspective:

Did the farmscape (landscape) changes occur because of regulations alone, or did some other environmental concern cause a change in layout?

For instance, farms started out as open field where the ducks could roam and discard waste material directly into the watershed. This changed to the development of ponds. These ponds were surrounded by a series of dikes to insure that the effluent did not flow into the rivers and streams. From there, as regulations increased, separate pools were created to insure that no runoff made it into the waterway.

Future research into the history of the former Duck Farms will continue to help develop the story of the Duck Farming industry of Long Island. This important economic and social industry helped to define what Suffolk County was like in the eighteenth to the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century. The information gathered will not only provide supporting background material for the history of these sites, but may be used in the whatever future development for the former farms that are in the County’s control. Historic and landscape information can be used to recreate the former landscapes of these farms, be used in passive recreational displays, or be incorporated into the landscape in terms of potential reconstruction and museum displays. Many avenues of opportunities exist by conducting research into these former farm sites that will help sustain the memory of the past while providing information for the future.

12 References

Anonymous. 1930 “The Long Island Duck Growing Industry”. Long Island Almanac and Year Book, 15.

Bird, David. 1971 “Duck Farms on Long Island: Economic Asset or a Liability.” New York Times, April 11:67.

Civiletti, Denise. 2005 “Farm Adapting to Survive.” The Suffolk Times, April 21:15.

Davies, Carolyn L’Hommedieu. 1993 “Creating a Landmark – Hatching the Big Duck.” Long Island Forum – the Magazine of Long Island History and Heritage, Winter:30-35.

Dean, William, Dr. 2005 The History of the Duck Farm Industry on Long Island. Presentation at conference on The Legacy of Duck Farms in Suffolk County: Issues and Opportunities, Riverhead Free Library, February 8.

De Silva, Cara. 1992 “The Vanishing Flock.” Newsday, July 8:59.

Flatow, George. 1929 “Famous Long Island Ducks.” Sunrise – The Magazine of Long Island, September:13-14.

Gilgoff, Henry. 1972 “A Lame-Duck Industry.” Newsday, October 31:A32.

Soper, Susan. 1976 “Long Island Ducks: Indelicate.” Newsday, 9.

Thomas, Katie. 2004 “The Long History of a Fabled Fowl – Long Island Duck.” Newsday, March 21:Section G:G6-G11.

Wegner, Frances. 1974 “Long Island Duck May Become Extinct Species.” Long Island Press, July 28:11.

13 Wilcox, LeRoy. 1949 Duck Industry. In Paul Bailey (editor), Long Island – A History of Two Great Counties – Nassau and Suffolk, Volume 2:439-458. Lewis Historical Publication Company, Inc. New York, New York.

Yeager, Edna Howell. 1972 “The Big Duck.” Long Island Forum – the Magazine of Long Island History and Heritage, July:142-147. www.longislandgenealogy.com/ducks 2007 “The Story of Our Long Island Duckling”:4.

14 APPENDIX A:

Former Duck Farm Sites Owned by the Public or Containing Conservation Easements

Former Gallo Duck Farm Mud Creek, Town of Brookhaven Owned by Suffolk County 38.6 acres; 62 parcels Sections 97360 & 97570 of the SCRPTM Approx. 1,600' of shoreline on Mud Creek

Former Robinsons Duck Farm Carmens River, Town of Brookhaven Owned by Suffolk County 86.3 acres; 2 parcels SCRPTM 0200-84900-0300-011000 (24.1 acres) SCRPTM 0200-87800-0100-001005 (62.2 acres) Approx. 1,500' of shoreline on Carmens River

Former Duck Farm on Fanning Landing Road Forge River, Town of Brookhaven Jointly owned by Suffolk County & Town of Brookhaven 18.2 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-82500-0300-004001 Approx. 1,000' of shoreline on Forge River

Former duck farm on Godzieba property Forge River, west branch north of East Mill Pond, Moriches, Town of Brookhaven Owned by Suffolk County & Town of Brookhaven Approx. 36 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-78800-0300-003000 Approx. 2,000’ of shoreline on Forge River, west branch north of East Mill Pond

Indian Island County Golf Course located on former Hollis Warner Duck Farm Peconic River & Sawmill Creek; Town of Riverhead Owned by Suffolk County 156.4 acres; 2 parcels SCRPTM 0600-13200-0100-002000 (86.9 acres) SCRPTM 0600-13200-0100-003000 (69.5 acres) Approx. 10,000' of shoreline on Peconic River & Sawmill Creek

Former Shubert Duck Farm on N/W corner of C.R. 58 & Northville Turnpike Sawmill Creek; Town of Riverhead Owned by Suffolk County 42.8 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0600-08400-0100-014001 Approx. 1,800' of shoreline on Sawmill Creek

Former Martin Maurer Duck Farm Reeves Bay, Flanders Bay, Town of Southampton Owned by Town of Southampton 37.9 acres; 3 parcels SCRPTM 0900-14600-0100-016000; 018000; and 041001 Approx. 800’ of shoreline on Reeves Bay

Former duck farm located between Northville Tpk. and Elton Street Sawmill Creek, Town of Riverhead Owned by Town of Riverhead 37.6 acres; 2 parcels SCRPTM 0600-10900-0100-009005 and 011002 Approx. 1,800’ of shoreline on Sawmill Creek

Former Peconic River duck farm # 1 Peconic River, Calverton, Town of Riverhead Owned by State of New York and within Central Pine Barrens Core Approx. 10.0 acres; p/o 1 parcel SCRPTM 0600-14300-0100-004001 p/o Approx. 1,200’ of shoreline on Peconic River

Former Peconic River duck farm # 2 Peconic River, Calverton, Town of Riverhead Owned by State of New York and within Central Pine Barrens Core Approx. 5.0 acres; p/o 1 parcel SCRPTM 0600-14300-0100-001000 p/o Approx. 300’ of shoreline on Peconic River

Former Leszkowicz Duck Farms Three locations on Little Neck Creek, tributary to Carmans River, Town of Brookhaven Owned by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 56.8 acres; 6 parcels SCRPTM 0200-93300-0300-001001 and 001003 SCRPTM 0200-93300-0100-001000 SCRPTM 0200-93300-0200-001000 SCRPTM 0200-96300-0100-026001 and 026003 Approx. 4,400’ of shoreline on Little Neck Creek

Former Olin Warner Duck Farm Peconic River, Calverton, Town of Riverhead Owned by the Warner family CPB Joint Planning and Policy Commission has conservation easement on property Within Central Pine Barrens Core 29.8 acres; 3 parcels SCRPTM 0600-11800-0400-005008; 005009; and 005010 Approx. 800’ of shoreline on Peconic River

Former White Broad Duck Farm Peconic Creek, tributary to Peconic River, Riverside, Town of Southampton Owned by Gloria Kisch; Peconic Land Trust has conservation easement on property Within the Compatible Growth Area of the CPB 40.0 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0900-14200-0100-05300 Approx. 700’ of shoreline on tributary to Peconic River

18 Appendix B:

Active and former duck farms (geographic information)

21 22 23 Appendix C:

Proposed Suffolk County Open Space Acquisitions of Former Duck Farms

24 The following former duck farm sites have been proposed for open space acquisition in Master List I and II or by Suffolk County Resolution:

Broad Cove Duck Farm Riverhead, Town of Riverhead 94.6 acres; 1parcel SCRPTM 0600-08600-0100-036000 Resolution 970-1999 Authorizing acquisition under the Old ¼% Drinking Water Program Resolution 605-2001 Declaring Superior Governmental Need (Tax Lien Procedures) Master List II

Hubbard Duck Farm Riverhead, Town of Riverhead 77.5 acres; 1parcel SCRPTM 0600-11200-0100-016001 Resolution 257-2002 Authorizing Planning Steps for acquisition under the New Drinking Water Program

Godzieba Duck Farm Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 36 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-78800-0300-003000 Master List I Recently acquired by Suffolk County and Town of Brookhaven

Newton/Nevins property Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 12 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-82500-0200-020000 Master List I

Swift Stream Farms Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 34 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-85300-1000-002000 Master List I

Carmine Bruno Duck Farm Upper Mills, tributary to Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 21 acres; 4 parcels SCRPTM 0600-12500-0200-008001; 008002; 008003 & 008004 Master List I

Shubert Duck Farm Sawmill Creek, Town of Riverhead 37 acres; 3 parcels SCRPTM 0600-08400-0100-007000; 012000 & 018002 Master List I

AJDN Realty Corp. property Sawmill Creek, Town of Riverhead 30 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0600-10900-0100-009005 Master List I Recently Acquired by Town of Riverhead

Garry Smith Properties Terrys Creek, Town of Riverhead 38 acres; 1 parcel SCRPTM 0600-10900-0300-003002 Master List I

Chornoma Duck Farm Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 16 acres, 1 parcel SCRPTM 0200-75000-0300-040002 Master List II

26 APPENDIX D:

Images

Gallo Duck Farm - 1951 photo provided by Mary Lou Varney Gallo Duck Farm - Mud Creek, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Conservation Plan for Gallo Duck Farm Provided by Thomas McMahon, SC Soil & Water

Carmans River, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Little Neck Creek, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001

Swift Stream Farm & Fanning Landing Road, Forge River 1966 / 2001 Forge River, n/s Sunrise Highway, Town of Brookhaven 1966 / 2001 East Millpond Creek - Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Swift Stream Farm & Fanning Landing Road, Forge River 1966 / 2001 Ely Creek - Forge River, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Old Neck Creek, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Terrell River, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Tuthill Cove, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Harts Cove, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001

Little Seatuck Creek, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 Seatuck Creek, Town of Brookhaven 1966 2001 East River, Town of Southampton 1966 2001 Speonk River / Brushy Neck Creek, Town of Southampton 1930 2001 Tanners Neck Creek 1966 2001

Hayground Cove - Mecox Bay 1966 2001

Reeves Bay, Town of Southampton 1930 2001 Peconic Creek, Town of Southampton 1930 2001 Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1930 / 2001 Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1930 2001 Clearview Duck Farm - Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1966 2001 Olin Warner Duck Farm - Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1966 / 2001 Bridgeview Duck Farm - Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1966 / 2001 Carmine Bruno Duck Farm - Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1966 2001 Sawmill Creek, Town of Riverhead 1938 2001 Terry Creek, Town of Riverhead 2001 1938 Hubbard Duck Farm - Sawmill Creek, Town of Riverhead 1966 / 2001 Warner Duck Farm - Peconic River, Town of Riverhead 1930 / 2001 Broad Cove - Terry Creek, Town of Riverhead 1966 2001 Acreage of Active & Former Duck Farms in Suffolk County 900 800

700 Total Acreage in Active & 600 Former Duck Farms Pri vatel y Owned Devel opabl e 500 Acreage

400 Publicly Owned Acreage 300 200 Proposed Suffolk County Acquisition 100 0 n d ve a rhe kha e iv R Broo Southampton Shoreline Length (in feet) of Active & Former Duck Farms in

Suffolk County 45000 40000 Total Shoreline in Active & 35000 Former Duck Farms 30000

25000 Pri vatel y Owned Devel opabl e 20000 Shoreline 15000 Publicly Owned Shoreline 10000 5000 0 Proposed Suffolk County n n d Acquisition ea h khave mpto iver oo tha R ou Br S

APPENDIX E:

Interview Transcription Notes

On November 21, 2007, Ron Verbarg of the Suffolk County Planning Department and Christopher Ricciardi of the Army Corps of Engineers – New York District, conducted an interview with Louis and Mike Gallo, former owners and operators of the Gallo Duck Farm located in East Patchogue, New York. The interview was arranged with the assistance of Mary Lou Varney, also of the Suffolk County Planning Department, Louis Gallo’s daughter. The interview was held in the home of Louis Gallo.

What follows are the notes from Mr. Verbarg and Mr. Ricciardi. They are presented in raw-form (i.e. as they were submitted for the record).

29 From: Ron Verbarg - Suffolk County Planning Department

Christopher Ricciardi, ACOE, and Ron Verbarg, SC Planning Department, conducted an interview with Lou and Mike Gallo on November 21st 2007 regarding the operation of the former Gallo Brothers Duck Farm. Mary Lou Varney, SC Parks Department, is the daughter of Lou Gallo and helped arranged the interview and was present at the interview. The interview took place around the kitchen table at the home of Lou Gallo (616 Gazzola Drive) and was conducted as part of one of the tasks associated with the Planning Assistance to States (PAS) contract that the Planning Department entered into with the ACOE regarding historic duck farm activity in Suffolk County. The Gallo brothers revealed the following information regarding their former duck on Mud Creek in East Patchogue:

• The Gallo Duck Farm was started in 1922 by the parents of Lou and Mike Gallo and was first called Oak Duck Farm. The brothers said that their parents, who were involved in trucking and selling fresh fruits and vegetables from eastern Suffolk County to city dwellers in New York, noticed that duck farmers appeared prosperous and thus decided to establish a duck farm on Mud Creek. They said the area was wooded and swampy before the duck farm was established, first just on the west side of Gazzola Drive and later on both sides. • Ducks were raised on the west side of Gazzola Drive and both ducks and turkeys were grown on the east side. The Gallos started growing turkeys in the early 1950’s just for the Thanksgiving Day trade. • The Gallos originally constructed the duck barns from recycled wood obtained from the decommissioned WWI Camp Upton. • Ducks were grown from April to November and each crop of ducks reached maturity at seven weeks and three days. Economically it made no sense to keep the ducks any longer than 52 days because they didn’t gain any additional weight. • Ducks were fed a mix of corn (80%) and fish meal (20%) that was mixed by hand. • 350,000 ducks were raised on the Gallo Brothers Duck Farm every year. • Each duck was inoculated by hand on three separate occasions. • The ducks were originally slaughtered on site and packed in ice in wooden barrels and shipped to NYC. The barrels were made in the Sayville/Bayport area. Later on the ducks were sent to a processing plant in Riverhead and beginning in the late 1940’s they were shipped to the Co-op processing facility in Eastport. The Co-op would process 25,000 ducks daily and had a staff of nearly 100 people. At the end (in the 1980’s) they would be lucky to process 15,000 ducks per week. The Co-op tried to keep the people employed by also processing fish. • In 1966 Mike and Lou took over the farm from their parents and renamed the Gallo Duck Farm to the Gallo Brothers Duck Farm. The brothers sold the farm in 1986 to a housing developer (Structural Technologies) and shipped their last ducks to the Co-op processing facility in 1987. Suffolk County picked up the property several years later after the new owner failed to pay the property taxes. • They shipped a lot of live ducks to the city for the kosher trade and later for the Chinese restaurant trade. • The family was in the duck farm business for 65 years from 1922 until 1987.

