Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0116
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
1
APPENDIX
F
Brown
Tide
Interim
Workplan
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
3
BROWN
TIDE
WORKPLAN
An
Overview
of
Ongoing
and
Historical
Research
and
an
Identification
of
Future
Research
Priorities
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
Coordinated
by:
Suffolk
County,
N.
Y.
Robert
J.
Gaffney,
County
Executive
Interim
Workplan
 
Rev.
May,
1998
This
interim
document
has
been
prepared
by
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee,
an
ad
hoc
advisory
committee
coordinated
by
the
Office
of
the
Suffolk
County
Executive.
For
additional
information,
or
to
provide
comments,
please
contact:
Suffolk
County
Dept.
of
Health
Services,
Office
of
Ecology,
Riverhead
County
Center,
Riverhead,
N.
Y.
11901,
(
631)
852­
2077.

NOTE:
Appendices
referenced
in
this
Brown
Tide
Workplan
are
available
upon
request
from
the
PEP
Program
Office.
Transmission
electron
micrograph
of
the
Brown
Tide
organism.
(
x47,000)

AUREOCOCCUS
ANOPHAGEFFERENS
("
golden
sphere")
0.5
µ
m
("
causing
cessation
of
feeding")
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
4
FOREWORD
This
revised
Workplan
has
been
prepared
to
include
newly
funded
research
projects,
and
is
being
issued
in
anticipation
of
the
spring,
1998
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Symposium.
A
more
substantial
revision
of
this
Workplan,
incorporating
results
of
ongoing
research
initiatives,
will
be
produced
subsequent
to
that
Symposium.

The
publication
history
of
this
Workplan
is
as
follows:

Revised
Draft
Workplan,
May
19,
1997
 
The
first
complete
draft
Workplan
which
incorporated
comments
from
the
full
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee.
Followed
the
1997
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Symposium.

Interim
Workplan,
June
3,
1997
 
The
first
official
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee
product,
which
incorporated
comments
on
the
May
19,
1997
Revised
Draft.

Interim
Workplan,
Rev.
June
17,
1997
 
A
revised
workplan,
based
on
Committee
recommendations
to
include
the
following
priority:
mesocosm
and
laboratory
experiments
to
determine
the
Brown
Tide
growth
response
to
additions
of
selected
nutrients
and
trace
elements.

Interim
Workplan,
Rev.
February
23,
1998
 
A
revised
workplan,
based
on
funding
of
three
new
projects:

 
Dissolved
Organic
Nitrogen
and
Brown
Tide
Blooms
in
Long
Island's
Coastal
Waters:
Testing
the
Groundwater
Hypothesis
(
J.
LaRoch
et
al.)

 
Differential
Phytoplankton
and
Microzooplankton
Analyses
in
Long
Island
Bays
(
D.
Lonsdale
et
al.)

 
Genetic
Variability
among
Spatially
and
Temporally
Isolated
Blooms
of
the
Brown
Tide
Microalga,
A.
Anophagefferens
(
Stabile
et
al.)

Interim
Workplan,
Rev.
May,
1998
 
A
revised
workplan,
based
on
research
results
reported
in
the
1998
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
Symposium.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
5
BROWN
TIDE
WORKPLAN
1.
SUMMARY
Significant
progress
has
been
made
with
respect
to
understanding
brown
tide
onset,
persistence,
cessation,
and
impacts
on
shellfish,
as
well
as
related
biological,
physical,
and
chemical
factors.
However,
substantial
additional
research
is
needed.
This
Workplan
estimates
that,
over
the
next
three
years,
a
total
of
at
least
$
2.1
to
$
2.8
million
would
be
necessary
to
conduct
high
priority
research
efforts
(
see
sections
A
and
B
below).
This
initial
estimate
is
probably
conservatively
low,
and
is
provided
for
purposes
of
preparing
an
interim
Workplan
based
on
readily
available
information.

A)
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)

As
a
result
of
the
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
(
BTRI)
process,
three
areas
of
research
have
been
identified
as
specifically
warranting
additional
funding.
Cumulatively,
these
areas
of
research
would
require
approximately
$
400,000
to
$
600,000.
One
specific
project
proposal
which
has
been
deemed
worthwhile,
but
which
is
not
being
conducted
due
to
funding
restrictions,
is:

1)
Investigations
of
groundwater,
and
its
various
constituents,
with
respect
to
Brown
Tide
blooms.

Additionally,
BTRI
Committee
members
recommended
development
of
a
Request
for
Proposals
for
the
following
specific
research
needs:

1)
Modelling
of
nutrient
budgets.

2)
Investigation
of
viral/
pathogen
activity
as
it
may
affect
Brown
Tide.

B)
Brown
Tide
Summit
In
addition
to
the
above
projects,
substantial
research
should
be
performed
on
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
factors
related
to
Brown
Tide,
as
well
ecological
effects
of
the
organism.
These
additional
research
priorities
are
based
on
a
review
of
Brown
Tide
Summit
(
Oct.
1995)
recommendations
in
light
of
historical
and
ongoing
research.
Summit
recommendations
are
included
as
Workplan
research
project
priorities
only
where
the
Summit
recommendations
address
substantively
critical
topics,
where
data
is
needed
in
the
immediate
future,
and
where
there
is
still
a
research
gap
(
i.
e.,
incomplete
research,
or
no
ongoing
research).
The
range
of
funding
needed
to
adequately
address
these
projects
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
1.4
to
$
1.8
million
to
conduct
projects
in
the
following
areas:

1)
Role
of
allelopathy
in
securing
for
the
Brown
Tide
a
competitive
edge
over
other
microalgae.

2)
Autolysis
as
a
factor
related
to
Brown
Tide
cessation.

