The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLI Sound Coastal Mngmnt Program-Draft DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT on the LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Date of Accepamce: Comment~ ~o be r~cei~ed by: New .Yo~ and Watwfront Revimliza~n 162 Washington A~tnue Albany, New York 12231-0001 Sally F. Ball Cooztal Re~our~s Specialist ($1s) 474-~,ooo March 23, 1994 $:00 The preparation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Managemem Program was financially aided by a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The New York State Coastal Management Program is administered by the New York State DeparUlient. of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12231. Table of Co~!ents 1 Summary ............................................... 1 Description of the Proposed Action ........................... 1 Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts .............. 1 Mitigation Measures Proposed ............. 2 Alternatives Considered .......................... 2 Matters to Be Decided .................................... Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 3 Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program ...................... Description of the Proposed Action ............................ 3 3 Background ........................................... 3 Purpose of the Action .................................... Public Need for the Long Island Sound Coastal Mana~ament Program ...... 4 Public Benefits to Accrue from the Long Island Sound 4 Coastal Management Program ............................ Location and Physical Dimensions of the Action .................... 5 Timing and Scheduling of the Action ........................... 5 Relationship to Other Plans and Programs ........................ 5 7 Required Approvals ...................................... 8 Environmental Setting .................................... 9 Significant Environmental Impacts ............................. 17 Cumulative Impacts of the Action ............................. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Action ....................... 17 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ............................ 17 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............... 19 20 Proposed Mitigati ' ' ' on Measures ............................ 20 Growth Inducing Aspects of the Action .......................... 21 l~ff~--ts on Use and Cons~ation of I~nergy ............ 21 l~ffects on Solid Waste Management ........................... 21 R~asonably Pornseeable Catastrophic Impacts ...................... Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and State Coastal Management Program Consistency ................. 21 iii Summary DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is three-part: the adoption of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program (LIS CMP), including revised coastal policies; revisions to 19 NYCRR 600 implementing the New York State Coastal Management Program to incorporate the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program; and minor modifications to the state coastal boundary. SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE IMPACTS The LIS CMP will produce the following significant beneficial impacts within the Long Island Sound coastal area: · greater protection for sensitive natural areas · more efficient use of existing infrastructure · reclamation of underutilized or blighted urban waterfronts · enhancement of water quality · protection of landscape and biological diversity · incressed opportunities for public access · increased clarity and applicability of state coastal policy to the needs of the region · defined state priorities for public investment and action · increased predictability in development review Potential adverse impacts that may result from implementation of the LIS CMP are summarized as: · short-term impacts from construction and redevelopment within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers · short- and long-term impacts if a high speed New York to Connecticut ferry is developed · increased demand for and usage of public access · increased traffic within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers No adverse cumulative impacts will result from adoption of the LIS CMP. MI1'IGA~ION M~FRES PI~OPOSED The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program contains comprehensive, clear, and geographically specific policy standards to reduce, limit, or eliminate adverse impacts resulting from actions within the Long Island Sound coastal area. In addition to the coastal policy standards, the LIS CMP also identifies three categories of special management areas where development is appropriate or where natural resource values should predominate, Management plans will be prepared for each of these areas to provide specific guidance for state actions to enhance the built and nnturul environments. To address the impacts related to development within the Long Island Sound coastal area, site-specific environmental impact assessments will be required for all proposed projects. DGEI$ 1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Develop a regional coastal program for Long Island Sound with specific regional coastal pol_icies that include standards for their application that are site-specific within the region. This is the preferred alternative. Develop a regional coastal program for Long Island Sound with general regional policies that include standards but that do not identify locations within the region for specific application. Continue implementation of the existing New York State Coastal Management Program in the Long Island Sound coastal area. There are three possible scenarios under this alternative: a. Improve resource inventory information to improve decision-making. b. Shift staff assignments within Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization to develop more Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. c. Cominue with current implementation of program ('No-action" alternative). MA1TERS TO BE DECIDED Approval of the LIS CMP, including revised comtal policies and boundary changes, is required by the Secretory of State prior ~o submittal to the U.S. Department of Commerce for concurrence. The rule making entails filing of the draft role, a 4S-day public comment period, and filing of a final rule. 2 DGEI$ Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is three-part: the adoption of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program (LIS CMP), including revised coastal policies; revisions to 19 NYCRR 600 implementing the New York State Coastal Management Program to incorporate the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program; and minor modifications to the state coastal boundary. BACKGROUND The draf~ Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program was prepared to implement a major recommendation of Governor Cuomo's Task Force on Coastal Resources (November 1991). The Governor's task force, after careful evaluation of the current state coastal management program, determined that coastal management efforts in New York Stnte could be strengthened by revising and updating the state program to reflect the specific conservation and development needs of each distinct coastal region. The task force proposed preparation of regional coastal management programs to accomplish this goal. Regional coastal programs, as envisioned by the task force, would serve six purposes: · analyze demographic, environmental, economic, and land and water use trends that influence development in the coastal area · refine and tailor state coastal policies to be more specific and reflect the unique features, opportunities, and priorities of the regions · identify environmentally sensitive areas on which to focus state agency efforts for protection, enhancement, and restoration · identify areas where development should be fostered, and where state efforts should be focused · target and set priorities for state investment for resource protection and development projects · identify and propose means to resolve conflicts that are multi-jurisdictiooal. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is the first of these regional efforts. PUIt. POSB OF l'~ ACTION The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is designed to meet the goals enunciated by the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources for improved coastal management in New York State. The LIS CMP has carefully analyzed the physical, social, and economic characteristics and trends in the Long Island Sound coastal area. Based on this work, specific revisions to coastal policies were made to reflect regional needs, sensitive environmental areas and areas suitable for development were identified, and necessary state DGEIS 3 actions were defined. The program further recommends that a Long Island Sound coastal advisory committee be created to address multi-jurisdictional issues. Special managemen.t areas defined in the LIS CMP are: the Area~ for Concentrated Development in the villages of Port Chester and Manorhaven and in the City of Glen Cove; the Maritime Centers in Port Chester, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor-Echo Bay, City Island, Port Washington-Manorhaven, Glen Cove, Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Mattituck Inlet; and the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas of Oyster Bay, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond, and Stony Brook-Setauket. These special management areas are shown on maps 17.0, 21.0, and 25.0. Revisions to 19 NYCRR 600 are required to carry out the purposes of Article 42 of the Executive Law. These revisions include the Long Island Sound coastal policy statements. The LIS CMP makes minor amendments to the current state coastal boundary to include lands immediately adjacent to the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas (ONCA) of Oyster Bay, Crab Meadow-Fresh Creek, and Stony Brook-Setauket. The boundary extensions are shown on maps 26.0, 27.0, and 28.0. These minor extensions support the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas by including important natural resources that are intrinsic parts of the ONCAs' resources or critical to the functioning of the primary resources in the ONCA. PUBLIC Nnnn FOR THE LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGF-.MENT PROGRAM The coastline of Long Island Sound is one of the mnst heavily populated areas on the eastern seaboard. The intensity of land and water uses has created enormous stresses on the natural systems that support environmentally and economically important living resources. These stresses and opportunities for mitigation are not being adequately addreseed under the current coastal management program, which is largely reactive in nature. There is no comprehensive state agenda for action to address land and water issues affecting the Sound and its communities, nor is there an adequate recognition of the priorities and concerns of the communities in the region. While many local governments along the Sound shore are preparing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, many of the LWRPs are not yet complete. There are also geographic gaps in coverage of the shore. A~ a result, the more general state coastal policies are used to guide decision-making, which can limit the state's ability to more fully achieve the intent of the policies. In turn, local governments fred the current 44 policies cumbersome to interpret and apply to their comtai circumstances. Project review is oRen lengthy in the coastal area, increasing both public and private costs. The process also lacks predictability for applicants. Absent specific policies and criteria in LWRPs, the current comtal policies do not provide sufficient guidance for applicants to determine the likely result of proposing an action in a given location. Finally, absent a regional perspective, investments of public funds for infrastructure to capitalize on existing investment, to achieve greater efficiency, or to set priorities for upgrading is not a realistic goal. 4 DGEI$ PUBMC BENEFITS TO ACCRUE FROM 771E LONG ISLAND SOUND COAS~'AL MANAGEMENT P~OGRAM The public needs outlined above -- a clear state agenda for the Sound coast, clear and regionally specific coastal policies, comprehensive evaluation of regional needs and priorities, streamlined project review and increased predictability, and the enhanced ability to direct rather than react -- are addressed by the LIS CMP. The LIS CMP has comprehensively identified regional environmental and economic needs and has defined special management areas to meet these needs. The Areas for Concentrated Development and the Maritime Centers will focus state efforts to retain and further develop water-dependent and water-enhanced businesses, as well as mixed use urban redevelopment, in the Sound coastal area. The Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas will direct stnte efforts to places where natural resource enhancement is a priority. Such specificity permits more efficient use of limited state funds and other resources to achieve clear state goals. The proposals of the LIS CMP that focus development and redevelopment activities in or adjacent to existing urban areas is designed to maintain, to the greatest degree possible within the state's authority, the current pattern of open space, habitat, and agricultural lands. These natural and open areas are important components of the character of the Sound coastal area, as well as its environmental and economic well-being. The LIS CMP coastal policies will increase the predictability of state permit reviews and streamline private development actions because the policies present clear standards for review that are applied in a geographically specific rnanner. In addition, the management plans to be prepared for the special management areas will allow the state to take positive action to promote economic development, water-dependant activities, and natural resource enhancement, and further streamline regulatory decision making. LOCATION AND Pnr$1CAL DIM~V$1ON$ 01~ THE ACTION The Long bland Sound Coastal Management Program applies to the coastal area bordering on Long Island Sound in Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and Suffolk County. Refer to map 1.0. Ti~fi~VG AND Sf.:ffi~oFLING 01~ ~ ACTION The Long Island Sound Co~tal Management Program will become effective for the purposes of state agency consistency when it is approved by the Secretary of 5ta~ and the final rule making is adopted. These actions are scheduled to occur in mid-Juno 1994. The secretary will then submit the LIS CMP to the U.S. Department of Conunerce as a change to New York's federally-approved coastal management program. The Depa~h~ent of Commerce has 28 days to concur in the change. RELar/OlVSi~te/17 ~ P/AN5 ~ PllOC~5 The LIS CMP builds upon and reInforces a number of individual federal, state, and local plans, programs, and ~ves. In developin~ the LIS ClVlP, the Delmrtment of State referred to the following principal documents: · Governor's Task Force on Cnasml Resources DC, ElS 5 · New York State Coastal Management Program, Article 42 of the Executive Law, and various state laws implementing portions of the. CMP · approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs for the Village of Port Chester, the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of I archmont, the Village of Mamaroneck, the City of Rye, New York City, the Town of Smithtown, and the villages of Nissequogue and Head-of-the-Harbor · draft LWRPs for the City of New Rochelle, the Town of North Hempstead, the Village of Manorhaven, the City of Glen Cove, the Town of Oyster Bay, the Town of Huntington, the Town of Brookhaven, the Village of Port Jefferson, the Town of Riverhead, and the Town of Southold · theLong IslandSoundStudy'sdraftComprehensiveConservationandManagement Plan · U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Comtal Areas Study · New York State Economic Development Plan · New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan ("Reclaiming the City's Edge') · Section 6217 management measures (Federal Comtal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) · Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion · Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan · Open Space Conservation Plan · Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan The Governor's Task Force on Coastnl Resources provided the impetus for developing the LIS CMP. The task force analysis of factors that impede the full implementation of the state Coastal Management Program led to the recommendation that regional coastal management programs be developed. The LIS CMP achieves the goals of clarity, geographic specificity, and establishes priorities for state action and investment. The draft LIS CMP draws its primary focus and content from the authority and requirements of Article 42 of the Executive Law. The draft LIS CMP is a refinement and an extension of the current state Comtal Management Program, and is designed to fully substitute for the state CMP in the Long Island Sound coastal region. Like the current CMP, the LIS CMP is a management umbrella for the corot and is implemented by a variety of state laws. These laws remain the bases for the LIS CMP coastal policies. The approved LWRPs in the Sound comtai region have previously tailored the state coastal policies to local conditions and have de~ribed projects to implement the various LWRPs. The LIS CMP draws on the specificity of these approved LWRPs, and reflects the~ local policies and projects in a broader regional context. The LIS CMP complements the Comprehensive Conservation nnd Mann~ement Plnn by incorporating its enforceable recommendations for control of point and nonpoint sources of water pollution, actions to improve water quality in embayments along the Sound shore, and general improvement of environmental conditions as they affect water quality. 6 The ecological complexes defined by the LIS CMP as the bases for natural resource management reflect the areas outlined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Northeast Coastal Are~ Study. This study relied on dam developed by the Department of Sham for the Significant Coas~l Fish and Wildlife Habihats program. The New York State Economic Development Plan includes many strategies and proposals which complement and reinforce the reconunendations of the LIS CMP. These include proposals covering environmental infrastructure, travel and tourism, environmental assistance to industry, development of urban and distressed areas, regional economic development, and waterways, parks, and environmental projects. The New York City comprehensive waterfront plan presents a detailed analysis of the city's coastal resources and outlines specific actions to further its waterfront goals. The LIS CMP draws extensively on this plan and incorporates proposals for public access, protection of water-dependent uses, restoration of natural areas, and water quality improvement. The federal nanpoint pollution control program, created in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act, calls for states to develop coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs. The LIS CMP has incorporated the relevant management measures from section 6217 to address nonpoint source pollution issues in the Long Island 5ound coastal area. The Governor's Task Forc~ on Coastal EreMoa released a draR final report in November 1993 outlining the s~ate's program for addressing and managing coastal erosion. The LIS CMP builds on this effort, absorbing relevant recommendations and providing, within the context of the ~k force recommendations, geographic specificity for erosion man~ement on the Sound coast. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor R~r~tion ~ (SCORP) is revised every five years ~o insure tim communities are well-served by public access and recreation facilities. The SCORP contains status of and guidelines for recreation resource planning, preservation, and development. The LIS CMP includes recommendations from the most recent plan, People, Resources, Recreation, 1988-1993. The 1992 state plan "Conserving Open Space in New York," prepared by DEC and OPRHP, proposes what open space should be saved for the s~n~*'s future, and describes how to conserve and manage that open land. The LIS CMP incorlx~tes the plan's project recommendations and calls for following its criteria for undertaking future land conservation projects. The LIS CMP draws on and advances many of the recommendations in the open space plan. In addition, the LIS C/viP draws on materials assembled by the Region I Land Acquisition Advisory Comm~__~, and advances many of the coronado's recommendations. The Mnrine ~ Fishiq Access Plan was prepared by the Department of Environmental Comervatian. It presents an inventory of existing marine recreational fishing access sites in the state's marine and coastal district; determines additional marine recreational fishing access needs and those benefits that accrue from expanded access; and develops a plan to satisfy the identified mal~e recrmtional f~hing access needs. The LIS CMP draws from this plan to incorporate proposals for additional fishing access. DGEI$ 7 REQUIRED APPROVALS Approval of the LIS CMP by the Secretary of State, including revised coastal policies and boundary changes, is required prior to submittal to the U.S. Department of Commerce for concurrence. The rule making entails filing of the draft rule, a 45-day public comment period, and filing of a final rule. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program describes in detail the environmental setting of the Long Island Sound coastal area, including its land use and demographic characteristics. That detailed description is incorporated into this DGEIS. The following is a summary of key physical features of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Most land adjacent to the Sound is used for some public or private purpose, the bulk of which is residential. Population growth has remained relatively stable for the past 20 years, and is expected to grow by about 1 to 2 percent over the decade. The shiffing demographics of the region has resulted in a relatively stable population, but development has increased to accommodate smaller, and more numerous households. The intensity of development decreases from west to east along the Sound shoreline. In the eastern portions of the Sound coastal area, open space and agricultural lands are prominent land uses. Open space, old fields, forested areas, and agricultural lands are subject to greater pressure for conversion to accommodate this growth. Fragmentation of ecological communities, with the attendant impacts on fish and wildlife is a related problem. The LIS CMP has identified opportunities for redevelopment of several large parcels, as well as infili development and redevelopment within areas for concentrated development to address these concerns. Most development to the west of Port Jefferson is served by municipal sewage treatment plants. These plants are genecally at or above capacity, and requirements for denitrification will further reduce capacity. To the east of Port Jefferson, development tends to be served by on-site sewage disposal systems. The immediate coastline of the Sound is eham_cterized by rocky shorelines and intertidal marshes in Westchester and the Bronx. In Nassau and Suffolk counties, sandy beaches backed by bluffs of varying beights are the predominant feature. Embayment~ punctuate the western two-thirds of the Sound coastal region, while the ~horeline to the east of Mount Sinai Harbor is broken only by two inlets. Fishers Island and the other small islands off of Orient Point are rocky. Areas of rapid erosion on the Long Island Sound shoreline occur at Bayville, A~haroken, and along portions of the bluffs of Smithtown, Broukhaven, and Riv~rhend. About 50 percent of the Sound's shoreline is hardened by seawalls, bulkheads, revetments, and other structures. This trend continues. Despite intensive development, and an estimated loss of 65 to 75 percent of the vegetated wetlands in the Long Island Sound coastal area, tidal and freshwater wetlands are significant components of the Sound's shoreline, providing habitat and other benefits. While there has not been a major loss of wetlands since the enactment of the Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts, impairment and degradation of wetlands are continuing problems in the region. Impairments result from loss of vegetated buffer, instances of illegal fill, sedimentation, and introduction of other pollutants. 8 DG£1S Degraded water quality, particularly in the wes~ portiOns of the Sound and in its embayments, is a consequence of point and nonpoint pollution of coastal waters. The harvest of commercially significant fish, shellfish, and crustacean resources has become increasingly limited. Little opportunity for physical or visual access to the coast exists for the general public along the Sound shoreline. Structures, patterns of land ownership, and residency restrictions all inhibit general public access. There are four major active recreation facilities open to the general public in the region to serve millions of residents and visitors. There are 193 water-dependent commercial and industrial uses along the Sound shoreline, two-thirds of which are located in 10 harbors. These uses contribute to the economic base of the region, and are an important component of community character. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC~ This section focuses on the potentially significant adverse and beneficial impacts to the natural and human environment resulting from adoption and implementation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. While the broad range of potential impacts is considered, the discussion centers on the environmental impacts of the major concepts of the LIS CMP: designation of special management areas (Areas for Concentrated Development, Maritime Centers, and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas); expansion of public access opportunities; management of erosion and flood haT-rd areas; and control of nonpoint source pollution. Spect~ Manag~nent Areas. Without careful planning, the finite resources of the Long Island Sound cnast cannot continue to absorb additional development and still meet future regional needs for open space, clean beaches and water, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands. The LIS CMP is designed to foster a coastal development pattern that maintains the positive relationship of the built and the natural environments. This is accomplished through identification of areas where development is appropriate and should be encouraged and areas where natural resource values should predomipn-~. The LIS CMP focusns on existing urban waterfronts and immediately adjacent lands as areas for conceni~a~ing development and redevelopment. In these areas, new opportunities for jobs, housing, recreation, and commerce can be promoted. In addition, improvements to the visual and environmental quality of the waterfront and increased efficiencies in public investments in infrastructure can be achieved. There are two categories of special management areus where economic development is the primary conceru: Mm'ittme Cee~ers and Are~ for Coneentrnted Development. ~a~ithne Centers focus on the needs of the working coast and will be the target of state investment designed to bolster water-dependent conune~:e and indostty. Such invesunents, combined with other incentives and regulatory streamlining, will mean the more efficient operation of harbors, while at the same time ptotectin~ and improving natural resource~ and water quality. New water-depondent uses will be encouraged to locate within, rather than outside of Maritime Centers. The proposed Maritime Cemers include: Port Chester, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor and Echo Bay, City bland, Manorhaven-Port Washington, Glen Cove, Huntinglon Harbor, Northport Ha~oor, Port Jefferson, and Mattituck Inlet. DGEl$ 9 Concentrating maritime activities in Maritime Centers may present some localized short-term environmental impacts, for example, temporary turbidity during scheduled dredging activities. These activities will be addressed in project-specific EISs. Long-term impacts relate to the permanent closure of portions of Maritime Center waters to shellfishing. This would amount to lesg than 5 percent of the Sound shoreline. Since these centers will become the foci for retention and expansion of water-depandem uses, including marinas, federal law requires that no shellfish for immediate consumption be harvested from these waters. This commitment is balanced, however, by three factors. The Maritime Centers now host two- thirds of the water-dependem uses, primarily marinas, in the Sound coastal area. As a result, these waters are now uncertified. Second, since marinas and other water-dependent uses will be encouraged only in Maritime Centers, there is a much greater likelihood that the acreage of uncertified shellfish beds will not increase. Shellfish in these areas may be transplanted to certified waters for deputation and harvesting. It is also likely that seasonal harvesting of shellfish could continue or expand in some Maritime Centers. Public benefits to accrue from designation and implementation of Maritime Centers are: regional growth management, protection of water-dependent uses, coordinated provision of infrastructure, and protection of natural values. Maritime Centers will foster effective regional growth management in the Long Island Sound region by encouraging development and expansion of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to commercially-developed harbors, while ensuring the protection of natural resources and residential communities. Siting new water-dependent uses in areas already developed with commercial uses will ensure a degree of compatibility with existing harbor uses. It will also ensure the long-term strength of water-dependent uses as well as the long- term preservation of the economic, natural, and maritime values of the Sound region. Water- dependent commercial and industrial uses will be discouraged from siting outside Maritime Centers. These uses should locate outside of Maritime Centers only if the use has unique siting requirements that cannot be met adequately in a Maritime Center, and all potential significant impacts are mitigated. Maritime Centers can protect existing water-dependent uses, associated land-based support facilities, and underutilized commercial waterfront land suitable to accommodate future growth of water-dependent uses. This can bo achieved primarily through state and local policies and local zoning that reduce competition for commercial waterfront land from non- water-dependent uses. A priority in each Maritime Center will be developing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs that give preference to water-dependant commercial and industrial uses to minimize competition by non-water-dependent uses. Designating commercially developed harbors as Maritime Canters does not imply that there is an abundance of undeveloped waterfront properties available for the growth of new water- dependent uses. Rather, in many harbors, there are only opportunities for redevelopment of underutilized waterfront properties. Such properties may be: developed but contain vacant or deteriorated structures, be partially developed but additional development potential exists, or may be developed with an inappropriate which could be rcdeveioped with a waterfront use. In other harbors there are no opportunities for new development. By identifying Maritime Centers as targets for state investment assistance, government will be able to better plan improvements for inadequate or deteriorated coastal infrastructure, such as navigation channels, piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, water and sewer lines, and pump out stations. This infrastructure, which is often too expensive for many water-dependent I0 DGEIS businesses to maintain or Provide, is nec~sary to SuStain water-dependent uses and improve the quality and am'activeness of the working coast. Establishing Maritime Centers will also better enable the public sector to target existing economic assistance programs to strengthen the region's water~ront economy. Channeling water-dependent uses in lVlaritime Centers will ensure that full use is made of public sector infrastructure investments. Establishing Maritime Centers as areas where state and local governments desire commercial water-dependent uses and activities will make the regulatory process more predictable, less onerous, and more efficient, by reducing the time needed to process permits. Increased predictability in governmental decision-making will allow the private sector to invest in projects and developments with greater confidence. The regulatory process will become less reactive and more proactive since Maritime Centers will re~resent--to regulators, investors, and the public--areas that are suitable and appropriate for working coast uses, while areas outside of maritime centers are generally not suitable for these uses. Maritime Centers will ensure that the quality and value of natural resources outside of Maritime Centers (approximately 95 percent of the Sound coasO will be bec~r protected from physical disturbances and the introduction of various pollutants associated with commercial or industrial shoreline activity. Adverse effects, including secondary and cumulative impacts, impairments to wetlands, wildlife habitn~, shellfish, water quality, and other natural resources as a result of intensive vessel activity and commercial shoreline development will be avoided. Dredging to create or maintain channels for large vessels will not be necessery except in very limited and specific circumstances where water-dependent uses have specific siting needs. The volume of dredged material in the region and the attendant disposal problems will be reduced. Existing and proposed uses in Maritime Centers will be required to comply with applicable natural resource and land and water use regulations to maintain and improve environmental quality in Maritime Centers. To ensure that environmentally responsible growth and redevelopment occurs in Maritime Centers, environmental standards must still be met, but the review proce~ could be shortened. There is a clear recognition that environmental and economic objectives are mutually supportive, not mutually exclusive, since a high quality environment supports and enhances economic growth and development. for Co~eentr~t~d i~vdopment are co~tal locations ~ have ~ previ~iy devel~ ~ ~ ~w u~l~ or ~ a ~ ~on. ~ f~ C~ ~velopment ~ pr~ ~ ~om of ~e ~l~e of ~ ~, &e Ci~ of G~ Cove, Vil~e of ~v~. ~ m ~ ~mre ~mi~ ~1~ ~e C~ of N~ R~ile, ~e K~ ~k ~y~ic F~ili~ ~ ~e To~ of S~, ~ ~e Vil~e of Jeff~n. Development actions in Areas for Concentr~_r__~!_ Development should be viewed as a step toward restorin~ the nun-made and natural environment in the LOn~ Island Sound watershed. Sites that comprise Areas for Conc~,uated Development are located on or near Long bland Sound and comist mostly of blighted and underutilized urban lands. These lands, in their existing condition, represent a wasted regional resource that could produce economic, aesthe6c, environmental, and public henlth and safety benefits thro~h pLqnned rede. By directing regional growth and development to Arens For Conc~a~d Development, deleterious conditions can be eliminated and new desired uses can be established. Development pressures are turned into opportunities for rejuvennting communities and improving the economy and environment. DGEI$ 11 Redevelopmem can play an important role in local and regional economic growth by providing new commercial and residential uses, creating jobs, and expanding the tax base. Vacant or deteriorated waterfront lands provide opportunities to develop uses such as new marinas or other intensive waterfront uses which otherwise are likely to have limited future growth opportunities~ in the coastal area of the Sound. Redevelopment can boost growth in commercial and retail uses that provide goods and services to local businesses and consumers. Fostering appropriate redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Developmem by integrating commercial and retail uses with public open spaces and waterfront access, will improve the quality of the waterfront, making it a more lively and diverse place for residents, workers, and visitors. An attractive waterfront will draw people to these areas, benefiting merchants and adding significantly to the quality of life in the local area and region. Areas upland or adjacent to Areas for Concentrated Development will also benefit. Nearby or adjacent neighborhoods will become more attractive places to live, and residents will benefit from their proximity to the redeveloped waterfront. Areas for Concentrated Development are designed to achieve the following objectives: · Redeveloped areas will be of various scales and each should have a distinctive identity by taking advantage of unique man-made and natural characteristics. Redevelopment actions should be of a scale that conforms to the setting. · Redevelopment should build upon existing resources such as local history and important natural and man-made features to reinforce community identity and add to the sense of place. The waterfront should be a focal point of redevelopment actions. · Redevelopment must respond to community and regional needs, the marketplace, and environmental constraints and opportunities. To achieve successful redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Development, performance standards and design guidelines should be established. Performance standards guide the type and density of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and mixed uses. Standards that should be covered include allowable use, density, height, and requirements for open space and public access. Design guidelines provide the means for achieving design quality. Ivlajor topics that would be covered include: site layout, walk-ways and promenades, visual quality, architecture, landscaping, streetscape amenities, and signs. Although there may be adverse impacts associated with increased human activity at the waterfront, such as a localized increase in emissions from automobiles or conversion of vacant or underutilized land to new uses, these adverse effects are expected to be outweighed by the numerous environmental improvements that would be required in any redevelopment plan prepared under the LIS CMP. Additionally, since these areas have been previously developed, redevelopment reduces the potential for development of some of the region's remaining open space resources. Any new development must be accompanied by appropriate environmental improvements, which could include: proper treatment for stormwater runoff, clean-up of hazardous materials, improved visual and physical access to the waterfront, restoration of natural shorelines and wetlands where possible, upgraded sewage treatment, removal of marine debris, or other enhancements, such as restored historic sites. Enhanced community character and visiting pleasure also are goals to be pursued in developing ACD planning strategies. 12 DGEIS Other public benefits to accrue through the design~ion and implementation of Areas for Concentrated Development include increased recognition of the Sound as a recreational and open space resource, clear state investment priorities, and clear development strategies. The Sound itself comprises the largest contiguous open space in the region providing relief from the built environment, particularly in the western half of the Sound. A redeveloped waterfront with increased public access and new activities will draw people to the waterfront and allow more people to enjoy the open space benefits the Sound provides. Attraction of people to developed areas will avoid adverse impacts of human activities in natural areas. Establishing investment priorities will encourage the consolidation of new growth in the.~e areas that are already somewhat developed. This will minimize urban sprawl, protect unspoiled areas, and provide new public amenities. Development strategies will be prepared for ACDs and will be tailored to the needs of the individual community. Specific performance standards and development guidelines will be incorporated into future Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs and municipal laws. Site- specific EISs will address local impacts of redevelopment. In addition to the areas for economic development, special natural areas are identified in the LIS CMP. Out~t~mding N~m~r~l Co,mi ~ are areas that contain significant coastal reaourc~ that are sensitive to development, and therefore in need of protection, enhancement, or restoration. Within these areas, the assemblage of various significant natural re~urc~, such as wetland~ and forested areas, indicat~ that resource protection is the state's priority. The propns~ Outstanding Natural Cna~tal Are~ are: Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond, and Stony Brook-Setauket Harbor~. In addition to these, other areas to be considered in the future include: Pelham Bay Park-South Westchester Islands; Little Neck Bay; Lloyd Neck-F, aton.~ Neck; Sunken Meadow- Ni~quogue River; Mount Sinai Harbor; Wading River; Wildwood-Baiting Hollow; Riverhead Bluffs; Eestern Island~; and Fisber~ Island. It is anticipated that no adverse environmental impacts will r~ult from designation and implementation of Outstanding Natural Coastal Area~. Comprehensive n~negement plans prepared for the Outatanding Natural Co~ud Areas will present meesures to pro~t the natural and cultural re~urc~ of the area and a program for restoration of degraded natural elements. The r~ult of these management plans will be a clear program to guide state actions in the ONCA.~ to achieve st.~ re~urce protection and enhancement objectives. Substantial public b~fi~ in lite form of incres~d pro~ctJon and restoration of sensitive natural ar~ is expec~d. Tbe~ three special n~n~ement area designations ensure a balanced and beneficial use of coastal r~oorc~ and mor~ efficient nse of limited local, state, and federal dollars. Inerm~d ~ Ac¢~sz. The LIS CMP focusm on increasing opportunities for the public to use the Sound corot by creating a system of greenways and blueways to link public recreation and aece~ are~. Opportunities for development of small-scale public recreatinn and access facilitie~ are idemif~d and given priority for state investment. In addition, the potential of developing large-~ale public ecce~ and recre~on facilities at large publicly-held sit~, such es Moorwond in the Town of North ~ and D~vid's Island, is considered. Finally, the LIS CMP call~ for aggressive sta~ action to clarify and build on the public trust doctrine to secure public rights to the Sound's formhore and waters. DC, ElS 13 Improving public access to the Sound may present limited adverse environmental impacts. Construction of various public access facilities would have short-term impacts ranging from temporary loss of vegetative cover to introduction of impervious surfaces, such as parking areas or scenic area pulloffs. These impacts can be controlled and their effects reduced. A more long-term concern is the effect of increased public use of the coast. To avoid or reduce impacts on habitat, scenic resources, and sensitive coastal resources, careful consideration of where specific types of access are provided and management of public use of the area through facility design is critical: These short- and long-term issues are more appropriately addressed through site specific EISs. The long term public benefits from increased access to the Sound are significant. Currently, the general public is largely excluded from this recreational resource of statewide importance. The Sound coastal area can accommodate more opportunities for general public access, within the constraints of its natural resources. Since the public at large will be expected to contribute to the substantial cost for water quality improvements to the Sound, as called for in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, building their appreciation for the Sound's resources and clarifying their stake in the cost of improvement is critical. Increasing public access is one important way to build this awareness. Intergovernmental Cooperative PlannlngforLarge Sites. There are large sites in the Sound coastal area in single ownership that were either previously used or proposed for a major use. These sites offer significant opportunities for meeting an array of regional needs, from economic development to public access and open space. The size of these sites could accommodate large-scale development, thereby significantly affecting the region. To fully realize the regional benefit of these large sites, the LIS CMP proposes that involved public agencies cooperate in planning for their reuse and development. In the Long Island Sound coastal area, these sites include: sites in the City of New Rochelle; sand and gravel properties in the Town of North Hempstead; the Kings Park Psychiatric Center in the Town of Smithtown; the Shoreham nuclear facility site in the Town of Brookhaven; and the Jamesport LILCO site in the Town of Riverhead. Cooperative planning efforts are currently underway in some of these areas, for example, King's Park, and can serve as models for future efforts. There are no direct environmental impacts from this cooperative planning activity. Any project that comes from such an effort would be subject to review procedures under SEQRA, and impacts would be analyzed and addressed through that process. The public benefits of this proposal have the potential to be significant. Since these sites are limited in number, and build-out is anticipat~l in the near future under current growth patterns, the sites can be considered significant resources that can meet a range of regional needs, from economic development to open space and recreation. By including a broad array of concerns and expertise in planning for the use of these large sites, state and local governments can work together to use these regional resources to their full advantage. Building cooperation throu~ this process may also spur increased intergovernmental cooperation in other endeavors, to the benefit of the public and the region. Wetlands Restoration. Fifteen key wetlands along the Long Island Sound coast are in need of restoration. The LIS CMP presenm a wetlands mitigation strategy to ensure a "no net loss' of wetlands. In addition, sp~ific standards to guide actions that may adversely affect wetlands are presented. Since the bulk of the vegetated wetlands in the coastal area have been lost, steps to maintain and reclaim wetland acreage is critical. 14 DGElS Mab,t~_~,~ the Namnd Skore//~e and Protea' PUb~ ln~esm~ent. The adverse impacts of inappropriately sited public and private development in coastal hazard areas are clear. In the Long Island Sound coastal area, half of the shoreline has been hardened with erosion protection structures that interfere with the normal transport of sand, causing dowodrift erosion. Houses and other structures have been built close to the edge of bluffs contributing to bluff failure, and often with no opportunity to relocate the structure as the bluffs erode. If this pauern continues, the likelihood of increased damage and public and private expenditures is high. The LIS CMP addresses these issues by encouraging that the remaining 50 percent of the Sound shoreline be maintained in a natural condition, and when feasible, that the remaining shoreline where erosion control structures have been built is restored. Public expenditures to address coastal flooding and erosion hazards should be limited to areas of significant public investment: City Island and the Throgs Neck; Cross Island Parkway; Bayviile; Asharoken tomboio; Sunken Meadow State Park; and portions of identified Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers. New development in coastal high b~7~rd areas will be discouraged through a variety of incentives and disincentives. The public benefit of managing coastal areas to reduce bn~nrds arid ensure that natural coastal processes can operate effectively is great. Public expenditures to mitigate the erosion impacts resulting from erosion control structures can be greatly reduced and managed by setting clear conditions under which such expenditures would be made. This LIS CMP and the coastal policies define these conditions. The LIS CIVIP also strengthens iong-term planning for coastal areas by recommending that prospective buyers be notified of coastal bn~rds, requiring flood insurance, establishing a coastal processes monitoring program, strengthening structural design standards, and providing for assistance to local governments to strengthen land use regulations to limit use of hazardous locations. R~l~ce Coamd Nonpo~ So~ree Poii~ion. To improve coastal water quality, the LIS CMP advances the recommendatiom of the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation nmi wMa~g~ ement Plan (CCMP) and the coastal nonpoint source pollution control program. quality enhancement is a major concern in the Sound coastal area. An aggressive program of point source reduction has been proposed by the CCMP, and inco~0or~d ih the LIS CMP. This program, which involves capital improvements to sewage treatment plants, elimination of combined sewer overflows, and other actiom, will have short-term Iocationai impacts during construction of improvements. The coastal nonpoint source pollution program will affect local and state governments and the general public by introducing new management programs aimed at a~'icultural operations, urban runoff of all types, on-alte sewage disposal systems operation and use, marina operations, and dredging. To accomplish these improvements, ~ and local government will be expected to develop watershed man.ernest and protection pro.ams, which may require adoption of new laws. The cost of these programs, both direct and indirect, is unknown. It is expected, however, substantial stn~ and local inves~nent will be required for plant upg~'ades and expansion. These funds would no longer be available for other regionally important public purposes, such as expanding recreation opportunities. However, the long- term benefit of cleaner cnastal wnters outweighs this concern. Water q~ ~orovemants that will resuU Mm ~ e~end~res ~ control of point and nonpoint source pollution will have long-t~m public benefits. Cleaner surface and grouodwaters will reduce the likelihood of aquifer contamination, ensuring potable water for the region. The economically significant shellfish, lobs~r, and fmfish industry will benefit DC, ElS 15 through healthier and more plentiful stocks. Recreational use of the Sound and its embayments will also be enhanced, benefiting tourism and other recreational businesses. Restructure Petroleum Delivery and Storage. To protect water quality in shallow enclosed harbors, the prograrfi encourages petroleum transshipment facilities in Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor eventually to be phased out. Petroleum facilities in the Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Northville should, however, be protected. The LIS CMP would encourage the development of additional offshore transshipment points to inland storage sites. While the LIS CMP will not result in removal of certain oil storage facilities, the policy it establishes may eventually result in unused shoreline facilities. This would have some localized land use and potential hazardous waste concerns resulting from removal of tanks and reuse of the site. The development of offshore transshipment pipelines would have short- term construction impacts that would have to be fully addressed through the SEQRA review process. The potential for spills and response plans would also be par~ of such an analysis. The public benefit of the phase out policy is two-fold. First, the environmental consequences of a spill in one of the enclosed and shallow embayments is great. Eliminating this potential through relocation of facilities is a responsible long-term approach. Second, waterfront land is a valuable and limited resource. As such, other uses, particularly water-depoodent uses, water-enhanced uses, and public access should have priority. Relocation of facilities will open more land for these uses, to the benefit of the region. High Speed Ferry Development. The LIS CMP supports the concept of providing appropriate ferry service to and within the region, including a high speed passenger and commercial ferry between Connecticut and Long Island. Ferry service can be a cost-effective and energy efficient means of transportation in coastal areas, and can reduce landside transportation impacts, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and added cost for necessary products and goods. Ferries may, however, present localized adverse impacts including temporary traffic congestion during loading and unloading, dedication of waterfront land for staging areas, and dredging. All of these impacts, and others resulting from the proposed development of ferry services in the region need careful enviror/mental analysis and mitigation of impacts. This can only be addressed in a project-specific EIS. In summary, the LIS CMP will produce significant beneficial impacts within the Long Island Sound coastal area, These are: · greater protection for sensitive natural areas · more efficient use of existing infrastructure · reclamation of underutilized or blighted urban waterfronts · enhancement of water quality · protection of landscape and biological divessity · increased opportunities for public access · increased clarity and applicability of state coastal policy to the needs of the region · defined state priorities for public investment and action · increased predictability in development review Potential adverse impacts that may result from implementation of the LIS CMP are summarized as: ! 6 DGEI5 · short-term impacts from construction and redevelopment within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers · short- and long-term impacts if a high speed New York to Connecticut ferry is developed · increased den~nd for and usage of public access · increased traffic within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers To address the impacts related to development, site-specific environmental impact assessments will be required for all proposed projects. CUMULATIV~ IMPACTS OF THE ACTION No adverse cumulative impacts will result from adoption of the LIS CMP. The LIS CMP was designed to reduce cumulative and secondary impact~ in the Long Island Sound coastal area by presenting a comprehensive analysis of regional environmental and economic concerns to guide development to suitable iocatiom and away from sensitive natural areas. In this manner, continuing and cumulative impacts on sensitive coastal resources, open space, and scenic and cultural resources can be maneged and reduced. Within areas where development is appropriate, specific manegement plan~ will emure that development and redevelopment meets important regional need~ for economic activity while improving the quality of the surrounding neighborhood and coastal environment. UNAVOIDA~L~ AD~ IMPACTS OF JN~ ACTION There no unavoidable adverse impact~ that would result from adoption of the LIS CMP. ALTE, RNAYlV~3 2'0 ~ PllOPOS~D ACTION Prior to developing the LIS CMP, five possible scenarios within three primary alternative actions were cumidered: Develop a regional coastal program for Long Island Sound with spociflc regional coastal policies that include standards for their application that are site-specific within the region. This is the preferred alternative. Develop a regional coastal program for Long Island Sound with general regional policies that include standards but that do no~ identify locations within the region for specific application. Continue implementation of the ~xisting New York S~ Coastal Management Program in the Long Is]end Sound coastal area. There are three po~ible scenario~ under this alternative: a. Improve resource inventory information to improve decision-making. b. Shift staff aasignmmas within Division of Coastal Resources and Warm'front Revitalization to develop more Local Waterfront Revitalizntion Programs. c. Continue with current implemerd~ion of program (*No-action" alternative). These alternatives were examined within the context of the report of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. The task force recommepd~tlom are premised on the belief that DC,~;$ 17 the natural and economic benefits the public derives from the coast are dependent on environmental quality. The management framework for coastal decision-making was a key issue examined by the task force. The task force concluded that clarity and predictability of government actions were of prime importance for improved coastal management. Based on the task force's first recommendation on revising the coastal management program-- Revise and update the Coastal Management Program to reflect demographic, environmental, economic, and land and water use trends, as well as local priorities, and the conservation and development needs of each coastal region-- the preferred alternative (alternative 1) is the adoption of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program and the specific coastal policies developed as part of the LIS CMP. The benefits of choos!ng this alternative are presented in Significant Impacts, above. Alternative 2. Although this alternative would provide more flexibility in the application of the new, regional coastal policies, it has the disadvantage of permitting the existing conflicts over uses of individual water bodies and coastal areas to continue. Such conflicts are at the crux of the problem of adequately protecting coastal resources. General standards for the coastal policies would not reflect the unique requirements of coastal water bodies nor would they articulate community priorities for resource protection, enhancement, and appropriate use of coastal lands and waters. The lack of an expressed, specific public vision for the coast hampers government's ability to make appropriate decisions. Alternative 3a. Rather than revising the entire state Coastal Management Program by preparing regional coastal programs for each coastline, the Department of State could continue to improve and continually update its resource inventory information to provide for better decision-making. Although decisions made by the department regarding consistency with the state coastal policies would be more informed, unless the improved inventory information were available to all state agencies making coastal consistency determinations, little overall improvement in advancing the state's coastal policies would be realized. The general problems of the statewide program as it exists today, however, would not be solved. Stated simply, these are: · Its implementation is reactive in nature. · The statewide coastal policies are too numerous for efficient application. · The statewide coastal policies do not all apply equally well to all of the state's coastlines. · The statewide coastal policies lack clear standards for reliably consistent application. · Conflicts over uses and protection of coastal resourcea are difficult to resolve through the consistency review process. · Local problems, needs, and priorities are not articulated because many communities choose not to participate in or have not completed Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. · There exists no adequate mechanism for the state to set priorities for its programs and investments in the coastal area. · Regional trends or patterns that would provide a basis for broad management decisions by state agencies are not identified. 