HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic Estuary Prog Action Plan Draft 1994PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM (PEP)
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
MARCH 31, 1994
This draft document is being circulated for public review. Comments will be accepted through May 15, 1994 at the
following address: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology, Peconic Estuary Program (PEP)
Program Office, Riverhead County Center, RiVerhead, N.Y. 11901.
Pri~ng By
Suffolk County General Services
Support Services Division
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) is a partnership of federal, state and local
interests working to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) to restore, protect and maintain the natural resources of the Peconic
ecosystem. The CCMP is scheduled to be completed by July 1996. However, due
to the substantial amount of information on the Peconic ecosystem already compiled
in the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Plan (BTCAMP),
PEP participants felt that actions to control and remedy the impacts of pollution
should be taken immediately. '[he Peconic Estuary Program's Action Plan was written
in response to that need.
This Action Plan is not limited to PEP initiated efforts. Rather, it includes many
existing and new Federal, State and local programs to control, research, and remedy
the impacts of some of the estua~'s key problems. The more prevalent problems
addressed in the plan are impacts from nutrients, pathogens and the Brown Tide.
Nutrient pollution, particularly in the western parts of the system, has been
extensively assessed in the BTCAMP study. Although the western Peconie system
does not exhibit characteristics of advanced degradation in terms of conventional
nutrients, the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay system ("the system") currently
is suffering from elevated nutrient concentrations and occasional, localized dissolved
oxygen depressions. Technical analysis indicates that the system could experience
serious eutrophication and water quality degradation problems, as manifested by
excessively high nitrogen concentrations and frequent diurnal dissolved oxygen
depletion, if nitrogen loading were to increase.
Another key problem linked to both point and nonpoint pollution sources is the
high coliform bacteria (a pathogen indicator) concentrations in some surface waters
of the Peconic estuary. Currently, over 4,000 acres of shellfish grounds are closed to
shellfish harvest or are subject to significant harvest restrictions due to the presence
of excessive coliform bacteria concentrations.
The most severe problem plaguing the estuary in recent years is the Brown Tide.
The Brown Tide is a recurring algal bloom of a particularly small and previously
unknown species of algae called Aureococcus anophagefferens. Although all algal
growth requires the macronutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, the research to date has
indicated that the Brown Tide is apparently not triggered by these conventional
macronutrients and, as such, has not been directly related to either point or nonpoint
pollution sources.
The impacts of the recurring Brown Tide blooms are widespread. In previous
years the Brown Tide has destroyed the bay scallop population, which has only
recently begun to recover. The Brown Tide has also decimated eelgrass beds and has
impacted other shellfish populations and may have impacted finfish populations.
The measures described in this plan are directly related to these and other
problems known or suspected to occur in the estuary. The actions fall int° the
following three major categories:
1) Actions committed to by PEP participants, that will control sources or
remedy impacts of pollution, and/or protect water quality and natural resources.
These actions include:
* Adopting a total nitrogen guideline of 0.5 mgfl for Flanders Bay and the Peconic
River to prevent degradation of water quality, including a potential lowering of
surface water dissolved oxygen concentrations. Based on this guideline, the necessity
of decreasing nitrogen loads and developing appropriate point source discharge limits
will be considered.
* Freezing the nitrogen load from the Peconic River-discharging sewage treatment
plants to prevent excessive nutrient loadings. Excessive nutrient loads could result in
reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay.
* Establishing a policy that the surface waters east of Flanders Bays must, at a
minimum, be maintained, and shall not be allowed to deteriorate.
Planting bay scallop seed to increase the rate at which the scallop population is
recovering from the Brown Tide. The seed scallops will be placed in areas where
recovery of the shellfish population has not yet begun.
* Constructing a wetland treatment system on the Corwin Duck Farm, to decrease
the amount of nitrogen and possibly pathogens entering the bay from Meetinghouse
Creek.
* Constructing a gross filter strip for stormwater running into Gardiners Creek,
Shelter Island. Ideally, this project will lower coliform levels enough so that the
creek can remain opened to shellfishing at least on a seasonal basis. If this simple
technology is proven effective, it may be implemented at additional selected sites
throughout the estuary.
* Implementing Open Marsh Water Management techniques to remedy alterations
made to wetlands. By filling, and occasionally diverting, mosquito control ditches,
this approach will restore wetlands and allow these habitats to act as a more efficient
filter of both nutrients and coliform bacteria.
* Evaluating the effectiveness of the Skunk Lane and Hobart Road constructed
wetlands in removing coliforms and other pollutants from contaminated stormwater.
If effective, constructed wetlands will be considered for use in other areas.
* Constructing boater pump-out facilities at six locations in the Peconic Estuary.
This will help secure designations as "no discharge-zones" and will help prevent
additional loadings of coliforms and nutrients.
* Monitoring effluent nitrogen levels in all sewage treatment plants discharging to
the Peconic system to allow more accurate estimates of the nutrient load entering the
estuary. This baseline information will allow decisions to be made on when to freeze
or reduce other nitrogen inputs.
* Promoting public awareness regarding ways to control pollution from pesticides,
fertilizers and disposal of household toxic chemicals.
* Implementing a number of significant federal, state, and local govemment
initiatives including:
Developing and implementing a comprehensive Pine Barrens land use plan
Implementing stormwater controls using a portion of the funds in
Southampton's $2 million dollar bond initiative.
Implementing wetland acquisition using portion of the $2.81 million
dollars of Town of East Hampton dedicated funds and $250,000 of
Southampton Town funds.
Controlling commercial and industrial development within the "scenic"
and "recreational" portions of the Peconic River under the Wild, Scenic
and Recreational Rivers Act.
Remedying the Rowe Industries site's contaminated groundwater.
2) Actions recommended by PEP participants to remediate or control
pollution sources and/or protect water quality and natural resources.
* Designating parts of the Peconic Estuary a "no discharge zone" in order to lessen
inputs of nutrients and pathogens from recreational boaters.
* Adopting land use regulations to minimize or avoid any new source of stormwater
runoff. This has already occurred in some localities.
3) Research and planning that will lead to implementation of additional
measures to control and remediate the effects of pollution and/or protect water
quality and natural resources.
* Researching the Brown Tide organism and its relationship to the Peconic Estuary
environment in the hope of developing ways to control or predict the recurrence of
this algae and/or develop appropriate management techniques.
* Monitoring and modelling water quality to determine the current condition and
threats to waters east of Flanders Bay and selected embayments, so that measures to
prevent degradation of these areas and/or improve water quality can be prioritized and
implemented.
* Studying and sampling sediments to determine their nitrogen loading impacts and
to identify appropriate management techniques.
* Documenting the health and abundance of important species and their
habitats.
* Developing a plan to control pollUtion from nonpoint sources. This plan will be
based, in part, on information in "Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters" and in other sources of technical
information.
The main body of the Plan consists of a comprehensive table describing not only
the management measures above, but many other actions, recommended actions and
investigations. As the Action Plan is intended to respond to the recommendations
outlined in BTCAMP, the Plan's format closely follows the format of BTCAMP. The
Plan also sets forth an ambitious agenda to investigate impacts to natural resources
and to use this information to manage them. Aside from listing the recommendations
and the related actions, the table also includes, for each action, a target date for
implementation, a list of the responsible entities and a breakdown of the development
and implementation costs to both the government agencies and other parties.
This is the Draft Action Plan for public review. The Plan will be revised based
on comments received and as the PEP learns more about the problems of the estuary
and develops appropriate implementation mechanisms, and participants commit to
additional actions. Further iterations oftbe Action Plan, in a revised and restructured
form, will be incorporated as a component of the CCMP.
ACTION PLAN
The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) is a partnership of Federal, State and local
interests working to develop, over a three year period, a comprehensive plan to restore
and maintain the natural resources of the Peconic ecosystem. Members of PEP
recognized from the outset that certain actions could be taken immediately to protect
and restore the estuary. It was agreed that an Action Plan should be prepared during
the first year of the study. Participants also agreed that the Action Plan should be
based on the recommendations compiled in a previous Peconic Estuary study known
as the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP).
This Action Plan is divided into two main sections. The first section presents
background information and the BTCAMP findings and conclusions. It also fully
describes the purposes of the Action Plan and presents a narrative description of the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Action Plan.
The second part of the Plan consists of a comprehensive table describing actions
and investigations already committed to by PEP participants as well as
recommendations for additional actions. The table's format closely follows the format
of the BTCAMP recommendation table. This layout allows the reader to easily
determine the status of the BTCAMP recommendations.
B~ Peconic Estuary Pro~ram-Back~round
Resource Overview
The Peconic Estuary system, designated by the Nature Conservancy as one of the
"Last Great Places" in the western hemisphere, includes the stormwater
runoff-contributing watershed, the groundwater-contributing area, and the surface
waters of the Peconic River and Peconic-Flanders Bays system, including Gardiners
Bay and a portion of Block Island Sound. This study area consists of over 100
distinct bays, harbors, embayments and tributaries which span a total area of over
100,000 acres and drain a land area of approximately 110,000 acres, stretching from
the Peconic River groundwater-contributing area in the west to Montauk and Plum
Island in the east.
The study area has numerous locally and nationally significant resources which
3
are at risk, including its fishery. For example, bay scallop catches from the Peconic
System, which accounted for approximately 28% of the United States landings of this
species in 1982, dropped to only about 300 pounds per year by 1987 and 1988, at, er
the onset of algal blooms known as the Brown Tide. Other important shellfish which
were apparently adversely impacted by the Brown Tide include clams and blue
mussels. In addition, the oyster business was worth about $3.4 million annually in
1982 before its value plummeted to less than $10,000 per year in 1987. Long-term
impacts of the bloom on shellfish habitats and reproduction are unknown. However,
the potential for devastating long- range effects of the Brown Tide on local fisheries
is illustrated by the loss of eelgrass resulting from reduced light penetration in the
water column; eelgrass is important habitat for certain finfish as well as shellfish.
The Peconic Estuary system is extremely important to the local and regional
economy, not just in terms of commercial fin- and shellfishing, but also in terms of
other water-related activities. One of the foremost activities that depends on a clean
and healthy Peconic Estuary is tourism, which is one of the top industries in the area.
Other activities include businesses such as restaurants and marinas that cater to
recreational fishermen, boaters, bathers, hunters and nature enthusiasts who utilize the
Peconic System. For example, annual direct boater revenues are estimated to be over
$200 million (Association of Marine Industries).
Recreational facilities within the Peconic/Flanders Bays system include 30 public
bathing beaches (i.e., beaches with permits which are regulated). The Peconic region
also includes numerous campgrounds and golf courses and thousands of boat berths.
The Peconic area possesses a plethora of diverse habitats and species, including
extensive tidal and freshwater wetlands. In addition, 15~rare ecosystems as designated
in the "Priority Listings of Rare and Natural Communities with Occurrences on Long
Island" (New York Natural Heritage Program, December 1986) occur within the study
area. Numerous federal and state threatened and endangered species use the important
habitats in the Peconic Estuary study area.