3)
Possible
relationships
between
benthic­
pelagic
coupling
and
the
Brown
Tide,
including:

a)
Benthic
filter­
feeders
and
the
removal
of
suspended
particles,
and
b)
Resuspension
of
bottom
material
and
"
conditioning"
of
the
water
column.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
6
4)
The
relationship
between
historical
data
on
meteorological
and
oceanographic
parameters
and
the
occurrence
and
distribution
of
Brown
Tide
in
the
Peconic
Bays
system
and
other
systems
on
the
East
Coast.

5)
Quantitatively
describing
the
temporal
and
spatial
(
3­
dimensional
distribution)
of
biological,
chemical,
and
physical
parameters
associated
with
Brown
Tide.
A
Brown
Tide
bloom
detection
and
monitoring
system
based
on
remote
sensing
should
be
developed.

6)
Continuous
monitoring
of
various
chemical
and
physical
parameters
in
the
field
before,
during
and
after
Brown
Tide
blooms.

7)
Mesocosm
and
laboratory
experiments
to
determine
the
Brown
Tide
growth
response
to
additions
of
selected
nutrients
and
trace
elements.
One
possible
hypothesis
that
the
mesocosm
experiments
could
test
is
that
the
Brown
Tide
has
a
competitive
advantage
in
conditions
of
low
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
DIN
supply,
and
that
limited,
transient
additions
of
DIN
could
mitigate
Brown
Tide
blooms.

8)
Effects
of
Brown
Tide
on
commercially
important
bivalves
and
other
filter
feeders,
and
optimization
of
shellfish
management
programs
in
the
presence
of
Brown
Tide.

9)
Effects
of
Brown
Tide
on
other
ecosystem
elements,
such
as
eelgrass,
and
optimization
of
relevant
management
programs
in
the
presence
of
Brown
Tide.

C)
Next
Steps
The
Workplan
is
an
"
interim
document",
to
be
refined
and
updated
periodically.
The
Brown
Tide
Research
and
Management
Steering
Committee
("
Steering
Committee")
should
further
analyze
research
needs,
and
should
consider
issuing
a
Request
for
Pre­
Proposals
based
on
anticipated
funding
sources.

2.
INTRODUCTION
After
the
Brown
Tide
bloom
in
the
summer
of
1995
(
see
Brown
Tide
fact
sheet
in
Appendix
A),
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
of
October,
1995
again
galvanized
support
behind
a
comprehensive
program
of
Brown
Tide
research.
Some
Summit
participants
expressed
frustration
that
historic
research
was
intermittent,
uncoordinated,
and
underfunded.
At
the
Summit,
significant
progress
was
made
in
expanding
upon
historical
knowledge
of
research
needs.
Recommendations
on
additional
research
dealing
with
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
factors
related
to
Brown
Tide
were
made
by
Summit
work
groups.

Also
at
the
Summit,
critical
commitments
for
Brown
Tide
research
funding
were
made.
The
NOAA
Coastal
Ocean
Program
announced
that
$
1.5
million,
over
three
years,
would
be
used
for
Brown
Tide
funding.
Also,
Brookhaven
National
Lab
(
BNL)
and
the
Suffolk
County
Executive
announced
the
Brown
Tide
Monitoring
Network
(
discussed
below),
which
uses
$
100,000
in
Suffolk
County
funding
with
at
least
that
much
match
from
BNL.

As
a
result
of
the
Summit,
the
Brown
Tide
Research
Initiative
("
BTRI")
Committee
was
formed
to
prepare
a
Request
for
Proposals
(
RFP),
review
research
proposals,
and
assist
in
managing
the
NOAA
Coastal
Ocean
Program
funding.
That
Committee
includes
NOAA,
N.
Y.
Sea
Grant,
NYS
Dept.
of
Environmental
Conservation,
the
Suffolk
County
Executive,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
7
(
EPA)/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
(
PEP),
a
local
government
representative,
a
citizen
representative,
and
a
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve
(
SSER)
representative.

Another
Committee,
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee,
was
also
proposed
by
various
Federal,
State,
and
local
representatives
to
more
broadly
coordinate
and
guide
Brown
Tide
research
and
management
efforts.
The
Steering
Committee's
goals
are
to:

1)
Coordinate
research
efforts
funded
and
performed
by
various
entities.

2)
Assist
in
dissemination
of
information.

3)
Develop
and
continually
refine
and
update
research
work
plans,
by
systematically
organizing
and
summarizing
results
of
previous
and
ongoing
Brown
Tide
research
efforts,
and
identifying
priorities
for
additional
research
needs.

4)
Estimate
funding
needs
to
conduct
necessary
additional
research.

This
"
Workplan"
deals
primarily
with
goals
3
and
4,
but
also
serves
to
coordinate
and
disseminate
information
about
ongoing
efforts.
The
Steering
Committee,
however,
should
pursue
several
other
mechanisms
to
further
its
goals,
including
routine
distribution
of
progress
reports
from
ongoing
research
efforts.

As
proposed,
the
Steering
Committee
(
see
Appendix
C
for
proposed
goals
and
structure)
is
comprised
of
BTRI
members,
as
well
as
several
additional
members,
including
elected
officials
and
representatives
from
various
agencies,
citizens
groups,
and
estuary
programs,
such
as
Barnegat
and
Narragansett
Bays
(
see
Appendix
D
for
mailing
list).
The
Steering
Committee
is
coordinated
by
Suffolk
County.
Consensus­
building
is
the
process
proposed
for
the
Steering
Committee,
which
serves
in
an
advisory
role
to
estuarine
research
and
management
programs,
elected
officials,
citizens,
and
agencies
funding
and
overseeing
specific
research
projects.