18 DGEIS Application of the statewide coastal management program does not help to resolve conflicts among jurisdictions or those that transcend municipal boundaries. Alternmtve 3b. The Division of Coastal Resources and Wat~,&ont Revitalization could shift staff assignments to assist local governments in developing more Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs in the Long Island Sound coastal area rather than adopt the LIS CMP. The unique resources, problems, issues, needs, and priorities of communities along the coast can be addressed to a large degree through the development of LWRPs. Since local governments, through their land use control powers, are critical players in improved coastal management, the state will encourage the preparation of LWRPs even if the LIS CMP is adopted. As the sole solution to coastal management concerns, however, this alternative is inadeq, nt~. One reason is that given no projected increase in division staff resources, a shift in personnel to local program preparation will result fewer staff available to review actions for consistency with state comtal policies. The consistency review provides the enforcement mechanism for protecting the state's coastal resources. This mechanism should not be compromised. Further, should a proposed legislative change to the consistency review process be enacted, requiring the division to make consistency decisions on a wider range of projects, existing staff resources would be overtaxed. Increasing the number of LWRPs, alone, cannot addrms the general problems of the statewide program as it presently exists. Even if the division and local governments in the region were successful in completing LWRPs for ali communities, individual LWRP~, because of their community-specific focus, will not result in a regional perspective to guide state decision-making. Although individual LWRPs contain an implementation program that includes specific projects needed in the community, there is no structure for the state to set priorities among the array of projects. AIt~math, e $c. This is the "no action" alternative. The task force identified numerous problems with the existing impleme~uaion of the coast~ program and advancement of the state's coastal policies. Many are discussed in the above sections; further analysis may be found in the task force's report, Now and for the Future: A Vision for New York's Coast. Stntni simply here, the disadvantages of the present program are: · Its implementation is reactive in nature. · The statewide coastal policies are too numerous for efficient application. · The statewide coastal policies do not all apply equally well to all of the state's · The ~*~t,~vide coastal policies lack clear standards for reliably consistent application. · There exists insufficient information on coastal resonrces--detailed and geographically specific-needed for the best decision-making · Conflicts over uses and protection of coastal resources are difficult to resolve through the consistency review process. choose not to participate in the Local Wat~f~ont Revitalization Program. · There exists no adequate mechanism for the ~,:~ to set priorities for i~s programs and investments in the coastal area. · Regional trends or patterns that would provide a basis for broad management decisions by state agencies are not identified. DO£/S 19 a Application of the statewide coastal management program does not help to resolve conflicts among jurisdictions or those that transcend regional boundaries. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Implementation of the LIS CMP will not produce irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. PROPOSED MITIGATION MFASURES The potential adverse impacts from adoption and implementation of the LIS CMP are: . short-term impacts from construction and redevelopment within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers a short-and long-term impacts if a high speed New York to Connecticut ferry is developed · increased demand for and usage of public access . increased traffic within Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers These impacts are of a site-specific nature, and will be fully analyzed and addressed through project-specific environmental review. The standards contained in the LIS CMP coastal policies, and well as the management programs for the Areas for Concentrated Development, Maritime Centers, and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas, are also primary mitigation measures. The coastal policies have been specifically tailored to the natural resource and development concerns on Long Island Sound. As a result, there are detailed standards for control of noopoint source pollution, which is a major regional concern. Geographically specific policies guide location, relocation, or reconstruction of structures damaged by flooding and erosion. Other policies contain standards for protection and restoration of important ecological systems in the Sound coastal area and for sustainable use of living coastal resources. Taken together, the standards of the 13 LIS CMP comtal policies, listed on pages 21 and 22, are a comprehensive program that have been designed to effectively mitigate the impacts of various public and private activities in the coastal area. When the special management area plans are completed, additional safeguards for natural resources and project guidance to promote development in appropriate coastal locations, will complement the standards of the coastal policies. GROWI'H INDUCING ASPBCTS OF TH~ ACTION As discussed above, overall population in the Long Island Sound coastal area is expected to remain relatively stable, but residential development is increasing to accommodate smaller households. As a result, there is a blurring of developed areas and countryside. The LIS CMP seeks to channel this grow~ as infill and redevelopment of existing communities, thereby waking more efficient use of infrastructure and reducing pressure on open space and agricultural land. The LIS CMP will have a positive influence in containing the expansion of growth-inducing infrastructure because irs policies relate appropriate development to the availability of infrastructure and discourage the development of infrastructure outside of developed areas. Localized impacts can be expected in existing communities with infill and redevelopment. However, the LIS CMP proposes design guidelines and contains policy standards that will minimize impacts on these communities and maintain community and regional character. 20 DGEIS According to an analysis of population trends conducted during the preparation of the LIS CMP, the population of the Sound's coastal area is ~ to increase by 1.5 to 2 percent over the next 20 years. The adoption and implementation of the LIS ~ will not affect this projected increase on a regional scale. It is expected, however, there would be a shift in the distribution of the population effected by implementation of the program and policies, wherein new jobs and residences resulting from new construction and 'recycling' of the built environment would be concentrated in the ACDs. EFFECTS ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program will not significantly affect the use and conservation of energy in the region. A positive result of the LIS CMP could be a more efficient use of energy resources by concentrating development and redevelopment efforts in areas of the coast where jobs, shopping, cultural and enter~nment activities, and residential uses exist. The LIS CMP proposes that certain small oil storage facilities at the heads of shallow harbors be phased out. These facilities receive oil by barge, which increases the potential for oil spills within confined harbors. The LIS CMP propo~ that Long Island's oil needs be served through completion of a system of offshore loading platforms and a pipeline to inland storage facilities. This proposal would be phased in over time, and would maintain the r~ion's oil supply. E~gC~ ON $Orm WASTE MANAGEMEN~ The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Pro, ram will not have a direct effect on the generation of solid waste. The revised coastal policies, however, call for appropriate management of solid waste and reductions in the waste strewn through recycling efforts. This policy, in concert with state and local laws and recycling progvamn, should have positive effects on the Long Island Sound coastal area. P.~iSONABLY XPORE..~RR4BLE CATASTROPHIC IMPACT~ The LIS CMP recommends no activity that could have a catastrophic impact on the Sound coastal area. The comprehensive nature of the LIS CMP and the detailed standards put forth in its coastal policies provide impesxant safe~mrds for review of unforeseen projects that could be considered to have ,'~ophic iml~cts. Loc~ WI~U~ONT Rm~rrM2-/dTIolv P~OGgi~ ~VD $T~T~ COXST~, M~iG~M~ Pa~C,P,d~ CO~SiST~VC~ The Ltq CMP builds on and is fully consistent ~ the New York State Coastal Management Program and wish the approved Local W*t-;f~,~,t Prosranm in the Long Island Sound coastal area. The foiiowin~ conununitieshaveapprovedLWRPs: Villa~eofPo~tChaster, Cityof Rye, Village of Mamaroneck, Town of Mamnroneck, Village of Larchmout, New York City, City of Glen Cove, Town of Smithtown, Vill~e of Nissequo~ue, and Village of Head-of-the- Harbor. The LIS CMP builds upon ami refines the current mm coastal program. TheLIS CMP dons not re~lace the approved LWRPs. It is the b~is for future revisions to the LWRPs and for setting priorities for the stye which are consistent wi~ the LWRP~. The Long Island Sound constal policies are: DC~lS 21 Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 3 Policy 4 Policy $ Policy 6 Policy 7 Policy 8 Policy 9 Policy 10 Policy 11 Policy 12 Foster a pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, and minimizes natural resource impacts. Protect Long Island Sound's water-dependent uses and promote suitable use of Maritime Centers. Promote sustainable use of living aquatic resources in Long Island Sound. Protect existing agricultural lands in the eastern Suffolk County portion of Long Island Sound's coastal area. Minimize loss of life, property, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Long Island Sound Minimize environmental degradation in the Long Island Sound coastal area from solid waste and hazardous substances. Protect and improve air quality in the Long Island Sound coastal area. Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the Long Island Sound coastal area. Provide for public access to coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area, and foster a range of recreation opportunities. Preserve the historic resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout Long Island Sound. Policy 13 Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. These coastal policies represent a consolidation of the current 44 spate coastal policies, as well as the coastal policies of the communities with approved LWRPs. The LIS CMP policies provide for channeling state investments and action to encourage development in areas within or immediately adjacent to existing developed areas where infrastructure and public services are adequate, and where topography, geology, and other environmental conditions are suitable for and able to accommodate it. The revised policies were prepared to achieve the appropriate use of coastal lands and waters by promoting a pattern of development that enhance~ community character, preserves open space, forges links to the natural and cultural heritage of the Sound, meets regional economic needs, makes efficient use of infrastructure, and is compatible with protection of coastal resources. All coastal area infrastructure resulting from state investment will be appropriate for the level of development, so as not to induce additional growth. The nature of the changes to the state coastal policies in the LIS CMP is not substantive. The subject matter of the state coastal policies remains the same. The changes are refinements, clarification, geographic specificity, and establishment of priorities to guide state decision-making. 22 DGEI$ LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM March 1994 Mario M. Cuomo, Governor Gall S. Shaffer, Secretary of State A publication of the New York State Depattment of State pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA270Z0285-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................. vi List of Maps ............................................. vii List of Abbreviations ........................................ vii INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1 REGIONAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .............. 1 PROGRAM AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................ 2 The Coastal Zone Management Act ......................... 2 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act .............. 2 Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs ..................... 3 Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program .................... 4 The National Estuary Program ............................ 4 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE ................................... 5 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS 6 Chapter I CHARTING the COURSE ............................... 9 A VISION FOR LONG ISLAND SOUND ....................... 9 The Developed Coast .................................. 9 The Natural Coast .............. 10 The Public Coast ............................. · ....... 11 The Working Coast ................................... 12 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION ............................. 13 Chapter 2 The DEVELOPED COAST .............................. 15 DEVELOPMENT pA't~i-~:RNS .............................. 16 RECENT TRENDS 19 Demographics ...................................... 19 Population and Housing Projections ......................... 21 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 25 Westchester County ................................... 27 New York City ..................................... 30 Nassau County ...................................... 32 Suffolk County ..................................... 37 Historic and Archaeological Resources ....................... 46 Scenic Resources .................................... 54 THE SOUND COAST - A DEVELOPED COAST .................. 55 The Stable Coast The Developing Coast . The Redeveloping Coast ................................ 58 ~ SOUND COAST - A REGIONAL WATERFRONT STRUCTURE ..... 61 DEVELOPED COAST FINDINGS ............................ 61 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPED COAST ............. 62 iii Chapter 3 The NATURAL COAST ................................ 71 THE LONG ISLAND SOUND ECOSYSTEM ..................... 72 Physical Components .................................. 72 Biological Components ............................ ; . . . 74 ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXES .............................. 78 The Seven Ecological Complexes ......................... 81 Issues and Management Opportunities ..................... 112 EROSION AND FLOODING HAZARDS .: .................... 113 Factors and Trends Affecting Erosion and Flooding ............. 113 Erosion Conditions and Implications ....................... 117 Major Issues to be Addressed ........................... 129 WATER RESOURCES ................ Water Quality and Water Supply in't~ ~.~g I~ 138 lei Sound Issues and Management Opportunities ....................... 140 Management Approaches for Water Quality Improvement ........... 150 NATURAL COAST FINDINGS .............................. 163 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NATURAL COAST .............. 165 Improving the Quality and Function of Ecological Systems .......... 165 Respecting the Dynamics iof Shoreline Change .................. 181 Providing High Quality Coastal Waters ....................... 188 Chapter 4 The PUBLIC COAST ................................. ~195 PUBLIC ACCESS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE AREAS AND FACILITIES .......................... '''' 195 The Westchester County Shore ............................ 197 The Bronx and Queens Shore of New York City ....... ' .......... 197 The Nassau County Shore ............................... 198 The Suffolk County Shore ............................... 198 Trends Affecting Public Access, Recreation, and Open Space Areas and Facilities ............................... 207 Significance of Public Access, Recreation, and Open Space ......... 216 Issues and Opportunities . 218 SHIPWRECKS AND RECREATIONAL DIVING .................. 226 Issues and Opportunities ............................... 226 UNDERWATER LANDS, ~ FORESHORE, AND ~ PUBLIC TRUST 227 Public Trust Doctrine ...................... 228 Application of the Public Ths~ D~t~ine With'~'Long isiandSo /d.. 228 Significance of Trust Lands ............................. 232 Issues and Opportunities ................................ 232 PUBLIC COAST FINDINGS ................................ 234 RECOlVlIVffiNDATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC COAST ................ 235 Improving Visual Access ............................... 235 Improving Physical Access .............................. 237 Providing a Diversity of Recreational Opportunities ............... 244 Chapter :5 The WORKING COAST ................................ 261 LONG ISLAND SOUND'S MARITIME BASE .................... 262 Westchester County ................................... 262 New York City ..................................... 263 Nassau County ...................................... 263 iv Suffolk County ..................................... 264 WORKING WATERFRONT BUSINESSES ....................... 272 Water-Dependent Commercial Uses ......................... 272 Water-Dependent Industrial Uses .......................... 293 Coastal Agriculture ................................... 308 WORKING COAST FINDINGS .............................. 311 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WORKING COAST .............. 315 Protecting Uses Dependent on the Sound ...................... 315 Furnishing Necessary Infrastructure ......................... 322 Providing Business and Marketing Assistance ................... 326 Promoting Efficient Harbor Use ... 330 Chapter 6 PROPOSED LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL POLICIES ......... 335 POLICY SUMMARY AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS ................ 335 PROPOSED COASTAL POLICIES ............................ 342 Chapter 7 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS ......................... 413 MARITIME CENTERS ................................... 414 Ensuring the Future of the Working Waterfront ................. 414 Definition and Criteria for Designation of Maritime Centers .......... 417 Long Island Sound's Maritime Centers ....................... 418 Enhancing Maritime Centers for Water-Dependent Uses ............ 448 AREAS FOR CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT ................. 451 Revitalizing the Sound's Waterfront Centers ................... 452 Definition and Criteria for Identifying Areas for Concentrated Development ..................... 454 Long Island Sound's Areas for Concentrated Development ........... 456 Communities for Future Consideration ....................... 467 Advancing Projects in Areas for Concentrated Development .......... 468 OUTSTANDING NATURAL COASTAL AREAS .................. 471 The Need for Natural Area Management ...................... 471 Identification of Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas ............... 472 Guidelines for Applying the Criteria ........................ 472 Management Objectives for Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas ........ 476 Long Island Sound's Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas ............ 477 Chapter 8 ~DVffINCING the SOUND AGENDA ........................ 521 MANAGElVIENT FRAMEWORK ............................. 521 Planning ......................................... 521 Investment ........................................ 521 Direct Actions ...................................... 522 Regulation ........................................ 522 Process for Cooperative Management ........................ 523 SUMMARY OF IMPLEIVIENTATION ......................... 524 Appendix ! Historic and Cultural Resources .......................... 533 Appendix 2 Description of Shoreline Configuration and Ecological Complexes ..... 565 Appendix 3 Use Precluded and Use Impaired Long Island Sound Waters 587 Appendix 4 Inventory of Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space Facilities . 593 Appendix 5 Excerpts from Northeast Coastal Area Study .... 613 References .............................................. 633 List of Tables 1 Estimated 1990 Population ................................. 19 2 Population and Housing in Long Island Sound Coastal Region, 1970-1990 .... 20 3 Saturation Population and Housing Estimates, Nassau and Suffolk Counties . .. 22 4 Residentially Zoned Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Nassau and Suffolk Counties in Study Area ..................... 24 5 Land Area Estimates by County .............................. 25 6 Land Use, Westchester County ............. 27 7 Land Available for Development or i~e'v;lgl;~e'nl,'N~s~a~ 'C'ou~t~ ... 34 8 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Western Suffolk County . . 39 9 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Eastern Suffolk County . . 41 10 l.and Available for Development or Redevelopment, Fishers Island ........ 42 11 Natural and Hardened Shoreline: Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties .. 116 12 Relationship of Type of Pollutant to Source of Pollutant ............... 143 13 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities ....................... 144 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Management Techniques for Oyster Bay and Stony Brook Harbor ......... 160 Proposed Wetland Restoration Sites in Long Island Sound ............. 170 Coastal Hazard Recommendations ............... 182 Projected Growth in Recreational A~'tiviti~ i~8'5-~0'1~ ............ 214 Distribution of Docks 100 Feet or Longer, Nassau and Suffolk Counties ... 233 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Westchestex County .... 248 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, New York City ....... 249 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Nassau County ....... 250 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Western Suffolk County .... 251 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, ~astern Suffolk County .... 252 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Western and Eastern Suffolk Counties ..................................... 253 Long Island Sound Marinas and Boat Yards ...................... 273 Shellfish and Lobster Landings as Percentage of Long Island Sound Total Landings ...................................... 282 Petroleum Product Imports for Long Island Sound Region .............. 295 Aggregate Exports and Imports for Long Island Sound Region ........... 298 Dredging Projects, Westchester County ......................... 301 Dredging Projects, Nassau County ............................ 302 Dredging Projects, Suffolk County ............................ 303 Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program Implementation Summary . . 525 Use Precluded and Use Impaired Long Island Sound Waters, Westchester County ................................... 588 Use Precluded and Use Impaired Long Island Sound Waters, New York City . . 589 Use Precluded and Use Impaired Long Island Sound Waters, Nassau County . . 590 Use Precluded and Use Impaired Long Island Sound Waters, Suffolk County . . 591 Public Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Westchester County . . 594 Private Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Westchester County.. 596 Public Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, New York City ..... 597 Public Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Nassau County ..... 598 Private Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Nassau County ..... 601 Public Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Western Suffolk County 602 vi 43 Private Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Western Suffolk County ...................................... 606 44 Public Waterfront Access, Recreation~ and Open Space, Eastern Suffolk County 608 45 Private Waterfront Access, Recreation, and Open Space, Eastern Suffolk County 610 List of Maps 1.0 Long Island Sound Coastal Region ............................ 7 2.0 Regional Infrastructure ................................... 18 3.0 Westchester County Historic Districts .......................... 47 3.1 New York City Historic Districts ............................. 48 3.2 Nassau County Historic Districts ............................. 49 3.3 Western Suffolk County Historic Districts ........................ 50 3.4 Smithtown-Port Jefferson Historic Districts ....................... 51 3.5 Eastern Suffolk County [a] Historic Districts ...................... 52 3.6 Eastern Suffolk County [b] Historic Districts ...................... 53 4.0 The Sound Coast ....................................... 59 5.0 Natural Coast Ecological Complexes ........................... 79 6.0 Westchester County Wetlands and Habitats ....................... 104 6.1 New York City Wetlands and Habitats .......................... 105 6.2 Nassau County Wetlands and l-Iab~itats .......................... 106 6.3 Western Suffolk County Wetlands and Habitats .................... 107 6.4 Smithtown-Port Jefferson Wetlands and Habitats .................... 108 6.5 Eastern Suffolk County [a] Wetlands and Habitats ................... 109 6.6 Eastern Suffolk County [b] Wetlands and Habitats ................... I10 7.0 Westchester County Shoreline Characteristics ..................... 121 7.1 New York City Shoreline Characteristics ........................ 122 7.2 Nassau County Shoreline Characteristics ........................ 123 7.3 Western Suffolk County Shoreline Characteristics ................... 124 7.4 Smithtown-Port Jefferson Shoreline Characteristics .................. 125 7.5 Eastern Suffolk County [a] Shoreline Characteristics ................. 126 7.6 Eastern Suffolk County [bi Shoreline Characteristics ................. 127 8.0 Westchester County Erosion and Flooding Hazards .................. 131 8.1 New York City Erosion and Flooding Hazards ..................... 132 8.2 Nassau County Erosion and Flooding Hazards ..................... 133 8.3 Western Suffolk County Erosion and Flooding Hazards ............... 134 8.4 Smithtown-Port Jefferson Erosion and Flooding Hazards ............... 135 8.5 Eastern Suffolk County [a] Erosion and Flooding Hazards .............. 136 8.6 Eastern Suffolk County [bi Erosion and Flooding Hazards .............. 137 9.0 Composite Dissolved Oxygen Levels 1986-1991 .................... 142 10.0 Proposed Wetland Restoration Sites ........................... 171 11.0 Coastal Hazard Recommendations ............................ 183 12.0 Westchester County Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ............ 200 12.1 New York City Existing Waterfront Recreational Access .............. 201 12.2 Nassau County Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ............... 202 12.3 Western Suffolk County Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ......... 203 12.4 Smithtown-pur~ Sefferson Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ........ 204 12.5 Eastern Suffolk County [al Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ....... 20:5 v/i 12.6 13.0 14.0 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16,6 Eastern Suffolk County lb] Existing Waterfront Recreational Access ....... 206 Major Waterfront Parks with Active Recreation Open to the General Public . . . 209 Major Waterfront Parks or Preserves with Passive Recreation and Open to the Public ' 210 General ................................. Westchester County Recommended Public Recreational Access .......... 254 New York City Recommended Public Recreational Access ............. 255 Nassau County Recommended Public Recreational Access .............. 256 Western Suffolk County Recommended Public Recreational Access ........ 257 Smithtown-Port Jefferson Recommended Public Recreational Access ....... 258 Eastern Suffolk County [a] Recommended Public Recreational Access Eastern Suffolk County [bi Recommended Public Recreational Access Westchester County Working Coast .................. New York City Working Coast ......... Nassau County Working Coast ......... Western Suffolk County Working Coast .... Smithtown-Port Jefferson Working Coast . . . Eastern Suffolk County Ia] Working Coast . . Eastern Suffolk County [b] Working Coast . . ...... 259 ...... 260 ...... 265 ...... 266 ..... 267 ..... 268 ..... 269 ..... 270 ..... 271 17.0 Proposed Maritime Centers .................. 18.0 Mamaroneck Harbor Maritime Center ........... 19.0 Huntington Harbor Maritime Center ............ 20.0 Matfituck Inlet Maritime Center ............... 21.0 Proposed Areas for Concentrated Development ..... 22.0 Village of Port Che~ter .................... ......... 415 ......... 423 ......... 434 .......... 441 .......... 457 .......... 460 23.0 Village of Manorhaven .................... 24.0 25.0 26.0 26.1 27.0 27.1 28.0 ............. 463 City of Glen Cove ...................................... 466 Proposed Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas ...................... 478 Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area ........ 481 Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area with Watershed Detail .................................. 483 Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area ............ 491 Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area with Watershed Detail .................................. 493 Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Natural Comtal Area ............... 501 List of Abbreviations ACD BMPs BNR BOD CBRA CEHA CNP CSO ECL EFC EPF Areas for Concentrated Development Best Management Practices Biological Nitrogen Removal Biological Oxygen Demand Coastal Barrier Resources Act Coastal Erosion Hazards Act Coastal Nonpoint Program Combined Sewer Overflow Environmental Conservation Law Environmental Facilities Corporation Environmental Protection Fund viii ESP FEMA FIRM GIS JDA LILCO MC MGD NFIP NPDES NYCDEP NYNHP ONCA OSDS RBCs REDPP SA SCFWH SEQR SGPA SLOSH SPDES SUNY TSS UDC UFPBC USDA WWTP Environmental Stewardship Program Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps Geographic Information System Job Development Authority Long Island Lighting Company Maritime Centers Million Gallons per Day National Flood Insurance Program National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System New York City Department of Environmental Protection New York Natural Heritage Program Outstanding Natural Coastal Area On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems Rotating Biological Chambers Regional Economic Development Partnership Program Best Use Shellfishing (Surface Water Classification) Surface Water Classification Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat State Environmental Quality Review Special Groundwater Protection Area United Smt~ Army Corps of Engineers, Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes S~te Pollutant Discharge Elimination System State University of New York Total Suspended Solids Urban Development Corporation Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code United States Department of Agriculture Waste Water Treaunent Plant In oduc on New York State's Coastal Management Program was approved by the Governor and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in September, 1982. It was a far-reaching document that, for the first time, created a framework to integrate the state's environmental and development objectives in the coastal area. The 44 coastal policies that formed the foundation of the Coastal Management Program addressed pressing concerns for revitalizing urban waterfronts, protecting significant habitatq and natural resources, increasing public access, and strengthening water-dependent uses. The state, working with local governments through Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, expanded opportunities for all New Yorkers to live, work, and play in the coastal area, while, at the same time, ensuring that the scenic beauty and environmental health of the coast was safeguarded. The ten years of experience in implementing the coastal program throughout New York's diverse 3,200 mile coastline showed, however, that the program was not meeting its full potential. To address the programmatic and regulatory issues that impeded achievement of the state's coastal management goals, Governor Cuomo appointed the Governor's Task Force on Co~tai Resources. When its work was complete in November 1991, the task force, chaired by Lieutenant Governor Stan Lundine, released Now and for the Future: A Vision ~r-]~[~i~.~ll~. This final report contained over I00 recommendations to improve management of the state's coastal area. One of the major recommendations to emerge from the deliberations was the proposal to develop regional coastal management programs. REGIONAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Two significant factors were identified by the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources that hindered effective management of the state's coastal resources. One was lack of specificity and the other, the reactive nature and application of the 44 coastal policies. While the current policies are fairly comprehensive in their treatment of coastal concerns, the design of the state Coastal Management Program does not readily permit use of the policies to direct development and to focus preservation efforts to achieve a clear and specific vision for the New York coast. Indeed, a clear vision for the coast is sometinms clouded by the flexibility of the 44 policies that were developed to apply not only to intensively used urban coasts like New York City, but also in sparsely settled areas on the Great Lakes. The Governor's Task Force stated the need for a more clear and specific vision to guide management of the state's coastal area and to meet the unique circumstances facing different coastal regions. Additionally, the importance of implementing specific and direct measures to achieve the vision was highlighted. Wise and effective coastal management could not rely on reaction to development applications. Regional coastal programs were proposed to address these concerns. Regional coastal programs will reflect the demographic, environmental, economic, and land and water use trends, as well as local priorities of each coastal region. Based on an analysis of regional needs, the regional coastal programs will set forth coastal policies specific to that region. Cumulative and secondary impacts of development in the coastal area will be mitigated by identification of areas that are suitable for more intense development and those with sensitive natural resources where development is generally inappropriate. Finally, the regional coastal Introduction 1 progrmms will allow the state to take positive action to achieve regional goals for New York's coast. This will be done by setting priorities for investment and managemem to promote economic development and environmental protection. Regional coastal programs will refine and replace the state Coastal Management Program to guide state decision-making. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program (LIS CMP) is the first step in this new direction for New York's Coastal Management Program. Over the coming years, other regional coastal programs will be developed and, together with the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, they will form a management mosaic for the state's diverse coast. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is not a new layer of management for communities on the Sound. It fits within the existing array of programs and laws governing activities in the coastal area. The Long Island Sound CMP is based on consensus and integrates all the capabilities of state and local government into an enforceable program for the Sound. When complete, it will better inform the discretionary decisions made under these programs and laws to fit the specific conditions and needs of the Sound shore. PROGRAM AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT The major programs and laws that form the basis for and implement the New York Coastal Management Program are defined below. The Coastal Zone Management Act The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted by Congress in 1972, and is the foundation of all state coastal programs. The CZMA establishes the partnership between the federal government and the coastal states for the management of coastal resources. The act also binds the federal government to consistency with approved state coastal programs. When it has been approved by the Secretary of State and the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management following public review and comment, the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program will replace the State Coastal Management Program for the Sound shorelines of Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and Suffolk County. The existing Coastal Management Program will remain in effect in all other parts of the coastal area until regional coastal programs are prepared. Its specially tailored policies will be the standard for consistency decisions made by the Department of State and other state agencies in Long Island Sound. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981 created the New York State Coastal Management Program. In enacting the law, the legislature declared that it is state policy that there be a balance between economic development and preservation. The balance would permit the beneficial use of the waterfront while preventing the loss of living resources, diminution of open space or public access to the waterfront, shoreline flooding and erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems. The act provided that all state agency actions are to be consistent with the coastal policies of the state and that local governments be encouraged to prepare Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program will more clearly define 2 Introduction for the Sound shoreline what constitutes a balance between appropriate and needed economic development and protection and restoration of the natural and living resources of the Sound. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) was established to enable the state's Coastal Management Program to address the problems of coastal development in full partnership with local government. Management of coastal development, whether the concern is protecting critical resources or revitalizing deteriorated waterfronts, must, of necessity, include regulation of land use decisions..While the state through its various permit programs and capital projects has a major impact on development patterns, New York's municipalities have the primary authority for directly regulating land use. Additionally, as provided by the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is legally binding on state and local governments. It is also binding on federal agencies because LWRPs, when approved by the secretary of state, are incorporated into the state Coastal Management Program with which federal agencies must adhere. Thus all government agencies in their direct, funding, and permit actions must adhere to a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The relationship of LWRPs to the state Coastal Management Program is not changed by the LIS CMP. Both the approved LWRPs and draft elements of programs in preparation were relied upon in developing the LIS CMP. The policies of a LWRP will continue to set the standards for review of activities for consistency once they have been approved by the local government, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The LIS CMP will further LWRPs in two important ways. First, it will establish priorities and target state capital and program efforts in this coastal region to better reflect the regional coastal needs as identified in the LIS CMP and approved LWRPs. Second, it will provide useful resource and development information for use in the necessary and periodic updates of approved LWRPs and in the development of new LWRPs within the region. Currently, of the 50 municipalities along the Long Island Sound shore, 9 have approved LWRPs and 14 are in various stages of development. These communities, listed below, contain approximately 76 percent of the 340 miles of shoreline in the region. * Village of Port Chester* · Town of Mamaroneck*/ Village of Larchmont* · Village of Mamaroneck* · City of Rye* · City of New Rochelle · City of New York* · Town of North Hempstead · Town of Oyster Bay · City of Glen Cove · Village of Manorhaven · Town of Huntington/ Village of Lloyd Harbor/ Village of Huntington Bay/ Village of Asharoken/ Village of Northport · Town of Smithtown* · Village of Nissequogue*/ Village of Head-of-the-Harbor* · Town of Brookhaven · Village of Port Jefferson · Town of Riverhead · Town of Southold *approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs Introduction 3 Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program There is a new level of atxention focused on coastal water quality. In 1990, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA). Among other provisions, section 6217 of this legislation requires states with approved coastal zone management programs to develop and implement a coastal nonpoint pollution control program, aimed at controlling nonpoint pollution which impacts coastal water quality. CZARA requires that the coastal nonpoint program include enforceable elements to address a wide range of sources of pollution, including that generated by agriculture, urban and development activities, and hydromodifications, such as channel dredging. The state is free to use a wide variety of mechanisms to achieve this goal. The coastal nonpoint program is based on the proposition that certain land uses and development activities have been demonstrated to cause water quality impairments and that there are specific measures that are known to address the problems. Recognizing the fact that nonpoint pollution from areas outside the coastal area can impact coastal water quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also have specified that the coastal nonpoint program apply to the coastal area and additional upland areas which may be sources of pollution to coastal waters. For the Long Island Sound watershed, this means that the entire watershed will be subject to the nonpoint program. Federal regulations require that New York submit a program for approval by July 1995. The Long Island Sound Coaatal Management Plan will be an integral part of New York State's finai plan. The National Estuary Program The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) began in 1985, with federal funds to focus on research, monitoring, and assessment of water quality for the Sound. In 1988, Long Island Sound was formally designated an 'Estuary of National Significance" under the National Estuary Program. In addition to specific studies aimed at achieving a better understanding of the Sound, the Long Island Sound Study has prepared a draft Comprehensive Conservation and IVlanagement Plan (CCMP), which 'characterizes each priority water quality problem of Long Island Sound and describes the general approach and specific actions needed to solve it" (Draft CCMP, 1993). In addition, the plan proposes actions to increase public education and involvement, protect aquatic resources and habitats, monitor progress, and refine management efforts. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program incorporates much of the work of the Long Island Sound Study. However, the purposes of the two programs are somewhat different. The primary focus of the LISS is on water quality, while the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is intended to include water quaiity issues as par~ of an overall plan for the region. Each of the two programs contains numerous recommendations designed to achieve their respective goals (LISS CC/vIP) and policies (LIS CMP). However, the LISS CCMP recorm'nendations are more narrowly focused, to the extent that their primary objective is to improve water quality and habitats in the Sound. For example, the LISS CCMP states that its recommendations for land use planning and development do not constitute ~...a comprehensive land use plan for the region, but a strategy highlighting the most critical issues to protect water quality and habitat from the impacts of land use and development." 4 Introduction (draR report on Land Use and Development, 9/13/93). On the other hand, the LIS CMP recommendations on land use and development are more comprehensive, dealing not only with water quality and habitats, but with economic development, ports and harbors, water- dependent uses, agricultural lands, flooding and erosion, open space, public access and recreation, historic and archaeological resources, and scenic quality. A major difference between the two programs lies in the enforceability of the recommendations. The LISS CCMP recommendations are enforceable only when the states of Connecticut and New York specifically bind themselves to an action. By contrast, the LIS CMP is an enforceable document under the provisions of the CZMA, and its policies will replace those of the state Coastal Management Program as a guide to state and federal decision-making in the Long Island Sound coastal region. Furthermore, an agreement between NOAA and EPA will incorporate the LISS CCMP recommendations into approved state coastal management programs, in this case the LIS CMP, and use federal and state consistency provisions to enforce the recommendations. By way of summary, the LIS CMP is an umbrella coastal program for the Long Island Sound region. The program's policies, covering a comprehensive range of coastal land and water resource issues, are the state's enforceable coastal policies for the region, and state and federal actions must be consistent with them. By comparison, the LISS CCMP is a detailed study of the Sound's water quality problems with recommendations for their resolution, which can then be incorporated into the LIS CMP as part of the water quality component of the program with enforceability provided by the program's state and federal consistency provisigns. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The Long Island Sound coastal area extends from the New York/Connecticot border to Orient Point and across the waters of the Race to include Fishers Island. The waterside boundary is the New York/Connecticot state line in Long Island Sound. The inland coastal boundary incorporates the New York State coastal boundary, as modified by the approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs of the City of Rye, Town of Mamaroneck, Village of Larchmont, Village of Mamaroneck, New York City, Town of Smithtown, Village of Nissequogue, and Village of Head-of-the-Harbor. The LIS CMP makes recommendations for minor modification of the coastal boundary to incorporate lands adjacent to the proposed Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. These boundary extensions are shown on the maps accompanying the discussion of these special management areas in chapter 7. For purposes of analysis, a two tier study area was used: the coastal area and an area that includes the coastal area and uplands to the topographic divide. The topographic divide line approximates the planning line for the section 6217 coastal nonpoint source pollution control program. Detailed data on trends in land use, transportation, demographics, and economic activity were assembled for the coastal area. Information relating to water quality such as direction of runoff flow, hazardous waste sites, and land use patterns was gathered for the 6217 planning area to assist in tailoring the coastal nonpoint pollution program to the condition of the Sound's watershed. In this document, the 'coastal area' means the land and water falling within the coastal boundary established by the New York State Coastal Management Program, as amended through the approval of various Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. The ~watershed" ~odu~n 5 refers to the coastal area and uplands to the topographic divide--the 6217 planning area (see map 1.0. These two areas, the coastal area and the 6217- planning area, have distinct regulatory meanings. Within the coastal area, actions must be consistent with the policies of the state Coastal Management Program or approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. The more extensive 6217 planning area constitutes the coastal nonpoint source pollution program boundary. In this area, management practices to control nonpoint pollution to coastal waters will be applied when NOAA and EPA approve New York's coastal nonpoint pollution program, sometime after 199:5. REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS This draft report will be the foundation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. During the development of this draft, the Department of State had many meetings with local officials, state agencies, and coastal interest groups to explain the scope, intent, and results of the proposed Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. This draft report was then termed through comments elicited at a series of intensive focus group meetings at various locations in the Long Island Sound region. Specific Long Island Sound coastal policies, management actions, and investment priorities were developed to respond to the unique circumstances of the Sound shoreline. A second round of public reviews will be held in Spring 1994 as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Following the public review period, revisions will again be made to the draft document. This final document will constitute the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. The Secretary of State will amend the department's regulations at 19 NYCRR 600, which implement the Coastal Management Program, to incorporate the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program as the guidance for determining the consistency of state agency actions with state coastal policy. The Secretary will then forward these regulations and the final Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program to the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for concurrence that the LIS CMP constitutes a 'routine program implementation* (RPI). A RPI is a change to *an approved coastal program affecting the boundaries, uses subject to the management program, criteria or procedures for designating special areas, or the national interest' that is not of a substantial nature, but represents a refinement to a state's approved coastal program. 6 ~odu~n MAP 1.0 g Island Sound Coastal Regior CONNECTICUT SUFFOLK NYC NAS~U Legend · / Coastal Boundary - - "' Watershed Boundary Chapter 1 CHARTING the COURSE The Long Island Sound is one of the great treasures of New York State. The Sound and the land surrounding it is a complex area of natural beauty, bountiful resources, and a rich living history found in its buildings, villages, and harbors. It is one of the most intensely populated areas in the nation, and one of the wealthiest. Development of the Sound's shoreline and watershed have occurred with a price. Water quality degradation, less biological diversity, closed beaches and shellfish beds, less open space, and a more difficult business climate--are symptomatic of the Sound's current stress. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources called on all New Yorkers to "meet the challenge of the coast" to restore and preserve its benefits for present and future generations. Existing natural resource management and development programs have been effective, and should continue, with better integration, a focus on special areas, and some new approaches. A VISION FOR LONG ISLAND SOUND The vision that frames the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is simple, ... a Long Island Sound coastal area enriched by enhanc, in~ community character, reclalmln~ the quality of natural resources, ~ the working waterfront, and conneetina people to the Sound... but encompasses the tapestry of natural, economic, and social issues that must be addressed. To better understand the value and needs of the land and water resources of the Sound, the region is viewed from four perspectives--the developed coast, the natural coast, the public coast, and the working coast. Each coast must be considered for both its own intrinsic value, and its interrelationship with the other coasts. These four co~ts are the organizational foundation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. The Developed Coast Theme: Enhance community chararter by improving the quality of existing d~velopment, promoting a sense of connection to the Sound, and focusing ~rowth and investment to preserve the positive relationship between the built and natural landscapes and between existing and new development. A unique sense of place is captured in the mix of historic structures, traditional harbors, open spaces, working waterfronts, agricultural land, and tree-shaded country roads that make up the landscape of the Sound communities. These and other valuable characteristics contribute to "a sense of the Sound" that must be protected and enhanced. Improving the quality of existing development is essential to enhancing community character. Long Island Sound is a largely stable, developed coast. The continuing impacts from existing development must be better managed to improve environmental quality Charting the Course throughout the Sound, and to meet the demand for more liveable communities along the Sound's shoreline. Promoting a sense of connection to the Sound will strengthen the coastal heritage that provides the foundation for community character throughout the Sound. Within each community, links to the Sound's rich cultural and natural legacy should be forged at every opportunity. All development, through use and site design, should create a coastal focus that justifies its location on the shore and emphasizes its connection to the Sound. Waterfront uses should contribute to the coastal ambiance of a community and substantially advance physical and visual access to the shore for the general public. In addition to managing the impacts associated with existing development, focusing new growth and investment will enhance community character by revitalizing existing communities and preserving the natural values associated with the remaining open landscapes of the Sound. The natural and working landscapes along the Sound's shore frame and define communities. The contrast and interplay of the green and the built should not be obliterated by spreading development, but rather maintained and celebrated as essential components of community character. The quality of existing development and of new growth and investment must emphasize excellence in design in order to enrich the Sound's communities. New development, redevelopment, and existing development, both public and private, should: · protect vistas and views of the Sound and its embayments · provide a sense of continuity with the past · emphasize massing and clustering of structures and uses · consider relationships among buildings, open spaces, and the water · maintain a scale compatible with the surrounding community or landscape · include a range of landscapes from wild and natural to designed · minimize conflicts with neighboring uses · respect and incorporate cultural and built heritage · protect distinctive places The Natural Coast Theme: Reclaim the value and achieve sus~lm*hle use of the Sound's natural resources by improving the quality and function of ecological systems, respecting the dynamics of shoreline change, and providing high quality coastal waters. A coastal ethic is needed to reclaim the value of the Sound's natural resources. The Sound's ecological systems, shoreline, and coastal waters are part of the "green infrastructure" that sustains and complements human activities throughout the Sound. The primal bond that connects people to the natural world and their responsibility as members of the natural world must be recognized. The coastal ethic must provide a guide for New Yorkers to go 'beyond salvaging and engage in an age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us" ... because it means not only "health and freedom for us, but access to the world where the human spirit was born.~ (F. Award O. Wilson) Improving the quality and function of ecological systems will be necessary to reclaim the value and achieve sustainable use of the Sound's natural resources. The Sound's major ecological systems must be restored and stewardship of the living mantel overlying beth the Sound's natural and developed landscapes must be improved. Enhancing the Sound's 10 Charting the Course ecological systems would be based on broad principles of.' · preserving the diversity of native plant and animal species · protecting wetlands and significant habitats · restoring native populations and biological productivity · re-establishing plant and animal natural ecological processes · safeguarding vulnerable species and rare or exemplary communities · resource-based management of potentially imperiled natural areas Respecting the dynamics of shoreline change is necessary to protect human life and property, and to gain both the economic and environmental benefits associated with a more natural shoreline. The coast is not inherently haTardous; it is the inappropriate location of development that creates a hazard for life and property. Avoiding inappropriate decisions for locating structures near eroding lands is the first and most reasonable way to respect the dynamics of changing shorelines. Allowing the Sound's shorelines to operate as natural dynamic systems and restoring these natural processes also provides benefits of poblic access, scenic beauty, wetland and water quality improvements, and erosion and flood protection. Interference with the Sound's shoreline dynamics will continue to result in a loss of these and other benefits, at public cost. Accepting these costs is only appropriate in areas where public benefits clearly outweigh public costs. Providing high quality coastal waters will be needed to reclaim the value of the Sound's resources and to allow for expanded beneficial use of the Sound's waters. Both watershed approaches and efforts targeting specific pollution sources are necessary to reverse the pervasive pollution that continues to degrade the Sound's waters. Improving the Sound's water quality will depend on reducing pollutants arising from existing development and will require participation of all levels of government. Several sources of pollution will need to be reduced to improve water quality including: · nitrogen loads from municipal treatment facilities · combined sewer overflows · vessel sanitary waste discharges · discharges of floatable materials · nonpoint sources The Public Coast Theme: Connect people to the Sound and its public resources by improving visual and physical access and by providing a diversity of recreational opportunities. The Sound coast is one of the most densely populated landscapes on the eastern seaboard, but few people are able to enjoy the expanses of the Sound's shoreline and waters. Only three state facilities exist, and the pattern of property ownership, communities providing access besed on residency requirements, and overused public facilities in need of maintenance effectively denies connection of the public to the Sound. Increasing public access will require innovative approaches. Improving visual access is necessary if people are to be connected to the Sound. The development patterns that characterize much of the Sound's coast limit the ability of people to see the Sound's waters. Visual access to open waters of the Sound, expanses of natural resource areas including wetlands and forestlands, village waterfronts, and working coastlines Charting the Course 11 are all important reliefs to a densely developed metropolitan area. Limited physical access to the shore heightens the importance of maintaining and creating visual access to the Sound. The following opportunities must be advanced to increase visual access: · Waterfront development, including landscaping, should not be permitted to create a visual barrier or to intrude on the water's edge or surface. · Vegetation, particularly mature trees, should be retained as elements that frame vistas of the Sound, its embayments, and landscapes. · Natural heights offering views of the Sound should be incorporated into a visual access system that includes scenic roads and viewing points. Improving physleal access will tangibly increase people's connection to the Sound. Creative new partnerships with local government and land conservation groups that would provide access must be forged. Public open spaces should be connected through a system of greenways and blueways to expand access opportunities beyond a series of unrelated access points. Existing public access areas must be protected and improved, and new public access areas developed. Existing public access facilities should be upgraded and expanded through maintenance and capitalization programs. Additional opportunities on state-owned land that may be suitable for public access should be seized. Access along public lands and waters is a right that must be protected. Uses that unreasonably interfere with appropriate public use of its foreshore, underwater lands, or the water's surface directly impair the public's right to enjoy their resources. Providing a diversity of recreational opportunities will also promote the connection of people to the Sound. The public lands and waters of the Sound offer a significant recreational resource which is fundamental to the character of many of the communities along its shore. Recreational and access facilities should reflect the myriad active and passive recreational opportunities that the Sound offers. The needs of an aging population and expanded opportunities for disabled users should be highlighted. In this area of the state's coast, with limited recreational facilities in relation to its potential, a broad array of recreation and access options will be created by recognizing and seizing the many small and non-traditional opportunities present along the Sound shore. The Working Coast Theme: Reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront, its jobs and products, at appropriate locations by protecting uses dependent on the Sound, furnishing necessary infrastructure, providing business and marketing assistance, and promoting efficient harbor operation. The Sound and its embayments are valuable components of the state's economy. The waters of the Sound are heavily used for commercial navigation and recreational boating, the living resources of the Sound are harvested for food, and the shoreline provides many locations for water-dependent commercial and transportation uses. Protecting and sustaining this "blue infrastructure" will result in both economic and environmental benefits. Reinvigorating. the Sound's working waterfront in appropriate locations will offer economic advantages by concentrating uses that have common infrastructure needs and encouraging entrepreneurahip, and will enhance the natural coast by limiting the area of potential environmental impact. Protecting us~s depend6nt on the Sound is necessary to hold fast to and reinvigorate those uses that cannot be located away from the Sound--whether it is the boat yard dependent on 12 Charang the Course direct access to the waters of the Sound or agriculture dependent on the Sound's influence on climate. Water-dependent uses---in particular, waterborne transportation of both passengers and cargo, commercial fishing, aggregate transhipment, ship repair, and petroleum transfer-- must be maintained and their economic survival enhanced to ensure that basic regional needs are accommodated. Furnishing necessary infrastructure will be a key requirement to revitalize the Sound's working waterfront. Infrastructure needs for this valuable component of the state's industrial and transportation network vary widely and can best be supported in specific areas where these water-dependent uses are concentrated. Identifying these areas of concentration and coordinating the infrastructure needs is one of the strategies that will support revitalization of the working waterfront. Harbors also require working infrastructure to support the needs of waterq:lependent uses. This working infrastructure includes: commercial fishing docks and facilities; vessel maintenance services for ships, tugboats, and recreational craft; and safe navigation channels. Providing business and marketing assistance is a positive role that government can take to help revitalize the working waterfront. The complex regulatory process needs to be streamlined so waterfront businesses can survive and prosper. In addition to procedural regulatory change, the working waterfront can benefit from locating in development centers that avoid the most important concentrations of natural resources and that capitalize on the opportunities for reasonable relief from regulatory inquisition. Marketing assistance is another means of economic support for the working waterfront, particularly as it relates to development of export markets for commercial fishery products. Promoting efficient harbor operation will enhance efforts to revitalize the working waterfront. Harbor management plans and regulations can be used to analyze and rationalize and thus minimize the growing conflicts among harbor uses and with the natural resources of the harbor. Planning for harbor infrastructure is also necessary, particularly for dredging of harbor channels, shoreline stabilization, and removal or reuse of derelict structures. Using the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program as a guide, the state, local government, and all citizens of the Sound can work together to make the vision a reality. IMPLEMENTING THE VISION The vision for the Sound will remain just that--a vision--unless government and citizens make a commitment to its implementation. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources set a clear direction for state government to coordinate its actions and resources to address environmental and economic concerns of New York's diverse coastal area. State government has four basic tools at its command to implement the vision for Long Island Sound: · Planning and research are the bases for successful change. Before action can be taken, the problem and its scope must be defined and fully understood. A logical and strategic program for addressing the problem or taking advantage of opportunities can then be developed. Charting the Course 13 · Investment in local infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and docks, and in local economic development and business growth through state cost sharing programs can be used to 'prime the pump' of private investment in the renewal of a community or a waterfront. Direct actions including construction of major state projects, such as a park or a highway, leasing of underwater lands, or purchase of a threatened landscape are used by state government to achieve specific purposes. Regulation and approval or denial of activities, through specific state laws, is a reactive process, but a strong means of ensuring that state interests are protected. Regulation and project review can provide positive direction through incentives or directly prohibit actions. In combination, these tools are powerful means for positive change in the Sound. The state needs to muster all of these resources to do its part to implement the vision for the Sound. With unlimited resources, the recommendations outlined in the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program could be initiated immediately and proceed to completion. However, state government has many competing and similarly important demands on its limited re~urces. The vision for the Sound defined by the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program can be achieved, but choices must be made and priorities set among the recommendations that follow in this document. 14 Charting the Course Chapter 2 The DEVELOPED COAST Enhance community character by improving the quality of existing development, promoting a sense of connection to the Sound, and focusing growth and investment to preserve the positive relationship between the built and natural landscapes and between existing and new development. The Long Island Sound coastal region has a long history of development which has left a legacy of centers of industrial, commercial and recreational activity; traditional harbors; stable residential areas of varying densities; and agriculture--all intermixed with natural areas of woodlands, fields, wetlands, bluffs, and beaches. This history has led to a sense of place that varies with the character of individual communities along the Sound coast. A sense of place results from the combination of many individual components of a community that provide the "sense" that a community is special and exhibits a distinctive identity of its own. These components are all encompassing and include the history and culture of a community; its residents; its economic and commercial base; the pattern, style, and design of existing development; open space and parkland; the physical and natural characteristics; and the functional, psychological, and visual links between these components. Even within the apparent metropolitan sprawl of Long Island, it is possible to discern individual communities with distinctive qualities and a strong sense of their own identity. These communities stand out within the region, yet are also an integral part of the functioning of the region. Too often this identity is taken for granted, and the gradual loss of the important components valued by a community leads to a loss of sense of place and a feeling of "Anywhere USA". The Long Island Sound coastal region is essentially a developed coast with almost all land adjacent to the Sound used for some public or private purpose. Much of the community character is defined by the existing patterns and style of development, a pattern and style that over the years has exhibited a great deal of "connectedness" to Long Island Sound. The concept of "connectedness" is important to the understanding of sense of place and community character. 'Connectedness" can be described in terms of three components: "the sense of kinship with all life; the sense of parmership with working landscapes; and the sense of community and companionability that is traditionally fostered by villages and urban neighborhoods." (Hiss 1990, p. 126). This "connectedness" is threatened by new development and redevelopment. Three different types of development trends exist within the coastal area of the Sound: · modest infill development in stable, almost fully developed areas of the coast in the western portion of the region · redevelopment of significantly sized deteriorated, abandoned, and underutilized areas in urban or previously developed areas of the Sound coast · major new development in previously undeveloped areas located in eastern Long Island These development trends need not impair the community character of the Long Island Sound coastal region or the sense of place of the individual communities that come together to form the region's identity. However, to ensure that change maintains or enhances community The Developed Coast 15 character and "connectedness", the impacts of new development, redevelopment, and, indeed, existing development must be managed to meet the demands of environmental improvements and liveable communities. This can lead to the coexistence of successful built-up urban areas and the surrounding natural and working landscapes in an area that respects the natural and economic values of the Long Island Sound. As Tony Hiss points out 'if we're having to learn ... that no place is automatically immune from development pressures these days, we're also finding out that no place need ever be inevitably overwhelmed by development' (Hiss 1990, p. 162). DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The shoreline of the Sound has been inhabited for the last 10,000 years. The fu'st human settlers were aboriginal nomadic hunter/gatherers, who gradually switched from a subsistence economy to a horticultural system based around semi-permanent and permanent settlements. These early settlements were in the prime shoreline locations that were attractive to the first European settlers and became the focus of initial contact between Native Americans and Europeans. Cultural conflict and competition for control of natural resources led to the swift destruction of the native presence, which was ail but removed by 164:5. Coastal areas were especially attractive to the early colonists because of the highly productive wetlands and fertile uplands. During Colonial times and throughout much of the region's early modern history, the Sound coast supported an agrarian economy, serving local needs and producing food for sale and shipment to the growing metropolitan area of New York City. The initial settlement pattern and roads were laid out during this period. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the economy of the region diversified. The wood products industry became one of the most important in the state, whaling and fishing industries flourished, and with increased water borne transportation, several communities became maritime centers supporting a thriving shipbuilding industry. Changing technology, more intensive agricultural operations, and increased competition from other parts of the state led to changes in the land use patterns and economy of the region. Market gardening and poultry farming replaced field crops, while whaling declined. Improved transportation links, based around the development of the railroads, established the Sound coast as an ideal place for recreational escape from the increasingly crowded metropolitan area. These resort communities gradually became year-round settlements and large residential estates were developed. Close to the heart of American finance, accessible by boat, railroad, and later, by automobile, and blessed with a mild climate and pleasant topography, Long Island Sound supported hundreds of estates. The estate era had a lasting effect on the development and land use patterns of the Sound shoreline, particularly in the immediate suburban areas of Westchester and Nassau counties, reshaping the agricultural landscape and dominating the shoreline, excluding the general public from both uplands and shore. The introduction of the automobile greatly affected the growth of the region, aiding the development of estates and eventually enabling the middle and working classes to gain access to summer vacation resorts and public recreational areas. Many stayed to make their homes in the newly created subdivisions, which were being carved from the great estates, or in the Coastal communities located on the Sound. The developing system of roadways also provided an alternative to waterborne and rail transport and soon proved to be a powerful attraction for commercial development. 16 The Developed Coast During the early and mid-twentieth century, the region saw a major period of infrastructure and recreational development that was to set the framework for future growth and land use patterns within the region. A complex network of public works, including major transportation routes and state parks, was developed that facilitated the growth of suburban areas. In more remote areas, the tourist and resort developments were providing the stimulus for construction of new transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure. This period saw the rapid expansion of the influence of New York City, with the first ring of suburban development opened up by rapid transit systems, railroads, and highways. Commercial and industrial development soon followed and the land use pattern began to take on the structure that is seen today. The major period of population growth and land development came in the years immediately after the Second World War. The pent-up housing demand, personal savings during the war, automobiles and improved road networks, the G.I. Bill, FHA mortgages, and the perception of an enhanced quality of life to be found in the suburbs led to rapid growth. The population of Westchester County grew from 573,558 in 1940 to 808,891 in 1960 and the population of Nassau County grew from 406,748 to 1,300,171 over the same period. Suffolk County, lagging slightly behind Nassau County in the onset of its population explosion, increased from 276,129 in 1950 to 1,127,030 in 1970. This population growth was closely followed by a substantial expansion of commercial and industrial development, primarily associated with the major highway corridors. The counties surrounding New York City became employment centers in their own right, fueling home-grown demand for commercial and residential development. The basic infrastructure that supported the population growth and the economic expansion of the region is shown on map 2.0. Today, the Long Island Sound is part of the most densely populated region of the United States. The watershed of the Sound includes parts of six states and Canada and contains in excess of 8.5 million people (1980). New York State comprises only 2.5 percent of the total watershed area, yet contributes about 1 million people. An additional 9 million people live near the Sound, in the metropolitan area of New York City or on Long Island. Population growth in the general vicinity of the Sound was phenomenal between 1940-80, at 78 percent. Since then the growth rate has been only 1 percent and this low growth rate is expected to continue for the next decade. Even though there is a slow growth period, population structure is changing through an aging population, local migration patterns, and reductions in household size. These factors contribute to a slow, but steady development pressure, with new development and redevelopment continuing along the shoreline and within and adjacent to the watershed area. This pressure compounds the negative impacts of existing development and threatens the quality of the Sound, which has become a highly stressed natural resource. Most existing development has a positive role in determining a community's sense of place, however, existing development often has a negative impact on the surrounding natural environment. Outdated infrastructure, overtaxed sewerage systems, and the polluting legacy of old industrial uses are all examples of the negative impacts of existing development. Sewage treatment plants operating along the shore have been cited as the source for excessive amounts of nitrogen entering the Sound. Nonpoint sources of pollution contribute to nutrient loadings in the Sound. High levels of nitrogen have been linked to the depletion of the fishery and lower water quality. Many of the original natural habitats of the Sound and the surrounding uplands have been destroyed or severely stressed by impacts from adjacent development. The Developed Coast 17 Regional Infrastructure Site Landfill As development and redevelopment continues, the existing pattern of infrastructure provision gets closer to its current capacity. Indeed in many places growth has outpaced improvements to infrastructure capacity, particularly with regard to sewage treatment capacity and the highway network, Congestion, diminished community character, and negative environmental impacts, notably declining water quality, result from this pressure on the region's infrastructure. Few traditional commercial water-dependent facilities survive along the region's waterfront. Former industrial sites are typically deteriorated and no longer commercially viable. Transportation systems have been especially hard-pressed to keep up with the pace of development and are increasingly prone to congestion and gridlock. The economic downturn that began in the late 1980's continues to have a negative impact on economic conditions in the region. All these impacts are increasingly threatening the community character and sense of place of the Long Island Sound coastal area. In addition, community character and sense of place are constantly under pressure from new development, as changes in population structure, technological advances, and shifts in economic activity necessitate and provide opportunities for reuse of waterfront lands. While new development is often compatible with the existing character of a community and has minimal impact on the surrounding natural environment, some new development not only negatively impacts community character, but places demands on existing infrastructure and impairs the natural resources of the Sound coast, notably by reducing open areas, altering the natural ecosystem, and impairing water quality. RECENT TRENDS Demographics Population within the Long Island Sound region has been relatively stable for the past twenty years. At the same time, average household size has been decreasing and total housing units increasing, leading to continued growth in development. Another noticeable trend is the rising median age of the population. These trends are expected to continue over the next twenty years, with the population expected to grow by 1.5 to 2 percent. Table I summarizes the distribution of population for the Long Island Sound coastal area and the larger watershed area (see Introduction, Geographic Scope, for description of the study areas). The estimated 1990 population within the watershed area is 1,409,590 persons, which includes 195,686 persons in the coastal area. Population and housing change within the coastal area and watershod area of each county and New York City are Table 1 Estimated 1990 Population COASTAL WATERSHED AREA We~che~ter County 56,960 271,953 New York City 53,428 744,072 Na~au County 33,716 177,362 Suffolk County 51,582 216,203 TOTAL 195,686 1,409,590 outlined in table 2. New York City showed the greatest fluctuations in population, with the growth in coastal area population am'ibutable to the completion of Co-op City. Nassau County has experienced a decline in The Developed Coa~ 19 Table 2 Population and Housing in Long Island Sound Coastal Region, 1970-1990 YEAR POPULATION HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLD TOTAL [ OCCUPIED SIZE Weg~che~ter Cautal Are~ 1990 56,960 22,289 21,420 2.66 County 1980 58,645 .... Change 80-90 -1,685 - - - W~rshed 1990 271,953 104,018 99,792 2.73 1980 276,031 ..... Cluu~ 9O-90 -4,O78 .... New York Coastal Area 1990 53,428 23,0~0 22,418 2.38 City 1970 34,265 Change 70-90 19,163 .... Watershed 1990 744,072 321,860 309,671 2.4 1970 774,106 ..... Change 70-90 -30,034 .... Nassau County Coastal Area 1990 33,716 12,375 11,717 2.79 1970 34,871 10,765 10,172 3.33 Change 70-90 - 1,155 1,610 1,545 - 0.54 Watershed 1990 177,362 65,862 62,779 2.73 1970 185,912 57,608 55,608 3.27 Change 70-90 - 8,550 8,557 7,171 - 0.54 Suffolk Coastal Area 1990 51,582 19,880 17,30~ 2.84 County 1970 48,498 14,367 12,336 3.41 Change 70-90 3,083 5,513 4,972 - 0.57 Watershed 1990 216,203 77,134 71,060 2.92 1970 198,841 56,298 51,216 3.64 Cha~e 70-90 17,362 20,836 19,844 - 0.72 Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1993. We~tche~,er County Plnnning Department, 1993. U.S. Census, 1970, 1990 population, while population in Suffolk County has increased. This may be the result, in part, of an eastward drift of population through Iocational shifts in existing population. Population density within the watersheds of Nassau and Suffolk counties is about 2.5 persons per acre. The coastal area has a density of 1.5 persons per acre and the area of the watershed outside the coastal boundary has a density of 3.1 persons per acre. Population density increased only slightly in the period between 1970 and 1990. Population density is higher in the New York City and Westchester County coastal areas, as well as throughout the metropolitan region. Although the total population has been relatively stable in the coastal and watershed areas, there has been a relatively large increase in the number of housing units. In 1990, the watersheds of Nassau and Suffolk counties contained 142,996 housing units, an increase of 29,393 housing units since 1970. This disparity can be linked to the continuing decline in household size. In 1970, household size ranEed from 3.10 to 3.64 persons per household. By 1990, household size ranged from 2.38 to 2.92 persons per household. 20 The Developed Coast .The median household income in 1989 ranged from $21,944 in Bronx County to $150,000+ m parts of Long Island. Housing values within the coastal area are among the highest in the state. The 1989 median housing value ranged from $131,200 to $500,000+. Population and Housing Projections The Long Island Regional Planning Board (1993) provided population and housing projections for the coastal area and the watershed area within Nassau and Suffolk counties. Table 3 shows the estimated ranges for population and housing units for the coastal and watershed areas for the years 2000 and 2010 and at saturation. These projections are based on existing population and housing units estimates and projected household size and housing units under different assumptions. Future housing units under a 'saturation~ scenario were estimated by computing housing unit yields under existing zoning for vacant land currently zoned for residential uses and for land occupied by non-conforming uses. From 1990 to 2000, the population of the coastal area could stay the same or increase as much as 9,700 persons, while the change in population of the watershed area outside the coastal boundary could range from a decrease of 15,000 people to an increase of 4,000 people. From 1990 to 2010, the population of the coastal area could increase by between 3,200 to 12,600 people, while the population change in the watershed area outside the coastal boundary could range from a decrease of 9,400 people to an increase of 9,700 peOple. These ranges depend on assumptions that are applied to household size, group quarters growth, and occupancy rate of seasonal homes and existing and projected housing units. Under saturation development and. occupancy, population could increase by almost 59,000. The coastal area could be expected to grow by 24,500 and the watershed outside the coastal boundary by 34,400. An unpublished study by the Long Island Regional Planning Board estimates an approximately 1.17 percent growth in the number of housing units for Nassau and Suffolk counties from 1990 to 2000. The projected growth rates for the coastal and watershed areas are higher than this regional estimate, reflecting the more desirable nature of land located on or adjacent to the Sound. Housing unit estimates for the coastal area project increases of 3 percent to 4.09 percent between 1990 and 2000, and 6.13 percent to 7.15 percent between 1990 and 2010. Housing unit estimates for the watershed area outside the coastal boundary project increases of 1.79 percent to 2.39 percent between 1990 and 2000, and 3.58 percent to 4.18 percent between 1990 and 2010. In 1990, there were 32,2:55 housing units within the coastal area. An additional 6,:590 units could be built, if all available developable and redevelopable land is developed to its zoned residential capacity. The watershed area outside the coastal boundary had 110,741 existing housing units in 1990 with a possible addition of 13,218 units. At capacity, based upon existing ordinances, the entire watershed area would contain 162,804 housing units, adding 19,808 units after 1990. This represents a 14 percent increase in housing units. Breaking these projections down to a more local level illustrates the possible distribution of residential growth, assuming all available developable and redevelopable land is developed to its zoned residential capacity. Western Nassau County could see a 6 percent increase in housing units, eastern Nassau County a 10 percent increase, western Suffolk County an 11 percent increase, the towns of Brookhaven and Riverhead a 24 percent increase, and the Town of Southold an 110 percent increase. Generally, twice as many housing units could be built in the area of the watershed outside the coastal boundar~ than within the coastal area. The Developed Co~t 21 Table 3 .qsmration Population and Ho~.~in~ Estimates Nassau and Suffolk Counties 1990 Total Honsing Units 32,255 142,996 1990 Census of Population and Housing Population in Households 81,/87 378,603 L990 Census of Population ~ Housing Population in Group Quoters 3,511 14,962 1990 Censua of Population and Honsing Total Population 85,298 393,565 1990 Censu~ of Population and Housing Fatimated Housing Units 33,224 145,968 ('B) F_~ 1990 dwelling units plus 15% of possible units 1990-2000 Estimated Population 87,843 401,724 {BI) F.~timated popniation at 1990 oceupanoy rate and 1990 honsehold ~z~ plus 105~ of 1990 ~ronp quazU~ population. F.~imated Population 85,304 390,124 (B2) l~imated population at 1990 oconpan~y rate nmi saturation honsehold ~ plus 105% of 1990 gronp quartsrs population. F~imnted Population 94,129 415,745 (R3) F. atimated population and full occupancy and saturation hon~ehold size Flus 105~ of 1990 ~ronp quatte~ population. ~ Housing Units 33,573 146,958 (D) ~ 1990 dwellin~ uni~ plus 20~ Of possible units 1990-2000 Estimated Population 88,632 404,194 (DI) F.~timated population at 1990 occupancy rate and 19~O household size plus 105~ of 1990 group qua~.ers lx~l~ulntion. Estimated Pol~lation 86,070 392,521 (D2) Estimated population at 1990 occupancy rate and saturation honsd~eld size plua 105% of 1990 group qu~t~'s population. F.~timatsd Population 95,020 418,445 (D3) Estimated population and f~ll occupancy ~nd saturation honnehold size plus 105% of 1990 group quarter~ population. 2010 E~timated ttousing Units ~4,232 148,938 (C) F. atimated dwelling units in 2000 plus 15% of pogsible units 2000- 2010 Estimated Population 90,387 409,884 (CI) Estimated population at 1990 oeoupun~y rate and 1990 household size l~US 110~ of 1990 group quarters Estimated Population 87,777 398,062 (C2) Estimated population at 1990 occupancy rate and saturation household size plus 110~ of 1990 group quarters Estimated pelmlation 96,977 424,593 (C3) E~.im_*t__~_ population and f~ll occupancy and saturation household size plus 110% of 1990 gronp quarters popniafion. Estimated Housing Units 34,562 149,929 (E) Estimated dwelling units in 2000 plus 15% of po~ible units 2000- 2010 Estimated Population 91,177 412,355 (El) F-.atimated population at 1990 occupancy rate and 1990 hounehdd size plu~ 110~ of 1990 group ciuatte~ populnti,~ E~timated Population 88,543 400,459 (E2) F.~mated pel~lation at 1990 occupuney rate and saturation housel~d size plus 110% of 1990 group quarters population. Estimated Population 97,868 427,293 (E3) Eatimated population and full occupancy and saturation honsehold size plus 110% of 1990 group qumer~ populating. SATURATION POPULATION Estimated Honsing Units 38,845 162,804 aH units built Population in Households 105,588 445,936 0.085~ decline in household size Population in Group Quarters 4,213 17,954 20% increase in group quarter~ Total Population 109,801 463,890 100% occupancy Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board (1993) Land zoned for residential uses would yield 86 percent of the possible, future dwelling units. The remaining 14 percent of units would be built on land with a primary zoning category that allows residential development within that zoning category. Agriculturally zoned land in the towns of Riverhead and Southold would account for 10 percent of the additional dwelling units, while commercial, industrial, and recreational zoning in the same towns would account for the remaining 4 percent of future units. Table 4 shows the number of residentially zoned acres available for development or redevelopment by current land use within the watershed area. Of the total 24,135 acres available, 46 percent are vacant. One- third of the residentially zoned vacant acreage lies within Nassau County, particularly in the Town of Oyster Bay. The redevelopment of lands presently used for private recreation, especially golf courses, accounts for 20 percent of the land available for development and is the second largest current land use category. These private golf courses are predominantly in the western portion of the Sound coastal region, principally in the estates areas of Nassau County. Agricultural use accounts Table 4 Residentially Zoned Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Nassau and Suffolk Counties m Study Area C~ LAND USE TOTAL ACREAGE A~iculture 2,60~ Commercial 226 IndusU~l 38 Large Estates 547 Other 2,276 Private R~ere~tion 4,862 S~nd Mhtiag 437 V~c~mt 11,122 Wetl~ds 2,019 Total 24,135 Sour~: Lon[ Island Regional Planning ]~mrd, 1993 for I1 percent of potential residential development. The bulk of this property is locat~l in Riverhead arid Southold. The 9 percent of lands in the "other' category includes mOstly institutional properties which are zoned residential. Almost half of this acreage is attributed to the Kings Park Psychiatric Center in the Town of Smithtown. This property is residentially zoned, but will be redeveloped according to a master plan which may reuse existing buildings on the property. Just over 10,500 acres, almost 44 percent, of the residentially zoned, developable or redevelopable land is within the coastal area. Within this acreage, 44 percent is currently vacant, 10 percent is in private recreational use, 15 percent is institutional, and :5 percent is agricultural. Just over 13,;500 acres of residentially zoned, developable or redevelopable land lies in the watershed area outside the coastal boundary. Within this acreage, 48 percent is currently vacant, 28 percent is in private recreational use, 15 percent is agricultural, and 5 percent is in the other category. As the Long Island Sound coastal region moves toward saturation development, there will be increased pressure on the region's infrastructure, natural resources, open space, and community character. If current trends continue, the pattern of suburbanization and dispersed growth so familiar in the region will continue eastward into Suffolk County, while areas to the west will see development of the few remaining open areas and an increase in the density of development. At the same time as new development is taking place on undeveloped parcels, areas of previously developed land are being left behind to remain vacant and underutilized, a victim of changing economic, circumstances and locational preferences. As the current development capacity under current zoning is reached, communities will be required to make hard choices about their future growth. If a community waits until capacity 24 The Developed Coast is reached to make these choices, then its land area will already be built out to its fullest extent, leaving few choices for the future other than deciding where to increase .the density of development. At this stage it is likely that a community's sense of place and "connectedness", particularly to Long Island Sound, will be greatly diminished. Another choice remains for the region, a choice which involves communities' examining the current impacts, patterns, and trends of development and deciding to make changes about future growth before development capacity under current zoning is reached. This choice will undoubtedly provide the region with a wider set of options for the future. The next sections ybegin this process by examining the current land use and community character of the Long Island Sound coastal region and providing recommendations for the developed coast. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Table 5 shows estimates of land area by county in the coastal and watershed areas. Current land use along the shoreline consists of a mix of three major categories: residential use, comprising about 70-80 percent of the shoreline; recreational use and dedicated open space, comprising about 10-20 percent of the shoreline; and commercial/industrial uses, comprising about 5-10 percent of the shoreline. Vacant lands comprise about 5 percent of the shoreline. Consistent and detailed data on land use changes within the coastal and watershed areas are extremely limited. Two comprehensive surveys were carried out in 1966 and 1981 for Nassau and Suffolk counties; however, variations in classifications, boundary changes, and differing map bases diminish the value of the comparison. General trends apparent from these surveys showed a reduction in agricultural and vacant land and increases in most other land uses. Nassau County, in spite of a growth in housing units, showed only a small increase in residential land, while Suffolk County added 15,000 acres. Similarly, Nassau County showed a stable pattern of commercial and Table 5 Land Area Estimates by County { COASTAL WATERSHED AI~ (a~,~,) (,~ro,) Weatche~er County 8,768 67,700 Bronx County 3,277 10,335 Queena County 1,161 10,730 Naamau County 12,990 56,230 North Hemlntead 6,680 20,980 Oy~.r Bay 6,310 35,250 Suffolk County 43,750 100,160 Huntington 12,470 26,730 Smithtown 8,920 30,680 Brookhavea 7,390 19,190 Riverbead 4,790 9,380 Southold 10,180 14,180 Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1993 Westchester County Planning, 1993 industrial land, while Suffolk County almost doubled the acreage in these uses. There has been only minimal examination of changes in land use between 1981 and the present. The general trend appears to be for only minor changes in land use in the built-up sections of Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and western Suffolk County, with change requiring redevelopment of previously developed land and often resulting in a change of use from institutional, commercial, and industrial uses to residential use. The most active changes in land use can be seen in eastern Suffolk County, where areas of agricultural and vacant land are declining, and areas of residential, commercial, and industrial land are increasing. Despite the slow growth in population, the largest changes are generally in residential land use. Local migration and new household formations continue The Developed Coast 25 to provide a demand for new housing opportunities throughout the Long Island Sound coastal region. The densest development occurs in New York City and the immediately adjacent areas of Westchester and Nassau County. These areas feature intense commercial uses, which dominate major arterials and central business districts. Generally, the highest densities of residential development are to be found inland. The majority of the western and central part of the Sound shoreline features lower density residential and open space uses, although there are some areas of denser development on the shoreline of western Suffolk County. Throughout the central and western sections of the area, there are large tracts of private recreation open space in the form of golf and country clubs. These are located mainly in the watershed area of the Sound outside the coastal boundary. The western part of Suffolk County features several large state and county parks, institutional properties, and utility tracts. The eastern parts of Suffolk County consist of mostly low density residential and agricultural uses, with a few large parks and one major oil storage facility. Less than 3 percent of the western part of the Long Island Sound coastal area is vacant land. The percentage of vacant land increases eastward, with 9 percent in western Suffolk County, 6 percent in central areas of Suffolk County, 10 percent in eastern Suffolk County, and 2:5 percent on Fishers Island. The Nassau and Suffolk counties watershed area encompasses approximately 1:56,390 acres, about 20 percent of the total land area of Long Island. Its land use patterns have been examined in more detail than the Westchester County and New York City sections of the Sound coastal region. A detailed analysis of current land use was carried out by the Long Island Regional Planning Board (1993). Twelve land use categories were mapped, including residential, commercial, commercial-recreation, industrial, institutional, open space and recreational, agricultural, transportation and utilities, and vacant. Previously developed land use maps were used as the primary information source and were updated by interpretation of the most recent aerial photographs available. The regional scope of this analysis precluded a parcel-by-parcel determination of land use. Hence, the boundaries of the different land use categories were generalized, with uses designated denoting the predominant use occurrence. The Long Island Regional Planning Board used this survey to prepare estimates of the area of land available for development or redevelopment by existing land use and current zoning. This was accompanied by estimates of the possible yield of residential units, if these areas were to be fully developed under current zoning regulations. Wetland areas were assumed to be unavailable for development. The vacant land classification included undeveloped land. with no identifiable current use and represented developable parcels, for instance, an old farm field or wood lot within a subdivision would be classified as vacant. Land that is derelict or abandoned and represented redevelopable parcels was classified under its previous use; for instance, the former gravel pits in Port Washington are classified as sand mining, and derelict industrial sites are classified aa industrial. Outlined in the next section is an examination of the land use and community character of the Long Island Sound coastal region. This includes a county overview and a more detailed examination of the character of the individual municipalities. The components of community character include the natural environment, land use patterns, and scenic and cultural resources. The detailed land use analysis carried out by the Long Island Regional Planning Board is incorporated in the analysis of Nassau and Suffolk counties. 26 The Developed Coast Westchester County Westchester County occupies 44 miles of Long Island Sound shoreline between New York City and Connecticut. The county's shoreline is deeply indented and irregular, with numerous hays, inlets, and islands, ail featuring rock outcroppings, small beaches, wetlands, and intertidai mudflats. The importance of severai major wetland habitats aiong the Sound have been recognized by their designation by the state as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Much of the coastal watershed consists of Iow hills, with mature vegetation--trees, shrubs, lawns, and gardens--characteristic of established suburban areas in the northeast. The streams draining the coastal watershed are relatively small, with wide drainage basins in proportion to the length of the streams. The Westchester County watershed of Long Island Sound is almost completely developed. The land use of the watershed and coastal area are summarized in table 6. The main centers are located in New Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Rye, and Port Chester. Residential use predominates throughout the watershed, with some of the highest density residential development in New Rochelle and Port Chester. Less than 5 percent of the land is vacant, mostly consisting of golf courses and parks. The county features a number of central business districts and intermittent commerciai strip developments which are located away from the Sound, focused on NY Route 1. The central business districts tend to contain a mix of commerciai, industriai, and residentiai uses. In common with many mature suburbs, most coastal communities are losing population at the same time that their populations are aging. These trends are reflected in reductions in household size. The shoreline and coastal area is dominated by a band of older, fully developed suburbs. Development density along the shoreline fluctuates, with the highest densities to the east and west, and the lowest densities in the centrai part of the shoreline. The shoreline is primarily residentiai with commerciai and industriai development generaily located inland. Other shoreline uses include county and local park~, public and commercial marinas, private country and beach clubs, and the occasional industriai parcel. Traditional water-dependent commerciai activity baa been steadily declining, with many deteriorated and underutilized Table 6 Land Use, Westchester County I COASTAL AREA WATI~RSHED C~c~l/Re~ii 125.16 781.09 I~o~d., Public A~mbly 257.64 3183.52 Intm'ior Wa~r Bodie~ 173.48 399.65 Manufacturing, Indu~a'ial, Warehou~ 150.39 550.24 lViixed, R~identiai/Non-R~idential 364.42 897.11 or, ce 20.69 1473.28 Open Spaco-Active 1763.51 5623.51 Ogen Sgac.~-Passive 328.80 1156.36 Re~d,~,d-Hilh Density 286.98 917.64 Residential-Medium Density 3461.20 16463.51 R~,~,~k~-Low Density 1467.66 5487.81 l'.~,~,~---'~o~l, Communieatioe. s, Utilitie~ 351.79 2345.02 Undeveloped 165.35 1874.85 Source: Westchester County Planning, 1994 The Developed Coast 27 sites located primarily in New Rochelle and Port Chester. Water-dependent uses now mainly serve the needs of the recreational boating industry. Both the county and coastal' municipalities have waterfront parks, conservation areas, and formally designated open spaces with many facilities for public access and recreation, mostly for residents only. While most of the Westchester County shoreline of Long Island Sound is developed, the interface of land and water in many areas provides a range of natural and man-made scenic attractions. Harbors, wharves, boats, and associated shoreline buildings are attractive because of the types of uses, activities, and movements which take place in such areas. The shoreline has a number of well-defined harbors and coves with rock and sand beaches. The varied types of shoreline vegetation are important scenic attributes of the coast. These are ever-changing over the course of the year. The presence of islands is a characteristic element of views of the Sound, adding diversity and interest. Five Islands Park in New Rochelle offers superb views of constal islands, as do views from Marshlands Conservancy, which also include wetlands and the far shore of Milton Harbor. The interface of land and water is outstanding in the vicinity of Larchmont Manor Park in the Village of Larchmont. From some shorelines, such as Playland Park, there are exceptional views across the Sound to Long Island. The highly developed nature of the communities, all with established central business districts, means that there is little opportunity for future growth along the shoreline and in the immediate coastal area. Changes will be limited to redevelopment of built or vacant sites within the developed areas. Major areas with potential for redevelopment are located in New Rochelle and Port Chester. The land use and community character of Westchester County's coastal communities are considered below. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER Port Chester was, until recently, one of the county's main industrial centers. In contrast with neighboring coastal conununities, it exhibits many characteristics common to older industrial communities: dense, mixed use development; multiple dwelling units; a concentration of low to moderate income persons; and a relatively high proportion of elderly and minority persons. Single family housing makes up less than 25 percent of the dwelling units. The village's 1990 population of 24,728 represents an almost 5 percent increase over 1980. The village's 100-acre coastal area reflects the legacy of early industrial development along a two mile stretch of the Byram River. The variety of industries that once relied on the waterfront for transportation, power, and storage declined gradually after World War II. Most of these sites are abandoned, deteriorated, or underutilized. Water-dependent uses along the river are now very limited, including only an asphalt plant and a coal company, which use the river for transporting raw materials, and three marinas. Other waterfront area uses consist of houses, parks, and public facilities, such as village storage yards or parking lots. Over 2:5 percent of the coastal area consists of an attractive, stable neighborhood. Waterfront land is generally put to some use, although mostly for economically marginal purposes or for uses locating there because the land was industrially zoned or cheap. Many structures, including houses, warehouses, and industrial buildings, are old and deteriorated. Mixed uses in many neighborhoods often result in incompatible, unsightly, and possibly unsafe circumstances, where junk'yards and automotive service stations are located next to residences. 28 The Developed Coast Redevelopment opportunities in Port Chester are concentrated in the underutilized waterfront and the nearby central business district. Just over half of the land within the city's coastal boundary, largely comprised of deteriorated or underutilized areas, is included within three separate urban renewal or redevelopment areas. The village intends to make better use of this area with marinas, public access, residential, office, and retail uses. CITY OF RYE The predominant land use is residential of which single family homes constitute about 70 percent. In common with many older suburbs, its generally affluent population of 14,936 declined slightly from 1980 to 1990. Low and medium density residential uses occupy a majority of the waterfront followed by considerable amounts of park, recreation, conservation, and open space uses. The popularity of recreational boating makes water-dependent uses an important component of the city's economy. In particular, Milton Harbor plays an important economic role in the city because of the high degree of activity centered around the marina, boat yard, private yacht clubs, and private beaches. There are several public and private beaches in other waterfrom areas. Playland Park, a county-owned 143-acre waterfrom recreational facility, has an amusement park, beach, and fishing pier (Playland Pier - presently closed due to deterioration), among other facilities provided. It is one of only three waterfront parks along the county shoreline open to the general public. The only deteriorated area along the city's waterfront consists of Playland Pier, slated for rehabilitation. VH~L4GE OF MAMARONECK This residential village has mostly single family homes. Its 1990 population of 17,325 declined slightly from 1980. Just over 75 percent of the village's nine-mile long waterfront is occupied by high value residences, at medium and low densities. Public parkland (11%), private clubs (8%), and commercial boatyards (5%) make up the remainder of the land uses. Recreational boating and its associated water-dependent businesses are focused in Mamaroneck Harbor, which is well-reeognized as an important recreational porn and a source of significant economic activity for the village. Located on the harbor is I-larbor Island Park, a 44-acre public park with no residency restrictions that contains a beach, municipal docks and fishing floats, playgrounds, and facilities for court games and field sports. TOWN OFMAMARONECK This five square mile town, excluding the incorporated Village of Larchmont, is a residential community with about one mile of Sound shoreline. There is no industry, but there are commercial establishments serving area residents. The 1990 population of 27,706 declined slightly from 1980. Most of the town's shoreline is privately owned, consisting largely of expensive homes in low density settings. Public waterfront lands include two conservation areas totaling 15 acres that are open to the public for passive recreation. Inland, but within the coastal boundary which encompasses the entire town, are about 577 acres of open space consisting of parks The Developed Coast 29 and conservation areas, three large private golf courses, and a small amount of private undeveloped land. YH. tAGE OF LARCHMONT This village, with about eight miles of Sound shoreline, has its entire one square mile area included within the coastal area. It is a residential community, but there are some commercial establishments serving area residents. The 1990 population of 6,181 declined slightly from 1980. The village's shoreline is mostly in private ownership with expensive homes in low density settings and private yacht clubs and associations. Remaining waterfront uses include public and private parks, the latter consisting of Larchmont Manor Park, a very scenic park winding along a half mile of indented shoreline that is open to the public for passive recreation purposes. CIIT OF NF, W ROCHgtJt. e This large suburban city is both a residential and business center along the Sound. Almost two thirds of the dwelling units are multi-family. Its 1990 population of 67,265 represents a five percent decline since 1980. The city's 9.3-mile long diverse and irregular shoreline has many offshore islands, Davids bland being the largest. While much of the shoreline is privately owned, there are several large and small city-owned parks plus a large county recreational facility. There are numerous beach and yacht clubs, marinas, and many residential areas with expensive homes. Portions of the waterfront are devoted to industrial and commercial uses such as a cement plant, oil storage tanks, and boat yard. New Rochelle features much public and privately owned waterfront land that is vacant, underutilized, deteriorated, or occupied by inappropriate uses. A number of these have potential for redevelopment. These include the Main-Echo Urban Renewal Area, where a mix of residential, commercial, and water-related recreational uses could blend in with the existing mixed use developments; Davenport Neck, where the future of the recreational beach clubs is in doubt; Davids Island; and Wrights Island Marina. VH~4G~ OF PF_,LHAM MANOR The small portion of the village within the coastal boundary consists of a village waterfront park and waterfront lands owned by a private club. New York City The portion of New York City within the Long Island Sound coastal region occupies 25 miles of shoreline between the boundaries of Westchester and Nassau Counties and includes the par~s of the Bronx and Queens. This shoreline has a concentration of natural features with significant recreational, scenic, and habitat values, including tidal wetlands, estuarine rivers, inlets, coves, bays, and lagoons. The importance of the shoreline's natural habitat is reflected in the designation of four areas by the state as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The Bronx County shoreline and coastal area is a mix of residential development, park uses, and major transportation corridors. Pelham Bay Park, New York City's largest park, is 30 The Developed Coast located in the north of the Bronx. Although Pelham Bay Park has highly developed public access and recreation facilities, more than half of the park is natural forest, meadow, and marshland. Swimming, fishing, boating, picnicking, and field sports are available, as well as passive recreational pursuits. Residential development ranges from the high density Co-op City complex to Iow and medium density neighborhoods. The population of the Community Board 10 area declined about 8 percent between 1980 and 1990, from 106,516 to 97,863. Water-dependent uses in the Bronx focus on recreation boating. Marinas and private yacht clubs are significant shoreline uses, particularly on City Island. City Island is an important visitor destination in the summer, with its maritime atmosphere, boats available for sport fishing excursions, and seafood restaurants. Hart Island, located east of City Island, remains the city's potter's field. The Queens County shoreline and coastal area is a mix of residential development, major transportation corridors, and parks. More suburban in character than other parts of the city, the waterfront residential districts consist mostly of one or two family houses, with some clusters of high-rise residences in Bayside. A population decline of about 2.5 percent, from 110,963 in 1980 to 108,056 in 1990, occurred in the Community Board 11 area. With no waterfront industrial or commercial uses and only two private yacht clubs, the remainder of the waterfront, aside from residential uses, consists of park, conservation, transportation, and military uses. The 147 acres of Fort Totten remain a military reservation with no general public access. The Cross Island Parkway straddles the west shore of Little Neck Bay, separated from the water by a narrow green strip of parkland with a pedestrian and bicycle path. Both active and passive recreation, as well as natural areas, are included in Alley Pond Park, one of the city's largest parks, located at the southern end of the bay. Udall's Cove and Ravine, to the east at the Nassau County boundary, is managed by the city as a wildlife preserve with passive recreation available. The variety of natural and man-made landscapes along New York City's portion of Long Island Sound provides many scenic attractions. The shoreline is irregular, with coves, inlets, bays, islands, and rocky outcroppings adding scenic interest to views. With a significant percentage of the shoreline in parks and conservation areas, the vegetation of wooded shores and wetlands contributes a natural dimension to the shoreline landscape. In some areas, such as City Island, the maritime atmosphere of harbors, wharves, boats, and associated shoreline buildings also lends a scenic am'action to the area because of the types of uses, activities, and movements which take place there. Because of the numerous parks and street ends along the Sound, there are many opportunities for access to enjoy the scenic views of the shore and water. Visual and physical access could be greatly expanded on City Island, if street end barricades were removed. The highly developed nature of the communities means that there is little opportunity for new development. Changes will come about as a result of redevelopment of vacant land. Potential redevelopment sites exist in the Throgs Neck area of the Bronx. The Developed Coast 31 Nassau County Nassau County occupies about 62 miles of shoreline on Long Island Sound from the New York City boundary eastward to Suffolk County. The county's shoreline is highly irregular and is indented by deep harbors and bays. The bays are separated by peninsulas, or necks, projecting into the Sound. The necks typically have narrow beaches backed by bluffs which gradually increase in height from west to east. While there are a limited number of tidal and freshwater wetlands and other natural habitats in the western part of the county, the middle and eastern sections have significant wetlands, beach habitats, contiguous upland forest habitats, and stream and pond environments within close proximity to the shoreline. Several important habitats are included in designations by the state as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. A high proportion of the county's shoreline is man-made, ranging from about 7:5 percent in the western parts to 33 percent in the eastern parts of the county. The land use characteristics of Nassau County are influenced by the natural necks and bays environment. The town and villages are largely residential, with much of the population upper income. The most densely developed areas are in the west of the county. The shoreline is generally fully developed for low and medium density residential uses with pockets of waterfront industrial and commercial development, local parks, and private recreation facilities. There are many areas of low density estates, although these are under pressure for subdivision. Bayville features a dense area of residential development adjacent to the waterfront. This area consists of seasonal homes that have been convened to year- round housing. Commercial and industrial development is generally located at the heads of the bays and along the major highway arteries. Commercial uses are limited to some locations in Oyster Bay hamlet, Bayville, Manorhaven, the Manhasset Bay side of Port Washington, and Great Neck. Industrial uses are concentrated on the west side of Hempstead Harbor in Port Washington, along the east side of the bay in the Glenwood Landing area, in the vicinity of the bay's Glen Cove Creek, and in the hamlet of Oyster Bay. There are also some industrial uses located on IVlanhassat Bay in Manorhaven and Port Washington, and along southern paris of the bay. Hempstead Harbor features the most intensively industrialized areas on the Long Island Sound, while the City of Glen Cove features the greatest variety of land uses within the coastal area. Other land uses consist of significant amounts of open space and recreation. County and municipal parks provide numerous facilities for public access and recreation as well as protected natural areas. The Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Sagamore Hill National Historic Site are federal sites located along the county's shoreline. Water-dependent uses mainly serve the needs of the recreational boating industry, with other types of uses playing a diminishing role along the waterfront. In the harbors are numerous marinas, clubs, boat yards, and associated facilities catering to recreational boaters, who heavily use desirable locations, such as Manhasset Bay, which has the largest concentration of marina facilities of all the reaches on the Sound within Nassan and Suffolk counties. Since 1970 the population in most of the Nassau County section of the Long Island Sound coastal region declined somewhat, except for the easternmost parts. However, the number of housing units increased, even in areas with population declines. The entire area showed significant decreases in household size and an aging population. 