30 • Almost all parts of the duck were economically utilized except for the blood. The intestines and heads went to mink farms as feed. The feathers were highly sought after during WWII as insulation material for sleeping bags and aviator jackets. • A family from Maryland lived on the farm and assisted the Gallo family in operating the farm. Seasonal farm workers were hired primarily from the Bellport area. Starting in the 1950’s, seasonal farm workers from Puerto Rico were utilized. • Pollution abatement regulations first began in 1967. Wastewater from the swimways first went to the aeration pond, then to the settling basins, and finally to the chlorine contact tank before the water left the farm. • The swimways flanked the center channel which was meant to function as Mud Creek. The center channel, which we assumed was Mud Creek, was actually dug by the Gallo family. The brothers mentioned that much of the main channel was spring fed. • The greenhouses immediately north of the duck farm were constructed by the brothers and other family members, and used to grow roses. • Gallo’s ducks, as well as most of the LI ducks, were known for their quality. The owner of one of the largest Mid-West duck farms, Maple Leaf, had wanted to purchase 6,000 of their best breeders. The brothers refused to sell their breeders to their out-of-state competitors. • Straw lined the floors of the duck barns. The manure and straw mixture was sold and later given away to farmers in Yaphank. The duck manure/straw mixture was considered to be a better fertilizer than straight chicken manure because it was not as hot. • Part of one photo album contained pictures of the farms as well as newspaper articles featuring the farm. Mary Lou indicated she would make copies of the articles and forward them to us via Nick Gibbons. • Lou Gallo had a large framed photo (approximately 4’ x 8’) of a scene from the Carmine Bruno Duck Farm in his garage. He would like to find a home for the large photo. I suggested that Mary Lou contact the Town of Southampton and SC Parks to see if they would be interested in the photo. (Martin Maurer was the original owner of the Carmine Bruno Duck Farm located at Upper Falls in Riverhead and constructed The Big Duck at that site and housed it their from 1931 to 1936.)

31 From: Chris Ricciardi, Ph.D. – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – New York District

Gallo family comes at the end of the nineteenth century from Italy

Circa 1918 – parents had a fruit business in Hamptons – wanted the “American Dream” of a big house – and thought duck farming would make them lots of money

First farm in the area known as the Robinson Duck Farm – started by the Leskowitz family

Two other farms in the area – both closed early on

Farms begins in 1922 – started by the brothers Perry/Gallo –

the area was one of streams, swamps and woods – not open farm lands for things such as fruits and vegetables bought lumber to build farm buildings from Camp Upton – as it was being decommissioned ducks obtained from local dealers and “the area” Ducks adapted well to the area 15-20 acres of land – not much needed to start a farm Bought lands from Gazolla family – bought surrounding property to keep people away Railroad ended in Patchogue – known as “Brooklyn East” for all the weekend residents Farmed only on the west side of Gazola All hands worked the farm – after grade and high school Turkey farming starts in 1950 on east side of Gazola Driver – just done around the holiday times – sold fresh/locally only – to NYC

Always worked farm – no desire for anything else Season was from April through November Turned to full time once heated buildings came in – 1950s Ducks were kept alive for seven weeks and 3 days only – based on weight issues – no value keeping them alive beyond that

Food – feed was “mixed mashed” – from Bellport railroad – trucked it back to farm – 80% corn, 20% protein feed, locally caught “junk” fish added in as a treat Rail tracks added to property to make it easy to push food carts around Feed was modified based on age of duck

Farm staff – beyond family – 6-8 persons on farm – some lived on provided housing – migrant workers used often

32 WWII – exempt from service – since food production was needed – supported war effort

Sometimes sold directly to NYC markets – would travel to NYC to sell

Farming Cooperative – started in Riverhead (late 1940s) – the East Port Cooperative started after that – about 16-20 farms participated - built processing facility in Cresent Agway comes in – 1950s and takes over

Raised approximately 350,000 ducks per year

1966 – Cousins take full of farm from parents (later sold on November 20, 1987)

Sold ducks to Kosher and Chinese facilities in NYC

1967-1968 – Environmental Regulations start Pollution abetment treatment plants No guidance from NYS – just ordered to “clean things up” Re-formed farm to allow for the re-use of water Build diversion channels (two streams with a by-pass) Two side streams were swim tanks – flowed into a lagoon Catch basin fed two side rivers Water recycled – and settled into the ground Lots of natural streams and outlets on the property

Duck Manure – Initially sold to farmers for fertilizers – but by 1970s, no one would pay for it – Gave it away – for food mixtures Better than chicken manure – less volatile’s Crated sandy beached with purchased and minded sand

Duck production drops by end of the 1970s Earned about $25k per week – then down to $15k per week Younger Gallo generation did not want the farm Land was worth more than the farm was

Fun to grow up on the farm – still miss it

Killing of ducks would happen off site till 1960s

Tried to get into the flower market – built a larger greenhouse – did not work

Overall size of farm when closed was 45 acres

Health issues – ducks had to get shots due to regulations – also lots of feathers along the roads

Lots of wild foxes and dogs killed the ducks – kept vigilant

Ducks that died were recycled – food, soap, fill – on site disposal used

Built housing for the workers – all buildings on site built by the family

APPENDIX B

Mud Creek Section 206 Preliminary Restoration Plan Mud Creek Watershed Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project East Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York

Preliminary Restoration Plan, Preliminary Cost Estimate & Preliminary Project Management Plan

Prepared by:

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers New York District

for

Suffolk County Department of Planning, Non-Federal Project Partner

June 2002 June 28, 2002 Division: North Atlantic District: New York

Mud Creek Watershed Section 206 Preliminary Restoration Plan East Patchogue, New York, Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project

1. Project: Mud Creek Watershed Ecosystem Restoration Project

2. Location: The location of the considered restoration project is in East Patchogue, Town ofBrookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. The project area is situated north ofMontauk Highway (County Road 80). south ofPatchogue-Yaphank Road (County Road 101), and on the east and west sides of Gazzola Drive (Figure 1). The East Branch of Mud Creek is the targeted restoration element of the site (Figure 2). Robinson Pond will also be evaluated as part of the restoration study to detemline the potential for enhancement/restoration in that location. The East Branch and West Branch of Mud Creek are cold-water tributaries to Robinson Pond. Robinson Pond discharges into the tidal portion of Mud Creek. The tidal portion of Mud Creek flows into Patchogue Bay and the Great South Bay.

3. Description of the Proposed Ecosystem Restoration: The proposed project involves restoration of the habitat quality of the aquatic features (stream channel and pond network) and wetland habitat along the East Branch ofMud Creek in East Patchogue, New York. The objectives ofthe proposed project will be to restore aquatic invertebrate, amphibian and fisheries habitat and restore and/or enhance wetland wildlife habitat in order to reestablish healthy aquatic ecosystem interactions within this region of the Mud Creek Watershed. Secondarily, the proposed project will also evaluate potential restoration ofRobinson Pond, which is the water body into which the East Branch empties.

Background: The targeted restoration site within the Mud Creek Watershed is a parcel of land formerly utilized by private owners as a duck farm. The East Branch of Mud Creek flows through this property. Gallo Duck Farm, mc. operated a duck farm and also conducted limited turkey production on the property from the early 1900's through the early 1980's. The average number of ducks present on the farm at one time was estimated at 70,000 ducks on 11.9 acres of pens in the early 1970's. Up to 5 crops of ducks were potentially grown per year. The farm operation not only had direct physical impacts to the environment in this location through the construction of feedlots, pens, waste lagoons and bam structures, but also had a significant adverse impact on the aquatic habitat quality of the Mud Creek Watershed due to the tremendous amount of waste produced by the millions of ducks that were raised on the farm over the decades of operation.

Adverse offsite impacts were also very significant due to the high organic waste load discharged to the stream. During the period of duck faml operation, large

1 volumes of duck sludge were deposited along the streambed and in Robinson Pond, and water quality degradation (nutrients and coliform contamination) was apparent in the tidal portion of Mud Creek and Great South Bay.

During the 1970's, the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District worked in cooperation with the Gallo Brothers to develop and implement a Conservation Plan for the farm (Figure 3). The plan was created to better manage the farm for improved water quality. The plan involved separation of feedlots and duck swimwater areas from the main, natural stream channel ofthe East Branch via dikes. The dikes were designed to prevent runoff from a 25-year storm event from reaching the natural stream corridor. Fences were also erected to prevent ducks from accessing the main stream channel. Concrete flumes were constructed east of Gazzola Drive on either side ofthe stream channel. Groundwater was pumped and fed through the flumes to the swimwater areas for the ducks. Excess groundwater may have been pumped at times to dilute waste and to lower levels ofBOD (Biological Oxygen Demand). The main, natural stream channel was piped separately under Gazzola Drive. The waters from the swimwater areas on either side of the main stream chamlel, joined at the southern end of the property and were pumped to an aeration lagoon. From the aeration lagoon, the water may have been pumped to the 3 settling pits, possibly chlorillated and then released back into the natural stream heading south to Robinson Pond. The main stream channel was piped under access ways and eventually through one last set of 3-4 pipes to continue to discharge into the natural stream corridor heading south to Robinson Pond.

The development of the Gallo Duck Farm over time is illustrated through the series of aerial photographs available for the area dated 1930, 1966 and 1999 (Figures 4-6). As seen from the 1999 aerial, the lagoon and settling pits created as part of the Conservation Plan, and many ofthe now dilapidated farm buildings and structures are still in place today at the site. Prior to the implementation of the Conservation Plan, it is speculated that the topography ofthe farm site was altered through grading and use of fill material. The duck farm property was acquired by Suffolk County through the County tax lien procedures and transferred to the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation in 200 I. The streambed is currently dominated by Phragmites australis and water quality is impaired through improper hydrologic connection, creating stagnant water through the stream and the detention ponds formed in the old swimwater areas. The local sponsor, Suffolk County, has the objectives of restoration of the environnlental quality ofthe site and to potentially utilize the site as a passive recreation area.

As discussed above, the East Branch ofMud Creek was altered through farm development practices. The West Branch, however, has existed as a naturally forested wetland corridor and stream channel. The West Branch ofMud Creek supports a heritage population ofBrook Trout. The West Branch is significant because it is the only Long Island stream system to support a naturally

2 reproducing brook trout population that has reportedly never been stocked. Brook trout sampled from Mud Creek were genetically tested in 1985 as part of the Heritage Brook Trout Project and were concluded to have evolved in isolation from other river basin strains of brook trout in New York (Perkins, D.L, c.c. Krueger and B. May).

The West Branch serves as a biobenclmlark for the habitat quality that could be achieved at the Gallo Duck Farm site with the implementation of restoration activities. The forested wetlands north of the Gallo Duck Farm (east of Gazzola Drive) also have not been altered and support high quality habitat that carl be monitored as a reference site. The East and West Branch of Mud Creek join north of Montauk Highway. The joined waters flow through a culvert under the highway and flow into Robinson Pond. The waters of Robinson Pond exit through a culvert under South Country Road and into the lower Mud Creek that is tidally influenced. The tidal portion of Mud Creek flows into Great South Bay. As mentioned previously, Robinson Pond will also be examined as part of the project to determine if waste solids remain in Robinson Pond and if removal of these solids would improve water quality and habitat conditions ofthe pond.

Project Outputs: The outputs ofrestoring the aquatic and wetland habitat along Mud Creek would include 1) improved aquatic habitat for fish (including the Brook trout), amphibians and invertebrates, 2) improved water quality in the Eastern Branch of Mud Creek and potentially Robinson Pond, and 3) increased plant diversity and habitat values of the wetland and upland habitat on site. Monitoring parameters will be directly related to these outputs, and both the restoration site and the reference site(s) north of the duck farm and along the West Branch of Mud Creek will be investigated.

LERRD and Relationship to Other Restoration Efforts: The targeted restoration area is located on Suffolk County owned property. The County and other public entities have ownership of additional properties in the Mud Creek Watershed, and the County has proposed the acquisition ofseveral other properties to conserve the land area of both the East and West Branch of Mud Creek and its source wetland areas. The goal for acquisition is to create a contiguous undeveloped area of publicly owned land along Mud Creek and its watershed from its headwaters to Robinson Pond. Figure 7 illustrates the existing public land in the Mud Creek Watershed and Figure 8 illustrates the parcels proposed for acquisition by the County

Proposed Project Design and Alternatives: The proposed project will involve grading activities, restoration of hydrological connections, placement of clean fill or removal of fill material, removal of invasive plant material, removal of pipes and other farm structures, and planting ofwetland vegetation to restore wetland and aquatic habitat in the targeted area. A minimum of two conceptual alternative plans will be considered for development of an optimal restoration plan for the site. Below are two preliminary conceptual alternatives for the area

3 West of Gazzola Drive and the area East of Gazzola Drive (Figure 9 and Site Photos). The District will be working closely with both the local sponsor, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested parties such as Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited to develop a sound restoration plan for the site. The District will also be working with the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation to incorporate passive recreation features for the property.

East of Gazzola Drive:

The area east of Gazzola Drive is currently dominated by Phragmites. The concrete flumes are also still present on site.

Alternative 1£: Stream Channel Restoration and Phragmites Removal: This alternative would involve the phased application ofherbicide to remove Phragmites. The concrete flumes would be removed, and the site and the main stream channel would be contoured and replanted with wetland herbaceous plants, trees and shrubs.

Alternative 2£: Forested Wetland Restoration: This alternative would focus on recreating a forested wetland condition by removing fill material from the area and by lowering the ground elevation 0 f the site to support a saturated wetland condition. Phragmites would be removed through the phased application of herbicide. The increased soil saturation and the creation of ponded areas would be useful in preventing the return of the invasive plant species. The area would be contoured with hummocks and other microtopographical features. Wetland herbaceous plants, trees and shrubs would be planted. The concrete flumes would be removed from the site in the process of site grading.