3.
PROCESS
OF
IDENTIFYING
RESEARCH
NEEDS
Research
needs
are
identified
in
two
main
ways
in
this
Workplan.
The
first
method
is
by
solicitation
of
ideas
from
the
research
community
via
Requests
for
Proposals;
this
results
in
specific
ideas
and
very
detailed
cost
estimates.
This
means
is
usually
employed
when
there
are
specific
amounts
of
money
available
to
expend
on
research,
and
was
used
by
the
BTRI
in
administering
NOAA
Coastal
Ocean
Program
funding
(
see
Section
4).

The
second
mechanism
is
a
systematic
organization
and
review
of
historical
research
to
identify
gaps,
resulting
in
recommendations
on
generalized
research
efforts
and
approximate
cost
estimates.
A
major
charge
of
the
Steering
Committee
is
to
review
important
research
issues
in
the
context
of
historical
and
ongoing
research,
and
identify
remaining
research
gaps.
The
Committee
will
seek
input
from
technical
experts
as
part
of
the
Workplan
process.

4.
BTRI
APPROACH
AND
RFPs
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
8
The
Request
for
Proposals
issued
by
the
BTRI
in
1996
resulted
in
numerous
proposals.
Although
NOAA
funding
was
substantial,
it
was
not
enough
for
all
worthwhile
proposals.
One
specific
proposal
which
was
ranked
highly,
but
which
could
not
be
funded,
included:

1)
Investigations
of
groundwater,
and
its
various
constituents,
with
respect
to
Brown
Tide
blooms.

Additionally,
BTRI
Committee
members
recommended
development
of
a
Request
for
Proposals
for
the
following
specific
research
needs:

1)
Modelling
of
nutrient
budgets.

2)
Investigation
of
viral/
pathogen
activity
as
it
may
affect
Brown
Tide.

The
"
nutrient
budget"
comment
has
also
been
highlighted
as
an
important
issue
by
the
Steering
Committee,
particularly
in
light
of
a
recent
hypothesis
that
Brown
Tide
may
thrive
in
an
environment
in
which
the
supply
of
dissolved
organic
nitrogen
is
elevated
in
relation
to
a
low
supply
of
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
(
Brookhaven
National
Lab,
LaRoche
et
al).
The
"
nutrient
budget"
project
should
further
test
this
hypothesis,
and
evaluate
whether
human
impacts
on
the
ecology
of
the
Peconic
Bay
may
have
contributed
to
causation
of
Brown
Tide.
Ultimately,
the
hope
is
that
human
management
(
e.
g.,
controlling
nitrogen
inputs)
may
mitigate
conditions
which
favor
Brown
Tide
blooms.

While
the
recently
funded
"
Dissolved
Organic
Nitrogen..."
project
(
see
Appendix
B,
project
S­
19)
will
be
an
important
step
in
researching
the
role
of
DON
in
brown
tide
blooms,
it
will
not
completely
resolve
the
nutrient
budget
issue.
For
example,
additional
information
on
sources
of
various
nitrogen
constituents
(
e.
g.,
groundwater
and
sediment
flux)
is
still
necessary.

Each
of
the
three
research
topics
would
probably
require
approximately
$
150,000
to
$
200,000
over
a
two
year
period,
for
a
total
funding
need
of
about
$
450,000
to
$
600,000.
The
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee,
or
member
agencies,
should
consider
issuing
a
Request
for
Pre­
Proposals
based
on
anticipated
funding
sources.
These
include
$
450,000
in
Suffolk
County
Capital
funds
($
300,000
authorized
but
not
appropriated,
plus
$
150,000
recently
appropriated;
see
projects
S­
18
and
S­
19
in
Appendix
B)
and
New
York
State
funding
of
Brown
Tide
research
(
discussed
but
not
committed).

5.
HISTORICAL
AND
ONGOING
RESEARCH
 
SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW
APPROACH
The
Workplan's
summary
and
analysis
of
research
efforts
is
not
intended
to
be
an
exhaustive
discussion
or
rigorous
compendium.
Rather,
it
is
useful
as
a
tool
to
illustrate
the
nature
and
extent
of
previous
research
efforts
in
the
context
of
identified
research
needs,
so
that
future
research
needs
can
be
more
appropriately
identified
and
justified.

A)
Previous
and
Ongoing
Research
A
list
of
previous
and
ongoing
research
efforts
is
included
in
Appendix
B.
For
illustrative
purposes,
all
research
efforts
are
assigned
an
index
number
based
on
primary
funding
source.
These
index
numbers
are
used
in
Table
1,
which
groups
project
types
by
categories
such
as
organism
onset/
growth,
decline/
cessation,
and
effects
on
shellfish.
The
table
also
differentiates
between
lab
and
field
studies,
and
indicates
projects
performed
retrospectively
on
existing
data.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
9
Several
other
research
and
management
projects
may
be
related
to
the
Brown
Tide,
and
are
not
included
on
the
research
table
at
this
time.
For
example,
bay
scallop
restorations
and
eelgrass
restocking
trials
have
occurred
as
part
of
the
PEP.
The
PEP
has
also
conducted
investigations
regarding
surface
water
quality
monitoring,
land
use,
surface
water
modelling
and
sediment
nutrient
flux.
These
may
be
quite
important
in
understanding,
and
possibly
managing,
the
Brown
Tide.
However,
for
purposes
of
this
Workplan,
readily
available
research
lists
were
utilized;
these
lists
deal
with
scientific
"
research"
which
directly
and
primarily
deals
with
the
Brown
Tide.