32 The Developed Coast The indented shoreline of Nassau County, with its many coves, inlets, and hays backed by wooded hills, offers numerous natural and man-mede scenic attractions. In spite of the highly developed, mostly residential character of the coastline, which is hidden in many places by the heavily wooded terrain, the interface of land and water still presents a pleasant prospect. There are numerous opportunities for views over water to nearby and distant shorelines from roeds and parks. In several harbors catering to recreational boating, there are wharves, boats, and associated shoreline buildings, which are often attractive because of the types of uses, activities, and movements which take place in such areas. The highly developed nature of the communities means that there is little opportunity for future growth along the shoreline and in the immediate coastal area. Changes will be limited to redevelopment of built or vacant sites within the developed areas, resulting in a change of use or increased density of development. Specific areas with potential for development and redevelopment are located around Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, and Oyster Bay. In these areas the relocation or elimination of industrial uses and utilization of vacant public land may provide some opportunities for redevelopment. Table 7 shows estimates of the amount of land available for development or redevelopment by existing land use and current zoning and also shows the possible yield of residential units if this land were to be fully developed under current zoning regulations. The majority of land within the watershed area available for development or redevelopment is located within existing residentially zoned areas. Full development of this land in the coastal area and the watershed outside the coastal boundary could result in a yield of 1,337 and 3,635 dwelling units, respectively. Most of the residentially zoned land available for development is currently vacant or used for private recreation purposes. Within residential areas, the subdivision of private recreation facilities, such as golf courses, provides both a threat to the open space resources of Nassau County and an potential for further residential growth. This is particularly so in the area of the watershed outside the coastal boundary where there are 2,785 acres of residentially zoned land currently used for private recreation purposes that could yield 1,393 dwelling units. There is very little land currently zoned commercial or industrial available for development or redevelopment. The population and housing figures for the Nassau County watershed area showed a decline in population of 8,550 persons and an increase in housing units of 8,557 between 1970-90. Given this trend that suggests that demand for housing units will continue despite a stable or declining population, it is quite possible that the full residential yield possible under current zoning of 5,022 units on the 8,770 acres of land available for development or redevelopment will be required. The land use and community character of Nassau County's coastal communities are considered below. TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD The Town of North Hempstead includes 16 villages with frontage on the Long Island Sound and a smaller amount of waterfront land composed of the town's unincorporated areas. The town's 28.8 linear miles of shoreline include three embayments of the Sound, the eastern portion of Little Neck Bay, all of Manhasset Bay, and the western portion of Hempstead Harbor. The town's 1990 population of 211,393 has declined from 218,624 in 1980. The majority of the coastal area consists of low and medium density residential uses, with much high value housing generally located close to the Sound. The most significant The Developed Coast 33 Table 7 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Nassau County EXIST]~IG ZONING AgricuPalre[ Commm'cial Industry ~ ~i~n~ T~ C~ A~eul~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~m~ 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 7 31 7 31 Indu~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~s 0 0 G 0 O 0 0 0 0 O G 0 ~ 0 0 3 0 O 0 0 0 lffi ~ 1~ ~v R~i~ O 0 0' 0 ~ 0 0 0 470 427 4~ 427 R~ O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O fl 0 ~M~g O 0 0 0 C 0 O 0 4~ ~3 4~; 573 Vm C 0 5 0 12 0 O 0 653 ~2 670 282 W~s G 0 0 0 2 0 O 0 438 ~ ~ 0 T~ 0l 0 8 0 38 0 O 0 2~3 .337 2139 1337 W~ A~eulm~ 01 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ~1 116 361 116 ~ ~M 0 0 0 O 0 0 G 0 ~ 552 ~ 552 ~ I~ 0 0 0 O 0 0 ~ 0 O 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 O 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 45 ~ 45 ~ 0 0 0 O 0 0 C 0 1~ 118 1~ 118 ~v ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0l 0 ~85 1~ ~85 1393 Resi~M 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 S~d M~g 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 Vac~t 0 0 25 0l 45 0 0 0 2701 14~ 2~1 1~ W~ 0 0 0 0l 2 0 0 0 12~ 0 128 0 T~ 0 0 ~ 0 47 0 0 0 6~8 3633 6310 3633 Wm~ A~c~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 361l 116 361 116 ~ C~m~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~i 583 1~ 583 I~d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 45 ~ 45 ~ 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 142 ~ 142 ~v R~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 3~5 1820 3279 I~0 R~i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8~M~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4~ ~3 4~ 573 V~t 0 0 30 0 57 O 0 0 33~ 1691 ~1 1~1 W~ 0 0 0 0 4 O 0 0 5~ 0 568 T~ 0 0 33 0 85 O 0 0 8331 4~0 ~9 NOTE: Yield is residential units Source: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1993. industrial uses are located in the Glenwood Landing section of Hempstead Harbor, consisting of utility facilities and oil depot and storage facilities. Other industrial uses, mostly deteriorated and abandoned, are concentrated on the west side of Hempstead Harbor in Port Washington. There are also some industrial uses located on Manhasset Bay in Manorhaven 34 The Developed Coast and Port Washington, and along southern parts of the bay. Water-dependent uses serving recreational boating are important in several areas, particularly Manhasset Bay, which has a large concentration of marina facilities and other commercial uses catering to recreational boaters. Commercial uses along the town's shore are limited to areas in Manorhaven and the Manhasset Bay side of Port Washington. The county, town, and villages operate several local parks, beaches, and natural areas offering both active and passive recreation for local residents. Hempstead Harbor was once the busiest port on Long Island, based on the annual tonnage of materials transported. Most of this weight reflected outbound barge shipments of locally mined sand and gravel from the Port Washington sand pits, which encompassed more than 1,000 acres. The last local sand mine operation closed in 1988 and the pits have been abandoned. Portions of the area have been restored for commercial use, while other areas await further restoration and redevelopment. Undeveloped Nassau County parklands occupy the former site of the Colonial Sand and Gravel Mine and encompass the northernmost :1:250 acres of the sand pits. The southernmost 4.200 acres of the sand pits have been developed as two industrial parks. The south-central 4-140 acres of the sand pits were used by the Town of Hempstead as a municipal landfill. Approximately 4-4:50 acres in the north-central portion of the sand pits, land formerly owned by the Morewood Realty Corporation, had been acquired by the Town of North Hempstead for the development of solid waste management facilities. The town has concluded that this site is no longer needed for solid waste management purposes and plans to sell this large parcel in the near future. The area is residentially zoned and could yield over :570 dwelling units. The waterfront strip of land east of West Shore Road fronting on Hempstead Harbor, from the southern boundary of the Village of Sands Point to the Roslyn central business district, contains a mix of residential, industrial, and recreational uses. A beachfront community of 41 bungalows, known as the Beacon Hill Colony, occupies the northernmost segment of this strip of land. South of the bungalow community is the dockage area of the Gotham Sand and Stone Corp., which receives waterborne shipments of crushed stone. There are also a number of deteriorated and abandoned industrial facilities in this area that were used for the repair of tugboats and barges used in the export of sand. South of this industrial area are two public bathing beaches, Hempstead Harbor County Beach and the Town of North Hempstead's Bar Beach, which have extensive sandy shorelines. The shoreline area south of Bar Beach is primarily vacant and owned by the town, with some parcels containing remnants of equipment from previous sand and gravel operations. At the southern end, close to Roslyn, is the site of the former Town of North Hempstead incinerator. Although no longer functioning as an incinerator, the site is now utilized for shredding and bailing solid waste materials prior to disposal. Hempstead Harbor contains a large number of derelict and abandoned sand and gravel barges, which are being removed by the Army Corps of Engineers. As noted previously, the sand pit area north of the town landfill needs reclamation prior to any development. A slope stabilization program is needed to protect adjacent residential structures against potential slope failure. The 4-450 acres in the north-central portion of the sand pits that will be sold by the town could accommodate a clustered residential development that would not be in conflict with any of the surrounding areas, and would not be of the intensity to encourage extensive peak hour travel on a limited road system. The proportion that would remain in open space should reflect the limitations of the infrastructure The Developed Coast 35 and the physical constraints on the site. Chapter 4, The Public Coast, provides a discussion of parkland development potential in this area. ~-~ Towv oI~ OYSTER BAY The Town of Oyster Bay has a shoreline of approximately 55 miles on the Sound and includes eight villages on the Sound coast. Only a small portion of the town's waterfront is located outside of these incorporated municipalities. Oyster Bay Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor, and parts of Hempstead Harbor are included within the town. From a 1980 population of 305,750, the town's population declined to a figure of 292,657 in 1990. Most land uses in the town are low and medium density residential, with a few spots of high density housing. There are industrial and commercial uses in the hamlet of Oyster Bay. Water-dependent uses are concentrated in the hamlet, including a public marina and boat ramp, facilities for recreational boaters who heavily use Oyster Bay Harbor, an oil receiving and storage facility, and the last surviving oyster company on Long Island. The town contains numerous public lands offering a variety of public access and recreational facilities. Federal lands include the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Sagamore Hill National Historic Site. The county, town, and villages operate a several parks, beaches, and natural areas offering both active and passive recreation for local residenCs. Specific areas with potential for development and redevelopment are located in the Hamlet of Oyster Bay. The Commander Oil storage terminal, although currently operating as a water-dependent industry, is no longer strictly water-dependent, as oil can be off-loaded at offshore platforms and the petroleum product piped to inland locations. In the event that the Commander Oil terminal ceases to operate, the tank farm site as well as adjacent non-water- dependent uses should be redeveloped. Any redevelopment in Oyster Bay should be compatible with the adjacent waterfront parks and not threaten the continued operation of the commercial shellfisbery in the Oyster Bay Harbor complex. CITY OF (~I.,F_.N COV~ The City of Glen Cove has a 9.47 mile shoreline, primarily on Hempstead Harbor. The city's 1990 population of 24,149 represents a small decline from 1980's figure of 24,618. Land uses in the coastal area are varied. While most of the shoreline is devoted to residential and park uses, there are highly industrialized sites along Glen Cove Creek. Industrial uses are concentrated along the north side of Glen Cove Creek, the eastern half of which is the most intensively industrialized area on the north shore of Long Island. Past industrial land uses have contaminated properties adjacent to the creek with toxic wastes and radioactive material. Along the south side of the creek are some water-dependent uses consisting of several marinas and public recreation facilities. Both the city and county operate waterfront parks and natural areas offering a variety of active and passive recreation opportunities. Major opportunities exist in the City of Glen Cove for redevelopment around Glen Cove Creek. The area includes a mix of water-dependent, water-enhanced, and non-water- dependent uses. Interspersed with industrial uses are vacant, derelict and abandoned sites, public uses, marinas, and recreation facilities. The greatest concentration of Superfund sites on the Sound is located in this area. Redevelopment of this currently inefficiently utilized waterfront area will require accelerated clean-up of the Superfund sites, phasing out of 36 The Developed Coast inappropriately located non-water-dependent uses, infrastructure and environmental improvements, and provision of public access. Suffolk County Land use patterns and development trends divide Suffolk County into three distinct sub- regions. These are the western section of the. county from Cold Spring Harbor to Wading River, the eastern section of the county from Wading River to Orient Point, and Fishers Island. Suffolk County offers a wide variety of scenic appeal in its long north shore coastline. The attractions of recreational boating harbors with their maritime ambience contrast with the many kinds of highly scenic natural areas ranging from wetlands, ponds and beaches, to high bluffs, dunes, islands, and upland forests. While the western and middle parts of the county's shoreline are highly developed with mostly residential uses, the terrain and the large, wooded lots hide much of the development and give many areas a scenic, semi-rural feeling. The significant amounts of agricultural lands remaining in the eastern part of the county, sometimes with historic farmhouses, lend a captivating rural atmosphere to the coastal landscape. There are many places with extensive, long views over land and water, sometimes across the Sound to Connecticut. Western Suffolk County occupies approximately 115 miles of the Sound shoreline from the Nassau County boundary eastward to Wading River. In this section of the county the shoreline is highly varied, with numerous harbors and embayments, barrier sand spits, bluff formations, beaches, dunes, tidal wetlands, inland freshwater wetlands, upland forests, and ponds. A considerable portion of the shore is man-made, with structures consisting of bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments. The few streams are small and short in length, except for the Nissequogue River, the largest river on Long Island draining into the Sound, which has been designated as a Wild, Scenic, and Recreation River by the state. Several important habitats are included in designations by the state as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The'shoreline of western Suffolk County is generally fully developed for low and medium density residential uses with pockets of waterfront industrial and commercial development, state and local parka, and private recreation facilities. The low to medium density residential development clusters around small downtown commercial cores and harbors are linked by lower density residential development. There are some institutional and utility uses located on the waterfront. Other land uses include a small amount of agriculture, and large amounts of open space and recreation. County and municipal parka plus two state parks at Caumsett and Sunken Meadow provide facilities for public access and recreation as well as protected natural areas. A federal wildlife refuge, Target Rock, is located on Huntington Bay in Lloyd Harbor. There are some significant commercial and industrial uses in Huntington hamlet and Port Jefferson. Water-dependent uses mainly serve the needs of the recreational boating industry. In the many harbors are numerous marinas, clubs, boat yards, and associated facilities catering to recreational boaters who heavily utilize desirable locations such as Huntington Harbor during the peak summer months. Population change since 1970 has been uneven, with some parts of the western section of the county slightly declining and others significantly increasing in population. In ail areas, The Developed Coast 37 however, the number of housing units increased substantially, even in areas with population declines. The highly developed nature of the communities means that there is little opportunity for ture growth along the shoreline and in the immediate coastal area. Changes will primarily be limited to redevelopment of built or vacant sites within the developed areas. Such redevelopment would often require a change of use or increased density of development. The major areas with potential for redevelopment are the Kings Park State Hospital, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Table 8 shows estimates of the area of land available for development or redevelopment by existing land use and current zoning and the possible yield of residential units if these areas were to be fully developed under current zoning regulations. Within the watershed area, the majority of land available for development or redevelopment is located within existing residentially zoned areas. Full development of this land could result in a yield of 2,693 residential units in the coastal area and :5,911 residential units in the watershed area outside the coastal boundary. Most of the residentially zoned land available for development is currently in vacant institutional use, primarily the Kings Park Psychiatric Center, or used for private recreation purposes. Within residential areas, the subdivision of private recreation facilities, such as golf courses, provides both a threat to the open space resources of western Suffolk County and a potential for further residential growth. This is particularly so in the watershed area outside the coastal boundary, where there are 1,004 acres of residentially zoned land currently used for private recreation purposes that could yield 1,049 residential units. There is very little currently commercial or industrial zoned land available for development or redevelopment within the coastal area. Within this area, the subdivision of large estates provides some potential for further residential growth. In the coastal area and the watershed area outside the coastal boundary, there are 267 acres and 212 acres, respectively, of residentially zoned land that is currently used for agriculture. Eastern Suffolk County has a coastline of approximately 60 miles stretching from Wading River to Orient Point. In contrast with western Suffolk County, this section of the county shoreline is very regular, consisting predominantly of a linear beach and extensive bluff formation, with rapid erosion occurring along bluff faces in some places. Additional important natural coastal features in the sub-region include tidal and freshwater wetlands, ponds, dunes, and upland forests. Mattituck Creek is the only major embayment in this section of the shoreline. Somewhat over 10 percent of the shoreline is manmade, consisting of bulkheads, sea walls, and revetments. Important wetland habitat Wading River has been designated by the state as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The shoreline of eastern Suffolk County is predominantly open agricultural and forest lands with intermittent enclaves of low and medium density residential development in hamlets and residential subdivisions. Moving from west to east, land uses changes from primarily low, medium, and medium-high density residential to agricultural, vacant, and open space/recreational uses, although even in the east, low and medium density residential land uses exist near the coast. The inlets located at breaks in the bluffs provide a focus for more concentrated seasonal and year round residential and commercial development. This section of the county is in the process of change, developing from a rural agricultural region with seasonal communities to year-round residential areas. The undeveloped nature of the area and its accessibility to new employment opportunities in Brookhaven are part of the attraction of the area. 38 The Developed Coast Table 8 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Western Suffolk County EXISTIi~IG ZONING Agriculture Comm'l Industry Recreation Residential Total Coastal Agriculture 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 (3 267 145 267 145 Are~ Commercial 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 (~ 40 52 40 52 Industrial 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 ~ 3 8 3 La~ge Estates 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 46~ 205 466 205 Other 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 1152 602 1152 602 Priv Reereatio~ 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 0 243 117 243 117 Renidential 0 0 I (3 0 0 0 0 (3 (3 1 0 ·md Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 (3 (~ 0 Vacant 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2112 1569 2115 1569 Wetlm~de 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1167 0 1172 (~ Total 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 5455 2693 5464 2693 Watershed A~iculture 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 212 159 215 159 Are~ ~ial 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 82 144 117 144 Comtal ~ (3 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 30 25 57 25 Area Large Eatate~ (3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 12 35 12 Other (3 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 510 408 551 40~ Priv Reerantion (3 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0 1004 1049 1004 1049 Residential (3 0 21 0 $ 0 (~ 0 0 0 29 0 Sand Mining 0 0 0, 0 0 0 ~ 0 12 10 12 10 Vacant 0 0 76 0 226 C (3 0 2709 4104 3011 410~ Wetlands 0 0= (3 0 0 (3 (3 0 72 0 72 0 Total 0 0[ 135 0 302 (3 0 0 4666 5911 5103 5911 Watershed Agrlculmr~ 0 ~ 3 0 0 (~ 0 0 479 304 482 304 Are~ Conuner~ial 0 (3 35 0 0[ (3 0 0 122 196 157 196 Industrial 0 (~ 0 0 27 (3 0 0i 38 28 65 28 Large l~.t.t~. 0 (3 0 C (3 (3 0 (3 501 217 501 217 Other 0 (3 0 ¢ 41 0 0 (~ 1662 101C 1703 1010 Priv Recreation 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 1247~ 116~ 1247 1166 Residential 0 0 22 (~ 8 0 0 (3 (2 ~ 30 0 Sand Mining 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 12 1(3 12 10 Vacant 0 0 79 0 226 0 0 (3 482 5673 5126 5673 Wetlands 0 0 0 (3 5 0 0 0 1239 (3 1234 0 Total 0 0 139 0 307 0 0 0 10121 8604 10567 8604. NOTE: Yield is residential units So~rce: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1993. 7he Developed Coast 39 The majority of commercial development is found along Route 25A in a typical strip commercial pattern. The only industrial use is found at Northville, where oil storage tanks receive oil by pipeline from an offshore terminal. Industrial uses at Mattituck Creek have been discontinued, with abandonment of oil storage tanks and a phaseout and removal of various industrial uses on the west side of the mouth of the creek. Wildwood State Park and county, town, and local park districts provide public access and recreational facilities, including numerous bathing beaches. Most local beach facilities have restrictions against nonresident use, although some do allow nonresidents, but charge higher fees. Undeveloped parks or facilities, such as nature preserves, offering passive recreation tend to have fewer restrictions against nonresident use. Recreational boating facilities are found in Mount Sinai Harbor and Mattituck Creek. Population within the coastal area in the eastern part of the county has more than doubled since 1970, with a substantial increase in the number of housing units. The Town of Southold showed a slight population decrease in the coastal area, although there was still an increase in the number of housing units. There were notable decreases in household size in the watershed area. The Town of Southold continues to be a retirement and second home area, with one third of the year-round population aged 55 or older and a summer population increase of more than 125 percent over the year-round average. Eastern Suffolk County has the greatest potential for change through new development and redevelopment of seasonal residences. Current zoning allows for a wide range of residential development, and, without action to protect farmland and rural character, it is likely that suburban residential growth will continue to spread east. In order to protect agriculture and open space, Suffolk County, the Town of Riverhead, and the Town of Southold have agricultural protection programs that include purchase of development rights and clustering requirements. As a result of agricultural and groundwater protection efforts, pressure to develop along the shoreline has intensified. The LILCO site at Jamesport has potential for redevelopment. Table 9 shows estimates of the amount of land available for development or redevelopment by existing land use and current zoning and also shows the possible yield of residential units if this land were to be fully developed under current zoning regulations. The majority of land available for development is currently vacant or used for agriculture and is either zoned for agricultural or residentialuse. Development of all land currently in agriculturaluse could yield 692 dwelling units on 1,099 acres within the coastal area and 2,565 dwelling units on 3,764 acres in the watershed area outside the coastal boundary. There is very little commercial or industrial zoned land available for development or redevelopment within the watershed area. Fishers Island has a coastline of 24 miles. The shoreline is mostly beach, with some bluffs. Hungry Point Islands and Fishers Island Beaches have been designated by the state as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, while the whole of the island has been designated as a critical environmental area. Fishers Island is a predominantly seasonal resort community with a small business area and a cluster of year-round homes on the western end of the island. Much of the coastal land on Fishers Island is either vacant or low density residential. It has an estimated peak seasonal population of 2,270, but a year-round population of only 329, a drop of 74 since 1970 following a military base closing. 40 The Developed Coast Table 9 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Eastern Suffolk County £XISTI~G ZONING Agriculture Commercial Industry Recreation Residentia Totsi CUR~LA~USE Ac~r~ Iyield Aete~ [yield ~ Yield A0r~ Yield Ae~a Yield Aere~ [Yield Coastal A~riculture 749 364 34 54 0 0 8 1(~ 308 264 1099 692 Area Commercini 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (~ Industrial 158 126 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 0 158 126 Large F~-t_ _~; (~ 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 Other (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 13~ 104 130 104 Prlv Recreation 9~ 72 0 0 (3 0 85 124 118 120 293 316 Residential (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 Sand Mining 0 (~ 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 (3 0 0 0 V~..~nt 44 3'~ 52 69 0 (3 55 56 1075 829 1226 989 Wetlands 0 (3 0 0 5 (3 0 0 118 (3 123 0 Total 1041 597 86 123 5 (3 148 190 1749 1317 3029 2227 WUershed Agriculture 2132 1237 26 25 136 102 10 16 1460 912 3764 2292 Area Commeecini 0 0 C 0 0 0 (3' 0 0 0 O 0 Outside of ~ Industrial 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (~ 0 Area La~e E~-_~_ 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 O~er 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 22 29 22 Priv Recre~i~ 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 122 108 60 48 182 156 Residential 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 0 Snnd Mining 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (~ Vacant 181 194 33 24 30 24 0 (3 1076 962 1320 1204 Wetlands 3 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 To~l 2316 1431 59 49 166 126 132 124 2625 1944 5298 3674 W~.~hod Agriculture 2881 1601 60 79 136 I02 15 26 1768 1176 4863 2984 Are~ Commercial 0 (~ 0 0 0 0i 0 0 (3 0 0 0 Indus~ial 158 126 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 0 0[ 155 126 Large Eststes 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 0 159 126 159 126 Priv Recreation 90 72 0 0 0 0 207 232 178 168 475 472 Residential 0 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 Sand Mining 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 (~ 0 Vacant 22.5 229 85 93 30 24 55 56 2151 179~ 2546 2193 Wetlands 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 118 0 126 0 Tc~mi 3357 2028 145 172~ 171 126 280 314 4374 3261 8327 5901 NOTE: Yield ia residential units Source: Long Island Regional Planning Beard, 1993. The Developed Coo~t 41 Major changes in land use and character are not anticipated because of the island's inaccessibility, although infill housing and small subdivisions are likely. Table 10 shows estimates of the amount of land available for development or redevelopment by existing land use and current zoning and also shows the posiible yield of residential units if this land were to be fully developed under current zoning regulations. Table 10 Land Available for Development or Redevelopment, Fishers Island BXISTINO ZONING Agriculture Commercial Industry Recreation Residential Total C~ LAND US]~ Ac~m Yield Acm* Ykld AO~ Yield Aarm yield Ac~m yield Acre [ Yield Agriculture. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iudustri~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 large F~:_*_t _.~_ 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 (] 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 233 17 233 17 Priv Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 182 48 182 48 Residential 0 ~ 0 0 0 0l 0 0 0 (] 0 0 S~md Mining 0 ~ 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 e 0 0 Vat. at 0 ~ 9 0 0 0 0 0 796 268 80~ 268 Wetlamt~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 [ 98 0 ToOl 0 (~ 9 0 0 0 0 0 1309 ~3 l'qS 33~ NOTE: Yield is residential unit~ Scm'ce: Loag Island Regionsl Plmming Board, 1993 The land use and community character of Suffolk County's coastal communities are considered below. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON The Town of Huntington, including the villages of Asharoken, Huntington Bay, Lloyd Harbor, and Northport, has about 64 linear miles of shoreline characterized by rolling bills, bluffs, beaches, and picturesque harbors. The town and villages are largely residential, with much of the population upper income and the area dominated by large single family houses built on large lots. Narrow, winding roads serve these neighborhoods, which retain a semi- rural atmosphere due to dense, mature vegetation and deep building setbacks. More recent construction has been relatively unobtrusive because of strict local zoning laws. The town's 1990 population of 191,474 represents a decline of about 10,000 from 1990. In three of the four villages--Asharoken, Huntingwn Bay, and Lloyd Harbor--there are no commercial or industrial uses, the only other uses besides residential being institutional and recreation/open space. Non-water-dependent commercial uses are found in the Village of Northport and in the areas of CenterporL Cold Spring Harbor, and Huntington. North of Northport Village is a LILCO generating plant, the largest oil-fired generating plant in the nation. The popularity of recreational boating means that water-dependent uses are important in several areas, including Centerport, Northport, and particularly in the Huntington Harbor 42 The Developed Coast area where there are yacht clubs, marinas, boat yards, mooring facilities, and other commercial uses catering to fishermen and recreational boaters. The villages and the town operate a number of local parks, beaches, and marinas. Several homeowner associations also operate beaches for members only. Caumsett State Park, at 1,500 acres the largest tract of open space within Huntington's coastal zone, and Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge constitute the only state and federal lands, respectively, in the town'S coastal zone. TOWN OF SM~I~TOWN The Town of Smithtown, encompassing Smithtown Bay, has a shoreline of approximately 36.5 miles and includes two villages, Nissequogue and Head-of-the-Harbor, within its coastal boundary. The town's 1990 population of 113,406 was approximately the same as in 1980. Because of the large amounts of publicly owned land within the coastal area, population density in the waterfront area is much lower than in the rest of the town. Low and medium density residential land use predominates in the waterfront area. Within the two villages, a large proportion of the residential land is occupied by estates. Commercial uses in the waterfront area are limited in extent and found in the western edge of the Smithtown central business district, but they are not water-dependent uses. There are numerous recreational parka and nature preserves in the town, the largest being Sunken Meadow and Caleb Smith State Parks, which together include almost 2,000 acres. Local parks include both facilities for active recreation, such as beaches, as well as nature preserves. The Kings Park Psychiatric Center (KPPC) lies in the coastal area and is a large area of land with redevelopment potential. The center covers approximately 565 acres, comprising patient and employee residences, recreational facilities, two yacht clubs, a power plant, a landfill, abandoned fields, and woodland. It is currently zoned for one-acre residential development. Prior to the New York State deinstitutionalization policy, the KPPC had a group quarters population of over 6,000 persons. The Town of Smithtown LWRP established the criteria for the development of a master plan which is being prepared for the reuse of the property. This would include the adaptive reuse of the core area of the center for a mix of uses, with some of the existing residential property developed for housing. TOWN OF BROOIIltA VEN The Town of Broukhaven, including the villages of Old Field, Poquott, Port Jefferson, and Shore, ham, has about 49 linear miles of shoreline along the Sound. Its 1990 population of 407,915 represents an increase of 45,000 over the 1980 figure. Land use within the town's coastal area is primarily single family residential, although there are significant commercial, industrial, and utility uses in Port Jefferson and LILCO's nuclear power plant at Shoreham. Recreational uses consist of town and village parks and beaches, mostly concentrated along the western end of the town's shoreline, and numerous private beaches operated by nearby neighborhood associations. The Village of Port Jefferson has become a regionally important tourist destination in recent years, partly because of its terminal location for the ferry to Connecticut. Marine oriented water-dependent uses are also concentrated in the western half of the town's shoreline, with numerous yacht clubs, marinas, boat yards, mooring facilities, and other commercial uses catering to fishermen and recreational boaters. The Developed Coast 43 Two sp~ific areas with potential for development and redevelopment are located in the Town of Brookhaven: Port Jefferson Harbor and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The head of Port Jefferson Harbor contains a large town marina, a cross-Sound ferry terminal, and mixed industrial and commercial uses. The Port Jefferson waterfront exemplifies the ongoing trend in north shore harbors to remove obsolete or non-water- dependent industrial uses that formerly occupied strategic locations along the waterfront and replace them with commercial and recreational uses that provide greater public access. Redevelopment and expansion of downtown Port Jefferson have occurred over a short period of time and have transformed it into an active tourist center. The village's objective for redevelopment in Port Jefferson continues in this direction, seeking to facilitate water- dependent commercial and recreational development that will maintain and enhance the vitality of the village shoreline and improve public access, all without impairing the historic and scenic quality of the village. The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is in the process of being decommissioned. Alternative uses of the plant site are under investigation. Use of a portion of LILCO's Shoreham property for the development of a terminal for high speed ferries connecting Shoreham with New Haven, Connecticut has been proposed by New York State. It is anticipated that the existing basin at Shore, ham will be expanded to accommodate dockage of the high speed ferries. The ferries would cut travel time across the Sound to less than one hour and would have the capacity to carry both cars and tractor-trailers. Northern expansion of the William Floyd Parkway would provide the n_,~c_~ssary vehicular access to the ferry terminal. Should the need arise, rail access to the proposed ferry terminal could be constructed via an extension of the Long Island Railroad's Port Jefferson branch, utilizing LILCO's right-of- way. West Meadow Beach is a narrow 150-acre barrier spit in the Town of Brookhaven. The town owns approximately 50 acres, which includes a town beach and the land on which some 9:5 privately owned cot'mges exist. The seasonal cottages are sited on previously leased lots and the town has not renewed the leases on the lots since the leases terminated in 1985. The recently prepared town master plan and DEIS for West Meadow Beach proposes the removal of the private cottages from town property and the reuse of the land for subsequent activities designed to enhance natural resource values, environmental education, and compatible recreational use opportunities for town residents. The master plan concludes that the high level of environmental, educational, and recreational benefits that town residents would realize as a result of the implementation of the proposed master plan far outweighs the short- term disturbance to the site caused by the removal of the cottages. TOWN OF RIVSRIIEAD The Town of Riverhead has approximately 27 miles of shoreline along the Sound. The town's 1990 population of 23,011 is an increase of 3,000 from the 1980 figure. Coastal land uses in the town vary from open space, recreation, and agriculture in the central and eastern parts of the town, with some residential uses, to primarily residential from Wildwood State Park west to the Brookhaven town boundary. The eastern end of the town has numerous seasonal residences. The seasonal population increases the town's year around population by 56 percent. There are many private beaches operated by nearby neighborhood associations. There are five town beaches, four of which are for town residents only, and 44 The Developed Coast one major state park, Wildwood. The lack of natural harbors in the town has restricted the development of commercial water-dependent facilities for the recreational boater. There are two large industrial sit~ in Riverhead. These are the Northville Oil terminal site and the vacant LILCO site at Jamesport. The oil terminal site is the only industrial use on the Sound in this part of the county. In the past, this operation has been considered water- dependent, although changing patterns of use and methods of supply have altered the use of the site. Oil is now pumped ashore from an off-shore platform and many of the tanks are unused, as long term storage of oil has declined. A former sand mining operation has disturbed a portion of a 518 acre site now owned by LILCO at Jamesport. Once the site of a proposed power plant, the northern portion is vacant and the southern portion is in active agricultural use. This site has the potential for redevelopment and it has been recommended as part of a larger transfer-of-development rights ('rDR) receiving area that could accommodate clustered residential development, accommodating residential development credits from agricultural and groundwater protection areas within the town. TOWN OF $OUTtlOLD The Town of Southold has a coastline of about 58 miles along the Sound, including Fishers Island and Plum Island. The population within the coastal area has decreased slightly since 1970, although there has been an increase in the number of occupied housing units. The population of the entire town was 19,836 in 1990, a slight increase over 1980's figure of 19,172. Much of the town's immediate shoreline is vacant, with agricultural uses predominating. However, there are also scattered Iow and medium density residential land uses near and along the coast. Many of the residences are seasonal, with the proportion of such units having grown from 31 to 34 percent since 1970, indicating that the town continues to be a substantial second-home community. Other land uses inthe town include water-dependent marine recreational uses along Mattituck Creek, the only location along the town's Sound shoreline providing public marina facilities and the only safe harbor on the Sound shore between Orient Point and Mount Sinai Harbor. In Mattituck Creek, oil storage use has been abandoned, and there has been a phaseout and removal of various industrial uses on the west side of the mouth of the creek. There are numerous county, town, and park district parka along the Sound offering a variety of active and passive recreation. Four of the town's beaches are open to nonresidents but they must pay a higher fee than residents. There are numerous private beaches operated by nearby neighborhood associations. Plum Island is wholly owned by the federal government and is quarantined due to restricted scientific research undertaken there. Fishers Island is primarily a summer community. Its coastal lands are either vacant or low density residential, with some recreational uses present in the form of golf courses and private marinas. Mattituck Creek contains a working waterfront that has some redevelopment potential. The oil storage facility has been abandoned, and the phaseout and removal of various industrial uses on the west side of the mouth of Mattituck Creek provides an opportunity for the establishment of other uses. The area could accommodate a mix of recreation, marine recreation, marine commercial, and various public uses. The Developed Coast 4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources A major component of community character is a community's history. The survival of archaeological sites and historic structures provide a tangible link to the past development of a community and offer current residents a sense of place. The Long Island Sound coastal region has a moderate to high sensitivity for sites in all prehistoric stages and many intact historic resources and structures. Unfortunately, large numbers of prehistoric and historic sites have been lost as a result of urban growth and its associated development. Further development pressure will continue to threaten these resources. In spite of the built-up nature of the Long Island Sound shoreline, many historic structures have survived and archaeological sites still exist, lying relatively intact beneath the shallow foundations of old structures and throughout the developed areas. Maps 3.0-3.6 show that much of the Long Island Sound shoreline has multiple site sensitivity, indicating the possibility of archaeological remains. Sites have been found with evidence from all stages of prehistoric culture, from the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland stages. Site types have ranged from villages, camps, rock shelters, shell middens, and related artifact scatters. Most of the sites have exhibited multi-component finds. Concentrations of prehistoric sites are associated with a narrow flat corridor adjacent to the present Long Island Sound shoreline. Known sites are identified with shoreline configurations that emerged with the stabilization of sea level, notably associated with tidal inlets, bays, and marshy areas as they existed prior to the draining and filling of the coastline that has occurred in the last century. It has been established that many early prehistoric sites are now submerged as a consequence of rising sea level. Apart from around-river terraces, freshwater ponds, and knolls, inland locations are less likely to show remains, partly in the way that they were utilized in the prehistoric era, but also because of the bedrock outcrops, shallow soil, and considerable disturbance by development. The Contact Period began with the first interaction between Native American societies and the g. uropean explorers, traders, and colonists. The scarcity in archaeological sites of Native Americans from this period is due in part to the rapid destruction and removal of the Native Americans by the F. uropeans. The areas of Native American settlement were generally prime locations and became the areas of initial European settlement. Development and redevelopment have destroyed much of the record of the Contact Period; however, sites may still exist, even in the most developed areas, and furlher development and redevelopment of any site which involves ground disturbance are likely to reveal archaeological resources which will lead to a better understanding of the area's prehistory or history. Archaeological remains from the seventeenth century include evidence of the many grist mills that once occupied nearly every available tidal inlet, early agricultural practices, transportation routes, early landing sites, industrial sites, and residential buildings. Development and redevelopment have limited the presence of archaeological remnants from this era. The State and National Register of Historic Places are the official lists of the state and nation's cultural resources worthy of preservation. The location of individual listings, thematic listing, and historic districts on the State and National Registers of Historic Places are shown on maps 3.0-3.6. A detailed inventory of historic resources is presented in appendix 1. 46 The Developed Coast /, Westchester County Historic Districts // LeGend MAP 3.0 i MAP 3.1 = New York City Historic Districts :~ :. :.~¢ ::~::::: '.; .-.~. ~ ..'."."/.:.'. "-..' : ...... .._: ........ v ~ v :~ ~ ~! ~ i~:?. ~ .~:.~ ,. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Nassau County Historic Districts MAP 3.2 NY~DO8 Legend · · ~ational Register Properties Western Suffolk County Historic Districts MAP Legend National Register Properties Smithtown - Port Jefferson Historic Districts MAP 3.4 2 4 · Eastern Suffolk County Historic Districts MAP 3.5 Legend · National Register P~opertle~: 4 Eastern Suffolk County Historic Districts Legend o National Register Properties In addition to the structures and districts which have received national and state recognition, there are many locally important historic resources. However, there are also many properties that have historic and architectural significance at the national, state, regional, and local level that have yet to receive the recognition they deserve or that have still to be clearly identified. All have the potential to contribute to the region's sense of place, providing continuity to human settlement of the region. During the twentieth century, large numbers of prehistoric and historic resources in the Sound region have been lost or impaired as a result of reservoir flooding, highway expansions, and the large amount of residential, commercial, and industrial development associated with urban growth. In the past the importance of these resources was not fully understood and protection was minimal. Archaeological resources that remain today have survived more by good fortune, benefiting from the traditionally Iow density of development on the immediate shoreline, while historic resources and structures have survived because of happenstance, local regulation, or the commitment of the owner, be it federal, state or local government or private, to preserve the property. The National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) provided a stimulus to the protection of historic and archaeological resources, which eventually led to state and local action that ensures that the maximum consideration is given to the total environment, including archaeological and historic resources. As a result, there is an increased recognition and awareness of the significance of the archaeological and historic resources and an ever-increasing constituency for their protection. The archaeological and historic resources of the Long Island Sound shoreline remain threatened by development, particularly from subdivision and other pressures of urban development. However, there is an increasing number of local historic preservation ordinances that seek to protect historic resources and recognize their significance in local decision making. Some communities have architectural review laws which may result in the protection of historic architectural resources. Protection of archaeological resources at the local level remains limited, with little in existing local laws to prevent additional losses of prehistoric and historic sites. Further development and redevelopment of any site which involves ground disturbance are likely to impact archaeological resources and only with improved local laws and review procedures which allow for examination of the site will this lead to a better understanding of the prehistory or history of the Long Island Sound shoreline. Scenic Resources Another major component of community character is a community's scenic resources, with special landscape features and views contributing to a community's visual character. The scenic resources of the Long Island Sound coastal region have been discussed briefly in each county overview. This highlighted the variety of physical and cultural components in the landscape and the importance of the changing land and water interface to the visual quality of the region. The lack of any significant development of any great height along the shoreline and the extensive vegetative cover, even within developed areas, were also identified as significant. It is necessary to examine these many and varied landscape components in order to evaluate the significance of the region's scenic resources and its importance to a community's sense of place. 54 The Developed Coast In recognition of the scenic value of the coast, the state Coastal Management Program provides for protection of Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance (SASS) and the general scenic quality of the coast. The Department of State has embarked on a program to identify, evaluate, and recommend areas for designation as a SASS. The department has developed a scenic assessment methodology to determine the scenic quality and aesthetic significance of the coastal area. It identifies the scenic quality of the components of coastal landscapes and evaluates them against criteria for determining aesthetic significance. The scenic assessment methodology is outlined in detail in the "Technical Memorandum: Identification of Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance in New York State" (Department of State, 1992). To facilitate the determination of landscape quality, the landscape of the coastal area is divided into three categories of landscape components and are divided further into sub- elements of the landscape, as listed below: Physical character: landform, vegetation, shoreline configuration, and water features Cultural character: land use, ephemeral characteristics, historic character, symbolic value/meaning, architectural character, landscape character, state of upkeep, and discordant features Views: coastal viewshed, length of views, breadth of views, background, composition, and focal points To determine aesthetic significance, the composition of the landscape as a whole is evaluated. All the landscape components are rated for scenic quality and are evaluated against the criteria that determine aesthetic significance. These are: (1) the variety, unity, contrast and uniqueness of scenic components; (2) the lack of discordant features in the landscape; and (3) the degree of public accessibility and recognition of a landscape. The components are then described according to three levels of quality and significance: (1) distinctive, of statewide significance; (2) noteworthy, of regional and local significance; and (3) common. The first application of the scenic assessment methodology has been in the Hudson River Valley coastal region, where six Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance have been designated. The approach could be easily applied in the Long Island Sound coastal region, providing recognition to the landscapes of this coastal region that are of statewide significance and that are important to the community character and sense of place of the Long Island Sound. THE SOUND COAST-A DEVELOPED COAST The Sound coast is a developed coast, with almost all land adjacent to the Sound having been altered for some public or private purpose. While the Sound coast can be categorized as a developed coast, there are identifiable differences in the trends and pressures affecting areas of the coast. As a result, three categories of developed coast exist within the Sound. These are the stable, developing, and redeveloping coasts. A major component of the character of a coastal community is the presence of the shoreline and, consequently, water-dependent and water-enhanced uses. Water-dependent uses are those uses that require a location in or adjacent to coastal waters or on the immediate waterfront. Water-enhanced uses are those that benefit economically from a coastal location, but do not require it for their operation, and provide for public enjoyment of the waterfront. The Developed Coast 55 Water-enhanced uses, such as restaurants or parks, often attract people to the waterfront, providing passive public access opportunities for the general public. The location of these uses has shaped and continues to shape the maritime character of coastal communities and they are found throughout the stable, developing, and redeveloping coasts: The Stable Coast The stable coast features large areas of the coast where land has been almost fully developed. It is comprised of established uses which are not expected to undergo major redevelopment. These include large areas of residential development, mixed use urban waterfronts, and areas of commercial and industrial development unrelated to the waterfront. Here, there is only gradual change through limited opportunities for infill development. However, this type of development often has significant impacts on the natural resources of the Sound, with many small scale development and redevelopment projects having an incremental and cumulative impact throughout the stable coast. The largest portion of the Long Island Sound coastal area can be categorLzed as a stable coast. This includes the whole of Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and the towns of Huntington, Smithtown, and Brookhaven in Suffolk County, as shown on map 4.0. Fishers Island can also be categorized as a stable coast. Opportunities exist to ensure that these areas are managed to minimize the impacts of change on coastal resources, maintaining the stable nature of large sections of the coast and ensuring the survival of community character. One of the main threats to community character is the continued potential for subdivision of large estates, golf courses, and beach clubs. Development of these land uses will generally result an increased density of development in a community and the loss of open space. Most of these areas are currently zoned for residential development, and, if developed, could result in a substantial yield of residential units. These areas are generally in private ownership and serve as a valuable economic use of the land. They also provide significant recreational amenities and important local open space resources that shape community character and fulfill important natural resource functions as buffers between development and the natural coast, including hazards protection, wildlife habitats, and control of nonpoint source pollution. Given the highly developed nature of the shoreline in the stable coast, there are relatively few opportunities for significantly increasing the amount and type of public access and recreation facilities along the Sound shoreline. Indeed, the development and redevelopment of small parcels of open or vacant land throughout the stable coast has led to a reduction of many informal public access points and the loss of opportunity to provide new public access points. Existing local waterfront public access points provide an important element in community character and it is important that they be protected and improved. Additional opportunities should also be identified as part of the continued small-scale development and redevelopment of the stable coast. These opportunities are discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Existing and new development has a serious impact on the quality of the natural coast. This is particularly intense in the densely developed areas of the stable coast. Residential, commercial, and industrial development has resulted in the deterioration of water quality and the loss, fragmentation, and impairment of many habitats and wetlands. Development on the shoreline has resulted in alterations to natural protective features and changes to the natural processes of erosion and accretion. This has led to increased erosion rates, damage by coastal stortns, and tidal flooding, all of which continues to loss of property and natural $6 The Developed Coast shoreline features. The limited amount of land available for development and the attraction of coastal locations have led to increased pressure to develop in coastal hazard areas, exacerbating the possibility of further resource impairments. Although the stable coast is not experiencing major changes, the many small-scale development and redevelopment projects have incremental and cumulative impacts that are significant on the natural resources of the Sound. These impacts are discussed in more detail in chapter 3. In the stable coast development or redevelopment of small parcels of land often results in a change of use of an area and can lead to competition among uses for an individual parcel of land. This competition for land is most intense on the waterfront where water-dependent, water-enhanced, and non-water-dependent uses are all competing for a limited amount of developable land. For instance, a necessary and desirable water-dependent industry, such as commercial fishing, is often unable to compete economically for waterfront space with a water-enhanced use, such as a restaurant or a residential complex. The inappropriate location of uses on the waterfront can lead to the destruction of a community's sense of place and the decline of traditional waterfront uses. Often this will lead to an increase in development densities and an accompanying negative impact on adjacent land uses and an area's natural resources. Competition for waterfront uses is generally concentrated within the working waterfronts and harbor areas. These issues are discussed in more detail in chapter 5. The Developing Coast The developing coast features areas of new development opportunity in previously undeveloped areas. In most cases the current use of this land is agriculture, woodland, or other open space uses. Development of these areas is often accompanied by adverse impacts on the natural resources of the coast and substantial changes in community character. The eastern part of the Long Island Sound coastal area can be categorized as developing coast, as shown on map 4.0. This includes the towns of Riverhead and Southnid in Suffolk County. The area features open agricultural and forest lands with intermittent enclaves of Iow and medium density residential development in hamlets and new residential subdivisions. However, current zoning allows for a wide range of residential development and, without action to protect farmland and rural character, it is likely that suburban residential growth will continue to spread east along the shoreline. The nature of land ownership patterns, featuring large land holdings and the physical landscape of high bluffs, limits public access opportunities in the developing coast. Development of shoreline areas provides opportunities to provide public access facilities. These opportunities are discussed in more detail in chapter 4, The Public Coast. Existing and new development has a serious impact on the quality of the natural coast. This is particularly evident in the developing coast. Residential development has affected water quality, led to the loss and fragmentation of wetlands, upland habitats, and agricultural land and encroached on the bluffs. Clearing of vegetation, building, alteration of drainage patterns, and construction of erosion control structures along the bluffs have often weakened the integrity of bluffs and led to accelerated erosion of bluffs and beaches. This affects existing development, often threatening property and structures, and must be considered in any new development proposed for the land adjacent to bluffs. These issues are considered in more detail in chapter 3. The Developed Coast 57 Competition for waterfront sites exists in the developing coast among water-dependent, water- enhanced and non-water-dependent uses, but is not a major problem in the developing coast, as most water-dependent and water-enhanced uses are concentrated in the historic centers of maritime activity that exist within the stable coast. Their continued concentration in these locations is important, if the community character and sense of place of the Long Island Sound coastal region is to be maintained. An important component in the community character of the developing coast is the working agricultural landscape. The majority of agricultural lands in the Long Island Sound coastal region are located in the developing coast. Chapter 5, The Working Coast, highlights both the importance of the agricultural industry in Suffolk County and the continual loss of agricultural acreage, primarily to residential development. The analysis of land available for development or redevelopment in eastern Suffolk County illustrates that this loss of agricultural land is likely to continue, as just over a third of the nearly 4,900 acres of agricultural land in the watershed area is currently zoned for residential use (see table 9). Pressure to develop along the shoreline and adjacent coastal lands has intensified as a result of agricultural and groundwater protection efforts in inland sections of this part of Suffolk County, notably the central Pine Barrens. Various land use techniques including purchase of development fights, transfer of development rights, clustering of development, and land acquisition are being used to preserve large contiguous tracts of agricultural land and to protect the special groundwater protection areas located inland from the corot. In instances where the transfer of development rights are being used to protect land, undeveloped areas within the coastal area are being considered aa receiving zones for residential development that would otherwise occur in inland areas. The combination of these land protection efforts and current zoning patterns results in more intensive residential development near the coast and existing residential hamlets. The application of these innovative land use techniques are appropriate in the protection of agricultural land, open space, and other natural resources, and their use is necessary in the developing coast. However, their current application must be reconsidered in light of the growing development pressure that already exists within the coastal area and the impacts of this growth on the character of the coastal area, agricultural uses, service provision, water quantity and quality, the stability of the bluffs, and the natural resources of the coastal area. The Redeveloping Coast The redeveloping coast features areas of previously developed land, generally located within the stable coast, that is undergoing or has the potential for changes in use through redevelopment of deteriorated, abandoned, and underutilized areas. These characteristics are most often present in urbanized areas, but may also include previously developed portions of the coast which once supported coastal industry or commerce which was not within an urban area. Development within the redeveloping coast implies development in previously develOped areas, where infrastructure, transportation facilities, and environmental conditions are suitable to accommodate development. The analysis of development and land use pauerns, community character, and the working coast suggests areas of the waterfront that can be categorized as redeveloping coast. These include areas of the stable coast within the Village of Port Chester, City of New Rochelle, Town of North Hempstead, City of Glen Cove, Town of Oyster Bay, Town of Smithtown, Village of Port Jefferson, and the Town of Brookhaven. There are also two areas that can 58 The Developed Coast 1993 The Sound Coast Map 4.0 be categorized as redeveloping coast located within the developing coast. These are at Jamesport and Mattituck Creek, in the Town of Riverhead and the Town of Southold, respectively. These areas exhibit a mix of previous uses that include sand and gravel mining, oil storage, utilities, industrial, commercial, and institutional. All areas include waterfront and adjacent upland areas. Unplanned redevelopment can lead to competition for land between various uses and lost opportunities for public access provision, resource enhancement, and other benefits of well- designed redevelopment. As discussed in the stable coast, this competition for land has the most impact in the waterfront. Particularly significant is competition among water- dependent, water-enhanced, and non-water-dependent uses. The inappropriate location of uses on the waterfront can lead to the destruction of a community's character, the decline of traditional waterfront uses, and a negative impact on adjacent land uses and natural resources. As the redeveloping coast covers areas of land that are recognized as undergoing or having the potential for changes in use through redevelopment of deteriorated, abandoned, and under-utilized areas, it is possible to plan abead to avoid unnecessary competition for waterfront space. Careful consideration of such factors as existing uses, regional and local needs, adjacent natural resources, and community character can provide the basis for the appropriate use of the redeveloping coast. The redeveloping coast often features large areas of waterfront where public access has been limited by past land uses. In these locations intensive industrial uses in the past have left many despoiled, deteriorated, and underutilized sites. There are opportunities for developing public access to the waterfront and other public amenities as part of any redevelopment proposals. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recognized that the "suitable redevelopment of deteriorated, abandoned and underutilized sections of New York's coast will create new opportunities for jobs, housing, recreation, and commerce, and improve the environmental and visual quality of the waterfront' (Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources, 1991, p.ix). A key recommendation of the task force was that regional elements of the Coastal Management Program would define areas of concentrated development. These would be areas where infrastructure, transportation facilities, public services, and environmental conditions can accommodate development. The task force felt that the "concentration of development would encourage growth in existing centers, rather than unspoiled areas" (ibid). In order to encourage suitable redevelopment of waterfront areas the task force recommended that the state should "create an environment that is conducive to redevelopment' and "foster ongoing revitalization of waterfront areas through infrastructure improvements, public/private partnerships, and public involvement in planning" (op cit, p.x). It also recommended that "a logical starting point for the identification of development areas is to focus on existing urban waterfronts, and those areas in or near urban waterfronts disturbed by past development" (op cit, p.89). These recommendations form the basis for treatment of the redeveloping coast in the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. 60 The Developed Coa~'t THE SOUND COAST- A REGIONAL WATERFRONT STRUCTURE The Sound coast has been classified as a developed coast, categorized as either stable, redeveloping, or developing. Within this overall examination of the coast it is possible to define a regional waterfront structure which categorizes communities in terms of function and role in the region. This structure provides for a consideration of the importance of a community and the balancing of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. In terms of regional hierarchy, the coastal area must be placed in the wider regional setting of New York City, Westehester County, and Long Island. The influence of New York City spreads over a wide metropolitan area, making it the dominant regional center. Spread throughout the metropolitan area are a series of satellite urban centers, linked by residential suburbs with intermediate and local service centers. The satellite cities are generally located along the main transportation arteries and, apart from New Rochelle, are located inland from the shoreline. The Sound region is basically a mix of intermediate and local service centers linked by suburbs with decreasing density and increasing open space as the distance increases from New York City. The metropolitan influence is strongest in Westchester County, Nassau County, and western Suffolk County. The regional waterfront structure of the Sound coast is based on a series of historic waterfront communities. These are communities that historically have contained concentrations of water-depondent commercial uses, relatively good land and water transportation access, and close proximity to central business districts, where commercial uses, which are complementary or supportive of water-dependent uses, can be located. There are 12 historic waterfront centers which frame the regional waterfront structure. These are: · Village of Port Chester · Village of Mamaroneck · City of New Rochelle · City Island · Port Washington · City of Glen Cove · Oyster Bay · Huntington Harbor · Northport Harbor * Village of Port Jefferson · Mattituck · West Harbor, Fishers Island These centers have historically been the focus for growth and investment and represent the traditional harbors and commercial and industrial centers of the Long Island Sound coastal area. These centers are linked by residential communities and suburban areas which feature local, hamlet, and neighborhood centers. DEVELOPED COAST FINDINGS · Most land adjacent to the Sound is used for some public or private purpose, the bulk of which is residential. Three different types of development pressures exist within the coastal area of the Sound: (1) modest infill development in stable, almost fully developed areas of the coast in the western portion of the region; (2) redevelopment of deteriorated, abandoned, and underutilized areas in urban or previously developed areas of the coast in the western portion of the region; and (3) major new development in previously undeveloped areas located in eastern Long Island. · Population in the coastal area and watershed has remained relatively stable for the past 20 years. Population growth is expected to increase by about 1 to 2 percent over the The Developed Coast 61 decade. The current, slow population growth period follows the 78 percent growth rate of the post-World War II era. · Although population is remaining relatively constant, the number of total housing units has continued to increase, leading to a continued development pressure. Between 1970 and 1990, while the population of the coastal area of Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties declined by 5,474, the number of housing units increased by 15,402. · Seasonal housing, located mostly in eastern Long Island, is increasingly being converted for year-round use. · Current land uae consists ora mix of three major categories: residential use, comprising about 70-80 percent of the shoreline; recreational use and dedicated open space, comprising about 10-20 percent of the shoreline; and commercial/industrial uses, comprising about 5-10 percent of the shoreline. Vacant lands comprise about 5 percent of the shoreline. · The number of housing units in the coastal area of Nassau and Suffolk counties could increase by 20 percent if all land under current zoning available for residential development were developed. This represents approximately the same number of units built between 1970 and 1990, a period of slow population ~rowth. · The general land uae trend suggests minor changes in the built up sections of the Long Island Sound coast in Weatchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and western Suffolk County. Change will occur with redevelopment of previously developed land with a resulting change of use from institutional, commercial, or industrial uses to residential use. The most active changes in land use can be seen in eastern Suffolk County, where areas of agricultural and vacant land are declining, and areas of residential, commercial, and industrial land are increasing. ENHANCING COMMUNITY CHARACTER: Recommendations for the Developed Coast Development and redevelopment in the Long Island Sound coastal area must be managed to minimize impacts on the Sound's natural resources and coastal communities, maintain the stable nature of large sections of the coast, and ensure the survival of a community's sense of place. If properly sited in areas suitable for more concentrated development, the Long Island Sound coast can continue to absorb additional growth and meet needs for open space, clean beaches and water, wildlife habitats, agricultural lands, and desirable, livable communities. The objective of the following recommendations is to: · improve the quality of existing development · promote a sense of connection with the Sound, and · focus growth and investment. 62 The Developed Coast Recommendation 1: Establish Areas for Concentrated Development. Areas for Concentrated Development will be the focus for government investment to restore and revitalize waterfronts. Establishing investment priorities will encourage the consolidation of new growth in existing centers to minimize development sprawl and protect more natural Areas for Concentrated Development are commercial waterfront centers that exhibit some or all of the following characteristics: · Their waterfronts have traditionally been used for water-dependent uses. · Thecommercial waterfront center adjoins a central business district where uses that are inappropriate for the waterfront, but would be complementary and supportive .of waterfront commercial uses, can be located. · The waterfront and business district attract people from a broad area or region. · New commercial uses are likely to be sited without unduly affecting community character and natural resources. · They are likely to contain higher concentrations of blighted or deteriorated sites than other locations on Long Island Sound. The draft Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program contains a detailed definition of the concept, an outline of the criteria for selecting an Area for Concentrated Development, and a discussion of the areas of the redeveloping coast currently considered for designation. In their geographic scope, Areas for Concentrated Development will generally be a discrete segment of a community. The candidate sites include portions of the Village of Port Chester, the Village of Manorhaven, and the City of Glen Cove. A draft nomination process has been developed to allow nominations of additional areas. Redevelopment actions in Areas for Concentrated Developmeat should be viewed as a step toward restoring the man-made and natural environment on or near the Sound. This restoration process works by harnessing regional growth and development pressures and channelling them into blighted and underutilized areas. Redevelopment must be achieved by pursuing economic development that revitalizes communities or discrete areas of a community, enriches the quality of life, advances environmental quality, and sustains the Long Island Sound as a clean, inviting, and healthy environment. Implementation: The Depa, h~ent of State (DOS) will revise the state's coastal policies to establish Areas for Concentrated Development in the Long Island Sound coastal area. DOS will work with involved local governments to incorporate Areas for Concentrated Development into their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Recommendation 2: Prepare development strategies for Areas for Concentrated Development to encourage consolidation of growth in these centers. Identification of Areas for Concentrated Development is an important step toward achieving the overall vision for the Sound, but success depends upon preparing detailed development strategies for each area. The state should work with the involved local government to prepare development strategies that are tailored to the needs of the community. The strategies ~hould be designed to create an environment for redevelopment and to foster continuing revitalization. Components of the strategies might include developing supportive The Developed Coast 63 land use regulations, preparing generic environmental impact statements, programming land assembly, conducting market and feasibility studies, programming infrastructure improvements, analyzing hazardous waste and remediation needs, and developing public/private parmerships. 'The development strategies should use the best proven techniques, as well as non-traditional and innovative approaches to solve redevelopment problems. For example, Areas for Concentrated Development could be designated as receiving areas for transfer of development rights programs, thus providing more flexibility for waterfront developers and helping to meet other community land use goals. Implementation: DOS will work with state agencies, particularly the Department of Economic Development (DED) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and local communities to prepare development strategies for Areas for Concentrated Development. DOS will work with DED to assist local governments and businesses in obtaining the limited funding under certain DED and Urban Development Corporation (UDC) programs and the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) grants to communities preparing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs that may be available. DOS will assist involved local governments to update their LWRPs. Recommendation 3: Give priority for projects, f'wst, within Areas for Concentrated Development and, second, within existing developed areas. Further, all state infrastructure investment should be appropriate for the level of development. By its construction, funding, and regulatory powers affecting infrastructure provision, government is a dominant force in shaping the course of development. Through state infrastructure provision, development, particularly large-scale development, in the coastal area, should be encouraged to locate within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, areas of concentrated development or existing areas of development, provided environmental conditions are suitable for and able to accommodate development. Efforts to concentrate development to use existing infrastructure must be accompanied by maintenance and improvement of that infrastructure. This recommendation seeks to: · facilitate revitalization of areas of concentrated development · strengthen existing residential, industrial, and commercial centers within the stable and developing coasts, particularly the historic centers of maritime activity · foster an orderly pattern of growth where outward expansion is occurring in the developing coast · increase the productivity of existing public services and moderate the need to provide new public services · protect open space Implementation: DOS will revise state coastal policies to establish Areas for Concentrated Development, strengthen existing centers of development and foster an orderly pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area. 64 The Developed Coast DOS, DED, DEC, and other state agencies and involved local governments will establish priorities for state investment and direct actions in areas of concentrated development that reflect these development strategies. DOS, DED, and DEC should cooperate to ensure that appropriate funding sources are identified to assist local governments to make the necessary improvements to infrastructure to support concentration of development. DOS will assist involved local governments to develop or refine LWRPs to reflect local priorities. Recommendation 4: Undertake cooperative planning between the state and local governments to consider the future use of several large sites within the Long Island Sound coastal region. There are several large, currently developed sites that, if they were to become available for redevelopment, could significantly affect the region, due to the large scale of development that the site could accommodate. Characteristics of these sites include: single ownership; previous institutional, utility, or energy use; and pressure for redevelopment. These include sites in the City of New Rochelle, the sand and gravel properties in the Town of North Hempstead, the Kings Park Psychiatric Center in the Town of Smithtown, the Shoreham nuclear site in the Town of Brookhaven, and the Jamesport LILCO site in the Town of Riverhead. Given the likelihood of build-out in the near future and their limited number, these large sites should be treated as important regional resources. There is a state interest in promoting cooperative planning for these sites to ensure that the range of regional needs for economic development, housing, open space, and recreation are met. Creating new activity centers on these previously developed shoreline parcels presents a rare opportunity for planned economic development within a developed shoreline. These sites also provide opportunities for inclusion of public access, greenways, and water-dependent uses within a mixed use development. As specific recommendations can provide more tangible direction and guidance for future development of these sites, the state and local governments should undertake a cooperative planning process to develop land use scenarios for each of these sites. This approach should also be adopted to address the future of any assemblage of smaller sites into a large development or redevelopment site. Implementation: DOS will work with local governments to encourage cooperative planning of large sites and to assist in preparing a process for involvement of local, state, and private cooperation in assessing the potential array of uses and overall design of a site. DOS will work cooperatively with local governments and other state agencies to prepare land use scenarios for these sites. DOS will assist local governments to develop or refine LWRPs to address development and design concerns. The Developed Coast 65 Recommendation 5: Maintain the historic waterfront communities as magnets for economic activity in the region, and provide for designation of historic maritime communities. Twelve major historic waterfront communities have been identified on Long Island Sound. These are located in: · Village of Port Chester · Village of Mamaroneck · City of New Rochelle · City Island · Manorhaven/Port Washington · City of Glen Cove · Oyster Bay hamlet · Huntington Harbor · Northport Harbor · Village of Port Jefferson · Mattituck Inlet · West Harbor, Fishers Island Development and redevelopment efforts in these historic waterfront communities should serve to protect the existing community character, sense of place, and maritime integrity of these centers that frame the regional waterfront structure. Of the twelve centers, Oyster Bay and West Harbor are areas where conunercial uses are not intensive. These areas should maintain a less intensive level of activity in keeping with environmental constraints, predominant community environmental constraints, predominant community character, and community needs. The coastal policies for Long Island Sound should reflect this goal. The coastal policies should also ensure that in these historic centers water-dependent commercial and industrial uses are protected and promoted, that appropriate commercial water-dependent use development occurs, and that water-enhanced uses support the maritime heritage of the community. A new program--Historic Maritime Communities--should be initiated to further protection and recognition of these communities as important components of the maritime heritage of the Sound. Eligible communities, which demonstrate efforts to protect community character, can be nominated by the state legislature for designation as an historic maritime community. The designation would bring with it formal recognition, marked by a ceremony and signage, as well as eligibility for funding to promote preservation of the community's maritime heritage through restoration and tourism projects, development of interpretive centers, links with a system of greenways and blueways proposed in this document, and assistance with projects to upgrade waterfront amenities and infrastructure. Implementation: DOS will revise the state coastal policies to reflect the significance of the historic waterfront communities and to establish standards to maintain their community character. The State Legislature should consider enacting a new law to create the Long Island Sound Historic Maritime Communities Program. The necessary funding to support the program should be part of this legislation. 66 The Developed Coast DOS will work with local governments to strengthen land use regulations and otherwise implement improvements leading to designation of Historic Maritime Communities. Recommendation 6: Complete Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs for all municipalities on Long Island Sound. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRP) provide the appropriate level of land use planning for a community to examine its potential for new development and resource protection. State assistance to local governments for the cempletinn of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs should include increased technical assistance and funding through the Environmental Protection Fund. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs should focus on land available for development or redevelopment, consider its resource values and role in the character of the community, examine potential uses, and show how changes could best take place in order to determine suitable land use. Current land use regulations should be reviewed to ensure that the community is best able to take advantage of development opportunity, while maintaining or improving community character, and protecting and improving natural resources. Implementation: DOS will support completion of LWRPs in the Long Island Sound coastal area. The depa~h~ent will also continue to seek funding to expand technical assistance to local governments to complete or revise LWRPs. LWRPs are eligible under the Environmental Protection Fund. Local governments should actively participate in completion and revision of LWRPs and enact the necessary legislatinn to implement the LWRPs. Recommendation 7: Encourage local governments to make full use of land use controls to better guide growth. To ensure that development and redevelopment do not impair community character, but rather enhance or maintain sense of place, communities should take advantage of the broad range of land use techniques that are available to them. The state should encourage local governments to ensure compatible development through improved performance standards and design guidelines in their master plans and Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs and their implementing laws, such as zoning, site plan, subdivision regulations, and architectural review. Performance standards can guide and regulate the type and density of land use for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and mixed use developments and provide requirements for the protection of open space and provision of public access. Design guidelines provide the means for achieving design quality, through consideration of site layout, visual quality, architecture, landscaping, streetscape amenities, and signage. Innovative land use techniques should be used to enhance community character. These include the purchase or transfer of development rights, clustering, incentive zoning, and zoning to protect and promote water-dependent uses in appropriate locations. One example of innovative land use planning and zoning regulations has been the emergence of "neo-traditional" developments. This approach to the design of urban and suburban development and redevelopment places emphasis on providing or reviving a community's sense of place. Flexible zoning approaches and designs that draw on traditional patterns of local development often allow more houses to be built on less land at a lower cost. This The Developed Coast 67 style of development rejects the automobile dominance of modern-day suburbs in favor of the creation of coherent communities. It is recommended that this approach be utilized, under appropriate conditions by local communities to enhance community character. An important technique is the transfer of development rights (TDR). This is a technique which severs development rights from parcels of land and allows their use elsewhere. TDR programs designate both the areas from which development rights may be transferred and the receiving areas. These programs can be used to ensure appropriate development patterns, providing a means to protect open space, agricultural land, natural resources or historic districts by guiding development away from these areas to more appropriate development sites. TDR is an approach which is being applied on eastern Long Island to protect agricultural land, the Central Pine Barrens and Special Oroundwater Protection Areas, which may result in increased development pressure on the coastal area. A way to reduce this pressure and to channel growth to appropriate locations is to view TDR as a regional program. Unfortunately, this is not possible, because with the exception of special legislation for the Pine Barrens, state enabling legislation currently limits TDR programs to intra- municipal transfers. It is recommended that the state enabling legislation be modified to allow inter-municipal TDR programs in conjunction with regional and local planning initiatives. Implementation: The state legislature should consider an amendment to the state land use enabling laws to permit inter-municipal use of TDR and appropriate adjustments in revenue flow from new development. DOS's Division of Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources and Division of Local Government Services should continue to provide technical assistance to local governments in the areas of land use regulations, site plan review and design guidelines and to provide general information on new planning techniques. Local governments should consider use of innovative la~d use techniques and design guidelines to maintain and enhance cormnunity character. Recommendation 8: Establish priority for use of waterfront locations among water- dependent, water=enhanced, and non-water-dependent uses. Competition for waterfront space among water=dependent, water=enhanced, and non-water- dependent uses exists throughout the Long Island Sound region. The state coastal policies should be revised to maintain and promote the appropriate use of the waterfront. Water-dependent uses should have priority over all other uses of a waterfront location within most of the historic centers of commercial and maritime activity identified above. The designation of maritime centers can help protect existing water-dependent uses and promote new water=dependent uses by ensuring state support in these areas for water=dependent uses. It is also essential that waterfront land is available within these centers to accommodate future growth of water-dependent uses. Water-enhanced uses should receive support, but not at the expense of water=dependent uses. Allowing water=enhanced uses is often necessary to generate revenue to support or maintain water=dependent uses, many of which are marginally profitable. Appropriate water-enhanced uses should be part of the mix of uses on the waterfront. When commercial uses are appropriate outside of traditional maritime centers, water-enhanced commercial uses should have priority over non-water=dependent uses. Non-water=dependent uses may become 68 The Developed Co~t appropriate in a location on or adjacent to the waterfront through the provision of public access to the waterfront. Implementation: DOS will revise the state coastal policy to reflect the preferred pattern of waterfront uses and will encourage and assist local governments to reflect these concerns in LWRPs. Recommendation 9: Evaluate the significance of the historic and archaeological resources of the Long Island Sound coastal region. There are large numbers of historic structures and archaeological sites that exist in the region; however, the lack of advancement towards formal designation, listing, and recognition,of historic resources is a concern. The need exists for a comprehensive survey of historic resources involving an evaluation of significance that results in a formal designation of historic significance at national, state, regional, or local levels, with its attendant protection of the resource. Implementation: DOS will cooperate with the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and the Department of Education to conduct the appropriate research and designations. Recommendation 10: Use Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs to strengthen local legislation to specifically address historic and archaeological significance. The protection of historic and archaeological resources should be strengthened by using Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs to protect these resources and to strengthen local legislation that specifically addresses the significance of the resource through the identification, designation, and protection of historic structures and districts, and areas of archaeological sensitivity. Implementation: DOS will continue to provide technical assistance to local governments to prepare or amend local preservation laws. OPRHP will assist local governments to become certified local governments. Recommendation 11: Encourage local governments to use their existing land use authority to ensure the preservation of golf courses for recreational uses, and associated open space, habitat, and aesthetic purposes. The state should encourage the continued use of golf courses. This can be achieved by providing advice to communities on land use regulations to zone golf courses for specific recreational uses. Golf courses should be valued for not only recreational use but for open space, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic benefits. Golf courses contribute to community character and sense of place. Protecting golf courses and the benefits they provide is particularly important in the western half of the Sound region, where the landscape is nearly fully developed. Implementation: DOS will provide technical assistance on this matter to local governments. DEC and OPRHP should evaluate the inclusion of golf courses in the Open Space Conservation Plan, and make revisions as appropriate. The Developed Coast 69 Recommendation 12: Designate Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance within the Long Island Sound coastal region. Scenic quality is an important part of a community's character and sense of place. Designation of Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, pursuant to Article 42 of the Executive Law, would recognize the most important scenic areas within the Long Island Sound coastal region. Implementation: DOS, in cooperation with local governments, will undertake a comprehensive scenic resources evaluation of the Long Island Sound coastal area and prepare appropriate area designations. DOS will amend the state coastal policies, as necessary, to reflect the designation of Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance. 70 The Developed Coast Chapter 3 The NATURAL COAST Reclaim the value and achieve sustainable use of the Sound's natural resources by improving the quality and function of ecological systems, respecting the dynamics of shoreline change, and providing high quality coastal waters. The Sound's natural resources--its ecological systems, dynamic shoreline features, and waters--comprise the natural coast. A diversity of plant and animal species live in the Long Island Sound region. Whales, seals, and sea turtles, lobster and flounder, oysters and clams, plovers and terns, beach grass, red maple, and oaks--these and many more plants and animals live in and around the Sound. All are joined through intricate ecological processes into communities ranging from upland forests and freshwater wetlands to estuaries, tidal wetlands, intertidal mudflats, and marine deepwater areas. While many species of animals stay all year in these communities, certain birds, fish and marine mammals migrate seasonally through the region en route to locations further north and south. Supporting the living resources of the Sound are the rolling uplands, bluffs, rocky shores, beaches, shallow embayments, and deepwater areas of the region. At the juncture of land and water, dynamic forces are constantly reshaping the shoreline features. In Westchester County, the rocky coast has resisted change for centuries; in Nassau County, the beaches and bluffs shift dally. Water is the medium that surrounds, sustains, and molds it all. The abundant and beautiful resources of the Sound long ago attracted human beings. The sheltered embayments that provide habitat for fish and wildlife were also desirable locations for harbors, villages, and commercial centers. The rich soils, along with the mild climate resulting from the warming effects of the Sound's waters, were ideal for farming. More recently, the attractive environment and proximity to New York City resulted in an explosion of home building. At first, settlers lived in relative harmony with the environment, but recent human development has had more and more detrimental effects on the ecological resources and systems of the Sound. Over the past century, especially from 1950 to 1970, large-scale destruction of wetlands and terrestrial habitats was common. In that period, approximately one-third of the Sound's vegetated tidal wetlands were destroyed by filling and dredging. Although the trend has slowed, losses continue. Currently, one to five acres of tidal wetlands are lost annually as the result of permitted activities, with an estimated two to three additional acres lost per year to illegal development activities (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1993). In the coastal upland, more than half of the colonial forests have been lost or fragmented, thereby threatening the continued existence of natural plant and animal communities. In many areas, landscaping has replaced native plants with exotics; in turn, reducing habitat for native birds and other animals. The Natural Coast 71 People have been drawn by the beauty of the Sound's shorelines to build homes in unstable areas, often creating hazards to human life and property. Erosion control structures installed to protect private property have interrupted the natural flow of sand which replenishes beaches, exacerbating downdrifl erosion problems. Buildings built too close to the edge of bluffs have accelerated slumping and erosion. Population growth and associated development have had negative effects on the quality of water in the Sound. In urban areas, numerous point and nonpoint sources have degraded the Sound's waters. Sewage treatment plants, overtaxed by the large numbers of people living in concentrated areas, still discharge pollutants into the Sound, and combined storm and sanitary sewers channel untreated overflows directly into its waters. In the less developed areas of the region, diffuse pollutants--septic system effluent, lawn and agricultural chemicals, and sediments--contribute further to water quality problems. It will cost much time and money to restore the natural coast to its former condition and to prevent more damage, but it will cost much more, especially in the quality of natural and human life around the Sound--if restorative and preventative steps are not taken. This plan therefore proposes a series of recommendations to: improve the quality and function of ecological systems, respect the dynamics of shoreline change, and require high quality coastal waters. THE LONG ISLAND SOUND ECOSYSTEM: PHYSICAL AND LIVING COMPONENTS Long Island Sound is a complex ecosystem consisting of physical (non-living) and biological (living) components and their interactions. The physical components include the open waters, embayments, and tributaries of the Sound, as well as coastal lowlands, headlands, bluffs, adjacent upland areas, small offshore islands, and soils. These features continue to develop and change through the action of tides and offshore currents, and through weathering by precipitation and surface runoff. The biological components include the plants and animals that make up a wide range of ecological communities in and around the Sound. Physical Components New York's Long Island Sound region is part of a much larger watershed, which includes extensive areas within the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Approximately 70 percent of the freshwater input to the Sound comes from this area via the Connecticut River. This fresh water mixes with salt water to create the Sound's estuarine environment. Long Island Sound lies on the boundary between the ancient rocks of New England and the more recently formed sediments of the coastal plain that stretches along the East Coast from Florida to New York. Long Island itself was created by the forces of vast ice sheets which covered the region during two glacial advances. The retreating ice sheets left behind the geologic features, moraines and glacial outwash deposits, that dominate the topography and surface soils of Long Island today. Long Island is marked by two terminal moraines that indicate the extent of the glaciers' progress. The Ronkonkoma moraine stretches from lalte Success to Montauk and marks the southern reach of glaciation in the region. The more northerly Harbor Hill moraine extends from Brooklyn to Orient Point. 72 The Natural Coast About 20,000 years ago, as the waters of the Atlantic flowed into the breach between the receding glaciers and the landforms rising from the weight of the ice, the outline of the coastline began to emerge. The present shoreline was formed in the last 3,000 years as the rise in sea level and land surface stabilized. As the shoreline began to take shape, embayments and shallows formed which supported a vast system of wetlands. The current shoreline around Long Island Sound divides on the basis of physical characteristics into three distinct sections: the rocky shoreline of Westchester County and the Bronx; the 'necks' section of Queens, Nassau, and western Suffolk counties; and the 'bluffs' section of Suffolk County, which begins at Port Jefferson and extends to Orient Point on the eastern end of Long Island. The rocky shoreline of Westchester County and the Bronx is primarily exposed bedrock, an extension of the New England coast. A major characteristic of this ancient rock is its strong resistance to erosion. Prominent examples in Westchester County are visible at Peningo Neck, Goose Island, Larchmont, and Davenport Neck near New Rochelle Harbor. The rocky coastline is covered in some areas by a thin veneer of glacial till to a depth of one to 50 meters. The rocky outcrops are interspersed with low-lying areas of salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and small beaches. These areas are composed of fine, eroded glacial material. Historically, this shoreline had a well developed system of salt marshes. Today, however, few significant marshes remain; those that do suffer from the impacts of urban development and associated filling. The 'necks' section is located on the north slope of the Harbor Hill moraine. It is an irregular shoreline with projecting headlands, referred to as 'necks,' that extend northward into the Sound. Going from west to east in Nassau and Suffolk counties, they separate the following bays: Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor, Huntington Bay, Northport Bay, and Port Jefferson. The bays appear to have evolved from drowned preglacial stream valleys that flowed north to an east-flowing river that would eventually become Long Island Sound. Bluffs that front the 'necks# rise to about 30 feet in the west, increasing to 75 feet and 100 feet at Lloyd Point and Nissequogue, respectively. These are composed of glacial outwash and moraine material. At the base of the bluffs are narrow beaches, spits, and bars formed from eroded bluff material, and in soma areas exposures of cretaceous deposits. Examples include: the spits at Short Beach, Long Beach, West Beach, and Eatous Neck; the haymouth bar at Old Field Beach; and the tombolo (bar connected to the mainland) at Asharoken Beach. Where sufficient material exists, sand dunes have formed on the spits, bars, and beaches. Salt marshes have also developed in the depressions behind the beaches at Stony Brook Harbor, Flax Pond, and West Meadow Beach. The western side of the projecting headlands is sheltered and therefore experiences little erosion or sedimentation. Overall, the impact of coastal processes increases eastward along the 'necks,' resulting in more wave- eroded bluffs, spits, and beaches as one moves from Little Neck Bay to Port Jefferson. In the 'bluffs' section from Port Jefferson and Mount Sinai east to Orient Point, the coastal terrain changes significantly. At this easternmost end of the Sound, the Harbor Hill moraine forms a gently undulating plateau. Along the north edge of the moraine is a nearly unbroken wall of coastal bluffs. The bluffs reach over 140 feet at Herod Point and flatten out to an elevation of 33 feet just west of Orient Point. Headlands extend into the Sound at Herod, Roanoke, and Horton points. At the base of the bluffs, eroded materials form narrow cobble The NaturaJ Coast 73 beaches or are carried by currents along the shore. Where the bluffs are discontinuous, beaches and salt marshes have evolved. To the northeast of Orient Point are Plum and Fishers islands. Plum Island is a restricted, federal facility for animal disease research. Its shoreline is similar to Fishers Island. The shoreline of Fisher Island is rocky with a series of inlets, bays, sand and cobble beaches, intertidal mudflats, and salt marshes. Scattered inland are freshwater wetlands and ponds. Offshore are small, undisturbed, rock and salt marsh islands known as the Hungry Point Islands. Biological Components: Ecological Communities, Regulated Wetlands, Significant Coastal Fish and W'ddlife Habitats, and Ecological Complexes To appreciate the complexity of the Sound's living components, it is useful to recognize the region's many ecological communities, and then to understand how various ecological communities interact es ecological systems which together make up larger ecological complexes. An ecological community can be del'reed as a variable assemblage of interacting plant and animal populations that share a common environment (Reschke, 1990). The ecological communities within the Long Island Sound can be categorized into the following general systems, marine systems, estuarine systems, riverine systems, lacustrine systems, palustrine systems, and terrestrial systems. Figure 1 lists examples of ecological communities within the Long Island Sound region under corresponding ecological systems. These communities differ widely. They include natural ecological communities, such as marine deepwater areas, tidal rivers, salt marshes, coastal ponds, peatlands, maritime sandy beaches and dunes, and forested uplands, as well aa cultural ecological communities, such as mowed lawns with trees in suburban areas. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program has adopted Reschke's terminology, which differs slightly from that of the state Tidal Wetlands Act and Freshwater Wetlands Act (Environmental Conservation Law, Articles 25 and 24, respectively). Soma ecological communities, such as Atlantic white cedar swamps, constitute an entire wetland. Others, such as salt pannes, generally lie among others that, together, comprise the whole wetland. All tidal and certain freshwater wetlands in New York State have been given special status and protection through state law. These wetlands have been recognized by the New York State Legislature as valuable resources, necessary for flood control, surface and groundwater protection, absorption of silt and organic material, flood protection, fish and wildlife habitat, open space, .recreation, education, and aesthetic appreciation. 74 The Natura/Coast In some areas of the Sound, assemblages of ecological communities make up rare ecological systems or provide particularly significant benefits to populations of fish and wildlife. These areas have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWI-I) under the Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act, and thus are subject to coastal consistency review provisions. These habitats are defmed as geographic areas that have been determined to be significant in the state, based on a quantative evaluation of a combination of ecological factors. These factors includewhether the area serves one or more of the following functions: · is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population · supports populations of species which are endangered, threatened or of special concern · supports populations having significant commercial, recreational, or educational value · exemplifies a habitat type which is not commonly found in the state or in a coastal region Also, the significance of certain habitats increases to the extent that they could not be replaced if destroyed. Many nonregulated and unprotected, yet valuable, ecological communities are located in upland portions of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Among the most important are ecological communities that have been identified by the state Natural Heritage Program. The program classifies these communities according to their rarity in New York State, using the following rankings: · Heritage State Rank of SI: typically five or fewer occurrences, very few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable in New York State · Heritage State Rank S2: typically six to twenty occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State · Heritage State Rank of S3: typically 21 to 100 occurrences, limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State · Heritage State Rank S4: apparently secure in New York State · Heritage State Rank S5: demonswably secure in New York State · Element Occurrence Rank: a comparative evaluation summarizing the quality, condition, viability and defensibility of the element occurrence at a site; for example, an element occurrence rank of A means that the element is an outstanding example Because of the sensitivity of this data, it is not generally available. Although ecological communities are identified as units, they are not discrete: Individual ecological communities are linked through geophysical, chemical, and biological characteristics with other ecological communities to form larger ecological systems. These ecological systems have been grouped into geographic areas termed ecological complexes. Understanding these ecological systems, and not solely their component communities, is crucial to effectively managing a region's living resources. The Natural Coast 75 I. MARINB SYSTI~I A. Marine Subfid~l I. Mafiim de.water COmmunity 2. M~ ~l~s m~w B. M~ ~i~ 1. M~ 2. M~ ~i~ 3. M~ C. ~ C~ 2. M~e ~ge ~R sh~ H. ~TU~ SYST~ 1. Ti~ fiver 2. Ti~ B. ~ I~i~ 1. ~t ~b 2. ~ ~t 3. gdt 4. ~w ~t mmh 6. B~e~h ti~ m~h C. ~e Culmr~ 2. B. ~v~ Culm~ IV. ~CUST~ SYS~M A. N~ ~ ~ P~ 14. B. Lacus~rin~ Cultural ~. culture ~.wot~_'' ~e . 3. F~ ~ci~ ~ 4. R~/~c~ 6. ~c~ ~ 8. 5zwa~ ~mt ~ V. P~US~ 5YS~ A. ~ M~ ~ W~ 2. S~ow ~ m~ 3. S~b sw~p B. F~ M~ ~fl W~ 2. R~ mapl~W~ sw~p C. F~ 2. C~ ~ Afi~c w~ ~ D. P~u~ ~. ~5~ SYS~ A. ~n U~ 3. M~t~e b~ch 4. M~t~e dunes 5. M~z s~bl~ ~. S~ ~d ~d ~. 5u~i~ ~1~ B. ~ ~ 21. Su~ ~ c~ w~ C. F~ 2. ~ ~ f~ 3. M~ ~ ~ 4. 21. 5ucc~o~ ~em ~w~ ~. Succ~i~ ~t~e Source: Adapted from Reahke, 1990 Figure 1 Ecological Communities in the Long Island Sound Coastal Area The delineation of ecological complexes in the Long Island Sound region was based on the information on ecological communities and habitat requirements of various species presented in the Northeast Coastal Areas Study (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991), the information contained in the Long Island Sound Study's 'Assessment of Living Marine Resources' (NYS DEC, 1993), and the supporting narratives and maps for the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Appendix 5 contains excerpts from the Northeast Coastal Areas Study that provide additional detail regarding identification of complexes. The geophysical characteristics differentiating one complex from another in the Long Island Sound area include: upland topography, watersheds, shoreline configuration, underwater bathymetry, water circulation, and tidal flows. The geophysical characteristics of the uniform, generally uninterrupted bluffs at the eastern end of the Sound are distinctly different from the more complex shorelines of the Nissequogue River and western Sound areas. A primary chemical variable that distinguishes one complex from another is salinity, with the Nissequogue River delivering the greatest input of fresh water and the Eastern Bluffs Complex delivering the least to the nearshore communities of the Sound. The biological differences among the complexes result from geophysical and chemical differences and from alterations to water bodies and the land from development. Estuarine 76 The Natural Coast Kemp's ridley sea tufde Green sea turtle Right whale Bald eagle Roseate tern Peri~,ine falcon Leatherback sea turtle Piping plover (Atlantic Coast population) Lo~erhead turtle Diamondback terrapin Least tern Common tern Northern harrier Osprey Barn owl Commoll 1ooll Short eared owl Harbor porpoise Federal Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Th~Jtened Candidate for Listing Stat~ Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered End&ngered Special Concern Endangered 'l'nreatened Threatened Threatened Special Concern Special Concern Special Concern Special Concern l/ndan~: any sk~cia~ which ~ one o~ mom of the folinwin~ crlt~ia: (1) ~ny native speci~ in imminent danger of ~'ti~afion or eMine~ion in New York, (2) ~ ~-ins Ii,tod as end~ by the United Stetes l~artment of the lng/or, as ~unmretod in tho Code of Ped~el RuI~ and R~uletions 50 CFR 17.11 Thwarted: ~ny al~ci~ which n,.*eta om* or mom of the followln~ edt~in: (1) any s~ likely to become an · ndan~emd q~nies within the foreseeable future in New York, (2) any species listod as threatened by the United Stntes Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Rules and Regulations 50 CFR 17.1 l Special concern: thos~ ~p~ins which ar~ not yet recognized or threatened, but for which documented concern exists for their continued welfare in New York. Cat~,ori~ of Endan~ and Thrashed sp~ci~ am d~ ~ ~vim~l Collation ~w S~on l 1 ~535. ~, ~, a~ Sp~ C~ ~i~ a~ li~ in ~l~on 6 ~ ~n 182.5. Figure 2 S~ of S~i~ Di~ in ~e LIS CMP conditions at the mouths of creeks support organisms that cannot survive in higher salinities, for example. Lowered levels of dissolved oxygen in a water body that result from eutrophication induced by human activity limit use by many organisms, and thus alter community structure. Undisturbed natural vegetation adjacent to the shore supports different species of birds and mammals, from the mowed lawns and manicured yards of suburban neighborhoods. Many resources of the Long Island Sound ecosystem are common to more than one ecological complex. For example, migratory fish populations, sea turtles, and seals move from one complex to another as part of their feeding and migratory patterns. The Natura/Coast 77 ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXES Based on the distinguishing characteristics described above, the ecological communities of the Long Island Sound region have been determined for this plan to constitute the following seven ecological complexes: · the Narrows Complex, including Westchester County, New York City, and the western bays of Nassau County · the Harbors Complex, including the eastern bays of Nassau County and the western bays of Suffolk County · the N'mequegue River Complex · the Central Bays Complex of Suffolk County · the Eastern Bluffs Complex of Suffolk County · the Deep, Open Water Complex of Plum Gut and the Race · the Fishers Island Complex The location of these complexes is shown on map 5.0. Although the ecological complexes of the Sound continue to support large and healthy assemblages of plants and animals, advancing development has destroyed, fragmented, or otherwise impaired many of the original natural communities. Development has modified the physical characteristics of shoreline and upland areas, removed food sources and cover, introduced nonnative species, degraded the waters of the Sound, and otherwise altered the natural environment. Impairments to the ecological complexes of Long Island Sound can be categorized as follows: · Physical loss: Immediate physical loss of elements within ecological complexes is the most obvious impact and also may be referred to as a primary impact. · Degradation: Degradation of elements within ecological complexes does not refer to the outright physical loss of these elements, but rather to a negative change in the quality of these elements, caused by factors within or adjacent to a complex. This degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than with a physical loss and also may be referred to as a secondary impact. · Functional loss: Functional loss results not from major physical changes or even from changes in the basic quality of elements within in a complex, but rather from inappropriate adjacent or internal uses (homes, marinas, various recreational uses) that are disruptive to certain species of animals and cause a change or shift in their activities. As will be seen in the detailed examination of individual ecological complexes, all three types of impairments have had and continue to have negative impacts on the Sound's natural coast. Specific existing impairments are discussed under each of the seven complexes. The following activities have the potential to impair natural resources in each of the complexes, unless otherwise noted: Materials discharge into surface water or groundwater · input of nutrients and contaminants, causing water pollution, from upland and in-water sources, including on-site sewage disposal systems and sewage treatment plants, road runoff, lawn runoff, marina facilities, recreational boats, etc. 78 The Natural Coast NYC Natural Coast Ecological Complexes CONNECTICUT NASSAU MAP 5.0 SUFFOLK · input of stormwater runoff resulting in sedimentation within freshwater wetlands and restricted flushing in tidal wetlands · thermal discharges Water intakes: installation and operation Wetland alterations · inappropriate and unregulated ditching, draining, and filling · dredging of existing and new channels, which may result in alteration or destruction of benthic ecological communities, modifications to water circulation patterns, and resuspension of contaminated sediments · unregulated dumping of dredge spoils · development or removal of native vegetation in wetland adjacent areas Topographic or hydrologic alterations · dredging of existing and new channels · unregulated deposition of fill, spoil, or rip rap on beaches and shorelines · alteration of soil load-bearing capacity · construction of shoreline structures that disturb natural areas and accelerate beach and bluff erosion · activities described above that alter tidal patterns Alterations to natural ecological communities · disturbance of nesting areas, notably by recreational activities, such as off-road vehicle use · construction of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings, or other structures that eliminates contiguous, viable habitat for species that are endangered, threatened, rare, exploitably vulnerable, or of special concern · establisment of nonnative invasive species in natural ecological communities resulting in loss of native plant and animal habitat · removal of native vegetation resulting in fragmentation of natural ecological communities Fragmentation of natural ecological communities into smaller, disjunct communities by development, road construction, and agriculture has profoundly reduced biological diversity end altered natural community structure throughout the seven ecological complexes. Because fragmentation is a ubiquitous problem, rather than discussing it under the individual ecological complexes in this chapter, it is examined briefly here. The continued clearing of forests and other ecological communities for development diminishes a watershed's natural capabilities of buffering and attenuating nutrient loads and sedimentation, and thereby increases nutrient and sediment loading into surface waters, impairing water quality. Fragmentation has potentially devastating effects on wildlife species that require deep forest interior, seclusion, large home ranges or territories, and protection from nonnative species, such as domestic pets and Norway rats. Forest interior species, such as the area-sensitive ovenbird, or predators requiring large home ranges may not be noticed as "absent" by people who ne~er observed them previously, yet their loss to the overall ecosystem may cause permanent chenges to overall biodiversity. As adjustments to population surges and declines occur, some species tolerant of human activity becomes nuisances as they make attempts at lodging, feeding, end reproducing in developed areas. Overreactions to such "invasions" by wildlife place populations at further risk. 80 The Natural Coast Fragmentation of natural ecological communities places at particular risk those species whose dispersal is limited by their own motility, specific habitat requirements, or the barrier of the salt water environment surrounding Long Island. Individuals that normally would repopulate areas where extirpations have occurred may not do so because of such barriers to dispersal. For such wildlife, local extirpations may lead to permanent island-wide extinctions. The effects of landscaping with lawn grasses and other exotic plant species are somewhat insidious. As people groom their surroundings, replacing native "green" areas with exotic "green* areas, less diversity in slxucture and food sources is available to native wildlife. Habitat is being destroyed. Normative plants often do not offer adequate nutrition to species that did not evolve with them; moreover, people usually try to discourage wildlife from eating expensive landscape plants. This secondary effect of inadequate nutrition compounds the primary effect of physically removing structural habitat. Imbalances resulting from fragmentation of a single large ecological community, such as a forest, can continue over a span of many decades before the complete effects on a local population are realized. With continual development, more and more habitat is lost, biodiversity decreases, and the resiliency of the ecological complex is further challenged. Where development is the most dense, remaining natural ecological communities are isolated from one another and poorly buffered from disturbance, further compromising their functions within the Long Island Sound ecosystem. Incremental loss of or impairments to tidal wetlands, for example, can have long-term effects on fisheries populations dependent upon tho~e wetlands as nursery grounds. The Seven Ecological Complexes This section discusses the importance of each of the seven ecological complexes. Regulated wetlands and designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH) are listed and described and their locations shown on maps 6.0-6.6. Ecological communities not afforded some protection through protective ownership or government regulation are described in appendix 2. This unprotected category includes maritime shrubland and red cedar forests, successional maritime forests, successional old field, oak-tulip tree forests, and other natural ecological communities that serve to buffer many of the wetlands described below. In addition, these other natural ecological communities provide habitat for many species of wildlife, which adds to the biological diversity of a given complex. The role a particular site containing natural ecological communities plays in contributing to the biological diversity of a complex depends upon the proximity to wetlands and SCFWHs and upon the geophysical, chemical, and biological relationships between adjoining ecological communities. These areas may have been not designated as SCFWHs, because either documentation is lacking, the site is outside the coastal boundary, or the site has not been recently documented to reflect advantageous changes in environmental conditions. Changes, such as colonization by plants and animals, may have occurred gradually over time to sites that have been abandoned for years. The following section also analyzes existing activities and the resulting impairments to natural resources in each complex. The Natural Coast 81 TH~ NAI~ItOWS COMPLEX Location and Significance The Narrows Complex is located in western Long Island Sound. It includes the Sound, its shoreline, and adjacent coastal areas in Westchester County, New York City, and western Nassau County. It stretches from the Connecticut-New York state line to Matinecock Point in Nassau County. The Narrows Complex includes two distinctive areas: the mainland shoreline of Westchester County and New York City and the western bays of Nassau County on Long Island. These two areas are joined together by the open waters of the Sound. The Narrows Complex is well positioned along the Atlantic Flyway. During spring and fall migrations, large numbers of birds concentrate in the embayments and areas which surround offshore islands. The sheltered embayments are protected from storms by rocky outcrops, the gentle slope of the intertidal shoreline, and the shallow depths. The salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and shallows in the embayments support a diversity of shellfish and other invertebrates, a major food source for wintering waterfowl. Both resident and migratory fish thrive on these invertebrates. The large fish populations in the embayments attract heavy recreational fishing pressure. The Westchester-New York City portion of the complex is characterized by open water, offshore islands, rocky intertidal areas, and tidal wetlands. The upland area of Huckleberry Island supports relatively large numbers of colonial waterbirds, one of only four such concentration areas in the metropolitan area, and the largest colonial waterbird rookery in western Long Island Sound. This nesting area probably accounts for many of the egrets and night herons seen in lower Westchester County and western Nassau County. Smaller islands not suitable for nesting are used as loafing areas by cormorants and gulls. The rocky intertidal areas provide rich habitat for marine species and are considered rare on New York's seacoast. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Fouvt~tion, small rock islands between Huckleberry Island and Echo Bay serve as seal haulout sites. The coastal marshes are diverse and relatively undisturbed, providing significant feeding areas for colonial waterbirds, stopover areas for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors and wintering areas for waterfowl. Marine finfish and shellfish also make extensive use of this area. The Nassau County portion of the complex is characterized by open water, headlands and shallow bays, intertidal mudfla~, and marshes. Migratory waterfowl winter in the area, and there are confirmed nesting sites for diamondback terrapin. Freshwater wetlands located within the drainage basins of bays contribute to the biological diversity of the complex. Wetlands Tidal wetlands in this complex include: · the expansive sheltered intertidal mudflats and shallows around North Manursing Island · the extensive liRoral zone along the shoreline from Rye Beach to the Scotch Caps, comprising the rocky intertidal wetlands and salt marsh protected by Pine Island, Parsonage Point, and many rock outcrops · the extensive intertidal mudfiats, shallows and salt marshes of Milton Harbor, protected by Peningo Neck and Scotch Caps, the largest undisturbed tidal marsh area in Westchester County--which includes Milton Harbor, the Marshlands Conservancy, 82 The Natura/Coast Maries Neck, and Hen Island, and associated areas of Blind Brook, which feeds the harbor, containing salt marsh and freshwater wetland · the two relatively undeveloped tidal creeks that feed Mamaroneck Harbor: salt marsh and intertidal mudflats fringe Otter Creek, while Guion Creek forms part of Beaver Swamp Brook, which empties into the east basin of the harbor · the shallow areas of Larchmont Harbor featuring marine intertidal mudflats and salt marsh vegetation, including the Hummocks Conservation Area · the Premium River-Pine Brook wetland complex of Premium Point, Premium Millpond, the Premium River, and Pine Brook, which covers a diverse and relatively undeveloped complex of tidal river, intertidal mudflats, shallows, salt marsh, and freshwater wetlands · the small rocky islands of Echo Bay, surrounded by shallows and intertidal mudflats with areas of sparse salt marsh vegetation along its shoreline · New Rochelle Harbor, with some salt marsh vegetation on the eastern banks of the harbor, shoreline fringe salt marsh vegetation located between piers and docking structures, and Titus Mill Pond, connected to New Rochelle Harbor, which features marine intertidal mudflats and fringing salt marsh · in New York City, wetlands associated with Hunter Island, Pelham Bay Park, City Island, Hart Island, Rodman Neck, Hutchinson River, Eastchester Bay, Locust Point, Little Neck Bay, Alley Pond, and Udalls Cove · in Nassau County, wetlands associated with Mitchells Creek and Sands Point Major freshwater inputs to Long Island Sound on the Westchester County side include: the Byram River, Blind Brook, Beaver Swamp Brook, Mamaroneck River, and Premium River. These waterways have both brackish tidal marsh in their lower reaches and freshwater wetlands associated with the upland riparian corridors. The only state-regulated freshwater wetlands along the Long Island Sound shoreline of Westchester County are located at the upper reaches of Otter Creek and along Beaver Swamp Brook. However, there are several smaller, locally regulated freshwater wetlands in this area. In the Nassau County portion of this complex, freshwater wetlands are concentrated around the tributaries to Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor and West Pond, and Dosoris Pond. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Eleven areas in this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH) by the Departmem of State: Playland Lake and Manursing Island Flats; Marshiands Conservancy; Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands; Huckleberry Island; Pelham Bay Park Wetlands; Little Neck Bay; Manhasset Bay; Hempstead Harbor; Alley Pond Park; Udalls Cove; and Prospect Point. Playland Lake and Manursing Island Flats SCFWI-I is located in the City of Rye. A mixture of public and private land, the area is approximately 220 acres and consists primarily of intertidal mudflats, shallow open water, limited amounts of low and high salt marsh, sand bars, and adjacent sandy maritime beach. It is one of the largest such areas on the county shoreline. Much of the habitat is in a relatively natural condition; and parts are set aside as The Natural Coast 83 a conservation area and nature preserve, providing access for informal nature study, environmental education, and birdwatching. The lands bordering Playland Lake and Manursing Isl.and Flats include the heavily used Playland amusement park and predominantly low density residential areas. Although natural communities in Playland Lake have been altered by dredging, ongoing habitat disturbance is minimal. The area is an important habitat for invertebrates and fish. Concentrations of shellfish are found throughout the area. Waterfowl use the area for feeding and refuge, especially during fall and early winter. Playland Lake and Manursing Island Flats are also used for nesting and feeding during the spring and summer by a variety of shorebirds, gulls, terns, and herons. Diamondback terrapin nested in 1987 on the sandy and grassy southern shoreline of Playland lake. Marshlands Conservancy SCFHW is located on Milton Harbor in the City of Rye. The 2~50 acre conservancy consists of a mixture of public and private land and contains salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, shallows, mixed hardwood woodlands and forests, rocky islands, fields, and freshwater ponds. The Marshlands is a wildlife sanctuary and environmental education center operated by the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation. The land bordering the conservancy is predominantly residential, although the Rye Golf Course abuts the Marshlands on the northeast side. The Marshlands Conservancy and its adjacent wetlands are one of the largest contiguous areas of undeveloped coastal land in southern Westchester County, including 40 acres of undisturbed salt marsh and intertidal mudfiat area, the largest of its kind in the county. Upland areas support many of the region's typical species. The forests include both red maple-hardwood swamps and well-drained areas with representative plant communities. The meadow area is one of the largest remaining open field habitats in southern Westchester County. The relatively undisturbed wetlands and uplands of the Marshlands and adjacent areas in Milton Harbor, Greanhaven Harbor, and Hen Island support a diversity and abundance of wildlife species unusual in western Long Island Sound. Many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, raptors, and passerine birds use the area as nesting areas and/or a stopover during spring and fall migrations. At low tide, large concentrations of wading birds and shorebirds gather in the expnsed intertidal mudflats of Milton Harbor and Greenhaven Harbor. These intertidal mudflat~ also provide feeding habitat for over-wintering waterfowl especially afar freeze-up in other areas. Diamondback terrapin breed on marine intertidal gravel/sand spits adjoining tidal wetlands in the area. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, hair seals use a portion of the $CFWH as a haulout site. Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands SCFWH is located in the Town of Mamaroneck, the City of New Rochelle, and the Village of Larchmont. This approximately 65 acre area contains a diverse and relatively undeveloped assemblage of habitat areas, unusual in the county. It includes a tidal river, marine intertidal mudflatz, shallows, salt marsh, and freshwater wetlands. Several parklands are part of the SCFWH. The area bordering the wetlands is predominantly moderate density residential and commercial. The wetlands support a diversity of fish and wildlife species. Local efforts are underway to preserve, maintain, and restore the wetlands. Many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerine birds nest and feed in the area as residents during the summer and also during spring and fall migrations. The area provides 84 The Natural Coast over-wintering habitat for waterfowl. The salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and shallows serve as nursery and feeding areas for a variety of fish species and support concentrations of shellfish. Harbor seals are occasional visitors to the area. Hueldeberry Island SCFWH is located approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Davids Island in the City of New Rochelle. It is a wooded island with a rocky shoreline. The ten-acre island has a mostly deciduous forest with virtually no shrubs or herbaceous growth under the canopy. The island is privately owned, but development is limited to a dock and a few small buildings at the western end. Huckleberry Island provides an undisturbed upland environment for wildlife that is rare in coastal portions of the metropolitan area. This SCFWH is used for nesting by relatively large numbers of colonial waterbirds, one of only about four such concentration areas in the Manhattan Hills ecological region and the largest colonial waterbird rookery in western Long Island Sound. This nesting area accounts for many of the egrets and night herons seen in lower Westchester County and on the opposite shore of Long Island. A colony of double-crested cormorants was discovered in 1986, making this area the sixth known colony in New York State. The island has nesting colonies of herring gull and great black-backed gull. The rocky shoreline of Huckleberry Island supports a marine rocky intertidal community comprising one of the most southerly occurrences of this community type on the North Atlantic coastline. The Pelham Bay Park Wetlands SCFWH, which is approximately 750 acres in area, is located in the Borough of Queens, Queens County. The habitat is centered around Pelham Bay Park, the largest municipal park in New York City, and contains extensive natural areas. Pelham Bay Park wetlands are the only relatively undisturbed tidal wetland areas remaining in the Bronx, and one of the largest natural estuarine habitats on the north shore of western Long Island Sound. As one of the largest publicly owned natural areas in New York City, Pelham Bay Park provides valuable opportunities for fish- and wildlife-related activities. Visitors from throughout northern New York City are attracted to the park for birdwatching, photography, and informal nature study. Access to portions of the Pelham Bay Park wetlands is limited by the location of major highways and management of the park to protect ecologically sensitive areas from excessive human disturbance. The wetlands and rocky intertidal areas of this SCFWH are inhabited by a diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife species that are unusual in the Manhattan Hills ecological region. Pelham Bay Park wetlands provide wintering, migratory stopover, nesting and feeding habitat for a variety of shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, raptors, and passerines. Recent hawk watches performed by park personnel and volunteers revealed a high number of predatory migrants including osprey, northern harrier, bald eagle, and broad-winged hawk. Red-tailed hawks, residents of the park, were also high in number. The area is also a feeding ground for birds which nest on nearby Huckleberry Island and North and South Brother Islands. In addition, marine finfish, crustaceans, and other wildlife use the waters, wetlands, and uplands of the habitat for nursery and feeding areas. The Natural Coast 85 The Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, and Hem~tead Harbor SCFWHs consist of open wa~' areas, intertidal mudfla~s, and adjoining salt marshes. The bays are bordered by dense residential developmem, extensive recreational boating facilities, and in Hempstead Harbor, by commercial and industrial development. Only a few areas of undeveloped salt marsh remain in the bays. The bays form one of the major waterfowl wintering and migratory stopover areas on the north shore of Long Island. Marine finfish and shellfish use the hays for nursery and feeding areas. As a result of the abundant fisheries resources and their proximity to the metropolitan New York area, the bays receive heavy recreational fishing pressure. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, the abundant f~h resources also attract hair seals, which feed in the waters at.the mouth of Hempstead Harbor and use nearby sites for hauling out. The bays also produce hard clams, and although none of the bay waters are certified for commercial shellfishing, significant numbers of young clams are removed from Little Neck and Manhasset bays for transplanting into approved waters. The Alley Pond Park SCFWH, which is approximately 22:5 acres in area, comprises the northern half of this New York City park, which is situated at the southern end of Little Neck Bay, in the Borough of Queens, Queens County. The significant habitat portion of the park includes salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, a tidal creek channel (Alley Creek), freshwater wetlands, and upland forest. The park is surrounded by dense residential and commercial development. Prior to the early 1970s, the area was subject to considerable habitat disturbance. Since then, substantial efforts have been made to restore and maintain natural habitats in the park, and facilities for environmental education and public use have been developed. There is a diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife species in the habitat. Many shorebirds, raptors, and wading birds inhabit the area, and' migrating waterfowl useit as a stopover area, with some species overwintering and nesting here. Northern harriers use the area as overwintering habitat. In addition to bird use, the area contains marine f'mfish, crustaceans, shellfish, and other wildlife, serving as a nursery and feeding area. Alley Pond Park contributes to the biological productivity of Little Neck Bay and adjacent marine waters. The Udall~ Cove SCFWH is located at the southeastern end of Little Neck Bay and is one of the l~t undeveloped tidal salt marshes left within the developed metropolitan New York area. It includes tidal shallows, salt marsh, and adjoining undeveloped upland area~, and features a diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife species. Mo~t of Udalls Cove and the adjacent ravine is owned by New York State and the City of New York and managed for conservation purposes. Many shorebirds, wading birds, and migrating waterfowl use the cove. Some species overwinter and nest in the cove. The cove contains abundant crustaceans, shellfish, and finfish. The wetlands of Udalis Cove contribute to the biological productivity of Little Neck Bay and adjacent marine waters. Prospect Point SCFWH is located at the northern tip of Manhasset Neck. It is one of the few remaining beach and marsh ecosystems on the Long Island Sound shoreline of Nassau County and includes Bast Creek, a narrow barrier beach, a salt marsh, tidal flats, and open water. The habitat is bordered by a mix of undeveloped land and residential development. The nearshore waters around the mouth of Bast Creek receive moderate recreational fishing pressure and the area is used for waterfowl hunting. Part of the SCFWH is publicly owned. 86 2he Natural Coaz~ The wetland area is a feeding and nesting area for many shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl, while the nearshore waters serve as an important waterfowl wintering area. Significant concentrations of least terns and common terns have been observed feeding and loafing in the area. The SCFWH is a confirmed nesting area for diamondback terrapin. Finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans are found in the waters of the SCFWH. One of the largest stands of prickly pear cactus on Long Island is found along the back side of the beach. Other Natural Ecological Communities In the Narrows Complex, successional old fields and shrublands are concentrated in protected lands, such as preserves and parks. These dynamic, transitional, natural ecological communities provide habitat for many species of wildlife, sometimes best when located adjacent to other natural ecological communities and wetlands. Wildlife using sucessional old fields or shrublands include common garter snake, field sparrow, blue-winged warbler, mockingbird, rufous-sided towhee, American kestrel, and eastern cottontail. Undeveloped portions of privately owned lands are dominated by cultural ecological communities, such as mowed lawns with trees, gardens, and suburban residential plantations. These replace natural ecological communities of mixed hardwood forests and various types of wetland cover. Impairments The Narrows Complex is located within a highly urbanized area that includes part of New York City. Relative to the other complexes, the aquatic and terrestrial resources of this complex exhibit a high degree of impairment. Residential, commercial, and industrial development have destroyed or fragmented tidal and freshwater wetlands and introduced significant levels of pollutants to the waters of the Sound. In this complex, nutrients and contaminants from low level treatment of municipal sewage, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and falling septic systems all contribute to water quality problems. Many of the municipal sewage treatment plants are either at or above capacity. In addition, CSOs draining into the East River, the Hutchinson River, Eastchester Bay, and Alley Creek are major contributors to water quality problems. (New York City has targeted the Eastchester Bay area for significant improvement through the East River CSO Abatement Program.) Mamaroneck Harbor also receives CSO effluent, which affects water quality in the harbor. Hempstead Harbor is affected by CSO discharges and urban runoff. Throughout the complex, pollutant and sediment loadings, combined with restricted tidal flushing, create serious oxygen deficiencies in the summer, thereby reducing the quality of the habitat for marine life. Fish kills have resulted in some areas. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the surface water precludes shellfish harvesting for direct consumption, even though shellfish are plentiful. At the heads of some embayments where there is less flushing, shellfish harvesting is permanently closed; in the more open portions of embayments where flushing is greater, shellfish can be taken for transplant to cleaner waters. Hazardous waste sites contaminate various waterbodies in this complex. Glen Cove Creek, the location of several Superfund sites, empties into Hempstead Harbor. A federal Superfund site is located at the former Port Washington landfill on the west side of Hempstead Harbor. Continued leaching of chemicals from these sites has the potential to migrate into Hempstead Harbor and eventually into the Hempstead Harbor Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife The Natural Coast 87 Habitat. The level of contamination in the creek sediments will require special attention, if reuse of this area is to occur. Urban stormwater runoff carrying sediments and pollutants threatens water quality in the Narrows Complex. This runoff comes from developed commercial and residential areas, roadways, construction sites, and even public parka and preserves experiencing heavy use. Stormwater may be piped directly into wetlands, as is the case with Alley Creek and Udalls Cove. In other cases, the runoff finds its way into the wetlands and waters of the complex via narrow stream channels with steep banks. The quantity and velocity of runoff in these channels is increased by removal of stabilizing vegetation and heavy foot traffic. This occurs in Udalls Ravine. Once the pollutants and sediments reach the wetlands and waters of the Sound, they cause a variety of problems, including polluted shellfish beds and restricted tidal circulation. Direct filling has occurred in the complex for a variety of purposes, ranging from park and beach development to bridge construction. This construction-related filling has caused numerous problems. It has removed habitat altogether for certain species, notably shoreline nesting sites for diamondback terrapin. It has altered tidal flows or restricted tidal flushing in many of the complax's wetlands. Fill from the construction of Orchard Beach, for example, has disrupted the tidal flow in Turtle Cove, a formerly connected tidal wetland in Pelham Bay Park. Alteration of tidal circulation has occurred as well at Playland Lake, Cedar Island in Larchmont Harbor, Oakwood Island in Echo Bay, and Neptune Island and Wright Island in New Rochelle. Filling and other disturbances have also caused the vegetative compmition of wetlands to change, with Phragm/tes austra//s and other normative species replacing native species. Construction of seawalls, revetments, and similar structures has substantially altered the natural rocky shoreline in this complex. In some cases, these activities have destroyed habitat areas such as tide pools and small pockets of sandy shoreline. Even where the shoreline profile has not been altered, natural vegetative cover of dense grasses, shrubs, and forests has been converted to lawns and ornamental plant, or removed for development and for extensive sandmining operations. Natural topography and vegetation have been severely altered for sand mining west of Hempstead Harbor. These changes destroyed upland wildlife habitat and have diminished the filtering capacity once provided by the natural shoreline, thus allowing more pollutants and sediments to enter the waters of the Sound. Normative plants and landscaping also may require intensive fertilizing and chemical peat tre~h~ent. The nutrients and pollutants from these activities eventually find their way into the Sound, thereby further degrading water quality. Dredging to create new boat slips and mooring areas threatens remaining wetlands and shallows in this complex. Maintenance dredging of the many existing boating facilities also impairs water quality and benthic habitat, at least temporarily, by resuspending contaminated sediments. Dredging-related problems occur especially in Milton Harbor, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor, Echo Bay, the Hutchinson River, Little Neck Bay, Manhaaset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, and Glen Cove Creek. In a~l_ ~tition to the above activities causing specO~c, lo, own impairments, there are a variety of other activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). 88 The Natura/Coast THE HARBORS COMPLEX Location and Significance The Harbors Complex straddles the boundary of Nassau and Suffolk counties. It stretches from Oak Neck Creek in Nassau County to Fresh Pond in Suffolk County. The complex includes a series of deep water embayments that are joined together by the open waters of the Sound. In the coastal area are headlands and bluffs, tidal and freshwater wetlands, maritime sandy beaches, maritime shrublands, oak-tulip tree forests, and chestnut oak forests. Undeveloped barrier beaches generally are rare on the north shore of Long Island, but there is one located in the complex at Eatons Neck Point. The complex supports a range of resident and migratory birds, fish, and other animals seeking food, shelter, and breeding habitat. It is the major waterfowl wintering and migratory stopover area on the north shore of Long Island. The bays are also used extensively used as a feeding area by shorebirds and wading birds, many of which nest in the nearby wetlands and beach areas. At one time, Sand City had one of the largest least tern colonies in the state; it still is heavily used by the species. Wintering bald eagles have been reported using the salt marsh along Mill Neck Creek, one of the few areas on Long Island where eagles have been frequently sighted during mid-winter. In addition to providing habitat for waterfowl and other birds, the hays are a productive area for marine finfish and shellfish. Oyster Bay Harbor is one of the most important oyster producing areas in the state. The complex also includes confirmed nesting areas for diamondback terrapin. According to the Okeanns Ocean Research Foundation, the bays of this complex and adjacent areas of Long Island Sound also may be an important developmental habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, especially during the late summer or early fall. The bays receive heavy recreational fishing pressure. Wetlands Tidal wetlands in this complex include those associated with Frost Creek, Mill Neck Creek, Goose Point, Centre Island, Lloyd Point, Lloyd Harbor, Batons Neck, and Crab Meadow. Freshwater wetlands are concentrated around the tributaries to Frost Creek, Mill Neck Creek (Beaver Brook-Shu Swamp), Cold Spring Harbor, Huntington Harbor, Crab Meadow, and Fresh Pond. Sign~qcant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Ten areas in this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: the Mill Neck Creek Wetlands, Oyster Bay Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd Harbor, Huntington Bay, Northport Bay, Lloyd Point, Sand City, Eatons Neck Point, and Crab Meadow. The Mill Neck Creek Wetlands SCFWH consists of two wetland areas, Oak Neck Creek and Beaver Lake, which are integral parts of the larger Oyster Bay Harbor ecosystem. Oak Neck Creek is a 120-acre salt marsh and tidal creek draining into Mill Neck Creek and forms one of the largest undeveloped salt marshes remaining on the north shore of Long Island. Beaver Lake, approximately 60 acres, is a privately owned freshwater impoundment which drains into Mill Neck Creek. A portion of Oak Neck Creek is within the county-owned Mill Neck Preserve. The preserve is undeveloped. It is bordered by a mix of dense residential development, large estates, and undeveloped woodlands. The Natural Coast 89 The Mill Neck Creek area is a resting and feeding area for Oyster Bay Harbor's wintering waterfowl populations. Concentrations of waterfowl also occur in these areas during spring and fall migrations. Wintering bald eagles have been reported using these wetlands, one of the few areas on Long Island where eagles have been frequently sighted during mid-winter. These wetlands provide suitable nesting and feeding habitat for a wide variety of bird species. Oak Neck Creek serves as nursery and feeding habitat for various marine fish species. The area is also important as it contributes organic mater and nutrients to New York State's most significant commercial oyster beds, located in Oyster Bay Harbor. The Oyster Bay Flnrbor SCFWH is approximately 2,500 acres in size. The SCFWH consists of the open water and wetland areas in the bay not included in the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Dense residential development, bathing beaches, and extensive recreational boating facilities border the habitat, with only a few areas of undeveloped salt marsh remaining. The protected harbor is one of the most important waterfowl wintering areas on the north shore of Long Island. Concentrations of waterfowl also occur during spring and fall migrations. The harbor is a highly productive area for marine finfish and shellfish, serving as a nursery and feeding area. As a result of the abundant fisheries resources in the area and their proximity to the metropolitan New York area, the harbor receives heavy recreational fishing pressure. Hard clams are abundant in the area and the harbor is also one of the most important oyster producing areas in the state. Most of the underwater lands are certified for shalifishing and leased for commercial harvest. Some recreational collecting of oysters and clams takes place in the area as well. The Cold Spring Harbor SCFWH is approximately 2,:500 acres in size. It consists of the open water and wetland areas in the bay that are not included in the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The southern portion of the harbor is shallow, containing intertidal mudflats, salt marsh, and sand islands. The area is bordered by residential development, forested headlands, and extensive recreational boating facilities, with only a few areas of undeveloped salt marsh remaining. Concentrations of waterfowl use the harbor during spring and fall migrations, and the harbor is a major waterfowl wintering area. In addition to providing nursery and feeding areas for shellfish and finfish, the harbor is also one of the few places on Long Island where smelt spawning runs are known to occur. As with Oyster Bay Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor receives heavy recreational fishing pressure. Cold Spring Harbor is also valuable as a hard clam producing area, with the northern portion of the harbor certified for commercial shellfishing. The SCFWHs of Lloyd Harbor, approximately 800 acres, Huntington Bay, approximately 1,500 acres, and Northport Bay, approximately 2,200 acres, are interconnected, with Huntington Bay opening into Lloyd Harbor on the west, Northport Bay on the east, and Long Island Sound on the north. The SCFWI-IS consist of salt marsh, marine intertidal mudflats, and open water areas which include considerable shallow areas. The bays are bordered by residential development, undeveloped sand peninsulas, forested slopes, and extensive recreational boating facilities. The three bays together serve as a waterfowl wintering and migratory sWpover area on the north shore of Long Island. Shorebirds also use the bays for feeding, and many of these bit'ds, including least tern, common tern, and piping plover nest at nearby Sand City and 90 The Natural Coast Eatons Neck Point. During the mid-1970s, least terns were reported nesting on East Beach; this area remains a valuable potential nesting site. In addition to providing important habitat for waterfowl and other birds, the bays are a productive area for marine finfish and shellfish. The bays receive moderate recreational fishing pressure. The bays also support commercial and recreational shellfishing. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, hair seals have been known to use areas around Northport Bay for hanlout sites. The bays and adjacent areas of Long Island Sound provide important developmental habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, especially during the late summer or early fall. The SCFWHs of Lloyd Point, Sand City, and Eatons Neck Point are focused on narrow, sparsely vegetated sand peninsulas, with protected salt marsh, intertidal mudflats and, in the case of the first two, small bays. Such undeveloped marine peninsula, barrier beach, and coastal wetland ecosystems are generally rare on the north shore of Long Island. The areas contain a diversity of fish and wildlife habitats. Most of Lloyd Point and Sand City is in public ownership, whereas Eatons Neck Point is privately owned. The sand peninsulas are documented and potential nesting sites for least terns, common terns, and piping plovers. Sand City hosts some of the largest tern colonies in New York State. The protected bays, intertidal mudflats, and salt marsh areas located behind the peninsulas serve as feeding areas for the least terns and as nesting and feeding areas for many species of shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. The coastal waters are also nursery and feeding grounds for finfish and shellfish important to commercial and recreational fishing in Long Island Sound. Estuarine research and education, birdwatching, and fishing are among the recreational uses of the Lloyd Point and Sand City areas. The Crab Meadow SCFWH is about 300 acres in area, and consists of one of the few remaining large areas of undeveloped salt marsh on the north shore of Long Island. The vast majority of the wetland is high salt marsh. It is owned by the Town of Huntington and is bordered by undeveloped woodland, county parkland, a golf course, seasonal homes, and residential development. Despite the extent of development in the vicinity, there has been only minimal encroachment into the wetland area. Crab Meadow provides habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species typical of Long Island's coastal wetlands. Shorabirds, wading birds and waterfowl feed and nest in the habitat. The salt marsh and associated tidal creeks are productive areas for finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans. An active ospery nest is located on a nesting platform in the Crab Meadow marsh. Other Natural Ecological Communities The Harbors Complex contains natural ecological communities which lie outside of designated SCFWH boundaries and are not within regulated wetlands or wildlife refuges, but which contribute significantly to those resource areas. An example is the former Morgan Estate, an approximately 400 acre area located on Eaton's Neck in the Village of Asharoken. This privately owned property, located landward of Eaton's Neck SCFWH, contains relatively undisturbed mixed hardwood forests and sucessional old fields. These ecological communities not only provide a buffer zone to regulated wetlands, but their proximity adds significantly to the biological diversity of the Eaton's Neck SCFWH and the Sound ecosystem. They provide the upland nesting and resting habitat required by species which use the designated SCFWH for feeding. The Natural Coast 91 Impairments The Harbors Complex is less developed than the Narrows Complex and contains significant amounts of publicly owned open space. Residential development in the complex is generally low to moderate density (estates), with the exception of a few areas of high density (aparunent developments). Although a large number of commercial marinas are located along the shoreline, the complex is less heavily developed with commercial and industrial uses than the Narrows Complex. The shoreline has been extensively engineered with bulkheads, groins, seawalls, piers, and docks. In Oyster Bay Harbor, long docks may contribute to fragmentation of the habitat of such species as the northern harrier, which requires open country for nesting, hunting, and winter roosting. In more inland areas, some of the forested lands bordering creeks and wetlands have been encroached upon and fragmented by large lot residential development. In such areas, planting of extensive lawns with horticultural varieties of trees and shrubs has replaced natural ecological communities, thereby destroying wildlife habitat. Relative to the Narrows Complex, the Harbors Complex contains fewer buildings, roadways, bridges, and other structures bisecting portions of tidal wetlands or separating tidal wetlands from their freshwater tributaries. The presence of more forested areas and natural ecological communities provides a greater incidence of wildlife corridors and benefits established flyways. The primary sources of declining water quality in the complex are the nutrients and contaminants from upland sewage treatment plants and on-site sewage disposal systems, nonpoint source pollution, and recreational boats that may discharge fuel, trash, or waste water. Poor water quality has forced permanent closure of sbellfishing beds in portions of all of the bays in this complex. Hypoxla (oxygen deficiency) threatens fish and shellfish in the summer months. Fishkilis have been recorded in the complex. Road runoff and contaminants from upland uses reach the Sound through its tributaries. Frost Creek, for example, receives runoff from two major roads and a golf course. Removal of bank vegetation and destruction of existing vegetative buffers increases the possibility that sediments and pollutants will enter coastal waters. Contaminated harbor sediments pose a risk in this complex. In the southern portion of the Oyster Bay National Wildlife refuge, 1991 sampling results for copper, lead, mercury, and zinc exceeded the lowest biological effect levels suggested by NOAA. In the same year, NYSDEC sediment guidelines were exceeded for arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Samples taken in 1990, just below the refuge boundary and closer to the potential source of contamination, showed higher concentrations. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993) Potential sources of these contaminants include old industrial discharges, industrial facilities, sewage treatment plant discharges, improperly discarded haTardous wastes, such as batteries, and boat wastes. Dumping and illegal fill have impaired portions of the buffer around Oak Neck Creek. This dumping, in turn, further stresses the Mill Neck Creek wetland system. Mosquito ditching throughout Crab Meadow has altered tidal circulation in this wetland. Aa a result, high salt marsh vegetation has replaced more biologically productive iow salt marsh vegetation. Other wetlands are degraded by nutrient loadings from road surfaces and developed upland areas. 92 The Natural Coast On large properties in this complex, native vegetation often has been replaced with expansive lawns that lie directly behind seawalls and bulkheads. Overfertilization of lawns and excessive use of chemicals in landscaping has led to increased nutrient and chemical loading of coastal waters. In Fort Salonga, a ditch draining Route 25A leads to freshwater wetlands associated with Fresh Pond, introducing oils, greases, and other contaminants found in road runoff. Extensive development in the Fresh Pond watershed has increased the rate of runoff funneled to this impounded water body. A section of Route 25A and properties adjacent to the Fresh Pond wetlands frequently flood after heavy rain. In addition to the above activities causing specO~c, Imown impairments, there are a variety of other activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). THE NISSEI2UOGUE PuW~R COMPLEX Location and Significance The Nissequogue River Complex extends from the headwaters of the Nissequogue River in Hauppauge to Long Island Sound at Smithtown Bay. The central portion of the bay is also included. The complex incorporates the largest river and one of the largest coastal wetland areas on the north shore of Long Island. A major impoundment of the Nissequ0gue River is Mill Pond in Blydenberg County Park. (Tributary wetlands in Blydenborg Park and along the East Branch are regulated by NYC DEC, but are outside the Nissequogue River SCFWH and the coastal boundary.) Almost half of the Nissequogue River Complex consists of state, county, and local parks and beaches and private preserves own//d by conservation groups. The river remains in a relatively undisturbed condition and has been designated as a Scenic and Recreational River under the state Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act to encourage preservation and restoration of its natural, scenic, and recreational qualities. The complex offers a wide diversity of fish and wildlife habitats. It contains: coastal beaches; a tidal river; salt marsh; intertidal mudflats; freshwater wetland areas, including red maple-hardwood swamps and a coastal plain poor fen; spring-fed freshwater streams, succ_~sional southern hardwoods; and large, relatively undisturbed mixed hardwood forests at the Kings Park Psychiatric Center and in state and county parks bordering the river. The complex provides important nesting, feeding, stopover, and wintering habitat for a variety of shorebirda, wading birds, waterfowl, and passerines. An active osprey nest has been located near Vail Pond. Short Beach is a nesting site of statewide significance for least terns, common terns, and piping plovers. In addition, the complex is a productive area for finfish and shellfish. It supports the only sea-run brown trout fishery on Long Island Sound, with significant populations of native brook trout and stocked brook, brown, and rainbow trout inhabiting the upper freshwater segment of the river. SmithtownBay supports significant shellfisheries. Both freshwater and salt water fish resources support heavy recreational fishing. The complex also includes confirmed nesting areas for diamondback terrapin. Tiger salamanders have been observed at Hidden Pond Park. A high number of rare species of plants have been identified by the NYS Natural Heritage Program. These are clustered in The Natura/Co~ 93 the southern portion of the complex along the freshwater tributaries of the river (Long Island Regional Planning Board). Wetlands Tidal wetlands lie along Sunken Meadow Creek and the Nissequogue River north of the Route 2:5 river crossing in Smithtown. Freshwater wetlands are concentrated around tributaries to Sunken Meadow Creek and the main course of the Nissequogue River south of the dam near Route 2:5. Large expanses of freshwater wetlands, primarily red maple- hardwood swamps, extend throughout the upper reaches of the Nissequogue River. Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats Two areas in this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: the Nissequogue River and the Nissequogue Inlet Beaches. The Nissequogue River SCFWH is about 7:50 acres in area and extends 7.6 miles from the Sound to Mill Pond in the Nissequogue River State Park. It covers the tidal portion of the river, including intertidal mudflats, salt marshes, and freshwater tidal marshes, bordered by mixed hardwood forest, Kings Park State Hospital, and residential development. Above the Phillips Mill Dam, the river is a spring-fed, freshwater stream running through red maple- hardwood swamps and mixed hardwood forest in the state park. The Nissequogue River provides nesting habitat for a variety of shorabirds', wading birds, waterfowl, and passerines. Many species of fmfish also use the river as a nursery and feeding area. Diamondback terrapin nest along the sandy shores of the river near the mouth and use salt marshes for cover and feeding. The N'~sequogue Inlet Beaches SCFWH is located at the mouth of the Nissequogue River. Its 75 acres consists of two areas of relatively undeveloped barrier beach and sparsely vegetated dredge spoil on either side of the river mouth. Both areas are subject to some dismrbanee as a result of heavy summer recreational use. The beaches are a nesting site for least terns, common terns, and piping plovers, particularly at Short Beach Town Park. Diamondback terrapin use both areas for feeding and cover and are confirmed nestem on the south side of the eastern spit. Other natural ecological communities The relatively extensive and diverse areas of protected natural ecological communities in the Nissequogue River Complex provide habitat for large numbers of fish, wildlife, and plant species. In the 543-acre Caleb Smith State Park alone, the following have been documented: Ferns 21 Wildflowers 179 Shrubs 51 Trees 53 Fish 15 Amphibians 10 Reptiles 11 Birds 145 Mammals 18 94 The Natural Coast These include many species that are endangered, threatened, of special concern, rare, or exploitably vulnerable. Impairments Much of the Nissequogue River is bordered by forested lands that have been acquired for conservation, recreational, or institutional purposes. Residential development is light, with the exception of the medium to high density residential development at San Remo. Although much of the complex is relatively undisturbed, residential development throughout the river's extensive inland watershed threatens the natural resources in the complex. Stormwater runoff, including roadway runoff that enters the Nissequogue River at the intersection of Routes 25 and 25A, is the most significant source of water pollution to the Nissequogue River (NYS DEC, 1991). Runoff from development sites has also introduced high levels of sediments into the river and its wetlands. Mosquito ditching at the northeast branch has directly affected portions of the river's freshwater wetlands. Failing on-site sewage disposal systems contribute to pour water quality. These water quality problems resulted in permanent closure of the Nissequogue River and nearshore areas in Smithtown Bay for shellfishing. The river is a heavily used recreational resource. Motorized boat traffic in the shallow upper reaches of the river, north of Caleb Smith State Park, is disturbing aquatic vegetation, leading to increased erosion. Prior to passage of wetland protection legislation, the expansion of parking lots for beaches at Sunken Meadow State Park led to the filling of approximately 100 acres of tidal wetlands. In addition to the above activities causing specific, known impairments, there are a variety of other activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). CENTRAL BAYS COMPL,Y.X Location and Significance The Central Bays Complex is located between Stony Brouk and Miller Place, from Long Beach to Mount Sinai Harbor. The complex includes the eastern portion of Smithtown Bay, Stony Brook Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Mount Sinai Harbor. These are joined together by the open waters of the Sound. The sheltered embayments of Setauket Harbor, Little Bay, and Conscience Bay are more directly connected, as they feed directly into the tidal waters of Port Jefferson Harbor. The area is characterized by open water, headlands and bays, salt marshes and intertidal mudflats, bluffs, and coastal beaches. It contains many areas that provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. The complex includes large contiguous stands of mixed hardwood forests south of Mount Sinai Harbor and between Suffolk County parkland and other relatively natural private properties. The complex is a major waterfowl wintering and migratory stopover area on the north shore of Long Island. The salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and shallows in this area are used extensively as nesting and feeding areas by shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and passerines. Least tern, common tern, and piping plover nest in several locations on the barrier beaches. The area also contains some of the largest nesting concentrations of snowy The Natura/Coast 95 egret and black-crowned night heron on Long Island. The bays also are a productive area for marine finfish and shellfish. The area receives moderate recreational fishing pressure. The complex also includes confirmed nesting areas for diamondback terrapin. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, the bays and adjacent areas of Long Island Sound provide an important developmental habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, especially during the late summer or early fall. The loggerhead turtle uses the adjacent waters of the Sound exteusiveiy, from Stony Brook east to Northville (in the "Eastern Bluffs" complex). Wetlands Salt marshes and intertidal mudflats are found along portions of the inner perimeters of Conscience Bay, Little Bay, and Setauket Harbor. Extensive salt marsh areas exist within Stony Brook Harbor, West Meadow, Flax Pond, Conscience Bay, Little Bay, Setauket Harbor, and Mount Sinai Harbor. Mount Sinai Harbor has a significant number of salt marsh islands and extensive intertidal mudflats. Freshwater wetlands are concentrated around the tributaries to Conscience Bay, and Setauket Harbor. Freshwater wetlands also are tributary to Mount Sinai Harbor and Port Jefferson Harbor. SignO~icant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Six areas in this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Stony Brook Harbor-West Meadow, Flax Pond, Conscience Bay-Little Bay-Setauket Harbor, Port Jefferson Beaches, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Mount Sinai Harbor. The Stony Brook Harbor-West M~adow SCFWH covers the eastern end of the Long Beach barrier peninsula and the wetland areas behind Long Beach and West Meadow Beach. The 1,200-acre SCFWH contains extensive areas of undeveloped salt marsh, intertidal mudflata, dredge spoil islands, and open water. The bay is bordered by a mix of residential development, recreational.boat facilities, and mixed hardwood forest. Swny Brook Harbor and West Meadow Creek, together, make up one of the largest and most diverse coastal wetland ecosystems on the north shore of Long Island. Waterfowl winter in the harbor and use the area as a migratory stopover in this part of Suffolk County. The salt marshes, intertidal mudflats, and shallows in this area are used extensively as nesting and feeding areas by shore, birds, wading birds, and waterfowl. Least tern, common tern, and piping plover nest in several locations within Stony Brook Harbor. The area also contains some of the largest nesting concentrations of snowy egret and black-crowned night heron on Long Island. SWny Brook Harbor and West Meadow Creek are used by marine f'mfish and shellfish for a nursery and feeding area. Over 90 percent of Stony Brook Harbor is certified for shellfishing. According to the Okeanus Ocean Research Foundation, Kemp's ridley sea turtles have been documented in West Meadow Creek. Flax Pond SCFWH is a relatively large, undeveloped, coastal wetland area, containing salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, shallow water areas, and portions of the barrier beach separating Flax Pond from Long Island Sound. The 150-acre area is bordered by successional maritime forest, mixed hardwood forest, and low density residential development. The protected bay, mudfiats, and salt marsh areas at Flax Pond serve as feeding and nesting areas for many migratory birds and waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and passerines. The barrier beach and wetlands combine to form a nesting and feeding area for least terns. Piping plovers also have been observed here. Locally significant concentrations of marine finfish, shellfish, and other wildlife are also found at Flax Pond. In addition to providing 96 The Natura/Coast habitat, Flax Pond is an important area for coastal fisheries and shellfisheries research. The Marine Sciences Research Center of SUN'Y/Stony Brook operates an educational field research station at the marsh. The Conscience Bay-Little Bay-Setauket Harbor SCFWH contains the largest areas of contiguous intertidal mudflats on the north shore of Long Island. The SCFWH contains about 500 acres, consisting of primarily marine intertidal mudflats with shallow open water areas, and limited amounts of salt marsh. Although much of the shoreline of Setauket Harbor has been disturbed by residential development, a considerable amount of the shoreline around Conscience Bay and Little Bay remains in a natural condition with pockets of salt marsh present. Conscience Bay, Little Bay, and Setauket Harbor are used by wintering waterfowl and migratory birds. Least terns and common terns nest on Old Field Beach. The bays are a nursery and feeding area for marine finfish and shellfish. Although most of the waters in this SCFWH are not certified for shellfishing, the greater portion of Conscience Bay sustains an active commercial shellfish harvest. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles and diamondback terrapins use the area. It is likely terrapins breed in Conscience Bay. The Port Jefferson Beaches SCFWH consists of a relatively large area of undeveloped barrier beach. The SCFWH includes sparsely vegetated dunes, sand, pebble, and cobbie beach, dredge spoil areas, formerly mined headlands, and salt marsh. The inlet to Port Jefferson Harbor has been stabilized by jetties and is maintained to accommodate ferry boat service from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Port Jefferson Beaches SCFWH serves as an important past and potential nesting site for least terns, common terns, and piping plovers. The Port Jefferson Harbor SCFWH, which is approximately 950 acres in area, consists of the open water and intertidal mudfiats of the harbor. A few areas of undeveloped salt marshes exist along the perimeter of the harbor. It is bordered by undeveloped barrier beach and headlands, a power plant, residential development, and a large commercial marina. Only a few areas of undeveloped salt marsh remain around the perimeter of the harbor. The protected coastal bay of Port Jefferson Harbor is one of the waterfowl wintering and migratory stopover areas in this part of Suffolk County. The waters in Port Jefferson also provide habitat for marine finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans, serving as a nursery and feeding area. Most of the area is not certified for shellfishing, however. The harbor receives moderate recreational fishing pressure. According to Okeanos, the harbor and nearby parts of Long Island Sound are used by juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Mount Sinai Harbor SCFWH, approximately 400 acres in area, is a relatively large, undeveloped, coastal wetland area, consisting of salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, and open water. The designated SCFWH excludes the heavily developed area of Cedar Beach. The bay is bordered by low density residential development and steeply sloping terrain and glacial kettle holes vegetated with mixed hardwood forest communities. Waterfowl winter in the harbor and migratory birds use it as a stopover area. The harbor provides nesting and feeding areas for a variety of shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and passerines. Most of the area is certified for shellfishing and supports recreational use of county-level significance. According to Okeanos, Mount Sinai Harbor and nearby portions The Natural Coo~t 97 of Long Island Sound serve as critical developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Diamondback terrapins are likely to be breeding in the harbor. ~ Other Natural Ecological Communities Other natural ecological communities in the Central Bays Complex are not regulated, but are important as wildlife habitat, as buffer zones for wetlands, and as integral components of the Sound's overall biodiversity. These communities include woodlands, maritime shrublands, chestnut oak and mixed hardwood forests, and other upland communities. A diversity of wildlife species, including eastern box turtle, great horned owl, screech owl, red tailed hawk, red-bellied woodpecker, northern bobwhite, wood thrush and many other songbird species, . opossum, cottontail, and red fox are supported by these natural ecological communities. White-tailed deer are occasional visitors to the area. Impairments In the Central Bays Complex, there are varying densities of residential and commercial development, including many heavily used marinas. Significant commercial, industrial, and utility uses exist along the shoreline in the southern portions of Port Jefferson Harbor. Nonpoint source runoff in this complex in~oduces sediments, coliform bacteria, pollutants from marinas, and other pollutants to surface waters, and causes poor water quality at the heads of Conscience Bay, Setauket Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Mount Sinai Harbor, where shellfish beds are permanently closed to fishing. An extensive portion of Port Jefferson Harbor is closed because of coliform inading~ following rainstorms. The Setauket Mill Pond, which drains into Conscience Bay, is heavily affected by sedimentation from runoff and nutrient loadings from waterfowl. Large populations of waterfowl, particularly swans, also contribute to water quality problems in Stony Brook Harbor. A plume of contaminants from an inactive hazardous waste site in Port Jefferson Station has migrated through groundwater into Port Jefferson Harbor. Other plumes of contaminants are moving northward in the groundwater and are likely to fmd their way into coastal waters of the Sound. Barge transport of petroleum to Port Jefferson Harbor poses a potential risk of an oil spill, which could threaten fish and wildlife resources in the complex. Long docks (100+ feet) have fragmented wetlands in Port Jefferson, Conscience Bay, Setanket Harbor, and, to a lesser extent, Mount Sinai Harbor may contribute to fragmentation of the habitat of species such as the northern harrier, which requires open country for nesting, hunting, and winter roosting. Cottage development and attendant shoreline fortification on leased town land at West Meadow Beach has interrupted natural shoreline processes, altered maritime dune communities, and discouraged use by some species of wildlife. In o,~lition to the above activities causing specific, l~nown impairments, there are a variety of other activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). 