West of Gazzola Drive:

The area west ofGazzola Drive is comprised of the central stream channel that is vegetated by Phragmites and some mature trees and shrubs. The upland portions of the site adjacent to the stream and in the dry lagoon and settling pit areas is vegetated mainly by successional young red cedar trees and weedy meadow species such as mugwort. The former swimwater areas are dominated by Phragmites, and are acting as stagnant ponds due to the lack of hydrologic connection with the stream channel.

Alternative 1W: Stream Channel Restoration This alternative would be focused on the restoration of the East Branch of Mud Creek to a condition similar to the high quality habitat of the West Branch of Mud Creek. This restoration alternative would involve Phragmites removal through the phased application ofherbicide, site re-grading, return ofthe East Branch stream to a natural stream-bed in areas that the stream is currently piped, re

4 contouring of the stream bed and tree and shrub riparian plantings to promote a habitat type similar to the West Branch of Mud Creek. The swim water areas, that currently support stagnant ponds, would be re-graded to support emergent or forested wetland habitat. One of the main success objectives for this alternative would be to create suitable habitat for Brook trout in the East Branch. The dry settling pits and lagoon could be utilized as fill placement areas. Once filled, these areas and surrounding areas could be seeded with native warm season grass and perennial wildflower species or planted with trees. Potentially the lagoon area could be planted as a butterfly garden for added interest to the future passive recreation park. The Suffolk County Parks Department could consider planting ammal native wildflowers to enhance the area for aesthetics and butterfly and bird species attraction.

Alternative 2W' Pond Restoration This alternative would be focused on utilizing existing topography to create a pond area for waterfowl and amphibian habitat. This restoration alternative would involve Phragmites removal through the phased application of herbicide, and site re-contouring to expand upon the existing ponds on site in the fonner swimwater areas to support a shallow depth pond area for waterfowl habitat. The existing East Branch stream would be directed to provide water flow input and serve as an output channel to this ponded area. Similar to Alternative IW above, the dry settling pits and lagoon could be utilized as fill placement areas. Once filled, these areas and surrounding areas could be seeded with native grass or perennial wildflower species or planted with other woody species. Potentially the filled lagoon area could be planted as a butterfly garden for added interest to the future passive recreation park.

Both of the alternatives for the restoration area west of Gazzola Drive would include removal of old pipe, concrete culvert and selected fann structures.

Robinson Pond:

The sediments and water quality of Robinson Pond will be investigated to determine ifthis resource area is still impaired by waste solids that may have settled out during the period of fann operation. Potential plans could include either a no-action plan or potential dredging of the pond to remove heavy nutrient laden sediments.

The area of the confluence of the East and West Branch of Mud Creek, due north of Montauk Highway, will also be explored for possible improvements in the management ofstorrnwater runoff in that location. Better management of road runoff could enhance water quality and the aquatic habitat for the brook trout population. There may also be potential for restoration improvements to the stream channel itself, as the East Branch has migrated to the limits of the roadway. Options could be explored regarding redirection of the strean1 chmmel away from the roadway, increasing the buffer area between the stream chmmel

5 and the roadway, or similar to the discussion above, implementing stormwater management options on the roadway to prevent direct nmoff into the stream channel.

Studv Methodologies: The considered project area would be studied to determine baseline environmental conditions of the existing upland, wetland and aquatic habitats of the targeted area. Baseline data collection would include fish surveys, invertebrate surveys, vegetation surveys, and potentially avifauna surveys. Physical parameters such as sediment and soil type, HTRW and water quality would also be investigated A complete cultural resource assessment would be completed for considered restoration areas.

Success criteria for the project would focus on increases in biodiversity and environmental quality in the restored areas. Monitoring for success criteria would include vegetation surveys along transects, aquatic invertebrate and fish surveys, and continued water quality monitoring. The West Branch of Mud Creek would be monitored as a control for comparison with the diversity of species attracted to the restored streanllwetland area. The undisturbed wetlands north ofthe farm property could also serve as a biobenchmark for restored forested wetlands.

4. Views of the Sponsor: The proposed non-Federal sponsor is Suffolk County, New York. Suffolk County provided a letter of interest dated June 12,2001. The Suffolk County Department of Planning has been an active sponsor for the proj ect, providing background documentation on the history and environmental characteristics of the restoration site, mapping of the restoration site location, and through participation in meetings with the District and other agencies. Meetings were held with the local sponsor on October 2,2001 and October 24,2001 to discuss restoration ideas for the site and to review historical mapping and information for the site with the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District Manager. The Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District Manager has been instrumental in obtaining old records on the operations ofthe former Gallo Duck Farm.

5. Views of the Federal, State, and Regional Agencies: The New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Region One, participated in a field visit on October 18,200 I. Representatives from the NYSDEC Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, as well as the Regional Natural Resource Supervisor, and the Regional Permit Administrator attended the site visit and gave their words of support for the project, as well as some preliminary design recommendations for the site. A representative of Ducks Unlimited contacted the District with interest towards involvement with the proj ecl. Other agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, will be contacted during the coordination process for input on the restoration effort.

6 6. Environmental Compliance Requirements: Preparation of an Environmental Assessment in compliance with NEPA and all pertinent environmental laws that apply will be addressed during the feasibility phase. The preparation ofthe NEPA Document will be coordinated with the preparation ofan Ecosystem Restoration Report (ERR). The ERR will outline formulated altematives and present aitemative plan layouts along with the recommended plan.

7. Costs and Benefits: Costs and Benefits:

In order to identify the range of potential project construction costs, a preliminary cost estimate was developed based upon a conceptual plan for Mud Creek Watershed. The below estimate is considered to be a conservative estimate, including factors for contingencies and potential cost escalation. In the preparation of the Ecosystem Restoration Report, more specific plan aitematives and cost estimates will be developed. These plans and costs will be coordinated with the local sponsor for the selection of an optimal plan.

Costs: Estimated Federal Cost = $ 1,503,631.00 Non-Federal Cost = $ 809,648.00 Total Estimated Project Cost = $ 2,313,279.00

Benefits: The project could restore up to 1,850 linear feet of the East Branch of Mud Creek, up to 6.6 acres of wetlands and potentially restore healthy pond systems and high quality habitat for fish, invertebrates, amphibians, waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. The proposed project could also not only improve water quality conditions within the targeted restoration portion of Mud Creek, but could also improve water quality and hence habitat quality of the downstream pond and creek areas of the watershed and the connected Great South Bay ecosystem. The improvements to water quality and habitat could provide benefits to the unique heritage brook trout population found within the watershed. The acquisition of additional properties by the County within the watershed could preserve the landscape unit as a whole and provide long-tenn conservation of the riparian corridor for wildlife and fisheries habitat and movement.

O&M Costs: The restoration project features will be designed to be self sustaining. Potential Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs could include removal of Phragmites or other invasive plant species through mechanical means or by spot herbicide treatment to maintain plant diversity. O&M costs could also include maintenance of recreational features considered as part of the project design, such as trails and interpretive signs. The costs and tasks associated with these local responsibilities would be outlined in an O&M plan.

7 8. Schedule:

Action Date (Calendar Year) PRP June 2002 Letter of Intent from Sponsor(s) July 2002 Submit PRP to USACE North Atlantic Division (NAD) September 2002 NAD Approval ofPRP October 2002 Initiation of Feasibility Study December 2002 Completion of Draft ERR September 2003 Completion ofNEPA Compliance and ERR December 2003 Preparation of Plans and Specs May 2004 District Commander and Local Sponsor sign PCA April 2004 Construction Contract Award July 2004 Construction Completed November 2005

9. Supplemental Information: The NYSDEC Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, conducted an electrofishing survey ofMud Creek in June 2001 and prepared a follow-up report dated July 3, 200i (Kozlowski 2001). The report clearly identified the significance of the Mud Creek Watershed as a stream system supporting a naturally reproducing population of brook trout. The summary report recommended acquisition of lands within the watershed for natural resource preservation and to fulfill goals of the South Shore Estuary Reserve Program. The report also recommended review of stormwater inputs from Montauk Highway into the stream corridor and surrounding wetlands. The 2001 survey was conducted to remove trout for display at the Cold Spring Harbor Fish Hatchery and Aquarium. During the survey, 45 brook trout were caught, ranging from 2.4 and 10 inches in size.

The NYSDEC Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries will most likely play all important role in monitoring the fish population at Mud Creek. Although plans for work-in kind have not been finalized, Suffolk County, the local sponsor may be able to contribute to construction and participate in monitoring, most likely water quality, as an in-kind service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted restoration projects at the nearby Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in Shirley, New York, that will be useful in reviewing to determine best strategies for restoration and lessons learned for projects involving phragmites removal.

10. Financial Data: Project Modification Costs (all costs in thousands of dollars):

, I Federal Fundin~ Needs

TOlals Non- I Federal FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Balance to ,I Federal Complete ' I Feasibilitv! P&S 918.68 321.54 I 597.14 0.70 817.98 100.00 0.00 0.00. I Imnlementation 1.394.60 488.II ! 906.49 0.00 0.00 888.86 394.00 111.74* I Totals 2,313.28 809.65 I 1,503.63 0.70 81~94.00 111.74* * Funds for post-constructlOll envIronmental momtormg

8 11. Federal Allocation to Date: $10,000 (PRP)

12. References:

Kozlowski, Gregory. July 31,2001. Mud Creek Brook Trout. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries.

Perkins, D.L., c.c. Krueger, and B. May. 1985. Hertiage Brook Trout Project: Summary Report to the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. Return a Gift to Wildlife Project 29-19-19.

9 I . ( / t: / ,/ ,/J'f i "

." ' ...... Brookhaven • .Ch I;". ifiD -- , .. J '.~

USGS Quadrangle Bellport, NY 1967 Overview of Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Areas and Reference Wetlands/Biobenchmarks Figure 2 z ~

...J ~I

...J

"'Ie:! 0 r~ 0 :2~ 00 II en en :...... en ~~~o~oo~ ~~--- -~~o_o ~<__ ---o-~o ~ ._~ =~ Ir;---; __ -- - __ _-== II Map 4. Proposed S.C. AcqUisitions. MUd CreekI East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven :'I!iillifl".II·IIIII~'1If

~~,..,,:;,,'), il· :

SUFFOtH ('O{JNTY

PJaJ'll1Jng~ ---:0 ( ._ ---=.::

DEPAR1-MENT

Proposed S.C. AcqUisitions Transfer to S.C. Parks SCRPTM aase

w E s j

o I 1000 .~.l'. 2000 tl.lPrllJLiur 1'oW. ('OUIU'o' UP WUI.IU; 1>tS.lf~I' 3000 llto! r"'J-nl- r.,,,,,,p11l.t':,~.,q:t\~ P• ...,tI..lf.ol; Oil' """"1>010"1,lI"~··, ~r.tl'(. C"'l) W•~.".oI r",/W,,, Jun""","'I'"" ""'~"'-.I'~ 0'1"" ...'~.p.'l>.".or ld.otl~i, 'h., 1),_. 011,.",,,, h ... r"l"'-·_r.,~"' I;',.. ""'q "'''''Wl:''I~t("'1 .l'_I'iW''~''fd'''' .. #0.) """",",(0. u"'.. - - .lI1.'OIIo<~-, r.....~.,.b., ...) do".."",," L, ,,'~ • la_I" ..... - ....t ••, """ ••lM,"<"". do'.... lo>.. ft "" .'NI4/rt1p .wA'"~'''''1a:<""1) ...... "'- 1,10:1.",I. 0&0.\ ""d.:''''''Id:'''.rllr'''''''''I,,~'W>lo. Ul«ir M,u I''''d.,,,,, J. ''''rt~ ..... m.loI tu 11>, ' ....4""'jr•• " ·"'~'~'tIll", o».~ 1""~1io lIrr,«'H.~ ~- -~- -~

Map 5. • PUblicly Owned Properties.0- _ MUd===_--= Creek East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven LlLI \1ST 4 I III ."r! 1~~JLl'u .• ,,'" I ;~-I~A)?Tl\B=111 SUFFOI,J, COUNTy PJanniing . <--@-" .', ,E, , _ l)!!:I'ARTMl::NT

~ Freshwater Wetland o SCRPTM Base o Central SChool District No.4 - Town of Brookhaven !2t\?&)t12 SUffolk County - Excess S.C. Properties

N I w f E

1000 ,o O s 1000 ~. --"""""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,. 2000 ,$.:;nt::==l~I~ ~ w ••,...." ' -U--, - wE "M".",."..", ,•••....".,,'''.,."..,'''''" ,"'",,, ''c",, ,,,, "'",,",,_..._ 3000 . .. ".. .."..1_, ~ ,,~'"'" .." ,.,,"'""W'f"'''';I/0.~I, ""'II""'''''.f.'':w".. ",J , ~.t" U."(VJ""'f'l>"/(fUlo',I>4P~""Q~" ...... " .", ... '''"Io.« l< J." h., 1"," """"-''WN'"''.~ "- • -"'.'. "-".~ ==...=:::::::-z;.. ~~2. ..4000 "Feet"-"".--. ..'''"'.~_".""_•.• '" -. "••.._._".,,''''''''"'"., ''''''''.,ljln,II<

--= Figure8 Site Photos

Panoramic view of abandoned duck farm. ,__ ·_c __ Dilapidated farm buildings on former duck farm west of Gazzola Drive.

-- "--. ,'--. Abandoned farm building on former duck farm east of Gazzola Drive. - ----......

Looking north on Gazzola Drive where former duck farm and Mud Creek straddle road. Former duck farm waste disposal lagoon.

~;:;~ ih~ ~' it',j ::",.,-:,:&ft .'''''''''.~9!if~~·'r- :p~::~ ;""~:;~~ ~ Former duck farm waste disposal lagoon. ..