Table
1
essentially
encapsulates
information
available
at
the
time
of
the
Brown
Tide
Summit,
with
the
addition
of
the
BTRI
projects
and
the
Brown
Tide
Monitoring
Network
project.
At
the
Summit,
workgroups
developed
detailed
recommendations
on
research
needs
in
the
areas
of
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
factors
affecting
Brown
Tide,
as
well
as
Brown
Tide
ecological
impacts.
Because
these
topics
include
extremely
detailed
recommendations
from
work
groups,
they
are
used
in
this
Workplan's
analysis.

B)
Development
of
Priority
Research
Recommendations
Tables
2
through
5
list
the
research
areas
identified
as
priorities
in
the
Summit.
The
tables
also
note
where
additional
research
is
necessary
on
a
high
priority
basis.
Research
needs
are
highlighted
where
Brown
Tide
Summit
recommendations
were
not
acted
upon
(
i.
e.,
no
high
quality
proposals
submitted,
or
no
funding
available),
or
where
research
is
ongoing,
but
substantial
additional
research
is
believed
to
be
needed.

In
considering
the
importance
of
research
gaps,
areas
are
designated
as
"
high
priority"
when
the
need
for
the
project
is
both
substantively
and
temporally
(
i.
e.,
necessary
immediately)
important.
For
example,
comprehensive
Brown
Tide
modelling
is
believed
to
be
substantively
important,
but
to
a
large
degree
cannot
effectively
occur
on
a
meaningful
level
until
more
is
understood
about
basic
Brown
Tide
physiology.
Therefore,
it
is
not
a
high
priority
for
immediate
funding.
However,
information
on
differential
phytoplankton
populations,
which
would
be
critical
to
any
eventual
model,
is
a
high
priority,
as
it
would
assist
in
understanding
Brown
Tide
population
dynamics
and
relationships
to
other
organisms.

The
timeframe
contemplated
by
this
Workplan
is
roughly
in
the
range
of
three
years,
which
is
how
long
it
would
probably
take
to
complete
the
round
of
projects
identified
as
priorities.
The
nature
of
the
scientific
research
projects
makes
it
nearly
impossible
to
accurately
forecast
research
priorities
beyond
that
time
period.
Researchers
and
managers
hope
that
the
Brown
Tide
mystery
will
be
solved,
and
that
management
options
may
be
possible
to
prevent
or
minimize
impacts
of
future
blooms.
Conversely,
based
on
prior
experience,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that,
at
the
end
of
three
years,
scientists
may
have
raised
substantial
additional
questions,
which
would
require
substantial
additional
funding.
This
Workplan
contemplates
only
the
short­
term,
priority
research
needs.
Of
course,
the
research
prioritysetting
process
is
fluid,
and
will
change
periodically
based
on
new
findings.

The
"
systematic"
approach
is
admittedly
less
than
perfectly
rigorous.
Research
priorities
and
funding
estimates
are,
to
some
degree,
based
on
subjective
evaluations
and
subject
to
some
degree
of
error.
This
is,
hopefully,
minimized
by
identifying
only
projects
which
are
clearly
high
priorities,
and
specifying
a
range
of
likely
project
costs
which
are
conservatively
low.
In
this
manner,
the
Workplan
specifies
a
"
minimum"
of
research
needs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
10
Also,
research
is,
by
its
very
nature,
somewhat
speculative.
No
one
can
be
sure
how
useful
the
results
of
any
one
project,
or
even
a
set
of
projects,
might
actually
be
in
helping
to
understand
or
manage
the
Brown
Tide.
The
fluid
nature
of
the
Workplan,
which
will
be
periodically
updated,
should
address
the
need
to
continually
review
the
results
of
current
research
and
identify
remaining
research
needs.

Potential
problems
in
the
prioritization
approach
will
also
be
minimized
by
review
of,
and
input
to,
the
Workplan
by
a
broad
range
of
persons
with
expertise
and
interest
in
the
topic.
In
the
final
analysis,
the
Brown
Tide
Steering
Committee,
and
its
Workplan,
are
advisory
in
nature,
and
final
funding
decisions
on
specific
projects
are
left
to
the
entities
which
actually
fund
research
work.
The
Workplan
is
intended
to
guide
funding
entities,
proposers,
and
policymakers
involved
in
funding
decisions.
The
Steering
Committee
believes
that
the
Workplan
approach
is
the
best
way
to
accomplish
these
ends.

6.
PRIORITY
RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
systematic
review
of
Brown
Tide
Summit
recommendations
has
resulted
in
several
recommended
projects,
which
would
require
approximately
$
1.8
to
$
2.4
million
to
perform.
Cost
estimates
for
the
projects
are
provided
as
a
range
of
probable
costs
of
$
150,000
to
$
200,000
per
project,
assuming
two
years
for
each
project.
The
estimates
are
based
on
professional
judgement
and
prior
experience
with
comparable
projects.
It
is
possible
that
given
projects
could
be
performed
for
less
than
the
assumed
cost
range;
conversely,
some
projects
could
cost
substantially
more,
particularly
if
significant
laboratory
analysis
and/
or
field
effort
is
required.
For
purposes
of
estimating
the
approximate
range
of
research
funding
necessary,
the
estimates
are
believed
to
be
reasonable.

It
is
important
to
emphasize
that
the
overall
cost
estimates
in
this
interim
Workplan
are
probably
too
low,
as
they
were
prepared
based
on
readily
available
information,
using
cost
estimates
which
are
conservatively
low
and
defensible.
While
a
few
projects
could
cost
less
that
$
150,000
to
$
200,000,
it
is
likely
that
several
could
cost
substantially
more,
particularly
the
ones
which
would
be
labor­
intensive
and
multiple­
year
efforts.
The
estimates
are
provided
for
purposes
of
preparing
an
interim
Workplan,
and
the
Steering
Committee
should
consider
expanding
upon,
or
refining,
the
estimates,
as
deemed
appropriate.