The land use inventory work performed as part of the Brown Tide Comprehensive
Assessment and Management Program shows significant Potential for future
degradation of the study area's resources. Thus, the Peconic Estuary system is clearly
at a crossroads. Careless exploitation will lead to increasingly irreversible
degradation, contributing to the demise of a once-pristine ecosystem. Therefore, the
preservation of resources and careful balancing of demands on the system is of
paramount concern.
Problems
Historically, most of the Peconic Estuary surface water system has experienced
generally good to excellent surface water quality in terms of conventional parameters.
However, a number of problems have emerged in recent years including closure of
shellfish beds, brown tide, and loss of habitat. Thus, efforts need to be focused on
remedying existing problems and preventing further degradation of the system from
problems that may arise in the future.
Nutrient pollution and cultural eutrophication have been occurring in some of the
pooriy flushed areas of the western bays system in which the heaviest loading of
contaminants occur. Portions of the eastern (tidal) Peconic River and western Flanders
Bay routinely experience elevated nitrogen concentrations in marne surface waters
which occasionally suffer from Iow dissolved oxygen levels. In addition, several
areas of the estuary currently do' not meet water quality standards required for
shellfishing and other activities. For example, over 4,000 acres of the approximate
120,000 acres of shellfish grounds were either completely closed to shellfishing or
subject to significant harvest restrictions in 1992. These closures and restrictions are
due to the presence of excessive concentrations of coliform bacteria.
The most severe problem which has been plaguing the Peconic Estuary is the
occurrence of the Brown Tide algal bloom, caused by a particularly small and
previously unknown species (Aureococcus anophagefferens). The Brown Tide effects
have included the virtual eradication of the scallop population and the decimation of
eelgrass beds and hatchery areas. Other shellfish and finfish have also suffered from
the Brown Tide bloom.
Stresses to the natural resources are also of concern and will require additional
management. The status and trends of finfish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as the
habitats upon which they depend, need to be emphasized during the course of the
Peconic Estuary Program (PEP). Measures of natural resource degradation need to
be evaluated for this estuafine system.
Pollution Sources
Pollution problems in the Peconic Estuary have resulted from numerous point and
nonpoint sources of pollution which have individually and cumulatively adversely
affected the Peconic system. The point sources include ten sewage treatment plants,
six of which discharge directly to surface waters. Duck fanning activity has also
played a prominent role in the pollution of the Peconic estuary. Rivers and tributaries
such as the Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek have also been considered as point
soumes, since they provide convenient opportunities to gauge flow and monitor for
pollutant levels. Other point sources include nine major landfills which exist in the
study area, five of which are currently active. Industrial and commercial activities
and contaminated sites, such as the Rowe Industries site in Sag Harbor, constitute
another source of contamination.
Several nonpoint sources also affect the Peconic Estuary system. Based on
preliminary sediment flux monitoring, sediment flux, which is the chemical exchange
between the sediment and the water column, is a greater source of nitrogen pollution
than all other point and nonpoint sources combined. Other major nonpoint sources
of pollution include on-site sanitary systems, fertilizer, and animal wastes, which
contribute pollutants through groundwater underfiow and stormwater runoff.
Extensive groundwater and surface water monitoring and modelling indicate that
surface water quality in the Peconic River and western Flanders Bay is extremely
susceptible to degradation as a result of overdevelopment due to the potential for
nutrient contribution to otherWise high-quality groundwater and surface waters.
Although stonnwater runoff has historically been considered to be the major
factor in surface water coliform loading which results in the closure of shellfish beds,
discharges from boating-related activities are another potential source. Oil, grease,
and other chemical pollution may also result from boating. Marinas and boating are
of special concern in constrained and poorly-flushed water bodies, as are shoreline
development and sanitary waste disposal due to improper siting of sanitary systems
in shallow groundwater conditions as well as possible overflow and bypass of sanitary
waste.
Estuarine Mana£ement - Peconic Estuary Program Roots
In response to the Brown Tide problem, the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services (SCDHS) initiated the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and
Management Program (BTCAMP) in 1988. BTCAMP was managed by SCDHS, and
benefitted from input from a Management Committee comprised of representatives
from SCDHS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Long Island
Regional Planning Board (LIRPB), Suffolk County Planning Department (SCPD) and
others.
BTCAMP was undertaken with two distinct objectives. The first objective was
to research the causes and impacts of the Brown Tide, identifying any appropriate
remedial actions and defining those areas which require further study. The second
objective was to investigate more conventional water quality problems affecting local
bay areas so that appropriate corrective actions to minimize any present or future
water quality problems could be identified and implemented.
The final BTCAMP management plan was supported by a comprehensive series
of tasks including monitoring of the bays, assessment of the sources of pollutant
loading to the bays (e.g., stonnwater runoff, sewage treatment plants, groundwater
inflow), analysis of land use in the area surrounding the bays, and computer modelling
of water movement and quality in the bays. BTCAMP study efforts were particularly
focused on the westem Peconics (i.e., Fianders Bay and its tributaries), the most
stressed portion of the system·
BTCAMP is of critical importance to the Peconic Estuary Program for two
reasons. First, BTCAMP served as the basis for the nomination of Peconic Estuary
for inclusion in the National Estuary Program (NEP). Second, BTCAMP provides a
foundation of management information which serves as an invaluable resource for
NEP system characterization and management. BTCAMP and its recommendations
have been and will continue to be evaluated by the Management Conference in
formulating early action plans.
Subsequent to the submission of the Peconic Estuary Program Nomination
document in June, 1991, and in anticipation of acceptance of the Peconic Estuary into
the NEP, a Peconic Estuary research needs workshop was held at State University of
New York at Stony Brook, Marine Sciences Research Center (MSRC) on November
26, 1991. The workshop, which was sponsored by several agencies and organizations,
culminated in a document produced by MSRC based on input from various working
groups. The document, entitled "Development ora Research Program for the Peconic
Estuary Responsive to Management Needs," followed up on the research needs
identified in BTCAMP and the Peconic Estuary NEP Nomination document.
Citizens' involvement has been critical to the success of BTCAMP and to the
startup of the PEP. The BTCAMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), with the
support of groups such as The Peconie Bay Task Force, and Save the Bays, Inc., is
comprised of representatives from marine-related industry, environmental and civic
organizations, baymen, boaters, recreational fishermen and other interested citizens.
The CAC has made significant contributions to BTCAMP by assuring public
involvement in the study, preparing educational materials, providing project input, and
setting up the series of Save the Bays Conferences. Of special note is the booklet
"Clear Water - A Guide to Reducing Water Pollution" and the video entitled "Save
our Bays."
Several other civic organizations and cnviroumcntal groups have also been
active in the protection of thc natural resources of the Peconic Bays system. These
organizations include the Group for the South Fork, the North Fork Envimumental
Council, the Nature Conservancy, thc League of Women Voters of
Riverhead/Southold, Southold 2000, Save thc Peconic Bays, Inc., the Green Seal
Program and thc Association of Marine Industries.
Peconic Estuary Proeram
The National Estuary Program was established by the federal Water Quality
Act of 1987 to protect and preserve nationally significant estuaries. Congress
added the Peconic Estuary system to the priority list of estuaries for inclusion in
the NEP in October 1988.
On June 10, 1991, NYSDEC submitted a nomination document, prepared by
SCDHS, supporting inclusion of the Peconie Estuary into the National Estuary
Program. On May 13, 1992, SCDHS in cooperation with NYSDEC, prepared and
submitted additional information as requested by United States Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW). USEPA
reviewed the complete Peconic Estuary nomination package and found the nomination
had adequately documented the national significance of the estuary, the need for the
Management Conference, and the likelihood of success of the Management
Conference in developing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
USEPA officially announced its decision to convene the Peconic Estuary Management
Conference on September 9, 1992.
On March 12, 1993 a grant of $90,000 was awarded to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, and a grant of $60,000 was awarded to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. These funds went to support
several specific start-up activities, including the establishment of a Management
Conference structure and the preparation of a Conference Agreement and First Year
Workplan. The PEP officially commenced with a kick-off conference on April 19,
1993.
In the fall of 1993 the PEP Management Conference selected the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services as the PEP Program Office and Vito Minei as the
Program Manager. The responsibilities of this office include: managing contracts,
overseeing development of PEP products, ensuring the transfer of PEP materials, and
coordinating activities amoung the federal, state, and local agencies.
6
,Action Plan - Process Overview
The Workplan and Conference Agreement, which were submitted to USEPA by
the Policy Committee on June 25, 1993, include a commitment of the Management
Conference to prepare a preliminapy Action Plan during the first year of the program.
The Conference Agreement (p. 13) sets forth the Action Plan purpose and goals as
follows:
For Peconic Bay, a significant amount of scientific and technical information
already exists, and much of this information has been synthesized into the Brown Tide
Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP) Final Report.
Included in this report are recommendations for action. As an initial effort to focus
on "action now," the Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference will
reexamine the recommendations from BTCAMP and divide them into several
categories ....
The Action Plan will commit all levels of government to early action in the
Peconic watershed, and it will be developed by staff from USEPA, NYSDEC (New
York Slate Department of Environmental Conservation), and SCDHS (Suffolk Counly
Department of Health Services) as directed by the Management Committee, with input
from the Local Government Committee, and the Citizens and Technical Advisory
Committees.
The development of the Action Plan also will include an assessment of Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reautborization Amendments of 1990 (entitled
"Protecting Coastal Waters"), which provides guidance for management of non point
source pollution of coastal waters.
In the framework of the streamlined NEP process, the Action Plan is primarily
designed to reflect the commitment of responsible entities to early action on specific
BTCAMP recommendations, ltowever, the Action Plan serves several other important
functions of channeling and prioritizing management issues with regard to PEP
resources. For example, issues which need further technical or
administrative/regulatory study are identified. In addition, areas inappropriate for PEP
attention are specified.
The Action Plan should not be confused with the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP). The first draft of the CCMP will be a more
comprehensive document which will, at a minimum, incorporate management
recommendations which are based on technical characterization efforts and the base
programs analysis. The first draft of the CCMP will eventually be refined and
expanded into the final CCMP by July, 1996. The final CCMP will include a federal
consistency report, coordinated implementation plans, a financial strategy, and a
summary of a monitoring program.
Even though the Action Plan is narrower in focus and more preliminary in nature
than the CCMP, the Action Plan, which was prepared with input from all PEP
agencies, represents an invaluable tool in fostering consensus regarding early actions.
In addition, the Action Plan contains the seeds for some of the most important
components of the CCMP: eommitmants to action based on available management
information.
As previously noted, several of the issues dealt with in the Action Plan will
channel future NEP efforts. Thus, the Action Plan is, in many respects, a skeleton for
the CCMP.
The preliminary Action Plan must bc viewed as a dynamic document, which will
bc continually updated as management information improves and Management
Conference participants commit to action. Updated versions of the Action plan will
bc incorporated, in some manner, in all future versions of the CCMP.
DI Preliminary Aetion Plan Of The Citizens Advisory ~gmmi!ttee
Informing and involving the public and obtaining its support is critical to success
of the Peconic Estuary Program. Everyone on Eastern Long Island needs to
understand his or her role as a user of the estuary. Effective public participation in
the Management Conference will develop the broad-based public support needed to
ensure that estuary program strategies reach the implementation phase. The ultimate
7
goal of public participation in the Peconic Estuary program will be to establish a
public consensus that will ensure long-term support for the implementation of the
CCMP. The following outlines the action plan to be developed by the Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC).