Mud Creek looking south to Great South Bay from South Country Road. CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mud Creek Watershed East Patchogue, New York

Section 206 - Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration

I. DOCUMENT PURPOSE

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Authority B. Congressional District C. Project Location D. Problem Description E. Status of Local Cooperation

III. SCOPE OF WORK A. Overall B. Current Fiscal Year

IV. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

V. PROJECT SCHEDULE

VI. PROJECT FUNDING A. Total Funds Required B. Funds Available Current Fiscal Year

VII. PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM

VIII. PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM ENDORSEMENTS CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Mud Creek, Great South Bay, East Patchogue, New York

1. DOCUMENT PURPOSE - This Project Management Plan (PMP) details the scope, schedule, and budget for study tasks through the initial assessment phase, as well as the division of responsibilities.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Authoritv/ (PWI#): Section 206, Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended. (174286) B. Congressional District: NY - 1st (Grucci) C. Project Location: The project area is located along Mud Creek, a tributary to Great South Bay, in East Patchogue, Town ofBrookhaven in Suffolk County. D. Problem Description: The goa! of this effort would be to rehabilitate degraded properties that were previously used for a private duck farm operation, which produced millions of ducks during the period from 1930 to 1980. The environmental impacts of duck farm operation at the site were extensive (woodland converted into pens and open feedlots; streanlbed altered to create pond areas for duck used; surface water quality degradation; waste disposal lagoons; offensive odors). Adverse offsite impacts were also very significant due to the discharge ofduck waste laden sediments into the stream and the Great South Bay, with their high coliform, nutrient, biological oxygen demand and suspended solids content. E. Status of Local Cooperation: The local sponsor, Suffolk County, requested the I'.'YD to initiate an ecosystem restoration study by letter dated 12 June 200I. The County has acquired the project area land for restoration purposes and intends to manage the area as a multi-purpose conservation area and parkland for passive recreation activities, such as hiking.

III. SCOPE OF WORK A. Overall Scope. The overall scope ofthis project is to restore and protect the natural ecosystem structure, function and processes to a less degraded, more natural state if in the public interest and cost effective and in a manner that minimizes cost, maximizes benefits, is environmentally acceptable, and complies with guidance, procedure, policy and law.

B. Current Fiscal Year. This phase of the project will include all studies and work tasks required in preparation ofPreliminary Restoration Plan (pRP).

N. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The West Branch ofMud Creek supports a heritage population ofBrook Trout.

2 V. PROJECT SCHEDULE C-lB Initiate Study Feb 02 C-2A Submit PRP/IAR Sep 02

VI. PROJECT FUNDING A. Total Funds Required (OOOs): Project Cost 10.0 Allocated to Date 10.0 Required to Complete 0.0

B. Funds Available Current FY (OOOs): FYOI Carry-Over 0.0 FY02 Budgeted 10.0

V. PROJECT DELIVERY TEA,\1 Project Manager Stephen Couch, CENAc~-PL-F Steven Yandrich, CENAN-PL-F Environmental Resources Megan Grubb, CENAN-PL-E Engineering Marty Goff, CENAN-EN-M Local Sponsor Thomas Isles, Suffolk County Planning Department

VI. PROJECT DELIVERY TEA,\1 ENDORSEMENT

/.--j .: .: ../ 1L-::uiC,. (Liv~ Stephen Couch, CENAN-PL-F Roselle Henn, CENAN-PL-E Proj ect Manager Team Leader, Environmental

/ .... ) ~ .~ -.,?/ / ~ /n -? .. c2~/C ~., .//!;c;f1A1 *Lwu: c / I ~~ Yandrich, CENAc~-PL-F Megan'G~bb, CENAc~-PL-E Environmental Resources proj.ect Manag~?//~. ~.~ \..r-~ ~... t!I~ Christopher Ricciardi, CENAN-PL-E Mart;GONAN-EN-M Cultural Resources Team Leader, Engineering

3 IMud Creek Watershed Section 206 - Preliminary Estimate For Internal Use only by USACE and Project Sponsor Phase I Feasibility and P&S T := fti fti fti '0 ~ :0"._ cu 0 0 I cu .. III l- I- C 0 - cu o c. -cu ";-e CUll." c.o III III cu III • III ~ .. c cu c. .c'" .c cu .c 0 TASKS 0::>. c.. c..u."''' c..z

Existing &. With-Project Conditions Analysis 546.0 354.9 191.1 Enaineering 191.0 124.2 66.9 Surveyina and Maooina EN/OP-SS 50.0 32.5 17.5 Site Insoections EN-HH 2.0 1.3 0.7 Groundwater monitoring wells projecUreference sites and stream water guages w/monitoring (*including water auality) EN-HH 84.0 54.6 29.4 Existing Conditions Hydrology (Water Budget) EN-HH 8.0 5.2 2.8 Existing Conditions and W/Project HYdrodynamic Modelina IHEC-RAS)* EN-HH 24.0 15.6 8.4 With-Proiect - Sediment Transoort • EN-HH 2.0 1.3 0.7 Geotechnical Analysis and Report EN-OS 21.0 13.7 7.4 Environmental 250.0 162.5 87.5 Existina Conditions I Delineate Wetland PL-E 13.0 8.5 4.6 Existina Veaetation & Soecies Usaae PL-E 65.0 42.3 22.8 With-Project Veaetation & Species Usaae PL-E 25.0 16.3 8.8 Reference Site Develooment PL-E 25.0 16.3 8.8 Existina HTRW Reoort Evaluation PL-E 5.0 3.3 1.8 Soil and Sediment Contaminant Testina PL-E 87.0 56.6 30.5 FWCA Report USFWS 30.0 19.5 10.5 Institutional Studies 2.0 1.3 0.7 Existing, Baseline Institutional Conditions PL-F 2.0 1.3 0.7 Cultural Resources Investigation 80.0 52.0 28.0 Existing Conditions Cultural Resources Analysis PL-E 80.0 52.0 28.0 Real Estate 23.0 15.0 8.1 Real Estate Mappina RE-A1 3.0 2.0 1.1 Riahts of Entrv RE-A 5.0 3.3 1.8 Real Estate Gross Appraisal RE-A 15.0 9.8 5.3 Preliminary Alternative Development 98.0 63.7 34.3 Development of Restoration Alternatives 18.0 11.7 6.3 Development of Alternative Scenarios PL 3.0 2.0 1.1 Preliminary Plan Layout (Cut and Fill) EN-HH 10.0 6.5 3.5 Preliminary Veqetation Plans PL-E 5.0 3.3 18 Evaluation of Alternatives 23.0 15.0 8.1 Preliminary Volumes & Costs EN-HH 8.0 5.2 2.8 Restoration "Benefits" and Success Criteria PL-F/PL-E 5.0 3.3 1.8 Incremental Cost Analvsis PL-F 4.0 2.6 1.4 Plan Coordination PL 3.0 20 1.1 Plan Selection PUSC 3.0 2.0 1.1 Final Design 57.0 371 20.0 Final Plan Layout (Cut and Fill Plans) EN-DS 24.0 15.6 8.4 Veqetation Plans PL-E 5.0 3.3 1.8 Monitorinq and Maintenance Plans PUEN 2.0 1.3 0.7 Final (MCACES) Costs EN-C 24.0 15.6 8.4 Final Restoration "Benefits" PL-F 2.0 1.3 0.7 Oocumentation. Permitting, and Coordination 128.0 83.2 44.8 Documentation 53.0 34.5 18.6 Feasibility Report Preparation PL-F 15.0 9.8 5.3 NEPA Documentation PL-E 20.0 13.0 7.0 Engineering Appendix EN-HH 10.0 6.5 3.5 Cost Appendix EN-C 2.0 1.3 0.7 Economics Appendix PL-F 2.0 1.3 0.7 - Real Estate Appendix RE-A 2.0 1.3 0.7 Cultural Resources Appendix PL-E 2.0 1.3 0.7 Permitting 6.0 3.9 2.1 404(b)1 Report PL-E 2.0 1.3 0.7 ESA Coordination PL-E 2.0 1.3 0.7 Water Quality Certificate PL-E 2.0 1.3 0.7 Coordination 69.0 44.9 24.2 Aaencv Coordination PL-E 5.0 3.3 1.8 Public Involvement PL-E/SC 4.0 2.6 1.4 Plan Formulation PL-F 10.0 6.5 3.5 Independent Technical Review NYD 8.0 5.2 2.8 Study Manaaement PL-F 10.0 6.5 3.5 Proarams and Proiect Manaaement PP-C 2.0 1.3 0.7 Enaineerinq Technical Manaaement EN-MM 10.0 6.5 3.5 Enaineerina Technical Review EN-HH 5.0 3.3 1.8 Washinaton Level Review USACE 10.0 6.5 3.5 Geographic Information Svstem Support PL-E 5.0 3.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 772.0 501.8 270.2 Contingency . 115.8 75.3 40.5 Escalation 30.9 20.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 10tAl...~P.HA$E I 918.'1' 597.1 321.5 ------KEY to RESPONSIBILITY ABBREVIATIONS SC = Suffolk County USFWS =U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EN-C =Engineering Division, Cost Engineering Branch EN-DS =Engineering Division, Design Branch, Structural Section EN-HH = Engineering Division, Civil Resources Branch, Hydraulic & Hydrology Section EN-MM =Engineering Division, Management Branch, Metro Section OP-SS =Operations Division, Support Branch, Survey Section PL-E =Planning Division, Environmental Analysis Branch PL-F = Planning Division, Plan Formulation Branch PP-C = Programs and Project Management Division, Civil Resources RE-A = Real Estate Division, Acquisition Branch Mud Creek Watershed Section 206 Duck Farm Restoration Estimate of Costs for Internal Use only by USACE and Project Sponsor Construction Estimate Task/Purchase Item Cost per unit unit # of units Total Notes Shrubs (3-4") $35.00 shrub 60 $2,100.00 Trees (Deciduous) $70.00 tree 240 $16,800.00 Trees (Evergreen) $70.00 tree 20 $1,400.00 Trees (Soecimen 1" dbh) $200.00 tree 15 $3,000.00 Herbaceous plant plugs $7.00 plug 100 $700.00 Wetland seed mix $125.00 pound 100 $12,500.00 11b12500sq ft Grass seed mix $16.00 pound 100 $1,600.00 25lbs/acre Wildflower seed mix $180.00 pound 20 $3,600.00 2Ibs/acre/sp. Fencino $10.00 linear foot 424 $4,240.00 Timber for parking area $10.00 linear foot 460 $4,600.00 Crushed Stone for parking area/staging area, trail $10.00 cubic yard 289 $2,890.00 Ineroretive Signs $3,000.00 sign 8 $24,000.00 Signs (carry-in/carry-out, park rules) $150.00 sign 5 $750.00 Benches $1,000.00 bench 4 $4,000.00 Miscellaneous park amenities $10,000.00 lumosum 1 $10,000.00 Silt Screen $2.00 linear foot 3,600 $7,200.00 Soil amendment/fertilizer $0.50 square yard 256,786 $128,393.00 Water/mulch $1,346.00 acre 9 $11,696.74 Veoetation Installation $2,000.00 acre 7 $14,000.00 Phragmites removal (stripping and herbicide) $5,000.00 acre 14 $70,000.00 Topsoiling (4" thick) $3.00 square yard 11,000 $33,000.00 Building demolition and removals $40,000.00 action 1 $40,000.00 Earth movement $60,000.00 action 7 $420,000.00 MobilizationlDemobilization $60,000.00 action 1 $60,000.00 Construction Manaoement (Corps) $30,000.00 labor funds 1 $30,000.00 Contracting Labor (Corps) $5,000.00 labor funds 1 $5,000.00 SUBTOTAL $911,469.74 Contingency (25% of Estimated Construction Cost) I $227,867.44 EDCC (0.5% of Estimated Construction Cost) $4,557.35 S&A (10.5% of Estimated Construction Cost) $95,704.32 TOTAL $1,239,598.85 Cultural Resources Costs for Construction In-house labor" Construction monitoring I $10,000.00 Environmental Costs for Construction and Post-Construction In-house labor (technical) $15,000.00 Monitoring (fish, invertebrates, bird, veg, wq.) $120,000.00 Public Relations $5,000.00 Team leaderlProiect Management $5,000.00

Total Cultural and Environmental Costs(ConstructionIPos~Const) $155,000.00

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION $1,394,598.85 Mud Creek Watershed Section 206 Duck Farm Restoration Estimate of Costs for Internal Use only by USACE and Project Sponsor

SUMMARY OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

Total Federal Non-Federal Total Phase I Feasibility and P&S $918,680 $597,142 $321,538 Total Construction Cost $1,394,599 $906,489 $488,110

PROJECT COST TOTAL $2,313,279

Total Federal Govt. Share (65%) $1,503,631 Total Non-Federal Sponsor (35%) $809,648

APPENDIX C

Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Sampling Report PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES

FORMER DUCK FARMS SEDIMENT SAMPLING SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK

Suffolk County (County) and the US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (District) are partnering on an evaluation of the ecosystem restoration potential at former duck farm sites throughout Suffolk County. To aid in this evaluation, District and County Planning and Health Departments’ personnel conducted field investigations including sediment sampling on December 12 and 19, 2006. The purpose of the sampling program was to collect sub-surface soil and sediment samples from watersheds on which there are former duck farm sites in order to analyze them for potential contaminants and bio-hazards.

The sampling effort was constrained by limited resources and therefore focused to obtain a sufficient sample to provide a preliminary characterization at one (1) farm and comparative data from others. The majority of the sample collection was conducted at the former Gallo Duck Farm, situated on Gazzola Road, which the County has already acquired as parkland and is currently evaluating for ecosystem restoration opportunities. The former Gallo Duck Farm is located on the east branch of Mud Creek which flows southwest through it’s confluence with the western branch of Mud Creek, into a small impoundment called Robinsons Pond, and thence into Great South Bay. For comparative purposes, additional, but limited sampling was conducted on two (2) other Great South Bay tributaries: Mill Pond on the Forge River, which has both existing and former duck farm properties and the former Robinson Duck Farm which is on the Carman River adjacent to the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge.

A map illustrating all the sample locations is presented at the end of this Appendix. Over the two-day sampling effort, a total of fifteen samples were collected: eight (8) cores, two (2) sediment samples from the pond and one (1) surface composite grab from Mud Creek in the vicinity of the former Gallo Duck Farm; two (2) surface composite grabs from the Forge River/Mill Pond location; and one (1) core and one (1) surface composite grab from the Robinson Duck Farm. All samples were taken using a hand auger until coarse-grained sediments (sand) were encountered. Soil conditions facilitated sampling to a depth of four (4) to six (6) feet.