These
priority
research
recommendations
are
summarized
as
follows.

A)
Biological
Many
of
the
key
areas
of
research
recommended
by
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
workgroup
are
being
conducted
as
part
of
the
BTRI.
These
include
efforts
to
isolate
of
multiple
and
axenic
cultures,
investigation
of
iron
as
a
possible
trigger
for
the
Brown
Tide
bloom
by
development
of
a
metabolic
marker,
a
study
of
Brown
Tide
energy
and
nutrient
acquisition
in
low
light,
and
additional
investigations
into
zooplankton
and
phytoplankton
interactions.
However,
several
other
important
areas
were
not
addressed.
These
are
discussed
below.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
11
1)
Role
of
Allelopathy
in
Securing
for
the
Brown
Tide
a
Competitive
Edge
over
Other
Microalgae
Allelopathy
has
been
suggested
as
a
possible
mechanism
for
Brown
Tide
blooms,
whereby
the
Brown
Tide
can
interfere
with
the
growth
or
survival
of
other
organisms
through
production
of
toxins
or
other
substances.
This
is
a
significant
gap
in
Brown
Tide
research.

2)
Factors
Related
to
Brown
Tide
Cessation,
including
Autolysis
Prior
research
suggests
that
viruses
may
be
involved
in
the
cessation
of
Brown
Tide
blooms.
The
BTRI
identified
viruses
as
an
additional
research
area,
recognizing
the
importance
of
verifying
and
characterizing
the
nature
and
extent
of
viruses
in
ending
Brown
Tide
blooms.
Another
research
area
identified
in
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
is
the
determination
of
whether
the
Brown
Tide
organism
breaks
down
and
lyses
itself,
as
is
the
case
in
some
marine
microalgae.

3)
Possible
Relationships
between
Benthic­
Pelagic
Coupling
and
the
Brown
Tide,
including:
Benthic
Filter
Feeders
and
the
Removal
of
Suspended
Particles,
and
Resuspension
of
Bottom
Material
and
"
Conditioning"
of
the
Water
Column
Additional
research
is
needed
to
characterize
how
benthic
filter­
feeders
impact
water
column
suspended
particle
loads
and
the
size
structure
of
phytoplankton
communities,
as
well
as
how
human­
related
shellfishing
practices
may
have
affected
ecological
processes
by
removal
of
shellfish
or
resuspension
of
sediments.

B)
Physical
The
most
sweeping
recommendation,
regarding
a
quantitative
model,
is
probably
unrealistic,
due
to
the
absence
of
basic
data
to
construct
the
model,
together
with
the
prohibitively
high
cost
of
constructing
the
model.
However,
three
areas
are
appropriate
priorities
for
immediate
research,
as
follows.

1)
What
Relationship
Exists
between
Historical
Data
on
Meteorological
and
Oceanographic
Parameters
and
the
Occurrence
and
Distribution
of
Brown
Tide
in
the
Peconic
Bays
System?

A
comprehensive
and
systematic
review
and
reporting
on
all
available
data
has
not
been
performed.
Physical
scientists/
physical
oceanographers
or
others
familiar
with
advanced
statistical
techniques
should
evaluate
a
number
of
East
Coast
embayments.
Climatic
data,
such
as
rainfall
and
wind
direction,
should
be
gathered
and
analyzed
at
a
fairly
high­
resolution
level,
perhaps
weekly.
Satellite
data,
and
any
other
available
multi­
frequency
data,
should
be
systematically
used.
Advanced
statistical
methods,
such
as
"
intervention
analysis,"
should
be
considered.
Specific
possibilities
which
should
be
considered
include
geographic
orientation
of
bays
(
in
combination
with
local
wind
vectors
and
poor
flushing)
and
warm
core
ring
water
drifting
onto
the
East
Coast
to
"
seed"
the
area
with
an
offshore
bloom.

2)
How
Can
We
Best
Quantitatively
Describe
the
Temporal
and
Spatial
(
3­
Dimensional
Distribution)
of
Biological,
Chemical,
and
Physical
Parameters
Associated
with
Brown
Tide?

While
a
comprehensive
three­
dimensional
model
is
not
a
realistic
short­
term
goal,
data
should
be
collected
which
could
eventually
support
model
development,
and
which
would
have
independent
utility,
as
well.
The
following
topic
deals
with
such
data
collection:
the
development
of
an
effective
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
12
remote
sensing
system
for
Brown
Tide
blooms
to
better
track
the
spatial
and
temporal
variability
of
blooms.

C)
Chemical
As
with
the
"
biological"
recommendations,
many
of
the
key
areas
of
research
recommended
by
the
Brown
Tide
Summit
workgroup
are
being
conducted
as
part
of
the
BTRI.
These
include
a
study
of
the
effect
of
metals
and
organic
nutrients
with
respect
to
Brown
Tide.
Several
other
projects
deal
jointly
with
interrelated
chemical
and
biological
issues
(
e.
g.,
iron
study
discussed
above;
review
of
chemical
and
biological
data
in
Narragansett
Bay).
The
following
areas,
however,
warrant
additional
investigation.

1)
Continuously
Monitor
Various
Chemical
and
Physical
Parameters
in
the
Field
before,
during
and
after
Brown
Tide
Blooms.

Although
the
Brookhaven
National
Lab
Brown
Tide
Monitoring
Network
project
will
initiate
some
continuous
monitoring
in
1997,
the
project
will
terminate
within
a
year.
Additional
support
will
be
needed
to
maintain
and,
possibly,
expand
the
program.
This
project
would
probably
require
approximately
$
50,00
 
100,000.