The goal of the CAC Action Plan is to achieve acceptance and implementation
of the Peconic Estuary Program CCMP through development of a large constituency,
including key segments of the public, with understanding of their individual and
collective roles in watershed protection and to make that constituency dedicated to
caring for the Peconic Estuary.
Education and Awareness Strateev
1. Develop, organize and coordinate the CAC to ensure direct citizen
involvement in the policy-making process.
2. Oversee the overall public participation program.
3. Develop a comprehensive mailing list.
4. Provide frequent presentations on the Estuary Program and its developments at
organizational meetings, special workshops and conferences.
5. Develop a focused and extensive family and community education program so
that the average citizen not affiliated with any special interest group will
also be targeted in the public outreach program.
6. Develop new educational materials and continue to use existing materials to
keep the public informed.
7. Conduct an opinion survey of full and part-time East End residents and
stakeholders to determine level of awareness and to aid in targeting
educational messages.
8. Develop, maintain and expand a speakers bureau with assistance of the TAC
to provide audio-visual presentations to interested groups.
Develop, design and place watershed signs in strategic locations throughout the
region. These signs will indicate that the observer is in the Peconic Bay
watershed and briefly explain the PEP.
10. Develop and design six wall displays for Town Halls and two traveling
displays to be placed in chambers of commerce and businesses on a rotating
basis.
An important component of this strategy is establishing a central location as a
public depository and display hall for the Management Conference that interested
parties can call or visit to learn more about the NEP. It is proposed to establish a
central outreach office at the Suffolk County Marne Environmental Learning Center
located directly on Peconic Bay in Southold, New York. It is also proposed that a
satellite office be established at the offices of The Group for the South Fork in
Bridgehampton, New York. This will allow ease of access for both North and South
Fork residents. Space at both of these locations will be donated to house and show
the displays and related materials and for the distribution of educational materials.
1. Design and develop 12 sixty-second professionally produced public service
announcements patterned at%r successful PSA's in other NEPS.
2. Institute a by-weekly, 1/2 hour TV Show about the Peconic Estuary.
3. Hold a children's Conference on our Coastal Environment.
4. Develop estuary information packets for schools and youth groups.
5. Develop Video News Releases.
(;#izens Action Plans
An important and integral component of the public participation plan is the
development of Citizen Action Plans. These action plans will programmatically link
educational programs and citizen demonstration projects with conference
recommendations and research projects. The initial action plans will be developed
around the BTCAMP recommendations, while future action plans will be developed
around conference recommendations and funded research. The idea is to develop both
an educational program and a citizen demonstration project for each appropriate
recommendation.
The education program will develop an education action strategy to educate
residents on the importance of implementing the specific recommendation, the benefit
it will have to the estuary and the means by which residents can participate in
implementing the recommendation. Citizens will become aware not only of'the
importance and relevance of the action to the Peconie Bay water quality, but will also
learn what they can do individually and collectively to achieve the goals of the
management conference.
Coincident with the education action program will be an educational action
demonstration project. The demonstration project will be a hands-on pilot project that
actually demonstrates the activities that citizens, businesses and government entities
should undertake to realize the goal of complete implementation of the
recommendation. This two-phased approach of education action strategy and
education demonstration project will comprise a Citizen Action Plan for each
recommendation.
The Citizen Action Plans will also be extended to research funded by the
conference. It is proposed that an education program be developed for all research
and demonstration projects funded by the conference. These educational programs for
research projects will explain in simple terms what the goals of the research are, the
anticipated effect on water quality or relevance to the conference. The educational
program will also disseminate (in simple terms) the results of the research.
In addition the Citizen Action Plan will call for the development of a citizen
volunteer water quality monitoring program. This volunteer monitoring program can
both instill a sense of stewardship in participants as well as help to supplement data
collection on basic parameters in the estuary.
Members of the CAC will continue to assist in organizing conferences such as
"Save the Bays Week" and "Celebrate The Bays" day. These popular functions reach
a large number of people who are often missed with traditional education or advocacy
techniques.
A Citizen Campaign will be developed and will utilize existing advocacy groups
to carry out an organized campaign of environmental advocacy. This campaign will
promote legislative measures identified in the CCMP and BTCAMP Study to protect
bay resources and fund management actions. The campaign will include (but not be
limited to) direct petition drives, letter writing and telephone campaigns, coordinating
action alerts and resolutions in support of legislative actions. No federal funds will
be used for lobbying efforts.
A 91-question survey was prepared by the Center for Communlty Research at
Suffolk Coummunity College for the Citizens Advisory Committee. The telephone
survey, conducted by student interviewers, involved 460 people randomly selected
from all five East End Towns.
One of the key findings was that the Peconic Estuary system is the most utilized
East End waterbody (42%) over the ocean (29%) and Long Island Sound (18%).
Approximately 61% of the sample indicated using the PES for recreation. Overall,
eighty-one percent of residents view the PES as "Very to Extremely Important" to the
local economy.
The willingness of the East Enders to support improvement projects for the estuary
system correleated directly to their level of use and to their acknowledgement of the
impact of their lifestyle on the system. Activities respondents indicated that they
were most willing to do to support preservation of the system were: read articles
(99%), support planning (93%), change fertilizers (87%) and improve septic systems
(86%), vote differently (78%), fund drives (77%), work on cleanup projects (71%),
and pay more taxes (57%).
On cleanliness, 75% of the respondents rated the system as "somewhat to extremely
clean" while only 15% viewed it as "unclean to very unclean." The further east the
town, the more the perception is on cleaniness.
The most important initiatives for improving and maintaining the Peeonic Estuary
System are as follows:
1. Research into causes of Pollution: 82%.
2. Education Programs for General Public 78%
3. Education Programs in Schools 71%
4. Resources to Enforce Laws 67%.
E) BTCAMP Findings and Conclusions
1, ~IROWN TIDE
The Brown Tide is an algal bloom which has appeared in the Peconic/Flanders and
South Shore bays systems. It is caused by a particularly small and previously
unknown species (Aureococcus anophagefferens) and can persist for unusually long
periods of time over large areas. The bloom is recurring in nature, and has to date
been unpredictable in onset, duration, and cessation.
Although advances have been made regarding the identification and characterization
of the Brown Tide organism and its growth needs, the causal factors related to the
Brown Tide bloom are not known. The input of conventional macronutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus are apparently not the direct causes of the onset of the
Brown Tide blooms. Chemicals which have been implicated by research as potential
contributors to Brown Tide's pervasiveness include specific organic nutrients, chelators
such as citric acid, and trace metals such as iron, selenium, vanadate, arsenate and
boron. Additionally, viruses are suspected to be a critical agent in ending the growth
cycle of the Brown Tide, while acrylic acid and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which may
be produced by the Brown Tide, may be toxic to the zooplankton population which
would graze on Aureococcus. Preliminary SCDHS sampling results show a
correlation between elevated dimethyl sulfide concentrations in surface waters and the
Brown Tide bloom. Finally, there may be a relationship between meteorological and
climatological factors and the Brown Tide.
The Brown Tide has had devastating effects on natural resources in the Peconic
Estuary system. The abundant Peconic Bay scallop population was virtually
eradicated by the onset of the Brown Tide; the causes of this impact may be related
to toxic, mechanical, and/or poor nutritional aspects of the Brown Tide organism. In
addition, the eelgrass beds which are critical to the regional importance of the Peconic
Estuary as a shellfish and finfish spawning and nursery area were decimated, probably
due to reduced light penetration caused by the Brown Tide bloom density. Other
shellfish which declined during Brown Tide blooms include oysters and possibly blue
mussels. Hard clams also appear to have been adve.rsely affected during the bloom,
although to a lesser degree; long4erm impacts on shellfish are unknown.
!I. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
1, MARINE SURFACE WATER OUALITY
Based on analysis of Flanders Bay data which relates total nitrogen (TN)
concentrations to chlorophyll-a~ and then relates levels of chlorophyll-a to diurnal
dissolved oxygen (D.O.) variations, a surface water total nitrogen concentration limit
of 0.5 mg/I will ensure a minimum dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/l. Portions of the
western Peconie system contravene this TN guideline (typical TN levels as high as
0.8 mg/l), and occasionally experience depressed D.O., but apparently do not exhibit
advanced eutrophication in terms of conventional nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and
phosphorous macronutrients causing extended algal blooms resulting in routine and
10
sustained dissolved oxygen depletion over extended geographic areas). The system
may be near the limits of the factor of safety incorporated in the TN guideline, and
therefore anti-degradation practices are of paramount importance. Water quality in
the eastern Peconics is excellent with respect to nitrogen concentration.
Data indicate that nitrogen concentrations in Flanders Bay have not changed
significantly between 1976 and 1988. Prior to 1976, numerous industries (extensive
duck farms, milling, fish processing, iron forge, etc.) probably contributed to degraded
conditions as compared with 1976.
MAJOR POINT SOURCES
~.A. Sewa~,e Treatment Plants
Because of the quantity and location of its discharge at the poorly-flushed mouth
of the Peconic River, the Riverhead sewage treatment plant (0.7 million gallons per
day, 140 pounds per day total nitrogen discharge, of which 7 pounds per day are
attributable to the scavenger waste facility) is by far the most significant sewage
treatment plant in terms of nitrogen loading. Improvements in wastewater treatment
and disposal at the Riverhead STP would result in a reduction of summertime surface
water total nitrogen concentrations to near the 0.5 mg/l guideline in the western
Peconic system. Elimination of the Riverhead STP surface water coliform loading
could move the open shellfish area boundary on the order of an additional I lan
westward.
Previous efforts at sampling and modelling impacts of the Grumman and
Brookhaven National Laboratory STP's have been limited. However, both of these
facilities are environmental concerns because they discharge directly into the
environmentally sensitive Peconic River.
Other STP's discharging to surface waters are not a threat to system-wide water
quality because of their remote locations with respect to the western Peconics and
their Iow nitrogen loading rates. However, localized impacts (e.g., Sag Harbor) may
require further investigation.
Water quality in the Peconic River is excellent with respect to nitrogen
concentration (approximately 0.5 mg/l at USGS gauge upstream of Riverhead STP).
Despite excellent water quality, as a result of its high flow, the Peconic River
contributes substantial nitrogen (avg. of 130 pounds per day, range of 20 to 500
pounds per day) to an environmentally stressed area.
The high degree of open space in the Peconic River watershed (26% of 15,900
acres in 1989) has spared the river from excessive pollution in recent years; the area's
land use did not change drastically between 1976 and 1988. However, substantial
potential exists for future development in the Peconic River area (34% of acreage
developable in 1989).
Mathematical modelling and sampling have established that increased
development intensity adversely impacts groundwater quality through the contribution
of nitrogen from on-site sanitary systems, fertilizers, animal waste, etc. L.I. 208
Study modelling indicates that slight changes in groundwater quality have significant
impacts on Peconic River nitrogen concentrations, and current modelling shows that
Flanders Bay nitrogen concentrations are very sensitive to Peconie River loadings.