All samples were shipped over-night to the Fort Monmouth Environmental Laboratory (FMEL) in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Samples were analyzed for; Volatile Organics (VOAs), Semi-Volatile Organics (SVOAs), Pesticides, PCBs, Priority Pollutant Metals (PP Metals), E-Coli, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Percent Solids. Sample turn-around time was standard at four (4) weeks. FMEL sub-contracted analysis for the E-Coli, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon and Total Solids Percent.

1 Environmental parameters were evaluated using the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum” (TAGMs). Results are reported on the following tables. Analytical results are presented by site.

As samples were collected they were characterized according to color, texture (grain- size), odor, and moisture content. All samples were placed in clear glass two (2) ounce size jars. No preserving agents were used. Each sample was labeled with the initials of the person collecting the sample, date and time of the sample collection, sample location, type of analysis requested and who owned the sample (the District), and assigned a unique number identifier. Upland samples were typified by either rust or whitish colored sands. The in-water sediment samples were a mix of gray sands with silts. No noticeable odor was detected from the upland samples and minimal odor was detected from the sediments. Each sample location had four (4) sample jars filled.

Former Gallo Duck Farm (Mud Creek)

At Mud Creek on the Former Gallo Duck Farm, sampling was designed to test both upland and in-water locations with transects aligned to traverse the creek. The eight (8) transect samples (lab sample identification nos. 6052701, 6052702, 6052703, 6052704, 6052705, 6052707, 6050708 and 6052710) were positioned to evaluate both wetland and upland sediments on either side of the creek. Sample 6053711 was a composite taken from an impoundment area adjacent to the creek. At Mud Creek on the Former Gallo Duck Farm, two (2) sediment samples were collected in-water (lab sample identification nos. 6052706 and 6052709).

All of the samples (upland or sediment samples) were analyzed for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Solids Percent. Only upland samples 6052706 and 6052709 were analyzed for E-Coli. In addition, all upland samples were collected and analyzed for Volatile Organics, Semi-Volatile Organics, Pesticides, PCBs and priority pollutant metals.

2 6052704

6052703

6052702

6052701

6052707

6052706

6052710 6052705

6052709

6052708

6053711

3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

6052701 6052702 6052703 6052704 6052705 6052706 6052707 6052708 6052709 6052170 6053711 LAB ID TAGMS Upland Upland Upland Upland Upland Sediment Upland Upland Sediment Upland Composite Sample Units ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb Ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb VOA+15 Acetone .0002 10 6 12 13 9 TIC 5J 5J 4J ABN+25 (SVOA) Diethylphthalate .0071 25 24 19 24 32J 16 Di-n-butylphthalate .0081 1200B 570JB 1300B 570 JB 1100B 1100 JB 800 1400JB 1300JB 810JB 970JB Di-n-octylphthalate .050 15J Bis(2- .050 42JB 37JB 40 JB 33 JB 59JB 72 JB 120JB 130JB 120JB 60JB ethylhexy)phthalate Pyrene .050 27 TIC 15,447 15,667 13,464 11,543 21,369 71,569 37,484 35,224 101,722 21,316 34,840 Pesticides ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PCBs ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Units ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Arsenic 7.5* 2.12 1.08 1.98 Beryllium 0.16* 0.102 0.119 Cadmium 1* 0.663 4.94 0.952 0.458 Chromium 10* 2.12 11.4 1.98 7.12 1.79 11.6 2.91 6.55 1.65 Copper 25* 1.18 5.03 1.75 1.62 2.82 3.79 3.02 1.68 2.13 3.12 2.82 Lead Background 3.83 4.36 9.18 3.41 2.05 10.5 3.84 4.85 Nickel 13* 16.5 2.03 3.64 1.45 3.66 1.24 3.09 Silver Background 1.17 1.60 Zinc 20* 17.4 12.8 18.6 18.6 Units ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Kjeldahl Nitrogen NA 74.1 134 95 5420 268 261 87.3 91.6 393 142 1090 Total Phosphorous NA 48.2 332 114 2060 201 97.1 423 709 275 659 360 Total Organic NA ND 1370 1340 121,000 2100 2680 ND 3650 9560 1950 6090 Carbon NA Total Solids NA 81.66% 84.46% 82.08% 48.89% 94.72% 80.07% 89.33% 89.49% 82.69% 88.44% 94.95% Percent NA E-Coli NA Not Not Not Not Not Present Not Not Present Not Not analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed analyzed

*or site background, whichever is greater. NA = not applicable ND-non detect ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million TAGMs = Technical Assistance Guidance Memorandum J = Estimated value B = Lab blank N = Presumptive evidence of a compound VOA-Volatile Organic Compounds SVOA-Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Standard VOC analysis covers 48 compounds. Five (5) samples collected from the Gallo Duck Farm indicated the presence of Acetone. These samples were extracted from sediments collected adjacent to Mud Creek which flows through the farm site. Acetone concentrations above soil cleanup objectives were detected in sample locations 6052701, 6052702, 6052703, 6052704, and 6052707, all of which are uplands samples with the exception of sample location 6052706 which is a sediment sample. These samples were located on the second and third transects going downstream along Mud

4 Creek, southwest of Gazzola Road. Acetone was detected with concentrations greater than 3-4 times the magnitude of the published TAGMs. Acetone (also known as propanone) is a colorless, mobile, flammable liquid. Acetone is miscible with water and serves as an important solvent. In addition to being manufactured as a chemical, acetone is also found naturally in the environment. Acetone is not representative of contaminants produced from duck farming activities; the most likely source of the presence of Acetone may be lab influenced. There was no obvious pattern to the distribution of detections or levels of VOAs.

Standard SVOA analysis covers 70 compounds plus Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs). All samples indicated concentrations of semi-volatile organic compounds above TAGM criteria (uplands and sediments) at the Gallo Farm site. When they are compared to the TAGM guidelines, the levels are substantially above the documented thresholds. Concentrations ranged from 16 parts per billion to 1400 ppb. The semi-volatile compounds detected included Diethylphthalate, Di-n-butylphthalate, Di-n-octylphthalate, and Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate. The above compounds are all included in the Phthalate family of chemicals. Phthalates, or phthalate esters, are a group of chemical compounds that are mainly used as plasticizers (substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility). Since limited review of historical documentation does not indicate the use of plasticizers in the vicinity of the former Gallo Duck Farm, it could be assumed that the detection of phthalates is from cross contamination introduced by the sampling gloves.

The TICs found in the samples are compounds not usually found. Conducting this analysis can provide further insight into past site activities. Under the TAGM guidelines, TICs are lumped together to provide one total number, or quantity within the sample. TAGMs guidelines provide for 500 Parts Per Million total per sample. One of the samples, Mill Pond (M 1-4) had a TIC count of 1214 ppm; the next highest sample was from Gallo Farm site at 101 ppm. The rest of the samples were below 100 ppm and are not an issue. Additional sampling and background research is needed to evaluate the results from the Mill Pond test.

One other compound was also detected, Pyrene. Pyrene is a colorless solid and its derivatives are used commercially to make dyes, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and plastics. The origin of Pyrene detected in sediment sample 6052706 at a concentration of 27 μg/kg is unknown.

No Pesticides or Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in any of the samples (upland or sediment) collected from the former Gallo Duck Farm site. This result is consistent with results that one could expect from the operation of duck farms.

There are 13 Priority Pollutant Metals for which laboratory analysis was conducted for the collected sediment and upland samples. Of the 13 Priority Pollutant Metals, antimony, mercury, selenium and thallium were not detected in any of the Gallo samples.

5 • Arsenic was detected in three (3) upland samples: 6052701, 6052705 and 6052707. Levels detected from all samples were below the TAGMs threshold of 7.5 ppm. Please note that Arsenic is commonly found in various agricultural insecticides, poisons and has also been known to be used in animal feed, particularly in the United States as a method of disease prevention and growth stimulation. However, since concentrations of Arsenic detected in the samples were well below the TAGMs threshold, one can assume that these concentrations may be indicative of background concentrations and are most likely naturally occurring.

• Beryllium was detected in two samples; 6052705 and 6052707, both upland samples. The detected concentrations of Beryllium were below the TAGMs threshold and most likely naturally occurring

• Cadmium was detected in three (3) upland samples; 6052705, 6052707, and 6052710, and sediment sample 6052706. Three of the four samples are below TAGMS threshold of 1 ppm or Site Background (SB). The fourth sample (6052706) exceeded the 1 ppm limit at a concentration of 4.94 ppm.

• Chromium was detected in nine (9) of the Gallo site samples. Concentrations ranged from 1.65 ppm to 11.6 ppm. TAGMs threshold is 10 ppm or SB. Two samples (6052702 and 6052707, both of which are upland samples) exceeded 10 ppm at a concentration of 11.4 ppm and 11.6 ppm, respectively. The remaining seven (7) samples detected levels below the TAGMs threshold and did not provide a coherent distribution pattern. Again, the detected concentration of Chromium may be contributed to background conditions.

• Copper: Under TAGMS the threshold for copper is 25 ppm or SB. The highest copper number in the Gallo site samples is 5 ppm. Although Copper was detected in all samples collected, concentrations were below TAGMs threshold.

• Lead: Lead is was detected in eight of the collected samples. Under TAGMs, lead levels are managed by the SB rule. The highest concentration of lead detected was 9.18 ppm in upland sample 6052706. Lead is present in natural deposits and may also enter soil through leaking underground storage tanks. Limited review of historical operations at the former Gallo Farm do not include industrial operations, the presence of lead may be attributed to natural deposits in the soil.

• Nickel: Nickel was detected in seven (7) samples. The distribution was random. TAGMs guideline for nickel is 13 ppm or SB. Sample 6052701 had a concentration of 16.5 ppm. The concentrations of the remaining six (6) samples (five upland and one sediment sample) had no detects above the TAGM

6 threshold. However, Nickel plays numerous roles in the biology of microorganisms and plants. In fact urease (an enzyme which assists in the hydrolysis of urea) contains nickel which could explain the presence of Nickel in the former Gallo Farm location.

• Silver: Silver was detected in two (2) samples (6052705 and 6052707 at 1.17 ppm and 1.60 ppm, respectively) both of which are upland samples. TAGMs guideline for silver is SB. Therefore, it may be concluded, due to the low concentrations detected, that the silver is naturally occurring or of unknown origin. Research did not indicate that the presence of silver indicative to duck farming activities.

• Zinc: Was detected in four (4) samples (6052702, 6052708, 6052710, and 6053711). All detects were below the TAGMs limit of 20 ppm. Distribution of sample detections was random. Therefore, it may be concluded, due to the low concentrations detected, that the Zinc is naturally occurring or of unknown origin. Limited research did not indicate the presence of Zinc that could be related to duck farming activities.

Samples were also collected from the former Gallo Duck Farm site for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, Total Solids Percent, and E-Coli which may be considered more indicative of the by-products of duck farming activities.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Kjeldahl Nitrogen is measured by the Reporting Limit (RL). The RL is the laboratory’s reporting limit. The reporting limit is what the laboratory’s analytical equipment are calibrated to measure. All Gallo site samples exceeded the RL. Some upland samples had exceedences of the RL by a magnitude, other upland samples exceeded by only a few parts per million. In both sediment and upland samples there were wide and narrow ranges of exceedences.

The highest concentration of Kjeldahl Nitrogen was detected in upland sample 6052704 at a concentration 5,420 ppm. The lowest concentration was in sediment sample 6052701 at 74.1 ppm. There was no pattern to the distribution of concentrations. It should be noted that the most “upstream” sample collected (6052704) exhibited the highest Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentration. Based on the below discussion, all samples exhibit concentrations higher than what is considered a normal background concentration.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen or TKN is the sum of organic nitrogen; ammonia, NH3 and + ammonium, NH4 in biological wastewater treatment. TKN is determined in the same manner as organic nitrogen, except that the ammonia is not driven off before the digestion step.

7 Total Phosphorus: Phosphorus is measured by the RL also. All samples exhibited exceedences above what is considered “normal” concentrations. The concentrations of Total Phosphorous were highest in upland samples and the distribution of the reported concentrations did not illustrate a conclusive pattern. The highest concentration was detected in upland sample 6052704. This is the same sample location that exhibited the highest Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentration. The lowest concentration was detected in sediment sample 6052701. This is the same sample location that exhibited the lowest Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentration.

Although phosphorus at concentrations found in natural waters is not toxic to humans or other animals, it may still have a significant impact on the living organisms in a lake or stream. This is because phosphorus is often the nutrient that limits how much plant growth occurs in a water body. Therefore, even a small amount of additional phosphorus, especially in its inorganic dissolved form, may lead to excess plant growth.

Total Organic Carbon: Total Organic Carbon is also measured by the Reporting Limit (RL). All Gallo site samples exceeded the RL with the exception of two (2) upland samples; (6052701 and 6052707). The remaining samples had exceedences ranging from one half to fifty times higher than the RL. No obvious pattern was realized for the distribution of the reported exceedences. However, the highest concentration was detected in upland sample 6052704 at concentration of 121,000 ppm. This is the same sample location that exhibited the highest Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous concentration. The lowest concentration was detected in sediment sample 6052701 at non-detect. This is the same sample location that exhibited the lowest Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous concentration.

Total organic carbon (TOC) is the amount of carbon bound in an organic compound and is indicated by material derived from decaying vegetation, bacterial growth, and metabolic activities of living organisms or chemicals. The above concentrations of Total Organic Carbon indicate relatively high organic soils.

Total Percent Solids: Percent solids ranged from 48.89% to 94.95%. The sediment samples had the lower percentages, as expected. Upland soil samples were averaging 80% and higher.

E-Coli: Two samples from the Gallo site were analyzed for the presence of e-coli (6052706 and 6052709) and confirmed its presence in Mud Creek which flows through the former Gallo Duck Farm site. The laboratory results do not quantify the amount of colony forming units (CFUs).

Based on the above referenced results, it may be concluded that historical and existing duck farming activities have impacted the biological balance in the vicinity of the former Gallo Duck Farm site. However, priority pollutant metals detected in samples collected at the former Gallo Duck Farm site may be indicative of naturally occurring metals that are bound in an organic soil. Further, the semi-volatile contaminants detected in samples collected at the former Gallo Duck Farm site may be attributed to chemicals

8 introduced during sampling activities from the sampling gloves. However, additional sampling efforts should be conducted to confirm/deny the presence of the above referenced contaminants and to laterally and vertically delineate the extent of contamination, accordingly.