As
with
differential
phytoplankton
data,
an
"
early
warning/
emergency
response"
plan
may
be
appropriate
(
reduce
number
of
stations,
and
increase
when
Brown
Tide
begins
blooming).
Also,
efforts
could
be
concentrated
in
"
bloom
initiation"
periods
(
May).
However,
cost
savings
in
reducing
number
of
continuous
stations
and/
or
time
periods
should
be
carefully
weighed
against
the
value
of
"
out­
of­
Brown
Tide
season"
data.

2)
Perform
Mesocosm
and
Laboratory
Experiments
to
Determine
the
Brown
Tide
Growth
Response
to
Additions
of
Selected
Nutrients
and
Trace
Elements.

To
test
the
theory
that
Brown
Tide
bloom
onset
conditions
are
optimized
when
supply
is
elevated
in
relation
to
a
low
DIN
supply
(
discussed
above),
and
to
evaluate
possible
mitigation
strategies,
field
and
laboratory
experiments
should
be
performed
to
determine
the
effects
of
various
nitrogen
constituents
on
Brown
Tide.
Other
nutrients
and
trace
elements
could
be
included
as
well.
A
factorial­
grid
of
DON/
DIN
ratio,
timing
of
DON/
DIN
manipulation,
and
competitor
phytoplankton
species
could
be
useful
for
a
critical
evaluation
of
the
hypothesis.
Such
an
approach
could
be
best
accomplished
with
closely
coordinated
lab
and
mesocosm
experiments.
One
possible
hypothesis
that
the
mesocosm
experiments
could
test
is
that
the
Brown
Tide
has
a
competitive
advantage
in
conditions
of
low
dissolved
inorganic
nitrogen
DIN
supply,
and
that
limited,
transient
additions
of
DIN
could
mitigate
Brown
Tide
blooms.

D)
Ecological
Effects
While
ecological
effects
are
certainly
important,
the
consensus
at
the
Summit
seemed
to
be
that
the
most
critical
threshold
issues
relate
to
the
dynamics
of
the
Brown
Tide
organism
itself.
Thus,
priority
research
recommendations
relate
to
the
Brown
Tide,
rather
than
its
impacts.
The
Steering
Committee
will
revisit
this
issue
to
evaluate
whether
additional
priorities
should
be
placed
in
the
area
of
ecological
effects.

With
regard
to
shellfish,
since
there
is
a
real
possibility
that
the
Brown
Tide
may
never
be
"
controllable,"
scientists
and
resource
managers
should
also
focus
on
the
practical
aspects
of
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
13
ecological
effects,
with
special
emphasis
on
the
portions
of
the
ecosystem
tied
to
public
use.
These
efforts
would
involve
characterizing
Brown
Tide
impacts
on
resource
species
(
how
much
Brown
Tide
is
tolerated,
and
for
how
long).
Ultimately,
the
goal
would
be
to
characterize
the
sustainability
of
various
species,
and
provide
guidance
on
likelihood
of
resource
availability.
There
are
numerous
specific
and
practical
management
implications
of
this
"
research,"
including
identification
of
species
that
have
the
best
prospects
for
long­
term
sustainability,
and
in
what
areas;
recommendations
on
where
to
site,
and
how
to
manage,
hatchery
facilities;
where
to
transplant
scallops
to
maximize
likelihood
of
survival
and
population;
and
ways
to
manage
shellfish
in
the
event
of
a
bloom,
such
as
moving
scallops
to
areas
less
likely
to
be
impacted.

Also,
information
on
why
Brown
Tide
affects
filter
feeders
may
be
important
to
understand
why
it
is
so
successful.

Specific
research
area
recommendations
for
shellfish
include:

 
Identify
mechanism
by
which
Brown
Tide
affect
actual
(
whole)
scallops
(
e.
g.,
chemical
mediator
affecting
feeding
mechanism).

 
Evaluate
threshold
density
and
duration
of
Brown
Tide
exposure
that
impacts
scallops.

­
Characterize
scallop
recovery
time
after
short
exposure.

­
Identify
"
point
of
no
return"
after
which
time
scallops
will
not
recover.

 
Study
impacts
on
other
species
(
e.
g.,
clams,
oysters).

Living
resources
other
than
scallops,
clams,
and
oysters
which
may
be
of
concern
with
respect
to
the
Brown
Tide
include
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
(
particularly
eelgrass),
finfish,
and
crustaceans.
The
negative
impacts
on
eelgrass
are
suspected
but
not
confirmed;
there
were
massive
die­
offs
of
the
grasses
reported
during
the
first
bloom
in
l985,
but
apparently
not
in
subsequent
blooms.
Eelgrass
is
a
critical
habitat
for
scallops
and
other
organisms.
Knowledge
of
Brown
Tide
impacts
on
eelgrass,
and
eelgrass
recovery
dynamics,
may
be
important
in
providing
guidance
on
likelihood
of
resource
availability
and
in
directing
management
programs,
such
as
eelgrass
and
scallop
transplant
efforts.

The
impacts
of
the
Brown
Tide
on
finfish
and
crustaceans
are
completely
unknown.
There
is
some
anecdotal
information
that
these
organisms
moved
out
of
the
estuary
in
response
to
the
bloom
but
these
have
not
been
confirmed.
The
latter
impacts
may
be
important
with
respect
to
the
role
of
the
estuary,
particularly
the
waters
in
the
western
end,
as
a
nursery
and
feeding
ground
for
coastal
finfish
species
as
well
as
crustaceans.
Although
not
of
first
priority,
some
consideration
should
be
given
in
the
future
to
examining
the
effects
of
the
bloom
on
crustaceans
and
species
of
finfish
which
use
the
estuary
for
spawning
and
juvenile
feeding.