Due to this sensitivity, BTCAMP found that residential development densities of one
unit per two acres (or the commercial or industrial loading equivalent) was the
minimum allowable density which would prevent surface water degradation.
The relationship between land use and surface water quality, coupled with the
amount of developable land in the study area, highlights the need for stringent
development controls to prevent degradation of the Peconic River and Flanders Bay.
An additional benefit of land use controls would be the added protection of invaluable
natural resources of the study area.
2.C. Meetinghouse Creek
The elimination of Corwin Duck Farm's direct discharge to Meetinghouse Creek
substantially improved water quality in the creek with respect to nutrients such as
11
nitrogen, but nitrogen (15 mg/l .as compared with less than 2 mg/1 in other local
creeks) and coliform concentrations in the creek remain elevated. Current total
nitrogen loading from Meetinghouse Creek is approximately 360 pounds per day.
Substantial further reduction of the Meetinghouse Creek nitrogen contribution (15
to 2 mg/1 total N) would result in only moderate improvements in system-wide water
quality. Due to the creek's location in a better-flushed area of Flanders Bay, only
about 0.05 mg/l total nitrogen reduction in Flanders Bay would occur from
Meetinghouse Creek loading reductions, as compared with 0.2 mg/l improvement
associated with Riverhead STP upgrading. Meetinghouse Creek nutrient pollution
improvements would have more system wide significance if they were effected in
concert with other pollution abatement efforts. Improvements in Meetinghouse Creek
coliform concentrations would result in only localized benefits.
MAJOR NON-POINT SOURCES
3.A. Sediment Flux (i.e., chemical exchange between sediment and
water column)
Summertime sediment flux nitrogen contribution to Flanders Bay, estimated to be
2,400 pounds per day, is greater than all other sources of nitrogen contribution
combined. Changes in point source loading resulting from the implementation of
management alternatives would eventually change the sediment flux rate, potentially
resulting in significant water quality improvements. More monitoring and study is
needed to better characterize the dynamics of the relationship between pollution
contribution and sediment flux.
3.B. Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff, which contributes approximately 30 pounds per day of
nitrogen to the Peconic System, does not appear to be a significant input with respect
to nutrient loading. However, stormwater runoff is the largest and most significant
source of total and fecal coliform loading to the Peconic River and Flanders Bay.
Other localized sources may include wildlife waste and sanitary systems. As of 1990,
3,053 acres of shellfish beds are closed in the Peconic system; these areas are
generally situated in semi-enclosed embayments and near shore locations or are
located adjacent to STP discharges.
Based on pollutant loading analysis and land use data, stormwater runoff
coliform loading is correlated with land use intensity. The Notth and South Flanders
Bay areas, due to substantial residential acreage, each contribute a much greater
coliform load than the less intensively developed Peconic River watershed.
3.C. Groundwater Underflow
North Flanders Bay, North Fork and eastem Peconic River regions have
groundwater nitrogen concentmtious which are substantially elevated (5 to 7 mg/l).
The westem and central Peconie River, with their vast expanses of open space, have
relatively low total nitrogen concentrations (1 to 1.5 mg/1) indicating excellent
groundwater quality.
Pesticide contamination of private water supply wells is common in the eastem
Peconic River, North Flanders Bay and North Fork regions (6.4 to 14.4 ppb avg.),
where agricultural chemical usage was historically prevalent. Detectable pesticide
levels in East Creek (up to 8 ppb) indicate that pesticide contamination has, to some
degree, reached surface waters of the study areas.
The intensity of land usage in given areas is directly related to nitrogen loading
and groundwater quality degradation. Both residential and agricultural land uses are
responsible for substantial nitrogen loading in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay
regions; medium-density residential and agricultural land uses have similar nitrogen
loading rates.
The apparent significance of groundwater nitrogen contribution (approx. 580 pounds
per day east of USGS gauge) is tempered by surface water quality data, computer
modelling, and groundwater infiltration sampling which indicate that groundwater
nitrogen contribution is not having a significant impact on study area surface waters.
12
Although mitigation of existing groundwater conditions does not appear to be a
priority with respect to surface water quality improvement, the prevention of
substantial future degradation to existing groundwater quality is an important goal,
especially in the Peconic River area.
4, OTHER SOURCES
The plume of contaminants which emanates from the North Sea landfill reportedly
includes ammonia, iron, manganese, volatile organic compounds, lead, and cadmium
and has reached its discharge boundary at Fish Cove. With the exception of Shelter
Island, the other eight landfills in the study area are classified as potential
environmental hazards.
4.B Hazardous Materials
The inactive Rowe Industries facility is the source ofa signficant plume of organic
chemical contamination which has reached its discharge boundary at Sag Harbor
Cove, with unknown impacts. In addition, activities at Brookhaven National Lab and
Gmmman have resulted in groundwater contamination and subsequent remediation
efforts. Surface water impacts from other existing industrial discharges have not been
documented. Also, there are no reports of surface water impacts resulting from
accidental spills and leaks in the study area.
Household hazardous materials are a potential and largely undocumented source
of pollution.
4.C. Marinas and Boatinu
Sanitary waste discharges from boating activities are site-specific and not well
documented, but are suspected of contributing to surface water coliform loading,
especially in environmentally sensitive waterways with poor flushing.
Oil and gasoline, marine paints, and debris are marine pollution which may
warrant future evaluation.
4.D. Atmosuheric Denosition
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface water systems is approximately 160
pounds per day (wetfall and dry deposition); this estimate is approximately 5% of the
system's overall (summertime) non-point source loading. Modelling indicates that
changes in regional air quality would have limited impact on the system's marine
waters.
Although acid rain is not a primary concern with respect to direct impact on
marine surface water pH due to the buffering capacity of the marine system, acid rain
may directly impact the freshwaters in the study area and may indirectly impact
marine waters by affecting the solubility/transport of material through sediments.
From a natural resources perspective, management information for the Peconic
Estuary appears to be relatively limited. However, the ecological significance of the
Peconic Estuary is clearly manifested in its rare ecosystems, federally and state
endangered and threatened species, species diversity, and extensive wetlands and
wildlife habitats.
Natural resources may be impacted by water quality management decisions.
BTCAMP did not include a comprehensive assessment of natural resources. The PEP
will investigate impacts to natural resources and use this information to manage them.
13
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
I-I* Brown Tide - Monitorin~ SCDHS Conduct monitoring program for Continuing program; to be expanded Prog. Dev.: $100,000 in federal NEP
Monitoring of Brown Tide concentrations Brown Tide and other water quality in 1994. funds; minimum of $215,000 in
and water qualiw should continue parameters. SCDHS local match.
l-2 to I-4: Brown Tide - Research
Brown Tide research (onset/perslstence, Contractor in consultation with Conduct research regarding Brown Commencing in 1993-1994. Prog. Dev.: $100,000 in Suffolk
control/subsidence, and toxic, mechanical, PEP Management Conference, Tide. County capital funds.
and/or poor nutritional impacts) should via Request for Proposal (RFP)
continue, for future projects.
I-5: Brown Tide - Natural Resources
Restoration
Restoration and monitoring should occur Cornell Cooperative Extension, Conduct bay scallop plantings and Fall 1993 - Spring 1994. Ag. Imp.: $50,000 in Near Coastal
for Brown Tide-impacted natural resources; L.I.U. Southampton optimize planting strategies. Waters funds; bay scallops donated
potential priority targets are scallops and by NYSDEC
eelgrass.
NYSDEC, NMFS Seek funding to continue bay scallop Fall 1993 - Spring 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
reseeding efforts Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: None
East end local governments, Commit local government resources, Commencing in 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
baymen, where available, for restoration and Ag. imp.: Existing resources. East
monitoring of scallop seeding Hampton has dedicated $138,800 in
programs. 1993 funds and $148,429 in 1994
funds to support its shellfish seeding
program which includes scallop
seeding efforts.
Ext. Imp.: Existing resources
PEP Management Conference, Determine distribution and abundance Spring - Summer 1994. Prog. Dev.: $75,000 of federal NEP
through contractor (via RFP). and relative ecological importance of funds.
submerged aquatic vegetation.
* "Prog. dev." development cost; "ag. imp." = Cost of implementation to agencies; "ext. imp." = implementation cost
external to agencies. ~4
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
I1-1.1 Marine Surface Water Ounlitv - The PEP Management In order to attain the dissolved oxygen 'Fiscal year 1994~1995 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Nitroaen Guideline -The general L.l. 208 Conference and NYSDEC. standard in Flanders Bay, NYSDEC Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Study marine surface water quality will adopt the 0.5 mg/I site-specific Ext. Imp.: None
nitrogen guideline of 0.4 mg/I should be nitrogen guideline to be applied in the
modified to 0,5 mg/I total nitrogen for tidal portions of the Peconic River and
Flanders Bay and the tidal portions of the Flanders Bay for which model data
Peconic River. This guideline is exceeded exists.
in tidal portions of the Peconic River and
western Flanders Bay.
11-1.2 Marine Surface Water Oualitv - PEP and NYSDEC The appropriateness of applying for a "Discharge Restriction Category" Prog. Dev.: Existing staff.
· - All new or "Discharge Restriction Category" to regulations have been adopted. Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
incremental nitrogen loading should be prevent new nitrogen discharges from NYSDEC will develop an Ext. Imp.: None
prohibited if it discharges to surface point sources in the Peconic River and implementation strategy in calendar
waters, or results in substantial the western portion of the Peconlc 1994.
groundwater degradation, in the System will be evaluated. Also see
environmentally stressed region of the tidal 11-2.A.I, 11-2.B.3, II-2.B.4, and Il-3,
Pcconie River and western Flanders Bay. where the plan emphasizes nonpoint
source controls for nil~ogen with a
goal of "no net increase."
Local Governments (coordinating Review and prepare a report on 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff.
with Base Program Analysis existing zoning regulations and land
Committee). use practices of all towns and villages
bordering the estuary.
15
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
11-1.3 Marine Surface Water Oualitv-
I~ollution Abatement - As a long range
goal, pollution abatement should occur so
that the nitrogen guideline can be aRained
in tidal portions of the Peconic River and
Ftanders Bay.
See Actions under
Recommendations Il- l.I. and II-
2.A.3.
Local Governments Committee
recommendation (coordinating
with Base Program Analysis
Committee)
Local Governments Committee
recommendation (coordinating
with Base Program Analysis
Committee)
In towns in which this has not been
completed, prepare a survey and
updated inventory on point and non-
point source inputs to the Peconic
estuary. This has already been done
in some East End Towns.
Towns should prioritize sources which
need to have pollution abatement
projects put in place.
1994
1994
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff.
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
16
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
11-1,4 Marine Surface WaterOualitv-
Eastern Portions - Pollution to Ihe
eastern portions of the Peconic Estuary
system should be controlled so that
existing water quality in the bays east of
Flanders Bay is maintained. In small
embayments, pollution sources require
evaluation to assess localized impacts and
potential remediation.
PEP Management Conference
SCDHS, NYSDEC, contractors
and members of the PEP
Management Conference.