Forge River and Mill Pond

At Forge River and Mill Pond on the Forge River, sampling was designed to test in-water, sediment sample locations only. One sample was taken at each site, (lab sample identification number 6054401 for Forge River and lab number 6054402 for Mill Pond).

Both samples were analyzed for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Solids Percent. However, neither sample was collected to be laboratory analyzed for E-Coli. In addition, both samples were collected and analyzed for Volatile Organics, Semi-Volatile Organics, Pesticides, PCBs and priority pollutant metals.

9 Mill Pond Sample 6054402

Forge River Sample 6054401

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LAB ID TAGMS 6054401 6054402 Forge River Mill Pond Units ppb ppb ppb VOA+15 Acetone .0002 6 TIC SVOA + 25 Diethylphthalate .0071 25 J Di-n-butylphthalate .0081 880 JB 7700 JB Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate .050 150 J TIC 36,285 JN 1,187,700 JN

Pesticides ND ND ND PCBs ND ND ND Units ppm ppm ppm Arsenic 7.5* 1.44 Beryllium 0.16* 1.98 Chromium 10* 1.92 18.3 Copper 25* 2.61 30.7 Lead Background 4.15 18.7 Nickel 13* 157 16.3 Zinc 20* 15.5 17.4 Units ppm ppm ppm Kjeldahl Nitrogen NA 126 9640 Total Phosphorous NA 24.7 3140 Total Organic Carbon NA 1580 213,000 Total Solids Percent NA 65.91% 13.69%

VOCs: Both samples collected from the Forge River and Mill Pond were analyzed for VOCs. Only the sample collected from Forge River (6054401) detected the presence of VOCs. The volatile organic compound detected was Acetone at a concentration of 6 ppb, greater than the TAGM threshold of 0.0002 ppb. This sample is located downstream of Mill Pond whose sediment sample did not detect the presence of Acetone. There was no obvious pattern to the distribution of detections or concentrations of Acetone. Acetone is not representative of contaminants produced from duck farming activities; the most likely source of the presence of Acetone may be lab influenced.

11 SVOAs: Both sediment samples had concentrations of semi-volatile organic compounds above TAGM criteria. When compared to TAGMs guidelines, levels are substantially above established thresholds. Concentrations ranged from 25 parts per billion to 7700 ppb. The semi-volatile compounds detected included Diethylphthalate, Di-n-butylphthalate, and Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate. The above compounds are all included in the Phthalate family of chemicals. As stated in the discussion of the sampling results for the former Gallo Duck Farm site, Phthalates are often detected in laboratory results from latex sampling gloves utilized by the personnel collecting the samples for analysis. Since review of historical documentation does not indicate the use of plasticizers in the vicinity of the Forge River or Mill Pond, it may be assumed that the detection of phthalates is from cross contamination introduced by the sampling gloves.

No Pesticides or Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in either of the sediment samples collected from the Forge River or Mill Pond site. This result is consistent with results that one could expect from the operation of duck farms.

• Arsenic was detected in the Forge River sediment sample at a concentration of 1.44 ppm. The concentration detected in the sample was below the TAGMs threshold of 7.5 ppm. As stated in the former Gallo Duck Farm discussion, Arsenic is commonly found in various agricultural insecticides, poisons and has also been known to be used in animal feed, particularly in the United States as a method of disease prevention and growth stimulation. However, since concentrations of Arsenic detected in the samples were well below the TAGMs threshold, one can assume that these concentrations may be indicative of background concentrations and are most likely naturally occurring.

• Beryllium was detected in the Mill Pond Sediment sample at a concentration of 1.98 ppm. The detected concentration of Beryllium is above the TAGMs threshold of 0.16 ppm. The origin of Beryllium at the Mill Pond is unknown and would require further investigation.

• Chromium: Chromium was detected in both sediment samples for Forge River and Mill Pond. Concentrations were reported to be 1.92 ppm for Forge River and 18.3 ppm for Mill Pond, respectively. TAGMs threshold for Chromium is 10 ppm or SB. The Mill Pond sediment sample, located upstream of the Forge River sediment sample exceeded the 10 ppm threshold concentration. Again, the detected concentration of Chromium could be contributed to background conditions, not the results of duck farming activities.

• Copper: Under TAGMS the threshold for copper is 25 ppm or SB. Copper was detected in both sediment samples for Forge River and Mill Pond. Concentrations were reported to be 2.61 ppm and 30.7 ppm for Forge River and Mill Pond, respectively. The Mill Pond sediment sample, located upstream of the Forge River sediment sample exceeded the 25 ppm threshold concentration. Again, the detected concentration of Copper could be attributed to background conditions, not the results of duck farming activities.

• Lead: Lead was detected in both of the sediment samples. Under TAGMs, lead levels are managed by the SB rule. The highest concentration of lead detected was 18.7 ppm in the Mill Pond sample. The Forge River sample indicated the presence of Lead at a concentration of 4.15 ppm. As indicated above, lead as a soil contaminant is a widespread issue, since lead is present in natural deposits. Since limited review of historical operations on the Forger River and Mill Pond sites did not indicate industrial operations, the presence of lead may be attributed to natural deposits in the soil.

• Nickel: Nickel was detected in both Forge River and Mill Pond sediment samples above the TAGM threshold of 13 ppm at a concentration of 157 ppm and 16.3 ppm, respectively. As stated in the above former Gallo Duck Farm discussion, urease (an enzyme which assists in the hydrolysis of urea) contains nickel which could explain the presence of Nickel in the Forge River sediment sampling location. However, Nickel is the only metal out of all the priority pollutants that exhibited higher concentrations at the Forge River site than the Mill Pond site. The Mill Pond site has consistently exhibited higher concentrations of priority pollutant metals. Please note (as indicated in the Figure) that Mill Pond is located upstream of the Forge River sampling site.

• Zinc: Was detected in both the Forge River sediment sample and the Mill Pond sediment sample at a concentration of 15.5 ppm and 17.4 ppm, respectively. Both reported Zinc concentrations were below the TAGMs limit of 20 ppm. It may be concluded, due to the low concentrations detected, that the Zinc is naturally occurring or of unknown origin. Limited research did not indicate the presence of Zinc relating to duck farming activities.

Samples were also collected from the Forge River sampling location and the Mill Pond site for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Solids Percent. These biological compounds may be more indicative of the by-products of duck farming activities. However, E-Coli laboratory analysis of sediment or upland samples was not conducted.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Both sediment samples exceeded the reporting limit for Kjeldahl Nitrogen at concentrations of 126 ppm and 9640 ppm, respectively. It could be noted that the upstream sediment sample (Mill Pond) exhibited a higher concentration than the downstream sediment sample (Forge River). However, the difference in concentrations does not provide a conclusive determination. Based on the below discussion, both samples exhibit concentrations higher than what is considered a normal background concentration for surface water (versus sediment) samples.

Total Phosphorus: Phosphorus is measured by the RL also. Both the Forge River and Mill Pond samples exhibited exceedences above what is considered “normal” concentrations at 24.7 ppm and 3,140 ppm, respectively. The concentrations of Total Phosphorous were highest in upstream sample. Please note that the highest concentration was detected in the upstream Mill Pond sediment sample. This is the same sample location that exhibited the highest Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentration. The lowest concentration was detected in the Forge River sediment sample. This is the same sample location that exhibited the lowest Kjeldahl Nitrogen concentration.

Total Organic Carbon: Total Organic Carbon is also measured by the Reporting Limit. Both site samples exceeded the RL. The two (2) sediment samples indicated Total Organic Carbon in the laboratory results at a concentration of 1580 ppm for Forge River and 213,000 ppm Mill Pond sites, respectively. The highest concentration was detected in upstream sample (Mill Pond). This is the same sample location that exhibited the highest Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous concentration. The lowest concentration was detected in the downstream sediment sample (Forge River). This is the same sample location that exhibited the lowest Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous concentration.

Total Percent Solids: Total percent solids were reported to be 65.91% for the Forge River site and 13.69% for the Mill Pond Sediment sample. Additional data is required to interpret this result. The Mill Pond sample exhibited higher concentrations of chemical and biological contaminants. However, additional data is required to interpret this result.

Based on the above referenced results, it may be concluded that historical and existing duck farming activities have impacted the biological balance in the vicinity of the Forge River sampling site and Mill Pond sampling site. However, not quite as appreciably at the Forge River site than the Mill Pond site. Priority pollutant metals detected in samples collected at the Forge River site and the Mill Pond site may be indicative of naturally occurring metals that are bound in an organic soil. Further, the semi-volatile contaminants detected in samples collected at the Forge River and Mill Pond site may be attributed to chemicals introduced during sampling activities from the

14 sampling gloves. However, additional sampling efforts should be conducted to confirm/deny the presence of the above referenced contaminants and to laterally and vertically delineate the extent of contamination, accordingly.

ROBINSON DUCK FARM

At the Robinson Duck Farm, sampling was designed for an upland soil sample location and a sediment sample location. The two (2) samples (lab sample identification nos. 6054403 and 6054404) are the sediment (upstream) sample and composite (downstream) upland sample.

Both samples were analyzed for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Solids Percent. However, neither sample was collected to be analyzed for E-Coli. In addition, both samples were analyzed for Volatile Organics, Semi-Volatile Organics, Pesticides, PCBs and priority pollutant metals.

15 Core Sample 6054404 -Sediment

Composite Sample 6054404 - Upland

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

6054403 6054404 LAB ID TAGMS Robinson Robinson (sediment sample) (composite sample) Units ppb ppb ppb VOA+15 Acetone .0002 7 14 TIC 4 SVOA + 25 Diethylphthalate .0071 Di-n-butylphthalate .0081 680 JB 900 JB Bis(2- .050 120 J 140 J ethylhexy)phthalate 88,790 JN 38,872 JN TIC

Pesticides ND ND ND PCBs ND ND ND Units ppm ppm ppm Arsenic 7.5* 1.29 Beryllium 0.16* Chromium 10* 2.87 4.96 Copper 25* 7.31 8.46 Lead Background 20.7 5.36 Nickel 13* 1.79 4.72 Zinc 20* 41.2 31.6 Units ppm ppm Kjeldahl Nitrogen NA 198 419 Total Phosphorous NA 1450 275 Total Organic NA 2480 18,700 Carbon NA 81.51% 80.97% Total Solids Percent

VOCs: Both samples collected from the Robinson Duck Farm were analyzed for VOCs. Both samples collected from the Robinson Duck Farm detected the presence of VOCs. The volatile organic compound detected was Acetone at a concentration of 7 ppb

17 and 14 ppb from 6054403 (sediment) and 6054404 (composite), respectively. These concentrations exceed the TAGM threshold of 0.0002 ppb. The composite sample is located downstream of the sediment sample and may indicate that the upland area is more impacted by Acetone than the saturated areas. As stated in the above sampling result discussions, in addition to being manufactured as a chemical, acetone is also found naturally in the environment, including in small amounts in the human body. Although Acetone is not representative of contaminants produced from duck farming activities, the origin of this contamination is most likely attributed to lab influence.

SVOAs: Both samples indicated concentrations of semi-volatile organic compounds above TAGM criteria at the Robinson Duck Farm site. When they are compared to the TAGMs guidelines the levels are substantially above thresholds. Concentrations ranged from 120 parts per billion to 900 ppb. The semi-volatile compounds detected included Di-n-butylphthalate, and Bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate. The above compounds are all included in the Phthalate family of chemicals. As stated in the discussion of the sampling results for the former Gallo Duck Farm site, the Forge River site and the Mill Pond site, Phthalates are often detected in laboratory results from latex sampling gloves utilized by the personnel collecting the samples for analysis. Since review of historical documentation does not indicate the use of plasticizers in the vicinity of the Robinson Duck Farm site, it could be assumed that the detection of phthalates is from cross contamination introduced by the sampler’s gloves.

No Pesticides or Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in the samples collected from the Robinson Duck Farm site. This result is consistent with results that one could expect from the operation of duck farms.

There are 13 Priority Pollutant Metals for which laboratory analysis was conducted for the collected sediment and upland samples. Of the 13 Priority Pollutant Metals, only Arsenic, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel and Zinc were detected in the Robinson Duck Farm samples.

• Arsenic was only detected in the Robinson Duck Farm composite, upland sample at a concentration of 1.29 ppm. The concentration detected in the sample was below the TAGMs threshold of 7.5 ppm. As previously stated, Arsenic is commonly found in various agricultural insecticides, poisons and has also been known to be used in animal feed, particularly in the United States as a method of disease prevention and growth stimulation. However, since concentrations of Arsenic detected in the sample was well below the TAGMs threshold, one can assume that these concentrations may be indicative of background concentrations and are most likely naturally occurring.

• Chromium: Chromium was detected in both samples for the Robinson Duck Farm. Concentrations were reported to be 2.87 ppm and 4.96 ppm for the sediment sample and the composite sample, respectively. TAGMs threshold for Chromium is 10 ppm or SB. Neither sample, exceeded 10 ppm threshold

18 concentration. Again, the detected concentration of Chromium could be contributed to background conditions, not the result of duck farming activities.

• Copper: Under TAGMS the threshold for copper is 25 ppm or SB. Copper was detected in both samples for the Robinson Duck Farm. Concentrations were reported to be 7.31 ppm and 8.46 ppm for sediment sample and composite sample, respectively. Neither sample exceeded the 10 ppm threshold concentration. Again, the detected concentration of Copper could be contributed to background conditions, not the result of duck farming activities.

• Lead: Lead was detected in both of the Robinson Duck Farm samples. Under TAGMs, lead levels are managed by the SB rule. The highest concentration of lead detected was 20.7 ppm in the sediment sample. The composite sample indicated the presence of Lead at a concentration of 5.36 ppm. As indicated above, lead as a soil contaminant is a widespread issue, since lead is present in natural deposits. Limited review of historical operations on the Robinson Duck Farm site does not indicate industrial operations. Therefore, the presence of lead may be attributed to natural deposits in the soil.