For
purposes
of
this
workplan,
the
"
ecological
effects"
research
topics
are
grouped
into
the
following
two
areas
(
based
on
Table
5),
although
it
is
highly
likely
that
more
than
two
projects
would
be
necessary
to
accomplish
the
above­
discussed
objectives.

1)
How
does
Brown
Tide
impact
commercially
important
bivalves
and
other
filter
feeders,
and
how
can
shellfish
management
programs
be
optimized
in
the
presence
of
Brown
Tide?
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
14
2)
What
is
the
effect
of
Brown
Tide
on
other
ecosystem
elements,
such
as
eelgrass,
and
how
can
relevant
management
programs
be
optimized
in
the
presence
of
Brown
Tide?

Table
1.
Concluded
and
Ongoing
Brown
Tide
Research.

I.
LAB
STUDIES
A)
What
factors
control
the
growth
of
brown
tide?

1.
Organism
Physiology
a.
Role
of
macro
&
micronutrients
Cosper
(
S3,
S4),
LaRoche
&
Falkowski
(
BNL),
Glibert
&
Kana
(
B4),
Keller
&
Sieracki
(
B5),
Carpenter
(
N1),
LaRoche
et
al.
(
S­
19)
b.
Role
of
Light
(
Photosynthetic
Physiology)
Glibert
&
Kana
(
b4),
Keller
&
Sieracki
(
B5)
c.
Role
of
trace
metals
&
chelators
Cosper
(
B3),
Boyer
(
S16),
Boyer
&
LaRoche
(
B2)
d.
Growth
rate
measurements
Carpenter
(
N8)
2.
Competitive
Interactions
a.
Allelopathy
(
no
known
research
performed
to
date)
b.
Interspecific
competition
Keller
&
Sieracki
(
B5)
c.
Axenic
Cultures
and
Bacterial
Associations
Levandowsky
(
S11),
Wikfors
&
Robohm
(
B7),
Andersen
(
B1),
Mahoney
(
S14)
3.
Genetics
of
Aureococcus
Andersen
(
B1),
Stabile
et
al.
(
E­
1)

B)
What
factors
control
bloom
progress,
decline
and
cessation?

1.
Effect
of
grazers
on
brown
tide
Lonsdale
(
S13),
Keller
&
Sieracki
(
B5),
Cosper
&
Lonsdale
(
N2)
2.
Effect
of
viruses
on
brown
tide
Cosper
(
N3)

C)
How
does
bloom
affect
the
ecosystem?

1.
Effect
of
brown
tide
on
shellfish
Bricelj
(
S1,
N6)

II.
FIELD
STUDIES
A)
What
factors
control
growth
of
brown
tide?

1.
Organism
physiology
&
bloom
dynamics
a.
Role
of
macro
&
micronutrients
BTCAMP,
PEP,
Cosper
(
N4),
Sañudo
 
Wilhelmy
et
al.
(
B8),
LaRoche
et
al.
(
S­
19)
b.
Role
of
Light
(
Photosynthetic
Physiology)
Wirick
&
Falkowski
(
S17­
BNL)
c.
Role
of
trace
metals
and
chelators
d.
Productivity
studies
Cosper
(
S8),
Sañudo­
Wilhelmy
et
al.
(
B8)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
15
Table
1.
Concluded
and
Ongoing
Brown
Tide
Research.
(
continued)

II.
FIELD
STUDIES
(
continued)

e.
Bloom
dynamics
BTCAMP,
PEP,
Anderson
(
S9),
Levandowsky
(
S11)
f.
Genetic
Variability,
Stabile
et
al.
(
G­
1)

2.
Competitive
interactions
a.
Microzooplankton­
mesozooplankton
coupling
Caron
&
Lonsdale
(
B3),
Lonsdale
et
al.
(
S­
18)

3.
Physical
Factors
Siddall
(
S7),
BTCAMP,
PEP,
Beltrami
(
S12),
Wilson
&
Beltrami
(
S15­
N7)

B)
Effects
of
brown
tide
on
ecosystems
1.
Effects
of
brown
tide
on
eelgrass
Dennison
(
S2,
S5)
2.
Effects
on
scallop
landings
Siddall
(
S6)
3.
Effects
on
microbial
food
webs
Lonsdale
&
Taylor
(
N5)

III.
RETROSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS
1.
Long
Island
Brown
Tide
LaRoche
&
Falkowski
(
BNL)
2.
Rhode
Island
Brown
Tide
Smayda
(
B6)

*
"
N"
=
NY
Sea
Grant­
funded;
"
S"
=
Suffolk
County­
funded;
"
B"=
BTRI/
NOAA
COP
funded
(
See
Appendix
B).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
16
Table
2.
Brown
Tide
Summit
and
Workplan
Research
Recommendations
Biological
Factors.

Brown
Tide
Summit
 
Recommended
Research
Category
Brown
Tide
Workplan
 
Priority
Research
Area
1.1
What
factors
control
the
growth
of
brown
tide?

1.1.
A.
Nutritional
requirements
of
brown
tide
1.
Role
of
macro­,
micro­,
and
trace
organic
nutrients
in
A.
Anophagefferens
growth.

2.
Role
of
variation
in
light
(
including
shade
adaptation
and
photoperiod)
in
affecting
the
nutritional
requirements
or
preferences
of
A.
anophagefferens.

3.
Role
of
various
metals
and
chelating
compounds
in
altering
the
nutritional
requirements/
preferences
of
A.
anophagefferens.