NYSDEC, EPA, SCDHS, Local
Government Committee
The Management Conference
participants will establish the policy
that ambient water quality conditions
in the Peconics east of Flanders Bay
must, at a minimum, be maintained,
and shall not be allowed to
deteriorate.
Through modelling and/or monitoring,
the level of reduction of nitrogen
loading that would improve water
quality in impaired embayments and
tributaries will be determined.
NYSDEC, in consultation with EPA
and SCDHS staff and the Local
Government Committee, shall evaluate
potential mechanisms for
implementing this policy and provide
recommendations to the Management
Conference. Examples of such
mechanisms include: designation of
the Peconics as an Outstanding
National Resoume Water as per
Section 303 of the CWA; establishing
a state water quality classification of
SN, similar to the N class for fresh
waters, and so designating the
Peconics; establishing special districts
in local zoning or waterfront
revitalization plans that would regulate
land use and development consistent
with this policy.
Commencing in 1994.
Commencing in 1994.
Commencing in 1994
Prog. Dev.: A portion of the NEP
FY 94 federal funds and $225,000
SCDHS match.
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
17
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
LGC Recommendation; Information on Local Waterfront 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Department of State Revitalization Programs or
Comprehensive Plans will be made
available to the PEP Management
Conference.
Cornell Cooperative Extension Continue to evaluate pollution in small Ongoing Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
embayments which contribute to thc
Peconic Estuary, assess localized
impacts, and develop potential
remediation with towns and other
pertinent agencies involved.
11-1,5 Marine Surface Water Oualitv - PEP, SCDHS and surface water Modelling and monitoring of the Ongoing Prog. Dev.: A portion of the NEP
· ' - Surface modelling contractor support (via Peconic Estuary, with increased FY 1994 federal funds and $225,000
water modelling and monitoring should RFP.) emphasis on the eastern study area SCDHS match.
continue, and small embayments, will continue.
11-2.A.I ~ewaee Treatment Plants - No Riverhead, BNL, Grumman, NYSDEC will modify SPDES permits State fiscal year 1994-1995 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Net Increase - In relation to sewage NYSDEC. to require nitrogen monitoring (TKN, Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
treatment plant expansion, no net increase NH3, NO2, NO3) of the effluent, on a Ext. Imp.: The cost to the Town of
in quantities of nitrogen discharged to monthly basis. At, er a minimum of Riverhead, BNL, and Grumman will
surface waters should be allowed from twelve months of monitoring (see Il- depend on future increases in influent
Grumman, Brookhaven National 2.A.5), NYSDEC will calculate a nitrogen loads to the facilities and the
Laboratory, and Riverhead STP's. nitrogen load as the baseline to cost of the technology selected to
prevent increases in nitrogen remove excess nitrogen. Riverhead
discharges from the Rivethead, Town's consultant has estimate that a
Brookhaven National Lab and one time $6.50 per gallon fee for all
Grumman STPs. The permits will be new hook-ups to the STP will be
modified to include nitrogen limits required.
and subsequent monitoring
requirements consistent with
NYSDEC's Environmental Permit
Benefit Strategy. Riverhead Town has
already committed to freezing nitrogen
loads via a Town Board Resolution.
NYSDEC also will seek commitments
from BNL and Grumman.
18
Reco.~endation Responsible Entity Action T/ming Cost
. . PEP. Through water quality monitoring and Commencing in 1994 Prog. Dev.: A portion of the NEP
- I~ast of Flenders Bev - Pollution from modelling, it will be determined if FY 1994 federal funds and
other sewage treatment plants in the study controls in nitrogen loading from $225,000 SCDHS match.
area should be controlled such that existing STPs, particularity in enclosed
water quality in the surface waters east of embayments, will be necessary to
Flanders Bay is maintained, protect water quality.
Village of Sag Harbor Sag Harbor Village is in the process Beginning in May 1994 Ag. Imp.: Estimated at $350,000
of making improvements and repairs
to the Sag Harbor STP.
11-2.A.3 - STP - Nitro~en Guideline qYSDEC Based on the site-specific nitrogen If a water quality-based limit is Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Attal,ment - As a long-range management guideline, which is designed to protect required, a compliance schedule to Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
goal, the Riverhead STP should be against dissolved oxygen standard meet the nitrogen limit will be put in Ext. Imp.: Unknown
upgraded so that the surface water quality violations, NYSDEC will determine the SPDES permit.
nitrogen guideline can be attained (i.e., the necessity of decreasing nitrogen
nitrogen levels in surface waters can be loads from the Riverhead STP and
develop nitrogen loading limits as
reduced to approach 0.5 rog/I).
appropriate. (see lI-I.I)
Il-LA.4 SIP - Rlverheld STP Iln=rnde- Town of Riverhead Riverhead is preparing engineering By 1995 Ext. Imp.: Unknown
The long-range Riverhead STP upgrade estimates for upgrading the STP to Prog. Dev.: Unknown
may be in the form of a groundwater reduce the nitrogen load from the
discharge (10mg/I total N), a relocated STP.
surface water discharge at central or
eastern Flanders Bay (approximately 23
mg/I total N), or a surface water discharge
at the existing location (4 mg/I total N);
environmental impacts of alternatives
would require assessment before selection.
From BTCAMP's pollution control and
natural resources perspective, groundwater
recharge is the most desirable alternative.
19
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
II-2.A.5 STP - Nitroeen Monitarinn - NYSDEC, Riverhead, BNL, NYSDEC will modify SPDES permits early 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
SPDES permits should be modified to Grumman, Sag Harbor and to require nitrogen monitoring (TKN, Ag. Imp.: Existing staff.
require monthly reporting of effluent Shelter Island Heights STPs NH3, NO2, NO3) of the effluent Ext. Imp.: Unknown
nitrogen concentrations for Peconic River- monthly.
discharging STPs and quarterly reporting
for all other surface water discharging
STPs.
II-2.B.I: Peconie River - Nttro~en
Throughout the entire Peconic River See I1-1.1 and I1-1.2 .... ' .....
Groundwater-contributing area, n(w or
incremental nitrogen loading should be
prohibited if it discharges to surface waters
or results in substantial groundwater
degradation.
Develop a carrying capacity which can .... ----
LGC Recommendation maintain existing nitrogen loading for
land contributing to the Peconic River.
Adopt land use regulations for the ...... - .....
LGC Recommendation (to be Peconic River to assure that nitrogen
coordinated with Base Programs loading is not exceeded.
Analysis Committee).
1l-2.B.2 Peconie River - Sewage
Treatment
New groundwater-discharging sewage NYSDEC Continue to require that discharges Ongoing. Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
treatment plants in the Peconic River area from all groundwater-discharging Ext. Imp.: vary depending on size of
generally should be avoided. New sewage treatment plants do not exceed plant
groundwater-discharging plants should be nitrogen standards.
considered only if best available
denitrification technology is used; the
proposed project is associated with
significant groundwater, natural resources,
and/or surface water quality benefits; and
additional analysis shows that impacts on
the Peconic River system will be
negligible.
20
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
ll-2.B.3 Pecoaic River - Lend Use - NYSDEC Continue to limit development density Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
~ ' - Developable to a minimum of 4 acres per unit
residential land in the Peconic River within the "scenic" portion of the
groundwatar-contributing area should be Peconic River and 2 acres per unit
upzoned to a minimum of two acres per within the "recreational" portion of the
unit. Additional natural resource protection River under the Wild, Scenic, and
could be attained by even more stringent Recreational River Act.
land use controls, such as three to five acre ......
zoning. LGC Recommendation (to be Once technical information is
coordinated with Base Program available, Brookhavan and Riverhead
Analysis Committee). Towns will amend zoning and land
use regulations to accommodate on-
site disposal without compromising
groundwater quality and nitrogen
loading.
11-2.B.4 Peconic River - Land Use - NYSDEC Continue to control commercial and Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Commercial. Industrial. nnd institutional industrial development within the
Zonin~ - Commercial, industrial, and "scenic'~ and "recreational" portions of
institutional land uses should be controlled the Peconic River under the Wild,
so that the impact on groundwater with Scenic, and Recreational River Act.
respect to nitrogen contribution is
comparable to that to two-acre residential LGC Recommendation (to be Explore the intensity of zoning for
zoning, coordinated with Base Program existing commercial, industrial, and
Analysis Committee). institutional zones which are not
improved.
11-2.B.5 Peennie River - Land Use Central Pine Barrens Joint A Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning DraR by July 1994 Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Other Management - Zoning controls Planning and Policy Commission and Policy Commission has been
should be implemented in conjunction with established by the New York established to develop a
other land use management techniques, State Legislature. comprehensive Central Pine Barrens
including cluster development, transfer of land use plan.
development rights, and programs related
to land preservation, acquisition, and
enhancement.
21
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
11-2.B.6. Peconic River - Land Use
Develonment Plans - In addition to the
land use controls noted above, Peconic
River development plans should he
reviewed utilizing the strictest practicable
standards, which would include the
requiring of open space dedications,
maximum practicable setbacks from the
river, and natural landscaping to minimize
fertilizer use.
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee).
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee).
Continue to require setbacks of 250
feet for new building in the "scenic"
portion and setbacks of 150 feet in the
"recreational" portion of the Peconic
River, minimum setbacks of 75 feet
from the landward edge of tidal
wetlands, and limit development
within 100 feet of a freshwater
wetland.
Continue to regulate, through
permitting, disturbances to vegetation
within I00 feet of both the "scenic"
and recreational" portions of the
Peconic River under the Wild, Scenic,
and Recreational River Act.
Riverhead' and Brookhaven Town need
to adopt resource protection measures
for all developable land within the
Peconlc River watershed, including:
I. adopting wetland setbacks and
buffers greater than DEC setbacks for
structures and septic systems.
2. review existing zoning and outline
changes needed to meet the
recommendations set out in BTCAMP.
The Town of East Hampton will
continue to reduce zoning below
commercial levels through its
Neighborhood business district, which
requires less intensive zoning than
commercial zoning, and requires more
natural vegetative buffers, less
intensive coverage, and reduced uses
on the land.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
22
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-2.C.I Meeti.ehou~e Creek USSCS and SCSCD Monitoring of Meetinghouse Creek The wetland will be constructed and Ag. Imp.: $71,579 of Near Coastal
Monitorinu and Remedlation - will continue. A wetland treatment initial estimates of effectiveness will Waters Funds.
Monitoring and remedial investigation of system for the Corwin duck farm be made by 1995. Ext. Imp.: The duck farm owner will
pollution at Meetinghouse Creek should be discharge will be constructed, provide at least $3,500 for the
continued and remediation should be Additional monitoring will be remediation.
effected when technologically, performed after consU'uction of the
economically, and environmentally wetland.
feasible.
I1-1.C.2 - Meetinehouse Creek - Duck USSCS, SCSCD and SCDHS Monitoring of the Corwin Duck Farm Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing and part of the
Waste Trealment - The evaluation of the treatment system will be performed as $71,579 of Near Coastal Watem
effectiveness of on-site duck waste part of the Corwin wetland funds.
containment and treatment processes at the construction project.
Corwin Duck Farm should be continued.