98 The Natura/Coast THE EASTERN BLUFFS COMPLEX Location and Significance The Eastern Bluffs Complex includes the Sound, its shoreline, and the adjacent upland area stretching from Miller Place to Orient Point. The area is characterized by gently curving high bluffs separated by slightly projecting headlands and tidal inlets with associated beaches, intertidal mudflats, and salt marshes. Wading River Marsh is one of the few, large areas of undeveloped salt marsh remaining on the north shore of Long Island. The presence of the high bluffs creates a physical environment that is substantially different from the western portions of the Sound shoreline. Since there are fewer freshwater streams contributing to the waters of the Sound in this complex, the nearshore salinity levels are higher. Portions of the bluffs around.Friar's Head are covered by maritime beech forest, a unique plant community on the Sound considered by the NYS Natural Heritage Program to be globally rare. The true extent of the maritime beech forest is not known, but it may stretch beyond the immediate area of Friar's Head. Large portions of the uplands consist of mixed hardwood forest, actively farmed land, and fields in various stages of succession. As the bluffs flatten out toward Orient Point, the Eastern Bluffs Complex follows the narrow Long Island Sound watershed. (Although it is recognized that habitat resources north and south of the watershed divide on the north fork are linked, for the purpose of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, the ecological communities and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats south of the watershed divide are considered to be components primarily of the Peconic Bays ecosystem.) Loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles use the nearshore waters of Long Island Sound extensively between Stony Brook Harbor and Northville. These waters now are considered important developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles. The inlets and the waters of the Sound also provide good habitat for finfish, crustaceans, and shellfish. Green crabs, a primary food source for Kemp's ridley sea turtles, are abundant in these inlets and waters (Okeanos, 1993). The wetlands and inlets in this complex provide valuable feeding and nesting areas for a variety of shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, passerines, and raptors. Wetlands Tidal and freshwater wetlands include: Wading River, an extensive low salt marsh; Baiting Hollow, a state-owned salt marsh and beach front, and boy scout camp with freshwater ponds and small areas of red maple-hardwood swamp; Iron Pier Beach, a reedgrass marsh and pond; Mattituck Inlet, tidal creek, salt marsh, and freshwater wetlands; Goldsmith's Inlet, a county park containing salt marsh and shallow brackish ponds used for environmental study; Great Pond, a coastal plain pond and maritime interdunal swales; Inlet Point, a county park with freshwater pond; Dam Pond, a coastal salt pond and salt marsh; and Munn Lake, a freshwater pond. The Natural Coast 99 Significant Coastal l~sh and Wildlife Habitats Two areas that are wholly within this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Wading River Marsh and Mattituck Inlet. Where the bluffs flatten out toward Orient Point, there are two other SCFWHs, Orient Harbor and Long Beach Bay, which are partially within the study area. The larger portion of each habitat falls outside the Long Island Sound coastal boundary and within the Peconlc Bay system. The Wading River Marsh SCFWH is about 200 acres in area and is one of the few large areas of undeveloped salt marsh remaining on the north shore of Long Island. The Wading River, a relatively large tidal creek, meanders through the marsh. The marsh is bordered by a mix of forest, permanent and seasonal residential development, a barrier spit, and the recently decommissioned Shoreham nuclear power plant. Construction of the nuclear power plant and development of the beachside residences have resulted in some loss of salt marsh in the area. Despite these disturbances, Wading River marsh continues to provide habitat for a variety of characteristic salt marsh fish and wildlife species. The creek is closed to shellfishing, but is a productive area for marine finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans. According to the Okeanus Ocean Research Foundation, juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles have been confu'rned using the marsh by radiotelemet~. The marsh is a potential seal pupping site. Adult seals use the nearby waters of the Sound for foraging. The M.~timck ~ Wetin~d SCI~I is a small salt marsh and tidal creek. The wetland is undisturbed and is mostly in public ownership. The deepwater Mnttituck Inlet enters Long Island Sound to the north of the wetland. The area is bordered by a mix of forested upland and residential and marina development. The SCFWH supports a large variety of fish and wildlife species in the wetland and around the mouth of the inlet. Osprey have nested in the wetland and feed in the wetland and along the creek. The area also serves as an important habitat for marine f'mfish and shellfish, although the area is closed to shellfishing. The Orient l-Iarbor SCl~NIt, which is approximately 1,900 acres in area, consists of primarily the open water of the harbor. Most of the SCFWH is located to the south of the Long Island Sound watershed boundary, although Dam Pond is located within the Long Island Sound coastal boundary. The habitat is important for wintering waterfowl, osprey, diamondback terrapin, marine f'mfish, and shellfish. The SCFWH traditionally was one of the top scallop producing areas on Long Island and supported a commercial shellfishery significant in the northeastern United States. The Long Beach Bay SCFWIt, which is approximately !,300 acres in area, includes the bay and the salt marsh and sand peninsula of Orient Beach State Park. Most of the SCFWH is located to the south of the Long Island Sound watershed boundary, although a small area of marsh is located within the Long Island Sound coastal boundary. The area features one of the largest nesting concentrations of osprey in New York and provides an important feeding, wintering, and migratory stopover area for a variety of waterfowl, seabirds, shorebirds, and wading birds. Diamondback terrapin are frequently observed in the marsh. Bay scallops traditionally were abundant in Long Beach Bay and contributed to a commercial shellfishery significant in the northeastern United States. 100 The Natural Coast Other Natural Ecological Communities The areas in the Eastern Bluffs Complex contiguously covered by various hardwood forest communities provide vast acreage of wildlife habitat and east-west wildlife corridors along Long Island's north shore. Because they are remnants of even larger areas of forests that have been converted to agriculture and residences, these forest communities are of great importance to area-sensitive species, including great crested flycatcher, red-eyed vireo, wood thrush, veery, and black-and-white warbler, as well as wide-ranging birds, such as hawks and owls. Along with the habitat provided by wetlands and marine, estuarine, and intertidal communities of the Eastern Bluffs Complex, the upland, natural ecological communities from Miller Place to Orient Point contribute significantly to the overall biodiversity of the Sound ecosystem. Impairments The Eastern Bluffs Complex suffers those impairments associated with agricultural uses and varying densities of residential development. Concentrated development at Mattituck Inlet and Wading River Marsh, and land uses in their watersheds, have contributed to poor water quality. A significant portion of Mattituck Inlet is conditionally closed for shellfishing after rainstorms. Runoff from a parking lot, at the end of Luthers Road on the western side of Mattituck Inlet, drains directly to a beach. Wading River marsh is also permanently closed to shellfishing. Residential development has damaged large portions of the bluffs and landward forests. Vegetation has been cleared for views and site development. These activities expose the bluffs to direct weathering and stormwater runoff, which weakens their structure and accelerates erosion. In addition,, the habitat provided by native forest communities, including mixed hardwood forests and maritime beech forests often is lost or fragmented through clearing for development. The toes of the bluffs have been armored in some locations with revetments and concrete sea walls. Scouring has undermined some of the fortifications, and has threatened the stability of adjacent bluffs. These structures also interfere with transport of sand to beaches by the gravitational weathering of bluffs. Loss or reduction in width of these beaches could affect their suitability as habitat for endangered and threatened species, such as terns and plovers. In addition to the above activities causing specific, Imown impairments, there are a variety of other activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). THE DEEP, OPEN WATER COMPLEX Location and Significance The Deep, Open Water Complex covers the open water and islands between Orient Point and Fishers Island. This portion of the Sound is characterized by steep underwater slopes rising up to relatively shallow water shoals, creating a very turbulent tidal exchange. The salinity levels in this complex are optimal for marine fmflsh. These conditions are rare in New York State and provide a productive and diverse habitat for significant concentrations of fish. The shoals and deep, turbulent waters of Plum Gut and The Race provide habitat for concentrations of marine finfish. They are the major migration corridors for striped bass that move into Long Island Sound breeding grounds in spring. Plum Gut is also thought to be The Natural Coast 101 a major corridor for Atlantic salmon returning to the Connecticut and Pawtucket Rivers in the early spring. Because of these abundant fisheries resources, these areas are nationally renowned for recreational fishing. In addition, the commercial trap net and lobster fisheries in this complex are of regional significance. Right whales, harbor porpoises, hair seals, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles frequent the deep waters in and around the complex. The complex provides important developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp's ridley sea turtles. The complex also includes Plum Island, a large offshore island to the east of Orient Point, which contains beaches backed by a variety of maritime dunes, mixed hardwood forests, lowlands with freshwater ponds, and freshwater marshes. Offshore recks support marine rocky intertidal communities. The upland, mixed hardwood forest community on Plum Island supports a black-crowned night heron rookery. Little Gull and Great Gull Islands are two small rocky islands to the east of Plum Island that are of national significance for their populations of common tern and roseate tern. The roseate tern colony is the second largest in North America. Isolation from human activities provided by these islands and the abundant fish resources of the surrounding waters make them suitable for use as seal haulout areas (Okeanos, 1993). The Animal Disease Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is located on Plum Island. $ignifcant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Two areas in this complex have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Plum Gut and The Race. The Plum Gut SCFWH, about :500 acres of open water, is located between Orient Point and Plum Island. The SCFWH is a channel over 60 feet deep and approximately one-half mile across, bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to the relatively shallow Midway Shoal. It is the primary opening in the underwater.ridge separating Long Island Sound and Gardiners Bay. The Race SCFWH is about 2,:500 acres in area. It is an area of open water between Race Point, at the western end of Fishers Island, and Valiant Rock, located approximately one and one-half miles southwest of Fishers Island. The SCFWH is a channel over 1:50 feet deep and approximately one mile wide, bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to relatively shallow water on each side. It is the primary opening in the underwater ridge separating Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound and is an area of very turbulent tidal exchange. Impairments The Deep, Open Water complex represents some of the most pristine water areas of the Sound. There is great recreational fishing pressure in this area, and without appropriate monitoring and management, overfishing may affect certain species. Any activity that would alter the water currents in this area would have a significant impact on the natural values of the complex. Activities on Plum, Little Gull, and Great Gull islands, as well as on Fishers Island and the west end of Long Island, could potentially affect the waters of the Deep, Open Water Complex. Boat traffic close to seal haulout areas could interfere with continued use (Okeanos, 1993). In ad~tition to the above activities causing impairments, there are a variety of other shoreline and upland activities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this secaon). 102 2he Natural Coast THE FISHERS ISLAND COMPLEX Location and Significance The Fishers Island Complex is located off the eastern tip of the North Fork of Long Island, separated from the mainland by The Race and Plum Gut. The entire island and associated nearshore areas are included within the complex. The island is surrounded by the highest quality marine waters in the Sound region. A wide variety of ecological communities exist on and around the island. Along the shore are coastal salt ponds, brackish and salt marshes, a sheltered bay and coves, maritime sandy beaches, rocky intertidal communities, and small offshore islands. Inland areas of the island host freshwater ponds, coastal plain pond shores (rare), shrub swamps, and red maple-hardwood swamps, oak-hickory forests, a maritime beech forest (globally rare), other forested areas which help protect the island's water supply and prevent invasion of exotic species, shrub thickets, and managed maritime grasslands (fire-maintained). Many of the island's rare species are concentrated in wetlands. River otter and mink have been observed in freshwater ponds. Fishers Island contains a significant number of rare, endangered, or threatened species of plants and animals. According to the Draft Fishers Island Water Suoolv and Watershed Study. Ecological Comoonerll[, about 45 species of plants listed as rare, endangered, or threatened are found on the island, as are over 90 breeding bird species, including osprey, fish crow, and at least eight other protected species. The beach areas are used by many varieties of sea birds, wading birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines. Nesting sites for least tern, common tern, piping plover, and osprey have been identified. There are gull rookeries on the offshore rocks. The small, undeveloped group of islands off the north shore hosts one of the largest nesting concentrations of double-crested cormorants in New York State. Seals in the hair seal family concentrate in the area during the winter months, using exposed rocks and small islands for haulout sites. Wetlands Tidal wetlands border the inlets and bays, and include intertidal mudflats and salt marshes, as well as rocky intertidal communities on the offshore rocks. Brackish marsh, shrub swamps, and red maple-hardwood swamps are located in the inland portions of the island. Significant Coastal lqsh and Wildlife Habitats There are two areas on Fishers Island designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: Fishers Island Beaches and Hungry Point Islands. The Fishers Island Beaches SCFtVH consists of the Mud Pond Beach area, about eight acres on Fishers Island Sound, the Middle Farms Beach area (17 acres) on Block Island Sound, and the Stone Beach area, a ten-acre spit dividing Hay Harbor, and Fishers Island Sound. These undeveloped beaches consist of a mix of sand, gravel, and pebbles. The Mud Pond Beach and Middle Farms Beach areas experience some human disturbance. The beaches are small segments of undeveloped sand and pebble beaches that are part of a network of potential bird nesting sites. Least terns have nested at Mud Pond Beach and Middle Farms Beach, common terns have nested at Stone Beach, and least tern and piping plover have nested at Middle Farms Beach. Osprey have nested adjacent to Middle Farms Beach and Mud Pond Beach. There are gull rookeries on the rocks offshore of ail three of · these beach areas, most predominantly near Hay Harbor. The gulls are thought to be the The Natural Coast 103 Westchester County Wetlands and Habitats r.-/ MAP 6.0 Legend [] Signtf'=ant CoaStal and Wildlife ~ [] Watlmd8 [] Coastal Boundary [] Waterahed Boundaly New York City Wetlands and Habitats MAP 6.1 I Legend [] Significant Coastal and Wildlife Habi~t [] Wetlands [] Coastal BOundary --1 [] Watersfled Boundary I Nassau County Wetlands and MAP 6.2 Habitats Western Suffolk County Wetlands and Habitats MAP 6.3 Legend [] Significaht Coastal Fish [] Coas~ Bounda~, [] Watershed Boundary and Wildlife Habitat Wetlands "; .;, ( ( Smithtown - Port Jefferson Wetlands and Habitats Legend [] $~n~cant Coast~ I W(llllXll [] W~er~ed Bound~y Eastern Suffolk County Wetlands and Habitats MAP 6.5 L~gand [] Slgnfi~a,~ Coastal F~sh and Wildlife Habitat [] Wetlandl $ 0 2 4 B Eastern Suffolk County Wetlands and Habitats Legend major deterrent to nesting of terns and plovers on these beaches. The beach areas are also used by many varieties of sea birds, wading birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines. The Hungry Point Islands SCFWH is located along the north shore of Fishers Island. The SCFWH is a group of small, undeveloped islands, each less than three acres in size, consisting almost entirely of exposed rock, small clumps of trees, and salt marsh. They form a coastal habitat for several unusual species of wildlife and are isolated from predators and human disturbance, which distinguishes this area from many other rock and marsh islands in Suffolk County. Pine Island, the largest island, provides nesting sites for concentrations of double-crested cormorants. In the 1990-1991 Lon~ Island Colonial Waterbird and Pinin~ Plover Survey, between 560 and 600 pairs of double-crested cormorants were surveyed on the three islets at Hungry Point. Nesting colonies of great black-backed gulls and herring gulls also occupy the islands. Harbor seals regularly use the exposed rocks as haulout sites during the winter months. Other Natural Ecological Communities Oak forests, oak-hickory forests, shrub thickets, and marine scrublands are the most prevalent unregulated upland natural ecological communities on Fishers Island. The forests are large enough to host area-sensitive species, such as ovenbird and red-eyed virio, and provide breeding habitat for black-crowned night heron, and, possibly, barn owl. Redback salamander and black racer have been observed in the oak-hickory forests, as well as two rare sedges. Shrub thickets provide breeding habitat for snowy egret, gadwall, and northern harrier, among many other species. One such thicket hosts seaside angelica, a rare plant. A maritime grassland community on the island provides habitat for osprey and two rare plant species. Although several common mainland species, such as toads, chipmonks, and woodchucks, are absent from Fishers Island, white-tailed deer are occassionai visitors. Impairments The Fishers Island Complex is isolated from the more developed areas of the Long Island Sound region. Impairments of the island's natural resources result primarily from activities on the island itself. Nevertheless, local disruptions considered insignificant in other areas could have severe consequences on the plant and animal life in and around the island, causing local extirpation. Although islands lose species through local extirpations and gain others through colonizations under natural circumstances, human-induced disturbances and introductions of nonnative species may accelerate species losses; such accelerated losses might not be counterbalanced by gains on Fishers Island, because of habitat loss and degradation in mainland, or 'source", areas. Development on Fishers Island consists primarily of low density residential uses. The east end is dominated by a golf course. There is a ferry landing and a yacht club in West Harbor. Surface runoff from developed areas is insignificant on the island. However, nutrients and pesticides used on the golf course have the potential to degrade water quality and otherwise affect plant and animal life on and around the island. Mosquito control efforts on Fishers Island have the potential to degrade wetlands and may have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Upland development has encroached upon some areas of freshwater wetlands and their regulatory adjacent areas. This has led to increased sedimentation in the ponds and has destroyed wildlife habitat. The Natural Coast 111 The shoreline of Fishers Island generally is in a natural state, with little evident bulkheading or seawall construction, except in West Harbor, which has been altered with bulkbeaded piers for the ferry landing and the Fishers Island Yacht Club. In addition to the above activities causing specific, Imown impairments, there are a variety of other acavities that may cause damage to the complex (see the list of potential impairing activities at the beginning of this section). Issues and Management Opportunities A growing environmental awareness in the 1970s led to strengthened federal and state environmental protection legislation. State legislation included: the tidal and freshwater wetlands acts, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. These laws and their implementing regulations sought to address procedural and substantive issues relating to development impacts on ecological systems. Regulations implement'mg the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA) set up procedures for coordinating reviews. The tidal and freshwater wetlands regulations defined and categorized wetlands, while the WRCRA regulations provided for designation of Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. These and other environmental regulations focused attention on vulnerable resource areas and established certain development restrictions, but despite the legislative and regulatory advances of the last two decades, the losses continue. Aa development moves eastward on Long Island, once-intact wetlands and upland ecological communities continue to be altered by new docks, buildings, parking lots, and roads. In less apparent, more gradual ways, ecological communities throughout the region are be'rog degraded by erosion, sedimentation, chemical pollution, removal of buffer areas, fragmentation of open space, and other development-related disruptions. Many efforts to protect environmental resources have been reactive and narrowly focused. According to existing regulations, only certain actions are subject to review and approval, and government agencies simply respond to permit applications as they are received. In their reviews, agencies attempt to minimize environmental damage by denying or conditioning permits, based on standards that may be unclear or obsolete. To complicate matters, proposed actions often require several permits, and the reviews still tend to be conducted without adequate consultation among the various involved agencies and programs. Aa a result, individual reviewers are not able to assess the collective impact of the different permit decisions on a particular area. Reviewers are further hampered by a lack of information on the complicated physical, biological, and chemical connections within and between ecological communities. Even when detailed information is available, mandated time frames limit their ability to apply it. Because of these information and time constraints, reviewers are unable to determine the effect of one development action on larger ecological systems. Nor can they assess the cumulative impacts over time of existing development combined with incremental new development, particularly small, seemingly insignificant projects. It is clear that regulation alone is inadequate to prevent environmental losses and that opportunities must be sought to shift the emphasis from a reactive stance to a more proactive approach. 112 T/~ Natural Coast The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program region, by delineating ecological complexes, directs attention to larger, ecologically cohesive units and spells out specific . management steps to protect and restore components of these units. This program, in combination with the state Open Space Plan and funds available through the Environmental Protection Fund, forms the framework for a new way of advancing environmental mana_gement objectives in the Long Island Sound region. The recommendations at the end of this chapter call for a variety of measures which together will constitute a more integrated and active approach to managing ecological resources. They advocate: more systematic monitoring of ecosystem health; designation of Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas; development of management plans for Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas, wetlands, Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, and other components of the Long Island Sound ecosystem; protection of key natui'al resource areas throughout the region; and other specific measures that will protect as yet unimpaired areas, restore other areas, and re-establish links between fragmented ecological communities. EROSION AND FLOODING HAZARDS Erosion and flooding have been causing changes in the coastal geography of the Long Island Sound region, since glacial retreat began thousands of years ago. Beaches and dunes have developed and changed; bluffs have slumped and been washed away; inlets have opened and clnsed; bays have changed shape and depth; and wetlands have appeared and disappeared. These events, whether occurring incrementally or in a single storm event, are part of a dynamic natural process that never allows coastal landforms to remain the same for more than a moment in geologic time. Natural processes acting upon unencumbered coastal features, such as nearshore areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs, wetlands, and floodplains, are not considered hazardous. The notion of coastal hazards arises only when people build their houses and businesses on these dynamic landforms, then suffer serious damage from coastal processes that produce erosion or flooding. Believing it possible to control the effects of these powerful natural processes, people often call for reinforcement of the shoreline to protect their property. This intervention frequently fails to make dynamic landforms static and often exacerbates hazards in adjacent areas. While population levels have been relatively stable for Long Island in recent years, development in coastal areas, including hazardous locations, has steadily increased. As growing numbers of people choose to live in coastal hazard areas, either knowingly or unknowingly, it has become ever more difficult to balance the long-term need to protect coastal landforms from human encroachment with the short-term need to realize economic gains from coastal development. Factors and Trends Affecting Erosion and Flooding Erosion and flooding along any shoreline result from the interaction of a number of factors. These include the prevailing geologic conditions of the shoreline, sea level changes, and the various forces-currents, waves, wind, storms, sea levels, and human activities--which together cause sediment to be removed from one location, to drit~, and to be deposited at another location along the shoreline. The rate and degree of shoreline erosion, accretion and flooding can va~ significantly over short distances depending on how the above factors The Natural Coast 113 interact. The rate and degree of erosion and accretion can also vary from season to season, over longer periods of time, or as a result of speCific, non-cyclic events, such as a large storm. The geologic composition of the shoreline determines the vulnerability of the shoreline to erosion. Hard, metamorphosed sediments are resistant; soft unconsolidated materials, like sand and gravel, are more susceptible. Along the Long Island Sound shoreline, the bluffs are composed of highly erodible materials and are the primary source of sediment supply for beach building. Sediment supply is critical in determining whether a beach or barrier landform will erode, remain stable, or accrete. Even when impacted by erosive forces, a beach or barrier can remain stable if there is sufficient sediment supply. Currents, waves, and wind are the forces tha~ move eroded materials into the littoral zone and along the coastline. In many areas of the Sound shore, local geology plays a significant role in direCting these forces. Headlands and peninsulas tend to act as focal points for high energy waves, whereas broad inshore bays experience less intense wave action per foot of shoreline. Coastal storms, particularly hurricanes and winter storms, or nor'easters, often play the most dramatic role in altering shoreline configuration through rapid erosion of beaches and bluffs by high energy waves and wind combined with high water elevations. Hurricanes, with wind speeds in excess of 74 miles per hour, are the most powerful storms likely to strike New York. Between 1899 and 1991, New York was hit direCtly by nine hurricanes, more than any other state north of North Carolina. Review of the literature on historical storms indicates natural cycles of frequent and intense storms alternating with cycles of infrequent, low intensity storms. The past 20-year period (1970-1990) has been relatively quiet with storms being less frequent and intense. Despite this fact, moderate to severe coastal storms have impacted the region at the rate of at least one every two years. There is evidence to suggest that present conditions for hurricane generation are approaching those that existed during the 1949 to 1969 period, when storms were more numerous and more intense than recently. Moreover, global warming may accelerate increased storm activity and severity, if predictions are correct. With more frequent storms resulting from a natural change in cycles of frequency or from global warming or both, the shoreline will have less time to recover naturally from the damage caused by each storm--and the more intense coastal storms, with larger, stronger, and more 'frequent waves, will cause more serious erosion and flooding. The most severe nor'easters since 1865 occurred in March 1962 and December 1992. The wave heights and ~torm surge from nor'easters are generally not as dramatic as those associated with hurricanes; however, the shore-altering effects of nor'easters can be as great, because they linger longer over the coast. Sea level rise relative to the shore is another significant factor in the incidence of erosion and flooding over time. The rise in relative sea level has several causes, each operating over different temporal intervals and each varying in the magnitude of its impact. These include changes in the direction of movement of the earth's tectonic plates under the sea, faulting of the sea floor, deep ocean sedimentation, rebound of the land and sea floor from ancient glaciers, changes in climate and weather patterns, and other complex, interrelated causes. The resulting sea level rise varies from place to place depending on how these complex causes interact. For the Sound, tidal gauge data collected within the last 100 years suggests a relative sea level rise varying from about 0.1 inches to less than 0.04 inches per year. 114 The Natural Coast While the scientific community agrees the historical rate of sea level rise can be expected to continue in the near future, there is controversy surrounding the potential increase in the rate of rise from global warming. Early estimates of the increased rate of sea level rise due to excess emission of greenhouse gases suggested a sea level rise of two to seven feet in the next century. Recently, this figure was adjusted downward. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently projecting an increase of less than two feet in the next 100 years. Although many questions remain about the ability of models to accurately predict the factors that cause sea level rise, rising sea levels can be expected to cause increased erosion rates and more extensive flooding along the Sound. At the present rate of approximately 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year, a horizontal movement of mean sea level of one to three inches per year (assuming a 1 on 30 beach/nearshore slope) is anticipated in the region. A rise of mean sea level of two feet would result in a landward migration of coastal waters of sixty feet. There are already thousands of structures identified as susceptible to coastal erosion and flooding in the region. A significant rise in sea level could destroy the natural barrier, bay, and wetland system and inundate low-lying areas along the Sound, further threatening developed The final factor in determining the rate of shoreline erosion is human intervention. Through construction of shoreline engineering works, dredging for navigation, and various soft-structural erosion management approaches, such as beach nourishment, humans have become a major factor in influencing coastal erosion and flooding. Compared to other factors discussed, human intervention has been important only over the last 200 years, but the impacts have been dramatic, causing rapid changes to the shoreline in a short period of time. Engineered structures can halt, retard, mitigate, or accelerate shoreline erosion. Some may be responsible for preventing upland erosion while causing beach erosion. Others may have multiple effects on the beach. Table 11 shows the extent of hardened shoreline along Long Island Sound compared with the remaining natural shoreline. Examples of the detrimental and positive impacts of engineered structures are abundant along shorelines of the United States and along the marine coast of New York. Dredging is a common activity along the Long Island Sound shoreline. Development around the Sound has resulted in increased demands for stabilization of inlets and for dredging of channels. Current dredging operations remove sediments from the natural system, causing barrier landforms, especially those on the downdrift side of inlets, to erode. Unfortunately, these operations ordinarily do not put clean dredged material back on the beaches and dunes where it is needed. Replenishment of the sand supply, called nourishment, temporarily sets hack the erosion clock. Sand will continue to be eroded by natural processes, and periodic renourishment is required. This technique of erosion mitigation is usually one of the least environmentally offensive solutions. It may also be cost-effective compared with the construction of hard structures. Nourishment also can preserve public beaches, which are limited in number along the Sound shoreline. Although the population of the Long Island Sound region has not grown significantly since 1970, residential development continues to be attracted to coastal locations, which are always desirable and highly marketable, but also often potentially dangerous. Many new The Natu~a/Coa~ 115 Table 11 Natural and Hardened Shoreline: Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties PERCENTAGE OF FEET MILES TOTAL West¢l~t~r Coun~ Nntural ~aoreFme Rook Outcrop 46,250 8.8 20% Beth 34,950 6.5 15% Wetland 33,400 6.3 14% Total 114,600 21.6 49% llnrdened Shoreline Rip Rap 21,400 4.1 9% Sea Wall 96,350 18.3 42% Total 117,750 22.4 51% Grand Total 232,350 44.0 100% Nassau County Naturnl Shoreline Beach 218,650 41.4 33% Wetland 85,150 16.1 13% Total 303,800 57.5 46% Hardened Shoreline Rip Rap 103,875 19.7 16% Sea Wall 254,300 48.2 38% Total 358,175 67.9 54% Grand Total 661,975 125.4 100 % County N~da~ai Shoreline Rook Outcrop 38,500 7.3 4 % Beach 496,025 94 53 % Wetland 164,650 31.2 18 % Total 699,175 132.5 75 % llardened Shoreline Rip Rap 75,125 14.2 8 % Sea Wall 155,745 29.5 17% Total 230,870 43.7 25% Grand Total 930,045 176.2 100% New York C~ Total 68,000 12.9 46% Bnrdmed Shoreline Total 80,000 15.2 54% Grand Total 148,000 28.0 100% 116 The Natural Coast developments have located very near the shoreline and associated natural protective features. Some have built erosion control structures that may well provide only temporary, illusionary safety or may unintentionally worsen erosion and flooding problems elsewhere. Where, for whatever reason, such new development is not initially protected, it can be expected that property owners confronted with the inexorable natural forces of the coast will increasingly demand that government undertake costly erosion control measures, using public dollars to protect private development. Demands for protection against real or perceived erosion threats will only escalate if more new development is allowed to locate in hazard areas. The result will be a continued haphazard hardening of the region's shoreline with little consideration given to the prevailing erosive forces or the effect erosion structures will have on these forces throughout the region. Erosion Conditions and Implications The Long Island Sound shoreline is varied in its geologic composition. To better address the nature of the Sound shoreline and the hazards it presents, it was divided into five reaches based on an evaluation of geologic character, littoral drift patterns, relative erosion rates, and existing land use. The reaches are: Weatchester-Bronx (the rocky shore); Queens-Nassau- Western Suffolk (headlands and bays); Miller Place, Brookhaven to Mattituck Inlet, Southold (central Suffolk bluffs); Mattituck Inlet to Orient Point, Southold (eastern Suffolk bluffs); and Fishers Island (see maps 7.0-7.6). R,g4CH I: ROCKY SHO~Rt. tNE (WaSrCBESr~-B~ONX) The rock outcrops along the Westchester-Bronx shoreline protect a series of harbors and bays with wetlands, mudflats and some beaches. These features are important for erosion and flooding protection of adjacent uplands, because they disperse storm wave energy and absorb stormwater runoff. Comprehensive erosion rate data is not available for Westchester County and the Bronx, but the geologic composition of the shoreline suggests erosion is minimal along most of the coast because of the natural protective bedrock formations. Pocket beaches and marshes are the exceptions, because f'me-gralned sediments are potentially more susceptible to rapid erosion. A limited shoreline change analysis of Westchester and the Bronx between 1882 and 1990 has shown measurable (1.5-2 feet/year) erosion at a number of the pocket beaches. These locations include: Playland Park and Parsonage Point in the Town of Rye, the Edgewater Point Jetty in Larchmont Harbor, Echo Bay in New Rochelle, and Orchard Beach-Twin Islands in the Bronx. Other areas in Westchester County that may also be susceptible to erosion include: the cobble recurved spit in Manursing Bay and beach areas at the Westchester Country Beach Club, Edith G. Read Nature Preserve, Rye Town Park, Milton Point, Beach Point Club, Davenport Neck, Glen Island Park, and Davids Island. Along the Westchester County coast, land use is generally low density residential (less than 2 dwelling units/acre) with some intermixed commercial and medium density (5-10 dwelling units/acre) residential in the protected harbors and bays. In the Bronx, land usc is predominantly medium and high density residential with open space/recreational land intermixed. The coastal erosion hazard area (CEHA) in Westchester County, which designates natural protective features, not necessarily areas susceptible to erosion, includes about 300 structures, The Natural Coast 117 primarily residences or recreational facilities. These are concentrated in the cities of Rye and New Rochelle. Coastal erosion hazard areas have not been designated in the New York City portion of Long Island Sound. Fitt3~-seven percent of the shoreline of Westchester County is in a natural form and 43 percent has been hardened with protection structures. Even within protected bays and harbors where there is less erosion potential, about 24 miles of shoreline, more than 58 percent, has been hardened. In addition, there are 51 groins and jetties along the Westchester shoreline, all of which are located in the CEHA. While erosion is not a major concern along the coast in Westchester County and the Bronx, this section of the Sound coast is subject to riverine and coastal flooding. In Westchester County, flooding occurs along many areas of the immediate shoreline. The areas with the most potential to be adversely affected are in the cities of Rye and New Rochelle and the Village of Mamaroneck. The extent of coastal flooding was illustrated recently during the December 11-12, 1992 nor'easter when damage occurred in areas 100 to 200 feet outside the county's mapped 100-year floodplain (A-zone). Currently, there are over 1,080 structures in the low lying areas along the Sound and the rivers of Westchester County, with 150 structures located in high hazard areas or V-zones. In New York City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified the east Bronx shoreline and islands as an area where flooding and storm-related erosion can be a problem. It is estimated that there are 1,197 buildings in the flood area. Of these, 955 are in the A-zones and 242 are in the V-zones. The rocky shoreline areas of Westchester County and the Bronx will not see an increase in erosion rates because of the natural protective nature of the bedrock outcrops and the absence of any significant sources of easily erodible material. However, some of the natural and man-made pocket beaches can expect increased erosion, as sea levels continue to rise. The increase in sea level will also result in gradual inundation of the rocky coast, leading to increased flooding. In addition, the predicted increase in frequency and intensity of coastal storms can be expected to result in an increase in the severity of coastal and riverine flooding. Although significant population growth is not predicted in the Westchester-Bronx area, development pressures will continue along the coast. Because only 1 percent of coastal land remains vacant, little new development will occur. Instead, there will be pressures to convert existing beach clubs into residential complexes and to expand structures or rebuild properties damaged by increasingly severe storms. Redevelopment in the coastal area will lead to calls for government to build more protective structures, thus putting additional demands on limited government funds. In some cases, the dangers could be such that erosion protection structures would be insufficient and the preferable alternative would be to relocate structures out of hazard zones. On-site retreat might be possible in certain situations, where the lot dimensions and size and type of structure allow; however, larger structures might not have sufficient space for on-site retreat. With such a limited supply of vacant coastal land, relocation of damaged or threatened structures to other lots within the coastal area also might be difficult. REACH 2: HEADLANDS AND BAYS (QV-~vS-NASSAU-WEsrF. P~ St~P~OLK HF. AOLANOS A3rO BAYS: FROM Wtt. rl~TS POI~VT, QV'F.F. NS rO M~LL~ PLaCe, BROOta~AVF.~V) The western end of the reach is sheltered, while the more eastward portions are increasingly subject to the erosive effects of wind and waves. Generally, the areas most susceptible to erosion throughout the reach are the exposed ends of the headlands and the exposed bluffs 118 The Natural Coast along the eastern portion of the reach. The prominent seaward position of the headlands makes them focal points for coastal forces. Although comprehensive erosion measurements have yet to be completed for the reach, measurable headland erosion is known to be occurring: at Kings Point and Sands Point in North Hempstead; at Weeks Point in Oyster Bay; along the steep bluffs and beach at Caumsett State Park in Huntington; and from Crane Neck Point to the Maryville Convent and from Old Field Point eastward along Old Field Beach in Brookhaven. An analysis of shoreline change from 1885-1968 suggested rapid headland erosion is also occurring in Bayville and Centre Island (Davies et al, 1973). Erosion along the Asharoken tombolo has been a major problem over the past 25 years. In addition, the stretch of bluffs in Smithtown from Fresh Pond through Sunken Meadow State Park is eroding' rapidly. Sand and gravel eroded from the headlands is deposited in narrow beaches at the base of headlands or bluffs or is transported alongshore and back into the adjacent bays, forming baymouth spits and bars. Certain features of this type in Nassau County appear to be eroding including: the spit at Plum Point in Manhasset Bay, the smaller barrier spit and marshland between Barkers Point and Sands Point, the beach along Cedar Knoll Drive, and the wide barrier beach near East Creek marsh. Outside of Queens, where coastal land use is characterized by dense one and two family development, the land use is predominantly low to medium density residential, intermixed with open space and recreational uses. In Nassau County, pockets of high density residential use, as well as commercial, industrial and transportation uses, exist adjacent to the bays. The one coastal erosion hazard area in this reach includes over 450 structures. The majority of the affected structures (71 percent) are concentrated in the Village of Bayville, with the second largest concentration (13 percent) in the City of Glen Cove. Nearly 920 people live within the CEHA boundary. Shoreline protection structures are numerous, even within the sheltered bays. There are 556 groins and 12 jetties. Over 42 percent of the immediate Sound shoreline is hardened by erosion control structures. Within the sheltered bays and harbors, which comprise about 90 miles of the shoreline, 40 percent has been hardened. With regard to flooding in the Nassau and Suffolk County portions of the reach, there are 5,924 structures in the floodplain. Over 13 percent, 795 structures, are located in V-zones (high hazard The current rates of erosion and levels of flooding in this reach can be expected to continue into the near future. As mentioned previously, hazard conditions may worsen as sea levels rise and the frequency and intensity of coastal storms increase. When this occurs, hazard areas will move inland as barrier landforms that currently protect the bays are impacted. Wetlands and barrier beaches can maintain themselves and their protective capacities, if there is sufficient space to allow for inland migration and, in the case of beaches, sufficient sediment supply to replenish eroded sand. New development, however, continues to encroach upon wetlands, barrier beaches, and their upland buffer areas. As a result, currently sheltered areas, many of them developed, could be exposed to serious erosion and flooding, because the natural shoreline cannot adapt to natural processes, when it comes into contact with static human development. Significant population growth is not predicted in this reach, but the increasing numbers of households will continue the pressure to develop along the immediate coastline and, unfortunately, in hazard areas. While only 2 percent of coastal area land is vacant, limiting the possibilities for new development, conversion of institutional facilities and private golf The Natural Coast 119 clubs into residential complexes could result in a significant amount of high density redevelopment. The effects of coastal storm damage and sea level rise will require difficult decisions about post-storm redevelopment. For example, in low density areas on the headlands, on-site retreat may be possible due to larger lot sizes. In higher density areas with small lots, on- site retreat may not be possible and relocation away from the coastal area may be necessary given the limited supply of coastal land. In areas where on-site retreat is not possible and relocation is expensive or not desirable, there will be increasing demand for government to fund shoreline stabilization structures. REACH 3: CENTRAL SUFFOLK BLUFFS (FROM Mtrr~R PLACE, BROOliHAVEN TO MAi-~'~'I~JCK INLET, SOUTHOLD) East of Port Jefferson, wave action and rainwater runoff erode the loosely consolidated glacial material of the bluffs to form fronting beaches of varying width, slope, and texture. The predominant drit~ pattern in this reach is from west to east along the mainland beaches. An analysis of shoreline change from National Ocean Survey Maps from 1885-1965 suggests rapid erosion is occurring at Rocky Point and Shoreham Beach in Brookhaven; and from Camp Grant to Jacobs Point in Riverhead. Measurable erosion is also occurring at Miller Place Beach, Hallock Landing, and North Shore Beach in Brookhaven and at Wading River Landing, Camp DeWolf, Fresh Pond Landing, and Wildwood State Park in Riverhead. The bluffs are broken at Wading River, Baiting Hollow, Luce Landing/Jacobs Hill, and Mattituck Creek. At these locations, barrier beaches protect small tidal mudflats and wetlands. These Iow-lying areas are important in protecting adjacent uplands from erosion and flooding, because they disperse storm wave energy and absorb stormwater runoff. These are the only locations where coastal flooding is a significant threat. Medium to low density residential land use predominates, with small pockets of high to medium density residential use interspersed with recreational/open space uses eastward from Miller Place to Wildwood State Park. ~ast of Wildwood State Park, the reach is less developed, and more open space/recreational and vacant land exists. There are over 380 structures within CEHA boundaries, that is, within 25 feet of the bluff face. Over eight miles, or 26 percent, of the shoreline has been hardened. There are 50 groins and five jetties. In this reach the je~ies pose particular problems by interrupting the normal pattern of sediment transport at the base of the bluffs. Severe erosion will continue the landward migration of bluffs in this reach. Over time, higher sea levels and more severe storms will cause increased erosion of the bluffs through the undercutting action of waves and the infiltration of rainwater. Coastal flooding will increase, although only in localized, low-lying areas. The presence of significant vacant land along the central Suffolk shoreline means continued pressure for new development. This development is likely to further damage the structural integrity of coastal bluffs. The presence of larger numbers of people traversing the bluffs will also damage their natural vegetative cover, further impairing their stability. The abundance of vacant land also provides opportunities for relocation of damaged or · threatened structures away from hazard areas, but property owners are more likely to place demands on government either to approve or to construct erosion protection structures to t20 The Natural Coast Westchester County Shoreline Characteristics MAp 7.0 ~ CT Blu't~ Wem~c,hem~r CQunty b rod~ ~r,~r~dd. [~ ~"~,~ml_ Boundmy Barrier Spits [] Watershed Boundary Bluffs L-~ Coa~; Barrier ~ Littoral Drift Reso-me -~yst~rn New ~ York City Shoreline Characteristics MAP 7.1,, Nassau County Shoreline Characteristics iMAP 7.2 NY~D08 Legend I~ ~ ~o~-y [] ~ sp= [] W~t~d Boundary Bluff~ [] Coastal Barrier [] Littoral Drift Resource System ( ( ( L Western Suffolk County ShOreline Characteristics MAP \ ~ Watarahed ~ ~u~ Syatem Smithtown Port Jefferson Shoreline Characteristics 7.4 L~nd ~ Watarahed Boundary ~ ~ ~er R~u~ S~ Banter Sp~ts muffs Uttor~ Ddft 0 2 4 Eastern Suffolk County Shoreline Characteristics MAP Legend Co=s:-' .oundary [] aarrier Sp~ Waterahad Boundm'y Buffs Resource Systam MILE8 Eastern Suffolk County Shoreline Characteristics ~MAP further reinforce the shoreline. Absent a change in public policy, uncoordinat~ placement of shoreline protection structures is likely to continue. REACH 4: EASTERN SUFFOLK BLUFFS (FROM MATTITUCK INLET, SOUTHOLD TO ORIENT POINT, SOt. PI'HOLD) This reach consists of intermixed low bluffs (50 foot maximum) and mainland beaches broken by three barrier landforms at Goldsmith Inlet, Hashamomuck Pond, and Dam Pond. Erosion conditions are similar to those in the Central Suffolk Reach. An analysis of shoreline change from National Ocean Survey Maps from 1885-1965 suggests rapid erosion occurring at Baillie Beach east of Mattituck Inlet, at Goldsmith Inlet, at the Peconic Dunes County Park, at Mulford Point, and at Orient Point, all in Southold. Measurable erosion is occurring at Kennys Road-Horton Lane Beaches in Southold. The reach is characterized by Iow density residential land use, intermixed with open space/recreational uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. The sparse development is illustrated by the small number of structures within the CEHA boundaries--six. Eighty percent of the reach is in its natural state. There are 61 groins and three jetties located along the shore. The jetties are causing dramatic erosion downdrift. Due to the topography and low density of development in this reach, there are relatively few structures in flood hazard areas. Of the 31 structures in the floodplain, 18 are located in V-zones. Severe bluff and beach erosion will continue in this reach, as in reach 3. Coastal flooding, however, will increase to a greater extent than in reach 4 because of the presence of more low- lying areas. Development pressures and impacts are the same as in reach 3. Because of the abundance of vacant land, opportunities exist for relocation of structures away from hazard areas, but here again, there will be demands for the shoreline to be further reinforced. REACH .5: FISHERS ISLAND Fishers Island is characterized by low bluffs on the eastern side. These bluffs rise to 50 feet and are fronted by narrow beaches and barrier beach features. The western side of the island is lower in elevation and slopes gradually into the Sound, where there are a number of small rocky coves. There have been no studies undertaken of erosion rates or the littoral drift patterns around Fishers Island. A large portion of Fishers Island is vacant land. The developed land is primarily large lot, low density residential. A significant amount of open space/recreational land exists on the island. The only population center is in the sheltered, west harbor area, where all of the island's commercial industrial and transportation uses are also located. Fishers Island has about 24 miles of shoreline, 89 percent of which is in natural condition. Four groins are located on the Fishers Island shore. There are 56 structures within the CEI-IA boundary on the island. As sea level and storm conditions change, increased wave erosion of bluffs is likely to occur in the reach, as well as gradual flooding of low-lying barrier landforms and wetlands. As a result, developed areas are likely to experience increased levels of flooding and more severe impacts from storm waves. 128 7he Natural Coast Limited growth is predicted in the reach because of access difficulties and the high cost of land. Nevertheless, with continued erosion and storm impacts, the demand for shoreline protection for existing structures may increase. Large lot sizes and a supply of vacant land may allow for on-site retreat or off-site relocation. Major Issues to be Addressed Maps 8.0-8.6 summarize erosion and flooding hazards along the Sound shore. Throughout the region, valuable public and private development is at risk of being damaged by erosion and flooding. Widespread attempts have been made to protect property--even property not apparently as risk. These attempts have been costly and, at best, only partially successful in preventing damage. They also have encouraged more extensive development than is advisable in adjacent, upland areas, given the possibility of future hazardous conditions. More serious, these attempts to solve one problem have caused other, possibly worse, problems. For instance, control structures that have prevented erosion and reduced property damage in one location have exacerbated erosion nearby, causing natural protective features to be undermined or destroyed altogether. Control structures have also resulted in the loss of habitats, the degradation of water quality, the destruction of beaches and other public recreational resources, and the impairment of the natural aesthetic quality of the shoreline. Many members of the general public are simply unaware of the dangers of building in hazardous areas. Once allowed to build, these property owners belatedly become aware of the problems, then seek to fortify their property, when the better approach would have been to build out of harm's way in the first place. Even when individuals are aware of the problem, they lack detailed information on the exact nature of erosion and flooding at specific locations and, as a result, adopt costly solutions ill-suited to particular problems. For instance, in certain areas the potential for serious erosion and flooding is not great, but lack of information gives rise to fear of damage. This fear causes property owners to install heavy erosion control structures, when lighter structures, or even "soft" measures, such as the planting of vegetation, would have sufficed. Government also needs better data for decision-making. For example, information is lacking on the potential effects of new inlets formed during severe coastal storms. Without this information, government decision-makers have no basis for determining whether or not to close such inlets. There is also insufficient inform~ion on littoral transport of sand, making it difficult to determine the best way to deal with the negative effects of jetties on downdrift beaches. Such a situation exists at Mattituck Inlet, where jetties are depriving downdrift beaches of replenishing sand. The lack of information is only one of a complex set of factors influencing how government responds to the problems of erosion and flooding. Historically, the response has been more reactive than prospective. At the federal level, two programs were instituted to deal with erosion and flooding problems, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the National Flood Insurance Program. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act prohibits expenditure of federal funds in designated barrier areas. Unfortunately, the designated areas are limited in extent, and New York State does not mirror the federal program in funding restrictions. The National Flood Insurance Program was designed to protect property owners who, perhaps unwittingly, had built homes in hazardous areas. In an ironic twist, the program The Natural Coast 129 does nothing to prevent new development from occurring in hazard areas, as long as minimal building standards are met, and actually provides potential property owners with the incentive to build in the very areas they should avoid. In another twist of this complex program, the federal government has the authority to mitigate flooding and erosion damage by paying insured property owners for relocation or demolition of structures or by acquiring property outright. Property owners, however, are not familiar with these provisions, and the federal government has never successfully used this program in New York State. Another deficiency in the National Flood Insurance Program is that many property owners in areas not normally subject to flooding, such as bluffs, are unaware that they can obtain flood insurance. Overall, only a small percentage of people eligible for flood insurance actually buy it. Fewer participants means less money in the pool, and recently the pool has been overdrawn, requiring general taxpayer support. Lack of participation also means that homeowners, who could take advantage of the mitigative aspects of flood insurance, remain ineligible and deprived of support for relocation from baTard areas. At the state level, several programs have been instituted to deal with aspects of the erosion and flooding problem. Chief among these is the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act. A primary purpose of this act is to prevent damage to natural protective features, such as beaches and bluffs. The first step in doing this was to designate such features and associated areas where development should be restricted because of rapid erosion, called structural hazard areas. In the Long Island Sound region, natural protective features have been designated, except for those found in bay areas. Structural hazard areas, however, have not been designated, preventing state and local governments from implementing the act's provisions within these potentially hazardous areas. Another aspect of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act that has proven problematical is the issuance of variances from provisions of the law that discourage development in erosion hazard areas. Courts have long established that property owners are entitled to an economic use of their property. Thus, if government determines an area to be inappropriate for development and, as a result, property owners are unable to obtain any reasonable economic return from their property, then they must be compensated for the loss. When this situation occurs in an erosion hazard area, the Depa~t~t~ent of Environmental Conservation has no recourse but to issue a permit for development, given the limited public funds available for compensation. Finally, implementation of the Coastal Erosion NaTard Areas Act is guided by official maps that show natural protective features and structural hazard areas. Because of insufficient funding, these maps have not been updated, nor the evaluation necessary to designate structural hazard areas completed. This results in a two-fold problem: First, permits for reconstruction may be issued without consideration of changes in hazardous conditions that may have developed incrementally and/or as a result of a storm. Second, permits may be issued for new construction in areas that would be designated structural hazard areas, with the potential for greater threat to life and property. Another state program, the Coastal Management Program, has a several policies dealing with erosion and flooding. These policies together favor a non-structural approach to preventing damage. An evolving strategy includes relocation of structures away from hazard areas. Unfortunately, state agencies have not aggressively enforced these policies as part of the coastal consistency process. 