4.
Role
of
heterotrophy
as
a
means
of
supplemental
nutrition
of
A.
anophagefferens.

1.1.
B.
Competitive
interactions
involving
the
brown
tide
organism
1.
Role
of
allelopathy
in
securing
for
the
brown
tide
a
competitive
edge
over
other
microalgae.
X
2.
Role
of
bacterial
associates
in
mediating
the
brown
tide
organism's
response
to
environmental
conditions
and
particularly
in
affecting
its
nutrition.

1.2.
What
factors
control
the
removal
of
brown
tide
and
how
do
they
relate
to
bloom
dynamics?

1.2.
A.
Timing
of
grazer
presence
and
grazing
activity.

1.
Extensive
examination
of
potential
grazers.

2.
The
palatability/
susceptibility
of
the
of
the
brown
tide
organism
to
grazers.

1.2.
B.
Activity
of
viruses
1.2.
C.
Autolysis
X
1.3
What
aspects
of
benthic­
pelagic
coupling
may
be
important
in
brown
tide
blooms?

1.3.
A.
Benthic
filter­
feeders
and
the
removal
of
suspended
particles.
X
1.3.
B.
Resuspension
of
bottom
material
and
"
conditioning"
of
the
water
column.
X
1.4
Basic
Organism
Physiology
 
Misc.

1.4.
A.
Axenic
Culture
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
17
Table
3.
Brown
Tide
Summit
and
Workplan
Research
Recommendations
Physical
Factors.

Brown
Tide
Summit
 
Recommended
Research
Category
Brown
Tide
Workplan
 
Priority
Research
Area
2.1
What
relationship
exists
between
historical
data
on
meteorological
and
oceanographic
parameters
and
the
occurrence
and
distribution
of
brown
tide
in
the
Peconic
Bays
System?
Other
systems?
X
2.2
Can
a
simple
quantitative
model
be
developed
that
explains
historic
and
current
trends
in
the
variation
of
these
parameters
throughout
the
system?
2.3
How
can
we
best
quantitatively
describe
the
temporal
and
spatial
(
3­
dimensional
distribution)
of
biological,
chemical,
and
physical
parameters
associated
with
brown
tide?
X*

*
Differential
phytoplankton
analysis
and
remote
sensing
of
brown
tide.

Table
4.
Brown
Tide
Summit
and
Workplan
Research
Recommendations
Chemical
Factors
Brown
Tide
Summit
 
Recommended
Research
Category
Brown
Tide
Workplan
 
Priority
Research
Area
3.1
What
is
the
role
of
major
nutrients
(
e.
g.,
N,
P),
including
organic
nutrients,
in
stimulating
a
brown
tide
bloom?
3.2
What
is
the
role
of
micronutrients
in
stimulating
brown
tide
blooms?

3.3
Research
objectives
for
macro­
and
micronutrients
(
Culture
based
and
field
experiments)?
3.3.
A.
Calculate
budgets
for
the
major
nutrients
(
N,
P,
Si)
to
the
extent
possible
using
existing
data.
3.3.
B.
Continuously
monitor
various
chemical
and
physical
parameters
in
the
field
before,
during,
and
after
brown
tide
blooms.
X
3.3.
C.
In
an
effort
to
determine
the
relative
importance
of
macro­
and
micronutrients
in
stimulating
the
growth
of
A.
anophagefferens,
a
suite
of
experiments
should
be
conducted
in
the
field,
with
mesocosms
and
with
bottle
experiments.
The
goal
of
these
experiments
is
to
determine
the
growth
response
to
additions
of
selected
nutrients
and
trace
elements.
A
parallel
set
of
measurements
should
be
conducted
in
the
laboratory
using
axenic
cultures.
X
3.3.
D.
As
the
efforts
proceed
to
identify
chemical
factors
important
in
stimulating
brown
tide
blooms,
it
is
necessary
to
characterize
important
sources
and
sinks
of
such
factors.
Sources
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
flux
from
bottom
sediments,
groundwater
inflow,
sewage
treatment
plan
effluent,
atmospheric
deposition,
and
stormwater
runoff.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
F­
18
Table
5.
Brown
Tide
Summit
and
Workplan
Research
Recommendations
Ecological
Effects.

Brown
Tide
Summit
 
Recommended
Research
Category
Brown
Tide
Workplan
 
Priority
Research
Area
4.1
How
does
brown
tide
impact
commercially
important
bivalves
and
other
filter­
feeders?
X
4.1.
A.
Brown
tide's
effect
on
bivalve
physiology
1.
What
is
the
in
vivo
mechanism
responsible
for
grazing
suppression
and
other
adverse
effects?
2.
What
are
the
density­
and
time­
dependent
effects
of
brown
tide
on
survival,
growth,
and
reproduction
of
bivalves?
3.
How
does
brown
tide
cause
recruitment
failure
and
other
reproductive
impacts
in
bivalve
mollusks?
4.1.
B.
Development
of
a
brown
tide
bioassay
4.2
How
can
shellfish
management
programs
be
optimized
in
the
presence
of
brown
tide?
X
4.2.
A.
Determination
of
management
approaches:
How
can
management
practices
be
improved
to
reduce
losses
from
brown
tide?
4.2.
B.
What
is
the
effect
of
brown
tide
on
other
ecosystem
elements?

4.3
What
is
the
effect
of
brown
tide
on
other
ecosystem
elements?
X
4.3.
A.
Impacts
on
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
(
SAV)
4.3.
B.
Impacts
on
secondary
consumers
1.
Does
brown
tide­
related
light
attenuation
and
increased
turbidity
affect
organisms,
such
as
finfish,
that
rely
on
visual
cues
in
feeding
and
predator
avoidance?
2.
What
are
the
effects
of
brown
tide­
related
eelgrass
losses
on
secondary
consumers?
4.4
Are
there
multiple
strains
of
brown
tide
of
varying
relative
toxicity?