11.2.C.3 - Meetlnuhouse Creek - PEP Management Conference Study the question of whether 1994 Prog. Dev.: A portion of the
Sediment Flux - Sediment flux study and consultants, sediments add significantly to the $100,000 earmarked for sediment flux
should be conducted in Meetinghouse nitrogen load in Meetinghouse Creek. study during FY94.
Creek to quantify actual impacts of
sediment flux on water quality and to
evaluate effectiveness of potential remedial
measures.
23
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action T/ming Cost
11-3. Major Nonnoint Sources
USEPA and NYSDEC
Suffolk County Agencies, PEP
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Advocate 100% funding of Clean
Water Act Section 319 (and state
implementation of Section 319-funded
nonpoint source management
programs) and establish prioritization
of the Peconic Estuary within the
~rogram, especially with respect to
>ollutants of particular concern, such
as coliforms and nitrogen.
Continue to promote nonpoint source
management through the Suffolk
County Water Quality Coordinating
Committee, and coordinate Committee
activities with the PEP.
Identify the major input sources of
nonpoint source pollution in localized
harbors in the Peconic Estuary system.
Identify and quantify input sources of
fecal coliform bacteria in localized
harbors.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Prog. Dev.: Existing staffand
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: 0
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing resources
Prog. Dev./Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
24
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
PEP, with guidance from DOS,
EPA, NOAA and the Base
Program Analysis Committee,
and input solicited from the
entities below.
SCDHS, NYSDOH, LGC, TAC
and CAC
SCS, SWCD, Cornell
Cooperative Extension,
NYSDEC, CAC
Develop an appropriate nonpoint
source control plan for each nonpoint
source category that the PEP identifies
as contributing significantly to adverse
ecosystem impacts. The control plan
will include, but will not be limited to,
an identification and an assessment of
management practices which can be
used to implement appropriate
management measures which comply
with Section 6217. The plan also will
identify ways to implement the
appropriate practices. In addition, the
plan will determine whether the
control measures are adequate to solve
water quality problems, and identify
additional control measures that may
be necessary. (Other nonpoint action
recommendations mentioned in this
Action Plan would be included in the
above nonpoint plan). The plan
should emphasize nonpoint source
controls for nitrogen with a goal of
"no net increase." The relevant
categories of Section 6217 (g)
measures are as follows:
· on site disposal systems
· agricultural management
Internal PEP working draft produced
by September, 1994.
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
25
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
NYSDOT, SCDPW, LGC, TAC, . stormwater runoff
town and local highway depts,
NYSDEC, SCDHS, SCS,
SWCD, Comell Coop. Ext.,
CAC
TAC, LGC and CAC . marinas and boating
SCS, SWCD, Cornell, NYSDEC, . domestic fertilizer Enforceable by 1995; Prog. Dev.: Existing resources
CAC Confirmation of compliance by 1999. Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
NYSDOS and NYSDEC Develop implementation mechanisms
for all measures required by Section
6217 (g) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments that are
applicable to the Peconic Estuary, by
ensuring inclusion of those measures
in New York State's Coastal Nonpoint
Program. Appropriate elements for all
applicable practices will be
incorporated into the Base Programs
Analysis.
I-3.A.I: Sediment Flux- Monitorinn
Sediment flux sampling should be PEP Management Conference, Continue and expand sediment flux Commencing in 1994 Prog. Dev.: $100,000 of NEP federal
continued and expanded, through contractor (via RFP). monitoring, particularly with respect to funds
characterizing exchange of nutrients
between sediment and the water
column.
11-3.A,2: Sediment Flux - Dynamics
The dynamics of the relationship between PEP Management Conference, Study sediment flux dynamics in Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: A portion of the
pollution contribution and sediment flux through contractor (via RFP). terms of changes in sediment flux $I00,000 NEP federal funds for
should be studied to betler document over time in response to changing sediment flux study.
pollution abatement management decisions, pollutant loads, as well as with respect
to sediment transport within the
system (e.g., during storms)
26
Rec~.~endation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-3.A.3: Sediment Flux - Comouter PEP Management Conference, Upgrade model to include an Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: A portion of the $75,000
Modellin~ through modelling consultant (via ~mproved sediment submodel. NEP federal funds for surface water
The computer model of the estuarine RFP). modelling.
system should be improved to include a
sediment submodel. NYSDEC and NYSDOS Investigate the need to regulate 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
II-3.B Stormwater Runoff- Coliform communities with populations less Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Loadine - On a system-wide basis, any than 100,000 that border the Peconic Ext. Imp.: Unknown
action which would result in a substantial Estuary for general stormwater
increase in stormwater runoff coliform management in order to control of
loading to the Peconic £stuary system nitrogen and coliform discharges.
should be strictly prohibited.
Recommendation; local Adopt standards for building permits, _ .... Prng. Dev.: Unknown
governments and NYSDEC subdivision approvals, and state Ag. Imp.: Unknown
regulatory programs that will require Ext. Imp.: Unknown
that new development retain all
stormwater runoff on their property
wherever practicable.
LGC Recommendation (to be Land use regulations should be ......
coordinated with Base Program adopted to minimize or avoid any new .....
Analysis Committee). source of stormwater runoff. This has
already occurred in some localities.
11-3.B.2 Stormwater Runoff- NYSDEC working with local Continue to work cooperatively with Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
· · - Stormwater runoff governments; Cornell East End Towns on stormwater Ext. Imp.: Varies depending on site
remediation efforts should be undertaken Cooperative Extension remediation projects, by providing
on a site-specific basis pursuant to coliform loading data and helping to
localized studies which demonstrate evaluate sources of fecal coliform
technological, economic, and bacteria and assess localized impacts
environmental feasibility, of runoff.
27
8~
qO~,etu qse~ %0[; :*dUal '1x3
un~omlufl :'dtuI '~V
jjels ~u!ls!x3 :'aa(! '~oJd
sloa.foJd aueq aumts/P~l
1Jeqo H Joj 000'00~$ :'dual 'gV
3je~s ~U!lS!X~] :'Aa(] '~o~d
sa!uotu Ja;eA~
lelSeoD Jean jo 000'015 :'dml '~V
8661
I!lun ~]u!nu!;uoo 'pa;e!l!u!
sl~a.l'oJd aueq ~luml$/p~l
laeqoH JOJ 1~661 q~noJq; '.~u!o~uo
1,661 - £661 jo gu!Jds - lied
P661 - £661 jo ~u!JdS - lied
£661 - Z661
'ploqmo$ u] aueq :lumIs
pue peo~i lJeqoHle s~oo.foJd opnpu!
saldtuexo on~l 's~oa.foJd
Jole~uuols Joqlo pue spuepa~
le!oU!lJe jo `(oeo~a aql olenle,X3
· llO*~ se un~ol uo~dtueH
ql!n~ uo]loun.l'uoo u! s!pue 'JoqJeH
oeuoqeoo¥ pue :tooJD lsaa~qIaoN
u! palonpuo~ OSle s! luatua~euelN
JaleA~ qsJelq uado 'ploqlnos ',(et]
qoeat] ~uoq u! loo.foJd luatua~euelN
Jaleh,,. qsJe~l uodo ue luotuoldmI
· jjounJ Joien~tuJols JoIIU
o1 puelSl JalloqS '~looO sJau]pJeo
e ~u!,(oldma loa.foJd loud e l~npuoD
1OCISAN
'SH(]DS 'SO(]SAN 'sdnoJg
ttu!uueld pue le~uamuoJV, ua
'sluotumono~ leOOl 'D3OSAN
'su*~o3 Jaqlo
pue ploqmos jo un~o~L aql
uo!leaadooo u! &unoD alojjns
jo uo!sua3x3 an!$eJadooD IlaUJOD
D3CISAN pue ~unoD ~llo. uns
jo uo!sualx3 a^!leJadooD IIOUJOD
&unoD ~tlo, U ns
jo uo!sualx~] aA!leJadooD ilaUJO3
D~I(ISAN
q. eoo ~usarT.r. uo$4o~f Xq, 14u~ e'~qT suocls~l uox. 4vpueunuoo~l
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee).
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee).
Southampton Town
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee); Southold,
East Hampton.
Action
Timing
Each town within the Peconic
watershed that has not done so, should
prepare or update and prioritize an
inventory of existing stormwater
runoff locations. The inventory
should include a notation of the
source. The Town of Southampton
has completed this activity.
Information on stormwater
remediation projects should be shared
between the East End towns.
Abate stormwater pollution sources.
The Town of Southampton recently
passed a $2 million bond initiative for
remediatio,n.
Those towns and villages that
currently do not already do so, should
include an annual amount in the
highway operating budget specifically
for the correction of existing road
runoff problems. The Towns of
Southold and East Hampton currently
do.
Cost
Ag. Imp.: $2 million for
Southampton
Ag. Imp.: $30,000 annually for
Southold and $200,000 in 1993
through 1994 for East Hampton.
29
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-3.B.3 Stormwater Runoff-New
Develooment - Proposals for new
development within the stormwater runoff-
:ontributing area to the Peconic Estuary
system should be reviewed under the
strictest scrutiny. In addition to on-site
stormwater runoff contaminant
requirements, vegetative buffers and
sediment and erosion control plans should
be considered as part of the approval
process, with enforcement through the
issuance and revocation of permits.
NYSDEC
NYSDEC, local government.
SCS
NYSDEC and NYSDOS
Recommendation/LGC
Recommendation/LGC
Continue to implement general
stormwater permit programs to control
the discharge of stormwater from
industrial, construction, and municipal
activities and determine if the general
permit adequately regulates pollution
from activities subject to national
stormwater regulations.
Encourage the use of guidelines for
construction to control sediment
erosion and stormwatar runoff. East
Hampton is proposing rules for a
Harbor Protection Overlay District.
Pursue the expansion of lhe State
Building Code to include provisions
for erosion and sediment control and
stormwater practices for all
construction activities in order to
prevent increases in nonpoint nitrogen
runoff.
Local governments should adopt
sediment and erosion control
ordinances (NYSDEC has model
ordinances)
Local goveromenta should review
sediment and erosion control and
stormwater pollution prevention plans,
which are required for new
development greater than 5 acres
(under 40 CFR 122.26 [BI [14] Ix]).
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Vary depending on size of
project
Ag. Imp.: No additional costs
Ext. Imp.: Costs vary depending on
size of project
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Prog. Dev.: Unknown
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Prog. Dev.: Unknown
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
3O
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
1l-3.B.4 Stormwater Runoff- Fertilizers NYSDEC, Comell Cooperative Advocate the use of June nitrate Initiated during 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
IlOd Animal Waste - With respect to Extension of Suffolk County, testing on agricultural lands to ensure Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
sources such as domestic animal waste and SCS that fertilizer applications to crops do Ext. Imp.: Costs vary
fertilizers, best management practices and not.exceed crop needs, and promote
public awareness should be promoted, the use of agricultural best
management practices.
NY Sea Grant Extension, Comell Continue public awareness programs Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk about pesticide and fertilizer use (e.g., Ext. Imp.: Vary depending on best
County, PEP CAC. best management practices such as management practices used
Iow-maintenance lawns, slow release
nitrogen fertilizers, modification of
fertilizer application rates) throughout
the Peconic System and other areas.