• Nickel: Nickel was detected in both the sediment sample and the composite sample at a concentration of 1.79 ppm and 4.72 ppm, respectively, well below the TAGM threshold for Nickel of 13 ppm. As previously stated, urease (an enzyme which assists in the hydrolysis of urea) contains nickel which could explain the presence of Nickel detected in the samples.

• Zinc: Zinc was detected in both the sediment sample and the composite sample collected from the Robinson Duck Farm site at a concentration of 41.2 ppm and 31.6 ppm, respectively. Both reported Zinc concentrations were above the TAGMs limit of 20 ppm. It may be concluded, due to the low concentrations detected, that the Zinc is naturally occurring or of unknown origin. Research did not indicate the presence of Zinc related to duck farming activities.

Samples were also collected from the Robinson Duck Farm site for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Solids Percent. These biological compounds may be more indicative of the by-products of duck farming activities. No sediment or upland samples were collected for the laboratory analysis for E-Coli.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Both the sediment sample and the composite sample exceeded the reporting limit for Kjeldahl Nitrogen at concentrations of 198 ppm and 419 ppm,

19 respectively. It could be noted that the upstream sediment sample exhibited a lower concentration than the downstream composite sample. It is noted that the composite sample was taken in an effluent settling lagoon. However, the difference in concentrations does not provide a conclusive determination. Both samples exhibit concentrations higher than what is considered background concentrations.

Total Phosphorus: Phosphorus is also measured by the RL. Both the sediment sample and the composite sample exhibited exceedences above what is considered “normal” concentrations at 1,450 ppm and 275 ppm, respectively. The concentrations of Total Phosphorous were highest in upstream sediment sample.

Total Organic Carbon: Total Organic Carbon is also measured by the Reporting Limit. Both site samples exceeded the RL. The sediment sample and the composite sample indicated Total Organic Carbon in the laboratory results at a concentration of 2,480 ppm and 18,700 ppm, respectively. The highest concentration was detected in the composite sample.

Total Percent Solids: Total percent solids were reported to be 81.51% for the sediment sample and 80.97% for the composite sample. Interesting differences in the relative concentrations of VOA’s, SVOA’s and metals can be noted. However, additional data is needed to interpret these results.

Based on the referenced results, it may be concluded that historical and existing duck farming activities have impacted the biological balance in the vicinity of the Robinson Duck Farm site. Priority pollutant metals detected in samples collected at the Robinson Duck Farm site may be indicative of naturally occurring metals that are bound in an organic soil. Further, the semi-volatile contaminants detected in samples collected at the Robinson Duck Farm site may be attributed to chemicals introduced during sampling activities from the sampler’s gloves.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS;

The majority of the results are consistent with the area’s history of duck farming activities.

In addition, the results do not indicate appreciable concentrations of volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds, with the exception of compounds of Acetone and the Phthalate family. Phthalates are often detected in laboratory results from latex sampling gloves utilized by the personnel collecting the samples for analysis. Since limited review

20 of historical documentation does not indicate the use of plasticizers in the vicinity of the Robinson Duck Farm site, it may be assumed that the detection of phthalates is from cross contamination introduced by the sampling gloves. Further sampling and documentary research should be conducted to confirm/deny the presence and/or extent of Acetone and Phthalates.

Priority Pollutant Metals were detected in all samples collected from the former duck farms. Only Beryllium, Cadmium, Copper, Chromium, Lead (SB) Nickel, and Zinc were detected above the TAGMs threshold. However, conjecture on these concentrations that exceed the TAGMs threshold is most probably due to the result of run-off over the years from the private homes and yards lining the pond and tributary stream(s) that flow into the sampling areas, as well as from roads that traverse the streams. The exceedences could be assumed to the Site Background levels. However, further sampling may need to be conducted to confirm/deny the presence and concentrations of these metals especially at the Forge River site. The Forge River sample with its unexpectedly high level of Nickel may be an anomaly or there may be a pocket of elevated metal in that part of the river. Nonetheless, this concentration should be investigated further as it may inhibit potential plans on the Forge River.

Samples were collected for the laboratory analysis for the presence of E-Coli in only two (2) samples. These samples were collected from the Former Gallo Farm site. Based on the above referenced results, it may be concluded that historical and existing duck farming activities have impacted the biological balance in the vicinity of the former Gallo Duck Farm site. However, please note that samples should be collected from the Forge River site, Mill Pond site, and the Robinson Duck Farm site to determine if E-Coli is present in these areas.

Analytical results from the laboratory analysis for Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Total Organic Carbon and Total Solids Percent are consistent with duck farming activities. The Mill Pond sample at 13% indicates very soft sediment. Nitrogen levels are still high years after operations ceased. Considering the duration of time operations were conducted and the magnitude of the operations, the presence of biological indicators may be considered reasonable. The same reasoning holds true for Phosphorus. Based on the former and existing duck farming activities, the high organic content is more than likely due to duck farming operations. These results may indicate the long term impact duck farm operations had/still have on the local environment.

APPENDIX D

Duck Farm Industry and Impacts Report

Duck Farm Industry Impacts on the Environment

Introduction

As documented in the historical overview section, the duck farm industry in Suffolk County was an extremely intensive land use along stream and bay shorelines. Inventory work by the Department of Planning indicates that approximately 2,000 acres of upland property and almost 20 miles of shoreline along freshwater creeks/rivers and estuary tributaries – primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton – were utilized during the last century in Suffolk County for duck production.

The impacts of duck farming were dramatic, both on-site and off-site. Extensive landform alterations were made to construct animal pens, feed lots and swim ponds, which were often located in or directly adjacent to streams/coves of the bays. Waste effluent discharges from the farms created thick organic matter deposits, degraded water quality and altered phytoplankton and benthic population in near-by surface waters.

Duck Farms – An Intensive Land Use

The significance of the impacts is reflected by the magnitude of the industry and the waste load generated. Effluent waste loadings from the farms in the form of suspended solids, nutrients and coliform bacteria were huge, especially prior to the required use of treatment technology under water pollution control laws.

The pollution load from the 34 duck farms operating in Suffolk County during 1968, which raised about 7 million that year, was calculated. In total, the loads were as follows (Davids and Cosulich 1968): 70 tons total solids/day (43 tons suspended solids/day); 11 tons of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)/day; 4 tons phosphates/day; 2.5 tons nitrogen compounds /day; and 40 billion-trillion M.P.N of coliform organisms/day.

Let us look at the intensity in another way, as it pertains to the loading of one pollutant - nitrogen. According to Dr. William Dean, the former director of the Cornell University Duck Research Laboratory, an average human excretes about 7,300 grams (g) of nitrogen (N) per year, or 20 g N per day. One market duck excretes 93.6 g N over its seven week life cycle, or 1.91 g N per day. Including the N fraction attributed to one breeder duck for each market duck produced (0.029 g N per day) gives a total N loading rate of 1.94 g N per day for each market duck (W. Dean, personal communication). Dividing 20 g by 1.94 g gives a nitrogen equivalency of 10.3 market ducks per one person.

1 acre is over six times the population density of Manhattan Island (105.3 people/acre) in 2002. In comparison, the overall population density in Suffolk County was 2.47 people per acre in 2002.

The impacts of duck farm effluent on receiving water quality necessitated the implementation of a waste abatement program over a 20-year period. The four phases of this program are outlined below (Cosulich 1966).

Phase 1: Remove ducks from open waters (diking duck runs from main stream). This started in 1951.

Phase 2: Remove settleable solids and floating solids from the waste stream (lagoon system) before discharge to surface waters.

Phase 3: Disinfect effluent.

Phase 4: Remove nutrients. Treatment facilities had to be constructed and in operation by April 1968.

Costs to implement this program were high, treatment technology issues were apparent, and as a result, compliance was not very good (Villa 1964). Over time, many duck farms went out of business. The legacy of the duck farm industry leaves us today with degraded shoreline sites, altered bay tributary and creek hydraulics, and bay bottoms that are soft and oxygen depleted.

On-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation

Duck farms needed access to a source of fresh water. This is why they were located along freshwater streams and the upper reaches of tidal tributaries (where waters were only slightly brackish). Typical site modifications involved various types of disturbance, e.g., vegetation clearing, land surface elevation changes for construction of buildings, pens and yards; hydrological modifications for water flow/control in swim ponds and tidal lagoons, and for waste treatment. Some of the larger duck farms included areas devoted to the production of field crops.

The magnitude of habitat change associated with duck farm activity was indeed, large. On-site alterations associated with pond, berm and lagoon creation resulted in destruction/alteration of freshwater wetland habitats (riverine systems, ponds, lakes, swamps and bogs) and estuarine and tidal marsh habitats. Upland areas were cleared of trees/mature vegetation. Biodiversity and fish and wildlife values were compromised.

Duck farm operation and abandonment created conditions that were ideal for invasive species. Today, dense stands of Phragmites are found in former swim ponds and along the shores of tidal lagoons. Conditions that favored Phragmites invasion include soil disturbance and tree/upland buffer removal in duck yards and along swim ponds; hydrological changes/land surface elevation in wetlands due to the placement of fill for construction of berms and dikes; groundwater pumpage and impoundment; and high nutrient loading in fresh water/low salinity environments associated with duck waste

2 discharge. Figures 1 through 3 show examples of typical buildings, duck/brooder houses and processing facilities that remain on duck farms in various states of disrepair.

Figure 1: Dilapidated structure, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

Figure 2: Dilapidated structure, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

3 Figure 3: Dilapidated structure, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

4 Outdoor Areas Duck pens and yards consisted of large, open areas covered in sand that were adjacent to swim ponds and dredged lagoons, as shown in Figures 4 through 9. Low fences constructed of metal and wood were used to separate ducks by age group. Duck feed hoppers and other types of equipment remain in some of these areas.

Figure 4: Swim pond, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

Figure 5: Swim pond, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

5 Figure 6: Tidal lagoon, former Broad Cove Duck Farm, Terry Creek, River head, New York.

Figure 7: Tidal lagoon, Fanning Landing Road, Forge River, Brookhaven, New York.

6 Figure 8: Duck yard, former Hubbard Duck Farm, Sawmill Creek, Riverhead, New York.

Figure 9: Abandoned fencing, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

7 Hydraulic Modifications Major hydraulic modifications occurred on duck farm sites. Water conveyance and control structures, e.g., concrete sluiceways, piping; and berms constructed by cut-and- fill are shown in Figures 10 through 15. It is often difficult today to visualize the remnant pattern of water retention and flow at the old duck farm sites given site obstruction by growth of dense stands of invasive vegetation.

Figure 10: Dams, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

Figure 11: Old bulkhead, former Schubert Duck Farm, Sawmill Creek, Riverhead, New York.

8 Figure 12: Piping, former Hubbard Duck Farm, Sawmill Creek, Riverhead, New York.

Figure 13: Abandoned sluiceway, former Hubbard Duck Farm, Sawmill Creek, Riverhead, New York.

9 Figure 14: Water control structure at former duck farm, Eastport, New York.

Figure 15: Impoundment, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

10 Duck Waste Treatment Facilities Duck farmers had to collect effluent from swim ponds and divert it via pumps and piping to various types of settling pits and lagoons to meet the requirements of duck waste treatment. Remnants of waste treatment facilities (i.e., aerated lagoon-chlorination systems) are shown in Figures 16 through 21.

Figure 16: Settling ponds, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

11 Figure 17: Settling pond berm, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

Figure 18: Settling pond berm, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

12 Figure 19: Settling pond, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

Figure 20: Settling ponds, former Gallo Duck Farm, Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York.

13 Figure 21: Waste treatment structure, former Robinson Duck Farm, Carmans River, South Haven, New York.

Off-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation

The off-site impacts of duck farms were apparent in both the degraded quality of receiving surface waters, as well as by the alteration of stream and tributary bottom habitats as a result of the deposition of thick layers, or so-called blankets, of duck sludge. The off-site impacts also manifested themselves in the curtailment of commercial and recreational activities due to the contravention of water quality standards for shellfishing and swimming, and the use of shoreline sites (many located in parkland) for the upland disposal of duck sludge dredged from creek bottoms by Suffolk County (Travelers Research Corp. 1970).

This section begins with an overview of the impacts of duck farm waste effluents on water quality and phytoplankton blooms in the south shore bays, where most of the early historical research on these topics was conducted. Similar relationships would be expected to hold for other estuarine areas subject to duck waste pollutant loadings. The duck sludge problem is also described, and the historical response of government agencies to managing this problem is summarized. Many former duck farm sites have been privately developed for commercial and residential uses. The section concludes with a look at the unique remnants of former duck farms at these developed sites.

Surface Water Quality

On the order of 8 million ducks per year were grown in Suffolk County during the peak of the duck industry circa 1960. The magnitude of production was reflected in the

14 significant effluent waste loadings in the forms of suspended solids, nutrients, and coliform bacteria, much of which entered Flanders Bay, Moriches Bay, and Great South Bay via streams and tributaries. The effluent discharged from the duck farms dramatically impacted the water quality of the freshwater streams and bays, altering phytoplankton assemblages, benthic communities, and the biogeochemistry of the systems.

Figure 22: Duck weed (Lemna sp.), a floating vascular surface plant and an indicator of a nutrient enriched freshwater environment, in the headwaters of Mud Creek at the former Gallo Duck Farm in East Patchogue.

The south shore estuaries had high concentrations of nutrients, especially nitrogen compounds, due to the large number of duck farms in the watershed, cesspool seepage, and ephemeral closure of the Moriches Inlet. This excessive nutrient input to the system dramatically altered the water quality by consequently stimulating dense algal blooms.

Prior to the increase in duck effluent, the south shore estuaries were composed of a mixed algal assemblage, dominated by larger phytoplankton species, such as diatoms (~5 µm) (Ryther 1954). However, following the rise in duck farm production along the south shore, the phytoplankton composition began to shift to a unialgal community, dominated by smaller forms (1-4 µm) or chlorophytes (Ryther 1954; Nichols 1964; Lively et al. 1983; Carpenter et al. 1991). Consequently, blooms as concentrated as tens of billions of cells per liter turned the bay a pea green color during the summer months due to the green tides (Carpenter et al. 1991). The algal shifts were directly correlated with the increase in nitrogen-rich excretory products generated from the local duck farms. The most common excretory product, uric acid, is converted to urea via bacteria in seawater (Carpenter et al. 1991). Unlike larger phytoplankton, smaller forms are able to directly assimilate urea due to the presence of specific enzymes, giving them a competitive advantage over many

15 of the common diatom species (Carpenter et al. 1991). Additionally, the physical nature of the south shore estuaries including, low flushing rates and shallow water depths, led to a rise in water temperatures in back-bays and a retention of large concentrations of nutrients, further supplying algal growth (Ryther 1954).