Recommendation Programs such as integrated pest ...........
management should be encouraged
and funds for implementation pursued.
H.3.B.5 . Stormwater Runoff . LGC Recommendation The Suffolk County contractors ..........
~llseellaneous licensing process should be reviewed
for effectiveness and amended to
provide for fines and revocation where
continual violations of land use laws
are practiced by contractors.
LGC Recommendation; Cornell An aggressive education program for .........
Cooperative Extension of Suffolk owners of domestic animal waste and
County, PEP CAC fertilizers for residents and businesses
within the Peconic Estuary watershed
should be implemented.
31
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11.3.C.I: Groundwater Underflow - See ll-2B ..........
Prevention of Degradation
Substantial degradation of existing
groundwater quality should be prevented, PEP Management Conference Investigate feasible implementation Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: Existing staff for
especially in the Peconic River area (see participants, mechanisms (e.g., upgrading sanitary evaluation.
11-2B). systems within defined districts on Ag. Imp.: Unknown
property transfers), and develop a plan Ext. Imp.: Unknown
to prevent increases and encourage
decreases in nitrogen in groundwater
underflow.
11-3.C.2: Groundwater Underflow -
Monitorine/Imnacts
Continue groundwater monitoring programs PEP Management Conference, Perform groundwater characterization Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: $40,000 NEP funds to
and study the surface water impacts of assisted by groundwater and (regional, and for smaller groundwater contractor; $75,000 to
groundwater, especially with respect to surface water consultants (via embayments) including assessment of surface water modeler; SCDHS
areas of known contamination (see ll-4.A. RFP) and SCDHS. sources {e.g., sanitary system, through ongoing programs and some
and 11-4.B.) and pesticide contamination fertilizer, etc.) and impacts. NEP funding.
related to agricultural practices; model
groundwater for areas east of Flanders Bay. PEP Management Conference, Coordinate PEP groundwater Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: $40,000 NEP funds to
assisted by groundwater monitoring efforts with ongoing groundwater contractor; $75,000 to
consultant (via RFP) and programs (e.g., BNL, Rowe Industries, surface water modeler; SCDHS
SCDHS. Gmmman). through ongoing programs and some
NEP funding.
SCDHS. Monitor pesticides in surface waters. Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: SCDHS program with
NEP support.
Soil Conservation Service, Promote agricultural best management Ongoing Prog. Dev.: Existing Staff
Cornell Cooperative Extension, practices. Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
NYSDEC. Ext. Imp.: Unknown
II-~.c.~: Groundwater Underflow - Best
Manaaement Prectlces
Promote best management practices, such See [I-3.B.4. - ...............
as Iow maintenance lawns, slow-release
nitrogen fertilizers, modification of Local governments (to be Promote the incorporation of overlay Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: Existing staff.
fertilizer application rates, and sanitary coordinated with Base Program districts, mandatory buffer zones, and Ag. Imp.: Unknown
system maintenance through public ^nalysis Committee). limited clearing restrictions in local Ext. lmpx Unknown
education, zoning codes.
32
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-3.C.4: Groundwnter Underflow -
Additionnl Controls
Additional controls, such as fertilizer use Recommendation; PEP Evaluate the degree to which thc Commencing in 1994. Prog. Dev.: Existing personnel for
rastrictlons, should be promoted in the Management Conference, recommendation has been evaluation.
Peconic River watershed, especially local governments, implemented, and investigate
additional implementation
mechanisms.
Il-4 Other Sources of Pollution PEP CAC Encourage expansion of the National Annually in September Prog. Dev.: Existing resources
Beach Clean-Up Program throughout
the Peeonie Estuary.
USFWS Implement the Pack It In/Pack It Out Started in fall 1993 Ag. Imp.: Minor expenses for
anti-litter campaign in all National purchasing and erecting signs.
Wildlife Refuges on Long Island,
including those in the Peconlc
Estuary.
33
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-4.A.I - L,adfills - North See L,ndfill Town of Southampton The proposed North Sea Landfill Monitoring will be conducted every 3 Prog. Dev.: Completed
- Investigations, remedial actions, and remedial program has been designed years Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
monitoring at the North Sea Landfill and approved by USEPA. Remedial Ext. Imp.: Unknown
should be conducted with full consideration actions, including capping of the
of surface water impacts, landfill and collection and processing
of leachate, will be conducted. Al~er
completion of capping, benthic
organism and sediment flux
monitoring will be conducted in Fish
Cove as requested by NYSDEC and
required by USEPA, to assess the
impacts of the North Sea Landfill on
the Peconlc system during the
remedlation. Groundwater
monitoring will also be conducted
between the landfill and Fish Cove.
PEP through SCDHS monitoring The PEP will continue to monitor 1994 Ag. Imp.: A portion of $215,000
surface water quality in Fish Cove. NEP funds and $225,000 of SCDHS
local match for monitoring and
modelling.
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
11--4.A.2- Lnndfills - Irish Cove - See ll.4.A.I and II.3.B.2 .... - ..........
Monitoring of the surface waters and
sediments of Fish Cove should be
continued.
11-4.A.3- Lnndfills - Oth~r Lnndfills - PEP Management Conference; Coordinate landfill pollution 1994 Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Monitoring of other landfills in the study landfill owners characterization and remediation
area should consider potential surface efforts with PEP pollution evaluation
water impacts, efforts. This is a continuing effort.
34
Reco~ndation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
]I-4.B.I H,zardous Materials The Rowe Industries remediation Rowe Industries sltc's contaminated Thc construction of the clean-up Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
~;rou,dwater Monitorine and will bc overseen by USEPA and groundwater will be rcmediatad, facility is expected to be completed by Ext. Imp: The estimated cost of the
Remediltion - Groundwater monitoring NYSDEC, with input from thc 1996. clean up is $6,000,000.
Programs at Rowe Industries, Brookhavcn members of PEP on thc Rowe
qational Laboratory, Grumman and other Industry Information Committee.
sites of present and historical discharges
should bc continued. In general the Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory and Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
relatively small store of data regarding and Grumman, overseen by Grumman will continue groundwater Ongoing Ext. Imp.: Unknown
hazardous matcrlals impacts on surface NYSDEC and USEPA monitoring programs.
waters should be expanded.
[l-4.B.2 - Hazardous Materials - USEPA Investigations of Supcrfund sites Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff.
~lonitorin~/Imnacts - Where appropriate, within the Peconlc watershed will Ext. Imp.: The cost &considering
monitoring and remedial investigations of consider surface water impacts, surface water impacts during remedial
hazardous material-contaminated sites investigations will vary,
should incorporate surface water and
sediment monitoring with full consideration PEP Management Conference Characterize the extent of toxic Federal FY 1994 Prog. Dev.: $50,000 of NEP funds
of surface water impacts incorporated in through contractor contamination in the Peconic system, earmarked for toxics substances and
management decisions, sediment characterization.
II..d.B.3 Hazardous Materials - Public PEP CAC and Local STOP programs will continue. The STOP programs are ongoing. Ag. Imp.: Existing staff and a
K.0.lff, A.fi~ - "Stop Throwing Out Governments Information to the general public on The public outreach will begin during portion of the FY94 funding for
Pollutants" programs should be continued ways to reduce the use of toxic 1994. public education.
and enhanced to foster public education materials and on the STOP programs
and reduce household hazardous material will be provided.
pollution.
11-4.C.I. - Marinas and Boating - County SCDHS Investigate the administrative, 1994 Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Law - The Suffolk County law mandating regulatory, and programmatic elements
the investigation of potential nuisances at of this recommendation.
marinas should be implemented.
Recommendation
1~1-4.C.2 - Marinas end Boetin~ - Boater
Waste - Greater usc of shore-based toilets,
holding tanks on boats, and existing and
additional pumpout stations should be
promoted, especially in areas with heavy
boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive
areas.
Responsible Entity
NYSDOS with input from Clean
Vessel Act Steering Committee.
NYSDEC with input from Clean
Vessel Act Steering Committee
Action
Conduct a Statewide survey of
recreational vessels and pumpout
stations in coastal areas, and prepare a
plan for the construction, installation,
maintenance and repair of pumpouts
and waste reception facilities and the
designation of vessel waste no-
discharge zones.
Administer Statewide Clean Vessel
Act grant and grants for the
construction, installation, maintenance
and repair of pumpout and waste
reception facilities pursuant to State
Clean Vessel Act Plan.
Timing
Cost
Clean Vessel Act grant awarded
November 1993. Complete survey by
March 1994 and plan by May 1994.
Clean Vessel Act grant awarded
November, 1993. Award six grants to
construct facilities in Peconie Estuary
in early 1994. Administer subsequent
grants after June 1994 according to
completed Statewide Clean Vessel Act
plan and grant awards m the State
based on the plan.
Prog. Dev.: $71,654 federal, $23,884
match Statewide until completed in
May, 1994
Ag. Imp.: $622,529 federal, $88,732
match Statewide ($32,500 federal and
$4,875 match by applicants for six
facilities in Peconics) for construction
grants, and $266,798 federal and
$88,732 match Statewide for overall
grants management and
administration until June, 1994.
Subsequent funding dependent upon
grant awards based on plan.
Ext. Imp.: Cash match of $88,732
statewide including $4,875 by
applicants for six facilities in
Peconics
36
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
LGC recommendation; East
Hampton Town
NY Sea Grant with input fi.om
Clean Vessel Act Steering
Committee
NYSDEC
SCDHS
Recommendation
Promote the use of pump-out stations.
East Hampton has constructed a town
pump-out in Three Mile Harbor in
1992. A pump-out station and dock
project for Lake Montauk has been
submitted to NYSDEC for funds from
the Clean Vessel Act. There is no
charge for the use of these facilities.
Develop and help implement a
Stetewide Clean Vessel Act
information/education program.
Apply all applicable information
collected on vessel sewage discharge
controls under the Near Coastal
Waters Program for Long Island
Sound to the Peconic system.
Request that marinas which facilitate
overnight docking of houseboats or
housebarges utilize a waste pump-out
facility.
Select and promote implementation of
best management practices as
specified in section 6217 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization for new and existing
marinas and boatyards and apply them
as permit conditions for new marinas
and boatyards.
Complete development of program by
May, 1994 for incorporation into
Statewide plan.
Initiated October 1993, completed
September 1994.
Implementation effective as of May
1994
Ag. Imp.: $100,000 proposed for
Lake Montauk Project.
Prog. Dev.: $39,019 federal, $13,600
match Statewide
Ping. Dev.: $40,000 for Long Island
Sound, existing staff for Peconic
application.
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
37
Recommendation
1[-4~C.3 - Marinas and Boatinn - "No
~- Implementation of
other measures, such as designation of "no
discharge zones" and enforcement for
noncompliance with discharge regulations,
may also increase usage of pump-out
facilities and should be considered,
especially in environmentally sensitive
areas.
Responsible Entity
Local governments
NYSDEC with assistance from
NYSDOS
USEPA
NYSDEC
USCG, NYSDEC and other State
agencies, Ioca~ envorcement
agencies
Action
Timing
Cost
Develop a petition for no-discharge
zone designations.
Submit petitions to EPA with
determination of need and
documentation of adequancy of
pumpout and treatment facilities.
Determine adequancy of pumpout and
treatment facilities.
Designate vessel waste no-discharge
zones.
Enforce vessel waste no-discharge
prohibitions.
Upon installation of sufficient
pumpout stations and treatment
facilities, as needed.
Upon installation of sufficient
pumpout and treatment facilities, as
needed.
Upon receipt of state certification and
petition of need
After positive determination by EPA
of need and sufficient pumpout and
treatment facilities.
After designations as no-discharge
i'
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Prices for pumpouts range
from $3.00 to $30.00
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Prices for pumpouts range
from $3.00 to $30.00.
38
Reco.~endation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11-4.C.4 - Marinas and Bontine - Prelect NYSDEC Continue, through the Tidal Wetlands Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Review - Marina projects should be Regulatory Program, to evaluate all Ext. Imp.: Permit application fee
scrutinized under the most environmentally marina and boating construction
sensitive standards of review, projects to ensure that they prevent or
minimize impacts to wetlands and
other natural resources and incorporate
best management practices identified
~n 11.4.C.2.
LOC Recommendation Existing site plan review and special ............
permit legislation should be carefully
reviewed and amended to
accommodate close scrutiny of
marinas and nil waterfront projects
that would require site plan review.
Apply best management practices as
conditions of all permits and codes.
LGC Recommendation The elimination of all commercial .........
non-water dependent uses should be
carefully considered and conditions for
special permit uses on the waterfront
should be very restrictive.
11.4.c.5. Marinas and Bontina - Public NYSDEC Apply to Peconic Bay the public Initiated October 1993, completed Prog. Dev.: $40,000 for Long Island
Education ? Public education should be an awareness program conducted with September 1994 Sound, existing staff for Peconlc
Near Coastal Waters funding application.
integral component of boater-related
regarding pumpout facilities that is
surface water protection programs.
being developed by the State of New
York for Long Island Sound.
NY Sea Grant Extension Continue public awareness about the Ongoing Ag. Imp.: No additional costs
availability of boater pumpout
facihbes through d'str'bution of New
York Sea Grant information about the
availability of pumpout facilities.
39
Recommendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
11.4.C.6 - Marinas and Roatinu - Other LGC Recommendation Local government should pursue ...........
Pollution - The impacts of oil and legislation which eliminates oil,
gasoline, marine paints, and floatable and gasoline, marine paints, floatables and
other debris should be investigated, other debris from reaching any
waterbody.
ii-4.C.7 - Marinas and Boatin~ - LGC Recommendation (to be Marinas should encourage their ............
Miscellaneous coordinated with Base Program patrons to use shore facilities when
Analysis Committee). berthed at a dock. Incorporate this
into best management practices.
LGC Recommendation (to be Put in place incentives for boatars to ............
coordinated with Base Program use pump-out stations. Incorporate
Analysis Committee). this into best management practices.
LGC Recommendation (to be Existing legislation and land use ............
coordinated with Base Program policies within the Peconic Estuary
Analysis Committee). should be reviewed and regional
minimum standards should be put in
place.
LGC Recommendation (to be Local governments should pursue an ......
coordinated with Base Program aggressive media campaign on a
Analysis Committee). continuing basis (similar to the one
existing for recycling).
40
Reco---enda tion
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
[[-4.D.I AtmosDherit Denosition:
~lonitorina
Monitoring of the direct and indirect
impacts of acid rain on the surface waters
of the study area should be continued.
Brookhaven National Laboratory,
PEP Management Conference,
SCDHS.
NYSDEC.
PEP Management Conference.
Continue monitoring nutrient impacts
of atmospheric deposition.
Implement requirements of
reauthorized Clean Air Act in New
York.
Monitor implementation of Clean Air
Act, which may control emissions in
other states.
Continuing.
Programs should be fully implemented
by end of 1995.
Beginning in 1994.
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff.
Prog. Dev.: Unknown
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff.
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Prog. Dev.: PEP staff.
41
Reconunendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
II-S. ~starel Resources - Miscellaneous
NYSDEC, USEPA, USFWS,
ACOE, local governments
LGC recommendation
NYSDEC, USEPA, USFWS,
ACOE, local governments
NYSDEC, local goven~ments,
environmental and planning
groups, NYSDOS, SCDHS,
NYSDOT
NYSDEC, USFWS, USEPA,
PEP Management Conference
Continue to protect the remaining tidal
and freshwater wetland bases through
regulatory programs.
Continue to protect wetlands through
acquisitions.
Restore the functions and values of
existing wetlands, and encourage the
creation of a "net gain" in the quality
and quantity of wetlands in coastal
areas of New York.
identify projects in the Peconlc
Estuary watershed that will benefit
natural resources and improve water
quality under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation and Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) program.
Continue to pursue the use of
numerous funding sources to restore
and acquire valuable Peconic Estuary
habitat, especially the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Recently initiated, continuing until
1998.
Ongoing
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Permit fees
Ag. Imp.: East Hampton Town has
dedicated $1.81 million in 1993 and
$1 million in 1994 for wetland
acquisition; Southampton Town has
dedicated $250,000 in 1994 for
wetland acquisition.
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff; additional
funding would guarantee future
restoration activities
Prog Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: 20% cash match
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Various levels of funding
depending on project
Ext. Imp: Various levels of funding
depending on restoration or
acquisition project.
4'2
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
NYSDEC, NYS Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, USFWS, local
government
NYSDEC
NYSDOS, in cooperation with
NYSDEC
See Action ll.3.B.2.d. (Open
Marsh Water Management).
LGC Recommendation (to be
coordinated with Base Program
Analysis Committee).
LGC (to be coordinated with
Base Program Analysis
Committee).
Action
Continue to seek to implement those
~rovisions of the New York State
Open Space Conservation Plan and
other land acquisition initiatives that
will protect significant habitats and
ecologically important areas within the
Peconic Estuary system. NYSDEC
will seek to use available funds from
the newly established Environmental
Protection Fund for these activities.
Develop recommendations and
priorities for open space and submit to
NYSDEC Regional Advisory
Committee for inclusion in redraft of
Open Space Conservation Plan.
Update existing documentation of
habitat values in the Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat
qarratives. Make recommendation for
designation of additional areas in the
Pecenic system.
Natural resource special protection
legislation or sensitive area protection
ordinances should be adopted by local
governments.
The Towns of East Hampton,
Southold and Southampton will
maintain their legislation for natural
resources special protection and
sensitive area ordinances.
Timing
Cost
Ongoing
1994
1994
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ext. Imp.: Various levels of funding
depending on protection or
acquisition project.
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
43
Reco~nendation Responsible Entity Action Timing Cost
PEP Management Conference Conduct evaluations of protection Commencing in 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
through Base Programs Analysis afforded to wetlands by state and local
Committee and NYSDOS, with entities, and identify priority wetlands
input solicited from NYSDEC restoration projects.
and local governments.
11-5.1 Nstur~l Resourees- Prot~etion - NYSDEC Continue, through the Tidal Wetlands Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
All water quality management decisions Regulatory Program, to evaluate all Ext. Imp.: Vary depending on the
should be accompanied by the m~ximum construction projects to ensure that type and extent of project.
practicable level of protection and they prevent or minimize impacts to
enhancement of natural resources, wetlands and other natural resources.
NYSDEC Through the Tidal Wetlands Ongoing Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Regulatory and State Pollutant Ext. Imp.: Vary depending on the
Discharge Elimination System type and extent of project.
Programs, continue to ensure
protection of natural resources.
NYSDEC, MSRC, NOAA, Hold a "Dredging Windows" Winter/Spring 1994 Proc. Dev.: Existing staff
ACOE, USFWS, CT DEP, NJ workshop to identify seasonal
DEPE, NYSDOS restrictions for dredging that minimize
adverse effects on aquatic organisms,
especially finfish and shellfish, and
their habitats.
44
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
Action
Timing
Cost
ll-5.2 Natural Resources - Inventory
and Management - A comprehensive,
Peconic Estuary-specific natural resources
inventory/management plan should be
pursued.
Contractor for PEP (via RFP)
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC, The Nature
Conservancy
PEP Management Conference
and USFWS (proposed).
ldentif~ rare, endangered, and
threatened species and species of
special concern in the Peconic system
and their habitat needs.
Synthesize information on baseline
conditions necessary for Peconic
Estuary finfish, shellfish, and
crustaceans.
Continue to conduct juvenile and
forage finfish surveys in the Peconic
system.
Continue to gather information and
stare data on rare species and
significant natural communities
through the Natural Heritage Program.
Seek funding to determine the trends
in abundance, distribution and
condition of freshwater and tidal
wetlands in the Peconic system.
1994
1994
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Prog. Dev.: $20,000 of NEP federal
funds.
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Existing staff
Prog. Dev.: $76,500
45
Reco--~endation Responsible Entity Action T/ming Cost
Additional Actions NYSDEC Prepare a characterization of the 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff.
pathogen problem, as measured by the
coliform indicator, in the Peconic
system as part of the PEP.
NYSDEC
Continue to perform water quality Ongoing Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
monitoring and seasonal and
conditional evaluations of harbors and
embayments to identify contaminated
shellfish areas and potential sources of
pathogens as required by the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program.
PEP Management Conference
through contractor (via RFP) Determine the economic value of thc 1994 Prog. Dev.: $10,000 provided by
Peconic system in terms of local governments; $5,000 PEP
commercial and recreational fishing, funds
tourism, and other industries.
11-6 Imnlementntlon Local Governments (to be Pursue establishing a regional Beginning in 1993-1994. Prog. Dev.: Local government
coordinated with Base Program commission similar to that adopted by personnel for evaluation.
Analysis Committee). Cape Cod or Maryland's "Chesapeake Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Bay Critical Areas Commission." Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Local governments Incorporate PEP recommendations into Commencing in 1994 Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
community Local Waterfront Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Revitalization Programs. Ext. Imp.: Unknown
46
Recommendation
Responsible Entity
PEP ManagementCon~rence
SCDHS
NYSDOS
NYSDOS
PEP, through Base Program
Analysis Committee coordination
Action
Develop a financial management
strategy, based on an assessment of
technical characterization, base
programs analysis, and evaluations of
a wide variety of possible financial
management measures, including
capital investment.
Establish a Program Office for
program management and support and
to serve as a continuing tasource for
estuarine management (e.g., data
repository, NEP library, etc.)
Incorporate all enforceable policies of
the PEP CCMP into the State Coastal
Management Program and approved
LWRPs or Regional CMP.
Prepare a Regional Coastal
Management Program for the Peconic
Estuary, including identification of
environmentally sensitive areas and
areas appropriate for development.
Investigate the relationship of state,
federal and local programs and the
way they are implemented and
investigate oppormnities to strengthen
programs and/or eliminate
redundancies.
Timing
Commencing in 1994
Beginning in 1994
1996
1995 - 1996
Commencing in 1994
Cost
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Prog. Dev.: $60,000 of NEP funds
proposed in FY 1994, with significant
SCDHS contribution in in-kind
services and office space and
equipment
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
Ag. Imp.: Unknown
Ext. Imp.: Unknown
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff using
Coastal Zone Management Act
Section 309 funding.
Prog. Dev.: Existing staff
47