The presence of these dense algal blooms in the south shore estuaries consequently altered a variety of conditions and instigated degradation of the bays. The increase and decomposition of organic matter, derived directly from the duck waste as well as the increase in algal biomass, contributed to anaerobic benthic conditions impacting flora, such as submerged aquatic vegetation; and fauna, such as benthic invertebrates and foraminfera. Dense algal blooms prevented light penetration to the benthos, causing plant decay and additional organic deposits (O’Connor 1972). These organic rich sediments, often several feet deep, became soupy, black, clayey silt that had a rich odor of hydrogen sulfide, so potent that homeowners adjacent to Moriches and Great South Bays complained that the paint on their homes was being discolored (Nichols 1964; O’Connor 1972). Ecological degradation that was associated with the accumulation of nutrients throughout the estuarine bays continued throughout the history of the duck industry, and was heightened when the Moriches Inlet was temporarily closed (Nichols 1964; Lively et al. 1983) in the early 1950s.

Duck Sludge Deposits

Prior to the late 1950s/early 1960s, duck farm operations were not legally required to install facilities to eliminate the discharge of settleable solids to surface waters. Therefore, thousands of tons of duck farm waste had freely entered, accumulated and polluted streams and adjacent wetlands for decades prior to implementation of a regulatory program.

The enforcement of additional wastewater treatment requirements in the 1960s/1970s resulted in the decline in the number of operating duck farms and a substantial reduction in the volume of effluent discharged. Duck sludge deposits are associated with phased- out duck ranch operations on tidal creeks and tributaries in local waters. Areas where

16 such deposits are likely to be encountered were identified in the historical overview section. The volume of sludge in these creeks was significant. A 1968 field survey estimated that over 7.3 million cubic yards of sludge were deposited on creek bottoms tributary to Moriches Bay (Forge River, Old Neck Creek, Terrell River, Tuthill Cove, Seatuck Creek, East River, etc.) at that time (Dona 1968). Deposits were reported to be up to 10 feet thick in some areas, and the sludge was covered by only a few inches of water.

Figure 22: Corps of Engineers and Suffolk County Department of Planning personnel sampling duck sludge deposits in the freshwater pond located north of Montauk Highway, Forge River. The survey conducted by Dona (1968) estimated that over 5.2 million cubic yards of duck sludge were deposited on the bottom of Forge River and its tributaries.

As discussed in the next section, it was an agreed upon practice to conduct large scale dredging projects to remove duck sludge from the bottoms of impacted waterways. The Suffolk County Department of Public Works removed about 1.5 million cubic yards of material from the tributaries in Moriches Bay prior to 1968; and about 1.6 million cubic yards after 1968 (Suffolk County Department of Planning 1985). It is apparent that some measure of the old sludge remains in these areas, in some altered state. The dredged spoil was disposed in upland sites on the mainland and barrier island, on the beach and in the ocean surf zone.

Figures 23 and 24 show the Suffolk County dredge removing the blanket of duck sludge in Seatuck Cove. About 400,000 cubic yards were removed in this 1972 wall-to-wall dredging project and pumped across Moriches Bay and the barrier island for disposal in the surf zone. This strategy and method for managing duck sludge was endorsed by all

17 government levels at that time. (Photos supplied by Thomas Rogers, Suffolk County Department of Public Works.)

Figure 23: Duck sludge dredging operation, Seatuck Cove, Brookhaven, New York

Figure 24: Duck sludge dredging operation, Seatuck Cove, Town of Brookhaven, New York

18 deposits were quite substantial. The Suffolk County Department of Public Works dredged over 2.0 million cubic yards of material from these tributaries prior to 1985, all of which was placed in upland disposal sites (Suffolk County Department of Planning 1985). The extent to which aged sludge remains on the bottom in these areas is not known.

Figure 25 shows a 2004 photo of the dredged spoil disposal site located in the Indian Island County Park adjacent to Flanders Bay. Approximately 400,000 cubic yards of duck sludge were pumped to this site after removal from near-by Terry Creek, Reeves Creek and Meetinghouse Creek. Three dredging projects were conducted, with the first occurring in 1948, and the third in 1975. Typically, such sites do not re-vegetate quickly, due to fine grained, compacted, poorly-drained, organically enriched sediment, which is acidic and has a high salt content.

Figure 25: Dredged spoil disposal site, Indian Island County Park, Riverhead, New York

19 Figure 26: Remnant of a former duck farm swim pond/berm in tidal wetlands along the shoreline of Speonk River. The upland area has been developed for large lot residential use.

Former duck farm sites have been developed for private residential and commercial uses. These new uses often mask the origin of shoreline features that were created when the farms operated. In many instances, the relict shoreline features (berms, swim ponds, etc.) remain left as is, as shown in Figure 26, to avoid complicated and expensive environmental review/permit procedures. Opportunities in the future may exist for coordinating the restoration of these privately owned shoreline areas in conjunction with management of adjacent underwater lands that are owned by the public. Figures 27 and 28 show aerial views of former duck farm sites along Old Neck Creek, Center Moriches that have been developed for residential use. Long boat docks are shown traversing old swim ponds and berms.

20 Figure 27: Redevelopment of former duck farm site for residential use, Old Neck Creek, Center Moriches, New York.

Figure 28: Redevelopment of former duck farm site for residential use, Old Neck Creek, Center Moriches, New York.

21 Some former duck farms have been purchased and the buildings restored and used for other purposes. Figure 29 shows restored duck farm buildings located on the east side of Terrell River, Center Moriches. Again, the Phragmites-dominated shoreline remains in its abandoned condition. The many duck farms that formerly operated along the eastern shore of the Terrell River contributed hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of duck sludge to the 68-acre tributary, which has never been dredged by the Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, and is adjacent to the 260-acre Terrell River County Park.

Figure 29: Re-use of former duck farm structures, Terrell River, Center Moriches, New York.

Management Response in the 1960s/1970s

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration conducted conferences in 1966 and 1967 on the water quality problems in eastern Great South Bay and Moriches Bay that were caused by duck farm operation. Dredging and ocean disposal of duck sludge were endorsed as acceptable practices in the late 1960s. The findings of these conferences are outlined below (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 1966; 1967).

• Agreed that sludge removal was desirable, but that disposal should not occur in wetlands or bay waters.

• An accurate survey of duck sludge deposits was needed.

• Pending completion of survey, dispose of dredged sludge in ocean below low water (“winter” time window; 1.5 miles away from Moriches Inlet).

• Determine measures to rehabilitate duck sludge spoil sites.

22 The debate continued over how duck sludge deposits on tributary underwater lands should be managed. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Estuary Study (1970) stated the following with respect to removal of sludge deposits via dredging.

• The effects of disturbing organic-rich sediments at the site of dredging were not well understood.

• Concern was expressed over water quality impacts of sludge removal due to recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus from newly exposed substrate.

• The need for a study on the feasibility of removing sludge from tributaries was cited.

The question remained: “Should sludge be removed, or left as is?”

The Long Island Regional Planning Board inventoried 29 duck farms as point sources of pollution to local waters in 1976 and discussed related water quality problems in the “208 Plan” (Long Island Regional Planning Board 1978). Conclusive data did not exist to establish whether or not the old sludge represents a bacterial or nutrient source to the water column. It was possible that the bulk of nutrients had been leached upward through the sludge by groundwater movements; however, this transport was undocumented. Pertinent findings from the plan appear below.

• No estimate of the amount of nitrogen trapped in duck sludge on creek bottoms.

• No clear evidence of the role that sludge deposits play as contributors of nitrogen to surface waters.

• No known measurements of nitrogen input from sludge deposits.

Recommendations in the plan included the following:

• Determine the impact of duck sludge as a source of nitrogen and bacteria, and the feasibility of their removal.

• Require that duck farms’ treatment facilities conform to compliance schedules which call for zero discharge by 1983.

Eventually, many issues associated with the treatment of duck farm effluent were, in a sense, resolved by the decline in the number of active farms during the 1980s. However, old deposits of organically-rich duck waste in shallow water tributaries continue to impact water and habitat quality long after the duck farms have ceased operation. These sediments exhibit highly eutrophic nitrogen and oxygen fluxes which contribute to phytoplankton blooms and oxygen depletion in bottom waters (Howes et al. 1998). Such conditions are generally associated with a depauperate benthic community.

23 Management Implications Today

The duck farm legacy has important ramifications for coastal development, open space acquisition, stream corridor/wetland habitat restoration, and marine resource management. Many of the actions in the Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive Management Plan and the Peconic Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (e.g., development of watershed plans; restoration of tidal wetlands; habitat restoration in tributaries; restoration of anadromous fish; acquisition of open space; development of a dredging management plan) interface in one way or another with this legacy (South Shore Estuary Reserve Council 2001; Peconic Estuary Program 2001). The extent to which habitats on former duck farm sites, tributaries and bay bottoms can/should be restored remains a subject for technical evaluation and regulatory debate.

The future duck farm legacy poses unique planning challenges for both public and private property:

● How should publicly owned former duck farm sites be restored and used in the future?

● How and to what extent should publicly owned freshwater stream, pond, tidal wetland, tidal creek and bay bottom habitats that were modified and degraded by duck farming activities be restored to improve fish, wildlife and water quality values?

● How should site development plans for privately owned duck farms be reviewed?

● How should private property with shore-edge remnant features from old duck farms be changed/restored?

The answers to these questions will be of significant value in developing a regional response to this issue, as well as site-specific restoration work plans.

It is clear that the location, extent, and condition of the organically-rich sediments that remain in local waters should be determined, and the impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife values assessed. Science-based management alternatives can then be designed to mitigate the problem.

Current work in this regard is just getting at underway Meetinghouse Creek in Aquebogue. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is conducting a feasibility study on a dredging project to remove about 250,000 cubic yards of duck sludge deposits that have accumulated in the creek since the last dredging cycle in 1975. The goal here would be to improve dissolved oxygen levels in the western Peconic Bay estuary by removing the sediment source of nitrogen to the water column, which has fueled harmful algal blooms.

Significant effort is also being devoted to reverse the decline in water quality in the Forge River, which has been attributed to historical duck farm effluent discharge, urban runoff,

24 and polluted groundwater underflow. Local citizens through “Save The Forge River, Inc.” have been very successful in marshalling New York State, Suffolk County and Town of Brookhaven resources to assess the problem and prepare a watershed action plan.

Restoration of old duck farm sites could proceed in phases, such as general site evaluation, removal of structures and debris, removal of water control structures and berms coupled with grading former swim ponds to regain more natural water flows, and longer-term invasive species control and management. It could be useful to start restoration work first at locations that are “upstream,” and then proceed to “downstream” locations. (Different approaches will no doubt be needed for freshwater, brackish and saline environments.) This phased approach will be evaluated during conduct of the Robinson Duck Farm County Park Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study by the Suffolk County Department of Planning under Capital Project No. 8710.113.

References

Carpenter, E.J., Brinkhuis, B.M., Capone, D.G. 1991. Primary production and nitrogenous nutrients in Great South Bay. In: Schubel, J.R., Bell, T.M., Carter, H.H. (eds.), The Great South Bay. SUNY Press. Albany, NY. 33-42.

Cosulich, William F. 1966. Treatment of Wastes from Long Island Duck Farms. William F. Cosulich, Consulting Engineer. Syosset, NY 61 pp.

Dean, William [email protected] . N Output Humans vs. Ducks. Private e-mail message to DeWitt Davies, 7 February 2005.

Dona, Robert B. 1968. Duck Sludge in Moriches Bay Conference Area. Memorandum to Acting Director, NAWQMC, dated May 23, 1968. 3 pp.

Eberhard, Donald, J. n.d. Duck Waste Treatment Facilities. Ronald J. Eberhard, Professional Engineer. Hauppauge, NY.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1966. Conference in the matter of Pollution of the Navigable Waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of Great South Bay and their Tributaries. Proceedings of session held on Sept. 20-22, 1966, Patchogue, NY. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 496 pp.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1967. Conference – Pollution of the Navigable Waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of Great South Bay and their Tributaries. Proceedings of the second session held on June 21, 1967, Patchogue, NY. U.S. Dept of the Interior. 134 pp.

25 Howes, Brian L. et al. 1998. Oxygen Uptake and Nutrient Regeneration in the Peconic Estuary. Report prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services by Aubrey Consulting, Inc., East Falmouth, MA. 23 pp. plus appendices.

Lively, J.S., Kaufman, Z.G., Carpenter, E.J. 1983. Phytoplankton ecology of a barrier island estuary: Great South Bay, N.Y. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 16, 51-68.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. Vol. 1: Summary Plan. Hauppauge, N.Y. 246 pp.

Nichols, M.M. 1964. Characteristics of sedimentary environment in Moriches Bay, N.Y. In: R.L. Miller (ed.), Papers in Marine Geology Shepard Commemorative Volume. 363- 383.

O’Connor, J.S. 1972. The benthic macrofauna of Moriches Bay, New York. Bio. Bull. 142, 84-102.

Peconic Estuary Program. 2001. Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Program Office. 866 pp.

Ryther, J.H. 1954. The ecology of phytoplankton blooms in Moriches Bay and Great South Bay. Biol. Bull. 106, 198-206.

South Shore Estuary Reserve Council. 2001. Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive Management Plan. New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources. Albany, NY. 107 pp. plus appendices.

Suffolk County Department of Planning. 1985. Analysis of Dredging and Spoil Disposal Activity Conducted by Suffolk County – Historical Perspective and a Look to the Future. Hauppauge, NY. 85 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services. 1970. National Estuary Study. Vol. 3, Appendix B. Management Studies in Specific Estuaries. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Washington, DC. 326 pp.

Villa, Robert A. 1964. Status of the Treatment of Duck Wastes in Suffolk County 1963 Season. Suffolk County Dept. of Health.