130 The Natural Coast Westchester County Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.l Legend [] Ral~d ~ A~e~ ~ Coamal Boundary ~ 100 Ye~' Rood Zone ~ W'ateratted Bound~y New York City Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.1~ Legend Rai)id Erosion A~eas [~ C~al Boundary 100 Year Rood Zone ~ Watershed 8ounda~/ Fortified Shoreline Nassau County Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.2 / Legend ~ Rapid Erosion A~eea [] 100 Year F~ood Zone [] ~ Fortified Shoreline Coastal Boundar/ Watershed Boundary Western Suffolk County ErosiOn and Flooding Hazards 8.3 Legend Rapid Erosion Areas [] 100 Year Rood Zone [] Fortified Shoreline Cc~;~ Boundary Watershed Boundary 0 I 2 Smithtown - Port Jefferson Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.4 Legend [] Rapid Erosion Azeas [~ Coastal Bounda~ ~ 100 Year Flood Zone [] Watershed Boundary ~ Fortified Shoreline 2 4 Eastern Suffolk County *'Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.5 Legend [] Rapid Erosion Areas ~ ~ Boundary [7~, 100 Year Rood Zone ~ Watershed Bounda~/ Fortified Shoreline Eastern Suffolk County Erosion and Flooding Hazards MAP 8.6 Legend The Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code establishes standards for construction throughout the state. Changes to the code are being considered. Currently, the UFPBC only references federal standards for construction in flood areas. Experience has shown that higher standards, including those to limit wind damage, are needed in the coastal area. Overall, within and between the various levels of government, there are policy and programmatic conflicts that result in less than optimal solutions to erosion and flooding problems. For instance, the state Tidal Wetlands Act sometimes works at cross purposes with the state Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act and the state coastal policies. The latter favor soft alternatives to prevent erosion, such as beach nourishment, but depending on the location of an eroding feature, the Tidal Wetlands Act may prevent the application of such an alternative. In another example, the Army Corps of Engineers enforces a federal policy that calls for disposal of dredge spoils in the least costly manner, generally offshore. The state, on the other hand, favors disposal of clean dredge spoils on eroding beaches. At present, the only way to accomplish this objective is for the state to pay the difference in cost between disposal offshore and onshore. Probably the most complex situations involve post- storm clean-up and reconstruction activities, when uncoordinated and conflicting responses on the part of involved government agencies leave individual property owners at a loss as to the acceptable course of action. WATER RESOURCES The draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan developed by the Long Island Study (1993) is the most comprehensive summary of water resources issues in Long Island Sound available to date. The CCMP provided an important basis for the water resources recommendations put forth in this chapter, and the LIS CMP complements and extends proposals of the CCMP. Water Quality and Water Supply in the Long Island Sound Coastal Area Water quality in Long Island Sound and its bays and harbors reflects the variety and intensity of upland development and surface water uses, such as boating and discharge of treated and untreated municipal wastes. In general, water quality improves from west to east as the density of development decreases; however, nearly all enclosed harbors and bays are characterized by varying degrees of water quality impairments. Appendix 3 contains the listings for the Long Island Sound watershed from the Priority Water Problem List prepared in 1991 by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This list summarizes impairments for specific waterbodies and the resulting impact on the use of the waterbody. The sub-watersheds of the western portions of the Sound, including Westchester County. the Bronx and Queens, and western Nassau County, are characterized by concentrated urban development and intensive suburban uses. As a result, there is significant pollution of coastal waters from both point and nonpoint sources. Nutrients, pathogens, toxic substances, such as petroleum products, and sediments all find their way into the Sound. Westchester County has an extensive watershed stretching northward into Connecticut. Development within the watershed has increased sediment loadings to tributaries leading to the Sound, and fertilizers and pesticides used in excessive amounts for residential, corporate, and golf course landscaping also migrate to the Sound. 138 The Natural Coast Population growth in Westchester County over the past twenty years has outpaced sewage treatment capacity. Municipal wnstewater treatment facilities are inadequate in some areas, particularly during periods of high flows from storm sewers. Illegal connections of sanitary sewers to storm sewers increase the problem. Urban runoff, including runoff from roads, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and oil spills and seeps also contribute to water quality impairments. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are by far the most significant pollution source in New York City's Sound coast and contribute to water quality problems to the east. Pathogens are the major pollutants of public health concern from CSOs; however, CSOs also add significant amounts of various nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, to Long Island Sound. These nutrients feed plant and algae growth. The resulting biomass requires large amounts of oxygen to decompose, causing oxygen depletion, or hypoxia, in the western portion of the Sound. Urban runoff accounts for a large portion of the water quality problem in New York City's coastal area. Street litter, malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems, fertilizers and pesticides from residential and commercial landscaping, chemical spills, and construction runoff all contribute pollutants to the Sound and its tributaries. In addition, oil seeps and leaks and boat wastes are locally important. Widespread failures of on-site sewage disposal systems around Little Neck Bay have precluded bathing in the area. In Nassau County, pollution from New York City CSOs is an important factor in lowered water quality in Hempstead Harbor and Manhasset Bay, even though they are located approximately 6 miles to the east of the city. Urban runoff from surrounding uplands is also critical. In Oyster Bay, which is more sheltered from the waters of the Sound, water quality impairments are more a function of local activity, than broader metropolitan effects. Land uses are more varied in Suffolk County, than Nassau County. Western Suffolk County is characterized by moderately dense population, as exemplified by portions of the Huntington-Northport Bay and Port Jefferson Bay watersheds. In these areas, the primary source of pollution is urban runoff, and the most common effect is on shellflshing. Vessel discharge and concentrations of vessels in the harbors and bays are important secondary factors causing impairments. In Huntington Bay and Port Jefferson Harbor, municipal sewer ouffalls contribute to diminished water quality. Population density decreases markedly eastward, as does the areal extent of the watershed that contributes to the Sound. There is also an increased proportion of open space, agricultural uses, and single family residences connected to on-site disposal systems. Within enclosed harbors and embayments, water quality is affected by on-site sewage disposal systems, including cesspools located on porous soils. New York City and most of Westchester County's population are served by high quality public water suppiies from the New York City reservoir system, located outside the Long Island Sound watershed. Additions to the New York City system are unlikely to come from the Long Island Sound watershed. The Jamaica Water Supply Company, which supplies portions of Queens from wells, is also connected to the larger system. Despite a current gap of some 350 MGD between use (1,600 M~3D) and safe yield (1,250 MC;D), it is unlikely that water supply constraints will affect development in the area for the foreseeable future. Drinking water supplies for Nassau and Suffolk counties are generally adequate, although supplies in a few isolated areas are limited due to saltwater intrusion. Contamination from The Natural Coast 139 surface activitie~ has been a Problem in the past in some areas. The combination of contamination and increased demand imply a long term stress on the quantity of potable water available. Nassau County derives nearly ail of its drinking water from groundwater sources. Consumptive use is %urrently at or above most estimates of the permissible sustained yield* of the aquifers of Nassau County (Water Resources Management Strategy, 1989). Use and overpumpage in Nassau and Queens counties have resulted in declining water tables in Nassau County. Because of the porous soils of the region, surface and groundwater flows are closely linked. Shifts in groundwater levels are reflected in surface flows, with resultant impacts on lake levels, wetland type and extent, and streamflows. Both the Great Neck and Bayville peninsulas have exhibited some of these problems. Much of the Upper Glacial (surface) aquifer in Nassau County is currently unsuitable for drinking due to contamination from a variety of sources, including on-site sewage disposai systems, petroleum products, and gardening and agriculturai chemicals. For those contaminated areas, current practice is to use one of the deeper aquifers, the Magothy or Lloyd, which are at present of high quality. With the exception of Fisher's Island, water supplies in Suffolk County rely on groundwater. In general, there is an adequate supply of potable water from the Magothy aquifer, although supplies are limited in local areas in the eastern portion. The variability of adequate water supplies means that in some areas potable water availability is a development constraint. Suffolk and Nassau counties have designated special groundwater protection areas in recognition of the importance of maintaining quality groundwater recharge. Fishers Island relies on surface water for its public supply. The most significant problems in this area relate to the large increase in demand during the summer months and infrastructure deterioration. Much of the system is more than 50 years old, and because it serves a moderately dispersed population and has many seasonal connections, maintenance costs are high. Issues and Management Opportunities The draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound (1993) prepared through the Long Island Sound Study describes the extent, severity, and causes of several types of pollution in the watershed, with an emphasis on the problem of low dissolved oxygen levels, or hypoxia. While hypoxia is a significant concern in Long Island Sound, several other water quality issues are also important. These include introduction of pathogens and toxic substances, floatables, sediment, and the like. In many cases, these water resource issues are geographically localized. Sheltered areas, such as embayments, are 140 2he Natural Coast more likely to exhibit water quality problems than the open Sound. This is due to two factors: harbors and embayments are likely to be foci for concentrations of activities which produce pollutants, and the restricted flushing characteristic of such areas limits dilution of pollutants. Some of these issues may assume additional importance given the fact that much of the human use of the Sound is focused on the embayments and nearshore areas. POLLUTANTS AFFECTING WATER QUALITY IN LONG ISLAND SOUND Before discussing specific use impairments for Long Island Sound waters, it is critical to recognize that these impairments may be due to several types of pollutant (pathogens, toxics, nutrients, BOD or oxygen demanding wastes, aesthetic impairments, and sediment). Each ~.fathese types of pollutants presents problems which differ from the others. thogens are disease-cansmg organisms. The pathogens most frequently encountered in water quality management include bacteria, such as E. coil and protozoa, such as Giardia .lamblia and Cryptosporidium sp. E. coil is an enteric (intestinal) bacteria usually not harmful m and of itself. Its importance stems from the fact that water can easily be tested for its presence, so it can be used to indicate the possible presence of other pathogens that are both more serious and more difficult to detect. The category of toxic substances encompasses a broad range of materials that can have adverse impacts on the environment or human health. These range from organic chemical residues from manufacturing to metals washing into the Sound from street runoff. The term nutrients refers primarily to phosphorus and nitrogen, two elements which are necessary for plant growth. In freshwater systems, phosphorus is usually the least available element relative to demand, while in marine systems, nitrogen is often the controlling factor. These pollutants are important because of their indirect impacts. They stimulate the growth of plants and algae, which can cause problems ranging from aesthetic impairments to "seaweed" which fouls boat propellers and makes swimming unsafe. When the accumulated plant mass decomposes, it extracts oxygen from the water, thereby reducing the level of dissolved oxygen in the water and leading to hypoxia. Oxygen deprivation can cause mobile animals to leave an area, which is one reason hypoxic areas often have low numbers of fish. In more serious cases and for species which cannot flee, hypoxia can stunt growth or kill. The Long Island Sound Study has documented the extent of hypoxia in Long Island Sound (see, for example, Welsh, 1992). Map 9.0 shows the extent of hypoxia conditions in the Sound. BOD, or Biochemical Oxygen Demand, refers to pollutants, such as sewage, that require oxygen for degradation. By stripping oxygen from the water column, these materials induce hypoxia. In extreme cases, when all oxygen has been removed from an environment, anaerobic conditions prevail. Because the organisms which flourish in such conditions are very different from those in aerobic conditions, much of the chemistry of the system chan£es For example, th ..... · e rotten egg smell found In areas of great decomposition, such as mud flats, is a result of anaerobic activity releasing hydrogen sulfide. Aesthetic impairments to water quality can include a number of factors. Debris such as paper and plastic trash from street runoff can affect the aesthetic appeal of a waterbody. Similarly, even a small amount of oil or other petroleum product can create a sheen on the water surface. The aesthetic impairment can be separate from the other adverse effects of the same pollutant. The Natural Coast 141 Composite Dissolved Oxygen Levels ~os ,99~ 1986 - 1991 [AP 9.0 CONNECTICUT SUFFOLK NYC NASSAU Legend Mg/Liter [] <3 - SEVERE IMPAIRMENT [] 3<5 - IMPAIRED ~ >5 - TOLERABLE SOURCE: BARBARA L. WELSH, MAPdNE SCIENCES DEPT. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT AVERY POINT, GROTON, CT. 06~40 Sediment can cause water quality problems in several ways. Clearly, it can affect boating, both commercial and recreational, by blocking channels or reducing the depth of embayments. Less obviously, sediments can alter the composition of bottom substrate. Such. shifts affect the ecological communities which will survive in a given area. Simple mechanical covering of non-motile organisms can also be a problem. There are usually numerous activities which can generate any particular pollutant. Table 12 relates activities and the types of pollution typically associated with them. It should be noted that many of the activities listed in the table produce nonpoint pollution. In the past, attention was largely focused on discrete point sources, such as sewers and industrial discharges. As success in managing those sources grows, nonpoint sources contribute a greater and greater portion of the remaining pollution. Water quality management for the Sound should not focus exclusively on only one type of pollutant. Additionally, there are multiple sources for any type of pollutant. A successful management scheme should therefore recognize the diversity of pollutants and sources which must be considered. Because actual pollution management focuses on activities, the remainder of this discussion will relate to source activities rather than specific pollutantz. Table 12 Relationship of T ~'pe of Pollutant to Source of Pollutant TYPI~ OF POLLUTANT SOURCE OF POLLUTANT CSO~ X X X X X X Dry Period Overflows X X X X X X Indus~y ami L~ndf'dls X X X X X Street Runoff X X X X X X Developme. a~/Com~ruction X X X X X Sq~i~ Sy~'a:ms (OSDS) X X X X l.~wn/Cngden Chemicals X X Bo~dM~u,in~ X X X X X Oil/P~um ~ ~1 Spills X X X Alrioulmre,/Commercial X X X SOURCES OF POLLUtANtS In general, sources of pollution to waterbodies may be classified as either point or nonpoint. Point sources, as the name implies, are discrete sources of pollution, the classic example being a pipe bearing sewage or industrial effluent. Nonpoint pollution enters the waterbody from more diffuse sources, such as runoff from fields. While there are many types of pollution sources that have both point and nonpoint characteristics (stormwater runoff from roads which is channeled into a gutter, for example), the general distinction is useful. The Natural Co~t 143 Table 13 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities NASSAU AND DAILY NEW YORK DAILY WF~TCHESTER DAILY SUFFOLK AVG CITY AVG COUNTY AVG COUNTIES FLOW FLOW FLOW (MOD) (MOD) (MOD)* Belgrave 1.7 Wards Island 260 Blind Brook 5.0 Glen Cove 4.8 Hunts Point 125 Mamaroneck 18.0 Great Neck 2.5 Bowery Bay 60 New Rochelle 19.1 Port Washington 3.8 Tallman Island 150 Po~t Chester 4.8 Huntington 2.7 King's Park 0.7 Oyster Bay 1.5 Stoay Brook/ 2.1 Port Jefferson Cu-eenport 0.4 No~thport 0.4 Monthly Average, Jmmm'y 1993 Soume: LIRPB, NYSDEC Point Sources Pollution control has historically focused on point sources, because these sources are easily determined and the effects are often readily apparent. Since the passage of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500), remarkable progress has been made in controlling pollution from point sources. Despite this progress, more remains to be done. Within the Long Island Sound watershed, wastewater treatment plants constitute the most important type of point source. Rapid residential growth over the past 30 years has been accompanied by a shift from individual septic systems to community sewerage systems. While there are isolated sewerage systems in the more rural and undeveloped areas of eastern Suffolk County, the heavily developed western portion of region is completely sewered. The distribution of wastewater treatment facilities ia shown on map 1.0, Regional Infrastructure, and their average dally flow outlined in table 13. The inadequacies of current municipal wastewater treatment systems fall into three categories: dry overflows, combined sewer overflows, and treated effluent. Each of these is a problem in the Long Island Sound watershed. Dry overflows occur under routine operating conditions, when the wastewater treatment plant's capacity is exceeded. In extreme cases, this can result in the bypassing of a portion of the raw sewage around the treatment facility. More commonly, it means that the plant treats more westewater than optimal for its design. As a result, the quality of treatment is reduced, with less effective pollutant removal. A related but separate problem is that of combined sewer overflows, or CSOs. Many communities use only one set of collecting sewers for both wastewater and stormwater runoff. For these systems, wastewater treatment capacity may be more than adequate under dry period conditions; however, when rainfall leads to stormwater runoff, the volume entering the treatment plant increases markedly, far exceeding the capacity of the facility. The Natural Coast Under these circumstances, a portion of the flow is diverted around the plant, reaching receiving waters without treatment. The original justification for this practice was twofold: combined systems are far less expensive to construct than separate systems, and the diversion only occurs when stormwater dilutes sewage, so that the pollutant levels are relatively low. Unfortunately, stormwater itself is often severely contaminated, so that the pollutants in CSOs are significant additions to total pollutant loading of receiving waters. Finally, even when dry or wet period overflows are not a problem, treated effluent is a significant pollutant for Long Island Sound, because most wastewater treatment facilities offer only primary and secondary treatment. These processes are quite effective at achieving the goals for which they were designed, principally reducing pathogens and BOD; nevertheless, the level of nutrients in the effluent is not greatly reduced. As discussed earlier, the presence of large amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, allows rapid growth of algae and plants. Their subsequent decay strips oxygen from the water column, leading to hypoxic conditions. Removal of nitrogen from wastewaters requires tertiary or advanced treatment, often through biological nitrogen removal, or BNR. While effective, BNR is a significant additional cost, both for initial construction and for maintenance and operation. All three of the preceding problems with public wastewater management have been addressed in the Long Island Sound Study's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). To deal with the overall hypoxia issue, the CCMP has propped a stepped approach to nitrogen management in the Sound watershed, first limiting nitrogen inputs to 'no net increase~, and then progressively i'educing nitrogen loadings. The CCMP has identified a strategy for evaluating and implementing BNR and other nitrogen removal techniques for point sources. The no net increase policy has led to the decision to cap nitrogen loading from 18 municipal facilities in the Long Island Sound region: (CCMP, 1992) Belgrave Glen Cove Great Neck Great Neck East Shore Huntington Wards Island Bowery Bay Hunts Point Tallman Island Oyster Bay Port Washington King's Park SUNY Stony Brook New Rochelle Mamaroneck Blind Brook Port Chester Port Jefferson Newtown Creek Red Hook It should be noted that the no net increase policy does not imply a freeze on further development. Instead, increases in nitrogen removal efficiency will allow additional development. Progress is being made in improving wastewater treatment plants along the Sound. In New York City, the recent ban on ocean disposal of sludge has led to process modifications in the city's treatment plants, resulting in an increase in nitrogen levels in effluent. The city is taking steps to address this problem through BNR capacity expansions and altering treatment processes to increase sludge age, thereby reducing nitrogen levels in effluent. The Tallman Island facility, for example, is expected to have BNR fully Operational by 1994, the Hunts Point facility in 1994, and the Red Hook facility in 1995. In Westehester County, the Blind Brook plant is being retrofitted with BNR technology. In addition, plants that are currently undergoing expansion or upgrading are to consider including nitrogen removal capacity. These plants include all other Westehester County treatment facilities, Wards Island, and Newtown Creek. The Natural ¢~t 145 In addition, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection has committed to a demonstration project to treat the centrate resulting from sludge dewatering. Assuming the pilot project is successful, NYCDEP anticipates development of a sludge centrate treatment facility by the year 2000, at either Hunts Point or Wards Island. New York City has also committed to a CSO abatement plan, with an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, to take place over the next 10 to 15 years. These and other activities focusing on point sources, which are detailed in the CCMP, are expected to reduce total nitrogen loading to the Sound by about 8 percent by 1995 and about 11 percent after full implementation. Nonpoint Sources Even with full control of the large sources, such as CSOs, significant water quality impairments are likely to remain, because of the multiplicity of smaller sources. The draft CCMP, for example, estimates that only about one-third of total nitrogen loadings to the Sound are from point sources. CSOs and coastal runoff constitute another 5 percent. Successful management of the Sound, therefore, also must include consideration of sources that are individually smaller, but cumulatively important, and the impact of such sources on the localized environment, particularly in such enclosed areas as harbors. Urban Nonpoint Pollution For much of the Long Island Sound watershed, nonpoint urban pollution is the most significant source of contaminants (see appendix 3). In this context, the term "urban~ is usually taken to be synonymous with "development.~ Thus, such sources as on-site sewage disposal systems (septic systems and cesspools) are classified as urban sources. Like industrial contamination, the term "urban runoff" includes a wide range of contaminants and contaminant sources. For convenience, they can be divided into several major categories: sweet finduding roads, bridges, parking lots, etc.) runoff, construction, on-site sewage disposal systems, industry or activity specific problems, and lawn and garden cheml,'~ls. Street runoff is a problem in virtually every developed area of the watershed, creating quantity and quality issues. Streets, parking lots, and driveways are essentially impervious surfaces. Therefore, infiltration to groundwater in an area decreases as paved surfaces are developed and extended. Runoff to receiving waters is much more rapid than under natural conditions. These two factors combine to mean that, relative to pre-development conditions, streets cause both greater runoff and a greater peak flow of runoff. The impacts of greater and more rapid runoff include scouring of streambeds due to higher flows and alteration of salinity regimes in estuaries. Each of these effects can be significant to certain species. Street runoff also affects water quality. Rainwater flowing from streets carries accumulated debris and detritus from the street surface. These contaminants include aesthetic contaminants, such as floatable materials and other trash, as well as chemical contaminants such as oils and metals. Pathogens and sediments are also entrained. In areas using de-icing materials in winter, significant contamination can occur from street runoff. Several approaches exist for dealing with the problems presented by street runoff. R is possible to design new streets to minimize runoff problems. This can be done through the use of appropriate initial siting considerations, buffer strips, settling and infiltration basins, proper maintenance and management, and a number of other techniques. 146 The Natural Coast Although it is more difficult and often more expensive, it is also possible to significantly reduce problems from existing streets. In some cases, retrofitted buffer strips or other "hard" technology can be incorporated. In other instances, shifts in management practices sUch as increases in frequency or efficacy of street sweeping, or decreases in amounts of deicing materials applied, can result in marked improvements. A number of specific approaches for dealing with street runoff are listed below as recommendations. The term "development and construction activities" focuses on the period in which construction is proceeding. Because construction typically involves disturbing the vegetative cover of the land, it is a period of high erosion potential. Also, if care is not taken, revegetation can be made more difficult once construction is completed (as, for example, by the removal or burial of topsoil and the exposing of subsoils). Finally, a variety of hazardous and toxic materials are routinely used in construction, and if mishandled, can enter waterways. Pollution problems from construction can be minimized if basic principles are kept in mind. Clearly, initial siting is a critical factor in eventual pollutant loadings. Certain areas, such as steep slopes, are much more problematic for development than are other areas. By minimizing the area disturbed, reducing new impervious surfaces to a minimum, and stabilizing disturbed areas as rapidly as possible, erosion losses can be minimized. Several recommendations regarding management of construction activity are detailed below. On-~ite Dislms~l Systems, or OSDS, have been noted as contributing to water quality problems, including nutrient loadings, in several areas of the Long Island Sound watershed, ranging from Guion Creek and Tibbetts Brook in Weatchester County to Oyster Bay Harbor in Nassau County and nine segments in Suffolk County, including Port Jefferson Harbor (DEC, 1991). In some cases, these problems arise due to inadequate construction or inappropriate siting. Problems can also arise from inadequate maintenance or from improper use. For example, many individuals do not realize that traditional septic systems require occasional pumping to remove solids that settle out of the wastestream. Without periodic pumping, the solids build up to a point that storage capacity in the tank is reduced, thus reducing residence time. After serious build-up, solids begin to flow into the leach field or cesspool, clogging it. The result is a failed septic system, which usually must be replaced. Another problem associated with OSDS is their improper use as a disposal method for chemicals, waste oils, and so on. Because these systems rely on biological action for waste treatment, chemicals that kill the microorganisms present can drastically reduce the efficiency of the system. Even if they do not harm the microorganisms, such wastes may not be broken down, instead passing through the system and leaching into groundwater supplies. To minimize problems associated with OSDS, management concerns should focus on three areas: initial siting and design, routine maintenance, and avoidance of improper use. Suggested guidelines for each of these areas may be found below. Industry or activity specific pollution problems are highly variable. For example, the transport and storage of petroleum products presents a number of challenges in environmental management. Proper design and operation of industrial and storage facilities can minimize but not eliminate pollution from these sources. Thus, in addition to routine maintenance, provisions must be made for de. Ming with the unexpected spill, equipment failure, or other significant pollution event. In addition, some pollution from these sources will occur with routine operation, as seeps and small leaks cannot be detected and stopped instantaneously. The Natura/Coast 147 Excessive use of fertilizers and chemie~l~ for lawns, golf courses, gardens, and other greenspaces can also result in urban nonpoint pollution. Bathing in Lake Isle, in Westchester County, is impaired by aquatic vegetation which thrives because of excessive use of fertilizers on lawns and golf courses. Similarly, fishing is impaired at Mead Pond (DEC, 1991). The direct pollutants that result from use of fertilizers and chemicals include nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and various pesticides. Management of this problem, like that for many other nonpoint problems, is complicated by the fact that many sources are often involved, with each single source representing a small portion of the total problem. In this instance, additional public education holds great promise for management, because a reduction in fertilizer use can be accomplished without adversely affecting lawns and will be less expensive to the landowner. While reducing chemical use is less simple, it appears that public education may also be effective. Boats and Marinas Boats and marinas contribute a wide range of pollutants that affect Long Island Sound. For example, disposal of human wastes from boats contributes to problems in several enclosed areas in the Sound watershed (Little Neck Bay, Newtown Creek, Huntington Bay, Mount Sinai Harbor, Mattituck Inlet, Port Jefferson, and West Harbors). The discharge of sewage from boats introduces microbial pathogens into the environment. These organic-rich waste can increase biological oxygen demand, resulting in decreased oxygen concentrations in poorly flushed waterbodies. Boats can be a significant source of coliform bacteria, particularly in areas with high boat densities and low hydrologic flushing. Chemical additives, such as chlorine, formaldehyde, and zinc compounds are often used in boat sewage disposal units. Zinc has been reported to be lethal to fish and many aquatic plants, and is known to bioaccumulate (Clean Vessel Act, section 5605, Technical Guidelines and Information Packet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). Boat repair and maintenance and fueling operations also release pollutants. Marina-based pollution can be reduced through incorporation of nonpoint pollution control considerations when siting and designing new marinas. However, additional strategies may be needed to deal with pollution from existing marinas. Because marinas are usually placed in protective embayments, flushing tends to be limited. Therefore, any pollutants which do reach the water are less likely to be dispersed than would be the case in open waters. Appropriate siting and design of new marinas will allow adequate flushing from tides or currents, thus limiting the buildup of pollutants and the development of anoxic or hypoxic conditions. In some areas with erodible shorelines, vegetative buffers or, in certain circumstances, structural methods, such as revetments or riprap, may be used. New marina development should also include measures to control stormwater runoff, petroleum spills or leakage, and boat wastes in site planning and design. Numerous opportunities exist for pollution management at existing marina facilities. Assuring adequate oil spill response capacity and the provision of disposal sites for fish wastes are examples of management approaches which focus on specific types of pollutants encountered at marinas. More generally, nonpoint management for existing marinas should address disposal of chemicals used in boat maintenance and repair, as well as such potentially toxic wastes as those resulting from hull scraping. Boating and marina activities, while contributing to water pollution problems, are only rarely the sole source of pollution to an area. Thus, boat and marina management should be 148 The Natural Coast considered as a part of a larger program mined at addressing the various sources of pollution affecting water quality in the region. Agriculture and Commercial Hon~lture Agriculture is an important part of many communities on Long'Island, especially in the eastern portion of Suffolk County. Over the past few decades, the predominant types of agriculture have shifted, usually to more high-value crops which require the relatively mild climate and sandy soils afforded by eastern Long Island. For example, the number of acres devoted to potatoes on Long Island decreased from 19,300 to 6,600 between 1982 and 1991. (NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, 1992). This shift is continuing. Currently, the most significant types of agriculture in the New York portion of the Long Island Sound watershed are grapes (mostly for wine production) and commercial horticulture, producing sod and ornamentals for landscaping. These activities present some specific challenges with respect to water resource management. In general, little fertilizer is used in the production of grapes for wine, but fungicides are a concern. There is currently no indication of any adverse water quality impacts from fungicide use; however, given past experience with agricultural contamination, particularly the use of aldicarb, or Temik, to control the Colorado potato beetle, routine pesticide precautions should be followed. Since grape production is likely to grow significantly in the near future, management of fungicides is important. Unlike some parts of New York, erosion is not a problem in Long Island viticulture because of the mild climate and the relative availability of easily worked soils with little slope. Commercial horticulture also presents no obvious erosion problems at this time. Potential problems lie in the often heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides to assure products that will command a high price. Excessive fertilizer use can lead to nutrient loading of coastal waters, with at least local problems of cultural eutrophication. The information needed to calibrate fertilizer and pesticide applications to optimal levels is readily available. To a large extent, then, this problem can be addressed through education. On a long term basis, education aimed at the general public can also be important. By encouraging the use of native species or at least those which need minimal amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, water contamination can be reduced both from horticultural operations and from landscaped areas. HydromodO'tcations Alterations in hydrologic regimes through such activities as dredging and dam construction is termed hydromodification. In Long Island Sound, only dredging is significant. Impacts from dredging are typically felt in three ways: the intended clearing of a channel, reentrainment of contaminants in the water column during dredging, and the effects of dredge spoil disposal. In some instances, it may be possible to use clean spoils for beach nourishment in areas where such is needed. The importance of reentraimnent in the water column during dredging varies with such factors as the type of contaminant, local currents and water circulation patterns, and extent and frequency of dredging. The Natural Coast 149 SUMMARY The preceding section discussed the varied categories of water resource problems relevant to the Long Island Sound watershed. The problems themselves form the issues which must be addressed if water quality in the Sound and its embayments is to be protected and improved. To summarize, the point source most affecting water quality in the region is combined sewer overflows (CSOs) from municipal wastewater treatment plants. This source is being partially addressed. New York City's CSO Abatement Program is a significant step toward dealing with the issue throughout the Sound. Similarly, improvements to wastewater treatment plants to deal with dry period overflows and inadequate treatment are progressing. While more remains to be done to correct problems with CSOs and wastewater treatment plants, the necessary actions are clear and are fully addressed in the CCMP. Control of point sources alone will not solve all the water quality problems in the region. Nonpoint sources also seriously affect water quality. Urban runoff, which is not well managed, is one of the most significant sources of pollution to the Sound. Significant improvements in water quality, particularly for communities centered on embaymeots, will be contingent on conscious efforts by local communities to manage new development and incorporate urban runoff management into their activities. For the Sound watershed, water quality impacts from agriculture and commercial horticulture uses are not presently of critical importance; however, because of Long Island's porous soils, groundwater contamination from activity occurring outside the watershed must be considered a possibility. Special activities, such aa those found at marinas and fuel stations, can present some specific problems with respect to water resource management. These problems can be addressed if care is taken in siting new facilities and in maintaining both new and existing ones. Management Approaches for Water Quality Improvement All of the preceding issues on the impact of nonpoint pollution on water quality are addressed in the CCMP. They will be further addressed in the development and implementation of the next step in coastal water pollution control, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program. This program, required under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, requires the states to develop enforceable programs addressing nonpoint pollution control in coastal waters by July of 1.995. Additional deadlines for implementation of the program, monitoring of resultant changes in water quality, and implementation of additional management measures, extend to 2004. Federal approval (EPA and NOAA) of the state's program is required. THE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM There are several major components of the coastal nonpoint program that signal significant changes in government response to pollution control. First is the geographic area affected. Because water quality is affected by land use, the coastal nonpoint program must address land uses that can affect coastal waters. For Long Island Sound, this means that the program affects the entire Sound watershed rather than merely the riparian areas or the existing coastal boundary. Moreover, because the program affects all coastal watersheds, all of Long Island will be affected. 150 The Natural Coast Because of the interrelationship of land use and water quality, Congress required that the coastal nonpoint program be deveinped jointly by the coastal management and water quality agencies. At the federal level, this means that program responsibility is held jointly by NOAA and EPA, while at the state level, the Department of State and the Depastment of Environmental Conservation are partners. A third critical component of the coastal nonpoint program is that the policies developed must be enforceable. Most existing programs aimed at nonpoint pollution control are voluntary. As noted earlier, as point sources of pollution are controlled, noapoint pollution makes up a greater proportion of the total remaining pollution load to a system. The Priority Water Problem listing contained in appendix 3 demonstrates that nonpoint pollution of Long Island Sound waters is a problem that must be addressed, if water quality is to be substantially improved. Probably the most important aspect of the coastal nonpoint program involves the assumptions made in determining pollution management policy. The program explicitly redefines the traditional strong linkage between cause and observed water quality effect. This redefinition is critical, because it is cumulative rather than individual impact that is important for the many individually small sources. As the impact of a single source, such as a single malfunctioning septic system or a single parking lot, becomes smaller, it is correspondingly difficult to detect and measure that impact on the environment. As Weinberg (1972) noted, 'No matter what the environmental insult, to measure an effect at extremely low levels usually requires impossibly large protocols.# This principle is obvious in our everyday life. The addition of a single car to an already crowded highway has an impact on total traffic, -but that effect is likely to be too small to notice. By contrast, the addition of many vehicles, as happens when a parallel road is closed for repairs, is immediately noticeable. This principle means that, for individually very small sources, determining the effect on Long Island Sound, or even a stream tributary to the Sound, is effectively impossible. The coastal nonpoint program addresses this problem by making three assumptions: (1) existing information is sufficient to demonstrate that a certain activity has pollution potential, (2) there is evidence that certain alternatives are available to reduce the potential for pollution, and (3) the results of detailed studies can be generalized to most situations. It is clear that the fa-st assumption is appropriate. Despite the difficulty in linking, say, fertilization of one lawn with nutrient enrichment of a bay, we can confidently show that the enrichment is the result of many lawns being overfertilized. The second and third assumptions are closely related. For each of the pollution sources thus far discussed, numerous detailed studies have been conducted which show the effect of alternative management practices. For example, many detailed studies have addressed the topic of street runoff. A particular study might evaluate the effectiveness of a particular approach, such as regular street sweeping on pollution loadings. These studies aa a whole demonstrate that alternative approaches can be used to reduce pollution loadings to waterbodies and that, while there are limitations, the results of the individual studies can be generalized. The coastal nonpoint program, therefore, exemplifies the next step in pollution management in which pollution-generating activities are managed, even though it is difficult or impossible to demonstrate the importance of each single pollution instance. The program will manage such activities in the coastal watersheds, regardless of where they occur. The Natural Coast 151 The coastal nonpoint program recognizes that it may also be necessary to apply additional management measures to reduce pollution from sources which either (I) occur relatively rarely and are therefore not found throughout the coastal watersheds or (2) cumulatively increase pollution loadings in an area to the extent that watershed-wide measures will be inadequate to achieve water quality goals. An example of the latter case would be a small embayment which is severely impacted by septic systems, roads, and lawn fertilizers. If the flushing capacity of the system is too small, application of the various management techniques used watershed-wide may still not reduce pollution loadings to an acceptable level. In such a case, it may be necessary to apply more stringent standards, referred to as 'additional management measures' in the coastal nonpoint program. The coastal nonpoint program also provides for the designation of "Critical Coastal Areas," areas in which new or substantially expanding land uses may cause or contribute to the impairment of water quality. Within these areas, additional management to preserve existing high quality water may be appropriate. Thus, while the basic coastal nonpoint program program will affect the entire Sound watershed, site specific conditions may mean that certain areas will be subject to additional management. The significant effort which has been devoted to development of the coastal nonpoint program has resulted in the synthesis of a great deal of information regarding nonpoint pollution. For this reason, the remainder of this discussion will follow the framework the coastal nonpoint program has set out. DEVELOPING A NONPOINT POLLUTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY One fundamental difficulty with developing a nonpoint pollution management strategy is that of determining the area of interest. Those areas which directly load into coastal waters must be addressed. Depending on the type of pollutant, sources which are physically removed from the coast may also be important. The nonpoint pollution management program proposed for Long Island Sound should be applied to the entire watershed on Long Island and Westchester County. There are two reasons to support the application of a management program to the watershed. First, the relatively compact watersheds characteristic of the area mean a short travel time from headwaters to the Sound. A short travel time limits the efficacy of natural processes in reducing pollutant loads (of course, some pollutants, such as salt or certain metals, are "conservative'; they are not broken down readily by physical, chemical, or biological factors in the environment). The problem of groundwater contamination and subsequent transport to coastal waters is of major importance for Long Island. Although groundwater flow allies roughly with surface water drainage patterns, human impact on the Long Island aquifers has, in places, significantly altered natural flow. Because of the highly porous soils characteristic of Long Island, groundwater contamination must be considered along with surface water contamination. 152 The Natural Coast Specific Approaches for Nonpoint Pollution Sources As noted earlier, the federally mandated coastal nonpoint pollution control program affects both Connecticut and New York. The discussion of specific approaches to deal with specific nonpoint pollution sources follows the outline of that program. Each owner or occupier of agricultural land in New York State is required to have applied to the appropriate Soil and Water Conservation District for a soil and water conservation plan. Precise figures on the number of farms complying with this requirement are not available. In general, for the types of agricultural operations found in the Sound watershed it is estimated that the compliance rate is probably below 80 percent. Better compliance with the Soil and Water Conservation District Law is needed. Currently, soil and water conservation plans focus almost exclusively on erosion and sediment control. The plans could be made more useful by expanding their scope to consider nutrient loading and the capacity of soils to retain applied nutrients. Additionally, the plans should incorporate pest management plans which consider the possible impacts of various pesticide management strategies, including economic and ecological factors. The impact of irrigation on water quality and quantity should also be included in plans for farms which irrigate. Even with these expansions, it is clear that the soil and water conservation plans are inadequate unless: (1) participation is increased, and (2) the plans are in fact implemented. Currently, while the plans are formally required, there is no mechanism to assure participation. Neither is there any requirement at the state level that the plans be implemented. (It should be noted that some federal agricultural programs require participants to have an approved plan). Expanding the scope of the plan as noted above and increasing the number of benefit programs which require participation would result in a higher participation rate and better pollution control. Urban and General Development Much can be done to reduce the impacts of urban nonpoint pollution, both through the use of improved design criteria for new construction and activities and remediation for existing situations. New construction should be designed to maintain post-development runoff of total snspended solids (TSS) at pre-development levels. Additionally, peakrunoffrate and average volume of runoff should be as near as practical to pre-development levels. One important activity aimed at addressing urban runoff problems is an intensive study currently being designed, which will implement several best management practices (BMPs) for urban pollution control and monitor their effectiveness in a sub-watershed in Westchester County. This study is expected to be completed in 1995. On-site disposal systems. On-site sewage disposal systems (OSDS), such as septic systems and cesspools, must be managed more intensively than in the past. As noted in the analysis section, management of OSDS can be divided into programs dealing with new systems and those focusing on existing systems. For new systems, better pollution control can be achieved through several approaches. For any given situation, it should first be determined that an OSDS is the appropriate technology. The Natural Coast 153 For areas that have excessively porous soils, like much of Long Island, a more appropriate decision may be to hook into existing wastewater collection systems, if possible. This option depends on the community addressing both capacity limitations and the need for higher levels of treatment at wastewater treatment plants. Still, it is appropriate to question whether OSDS should be permitted if there is ready access to an adequate sewerage system. If access to a sewerage system is not available, other options to the traditional septic tank and cesspool or leach field should be available. For example, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services only allows the use of alternative systems, such as composting toilets, in limited circumstances, such as for auxiliary systems. Health deparunents should reevaluate alternative systems in light of recent research by such groups as the EPA-funded Small Flows Clearinghouse and other impartial sources. Such reevaiuation may lead to more flexibility in the use of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Finally, for new construction using a traditional on-site system, care must be used in design and siting. Given the highly porous nature of most soils on Long Island, it may be appropriate for county health departments to re-examine standards, such as depth to groundwater. Several towns on Cape Cod, for example, have increased the required depth to groundwater to five feet from the statewide minimum of four feet. Care must also be taken to ensure that percolation tests are performed properly. Absent adequate specific information regarding seasonal fluctuation in water table, percolation tests should be done only during high water table periods. Dry period tests should either be inadmissible or subject to later verification. In areas with nitrogen loading problems, health depath~ents should require OSDS to have additional denitrification capacity. Among the options known to achieve at least partial denitrification are constructed wetlands, sand and anaerobic filters. In extreme cases, if the decision is made to allow construction, it may be necessary to rely on such systems as holding tanks, which are periodically pumped. Because of the difficulty in assuring proper maintenance of such systems, it may be more appropriate to avoid construction on sites which are not amenable to more traditional systems. For existing OSDS, there is a shift in emphasis to maintenance. Because the traditional system is designed to be low maintenance, it is frequently assumed by homeowners to be zero maintenance. There are several solutions to this problem. Better education on the part of the landowner is needed. Because regular maintenance will over the long run reduce costs by prolonging system life, many homeowners would perform such maintenance if they knew it was needed. However, OSDS management is not likely to be a high priority for many homeowners. In addition to the usual rationales for deferred maintenance, OSDS are typically designed to be inconspicuous, and rarely draw the homeowner's attention if they are functioning well. One way to deal with this problem is through the development of what is essentially a utility. Communities can set up an authority with the responsibility of overseeing or performing maintenance of OSDS. This should include both routine maintenance, such as tank pumpage, and repair or replacement of failing systems or components. In return, ail members of the community are billed regularly to support the utility. This approach has been used successfully in many areas. Among the variations on this approach is one in which the municipality formally purchases the OSDS, assumes complete control over operation and maintenance and rents the system. The variations are alike in having a similar goal: some entity, public or private, has a direct and immediate interest in maintaining OSDS. The Natural Coast Con~me~lon a~ivities. During construction, vegetative cover is typically removed, increasing erosion potential. Several management practices can reduce erosion, including: minimizing the construction footprint; limiting construction on steep slopes; and staging construction in phases, so that the entire area is not subject to maximum erosion. In addition, pedestrian and vehicular traffic should be routed to avoid disturbing newly planted vegetation, allowing it time to become established. Natural vegetation, which is to remain, should be protected through the use of fences or other means. Upon completion of construction, areas should be stabilized with seeding or mulch mats. It may be appropriate to require that topsoil be stockpiled during construction for later use in site stabilization. Final grading of sites should take into account the erosive potential of steep slopes and channeled waters. Finally, erosion control structures, such as sedimentation basins and filter strips, may be appropriate. While not every one of these practices is applicable to every construction site, local governments should u~e their authority to require the development and implementation of a construction plan which considers erosion control. As a guideline, total suspended solids from a site should, after stabilization, be reduced by 80 percent, and post development runoff should not exceed in peak flow or average flow pre-development conditions. In addition to erosion control, construction activities should also be subject to control of inappropriate use and storage of such toxics as pesticides and petroleum products. This should also be part of a required construction management plan. g. odsting development. Restriction of future development will not by itself solve the water quality problems presently facing the Sound system. It is imperative to reduce pollution from existing sources. While this is more difficult than dealing with new sources, it is still possible to achieve notable results. Pollution reduction opportunities include, but are not limited to, improvements to existing urban runoff controls, shifts in management (e.g., reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use), and sites for installation of runoff controls. Such opportunities should be essessed, prioritized, and implemented in direct government actions. In addition, pollution mitigation should be required as a condition of state and local approvals for renovations or upgrades to uses. For example, a business seeking expansion might be granted approval only if the expansion project includes addressing runoff problems from existing as well as new parking lots. a~,oad$ and bridges. New construction of transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges, can be done in ways which minimize pollution potential. Care in siting, for example, can minimize the opportunity for pollutants from road runoff to impact critical areas. Similarly, bridge siting and design can minimize impacts as varied as changes in circulation patterns and runoff directly into waterbodies. In general, natural protective features should be avoided and land disturbance should be minimized. As with other projects, road and bridge construction should be undertaken with appropriate safeguards to minimize land clearing, sediment losses, and erosion. One way of achieving this objective is to require the development and implementation of an erosion control plan, whether the activity is undertaken by public or private authorities. Like other existing development, it is possible in many cases to reduce pollution loadings from existing roads and bridges. Stabilization of slopes, if possible with vegetation, can reduce peak runoffand erosion. Use of well adapted species on buffer and median strips can minimize erosion as well as reduce maintenance needs and costs. Regular street cleanup can The Natural Coa~ 155 reduce the flow of debris during storms. Such pollution detention devices as oil/grit separators should be properly installed and maintained. Marinas. Like other urban development, management of pollution from marinas can be divided into that affecting the siting, design, and construction of new facilities and retrofits of existing facilities. While there are only limited opportunities for the siting of new marinas in much of the Long Island Sound shore, some basic principles can quickly be enumerated. New marinas should be sited where flushing is adequate, whether through tidal or current action. Care must be taken in siting new facilities or expanding existing ones to ensure that impacts on important habitats (e.g., shellfishing beds, rare or endangered species habitat) are minimal or avoided. If shoreline erosion is a potential problem, it should be addressed in the siting and design phase. Stormwater management, particularly from areas likely to produce toxic substances, such as hull maintenance areas, is critical. Similarly, design should allow for protection against fuel spills and easy containment and cleanup of spills which do occur. Finally, new marinas or significant expansions should be required to include boat pumpout facilities, available to the public at a minimal cost. For existing marinas, many of the same considerations apply. It is, however, more difficult to achieve the same level of pollution control in retrofitting as is achievable for new designs. Despite this, several actions can be taken which will minimize pollution from marinas. Entry of debris into water should be minimized through solid waste management. Such approaches as requiring regular cleanup of hull maintenance areas and restricting maintenance to specified areas will aid in obtaining this objective. Adequate disposal facilities should be available, including containers for recycling where applicable. Use of pollution reducing technology, such as ~dustiess" sanders (with vacuum attachments), should be encouraged if not required. Existing regulations regarding control of petroleum products should be strictly enforced. Marinas must have adequate oil spill control equipment, personnel should be properly trained in its use, and where applicable, signs should be displayed instructing in use of such equipment. Boat cleaning in the water should be performed in ways and using materials which are not likely to increase pollution, either through direct toxicity (e.g., harmful solvents) or through such secondary impacts as stripping paint from hulls. Adequate pumpout facilities should be available. In some areas, this may mean that several marina operators could together develop such a facility. In other areas, it may be appropriate for marinas each to have facilities. For areas where significant amounts of fish waste is generated, specific actions to reduce water pollution include education and restricting fish cleaning to specified areas with adequate disposal facilities. HydromodO~tions As noted above, the most important hydromodification activities with respect to water pollution control for Long Island Sound are those concerned with dredging. Clearly, all proposed dredging activities must meet several standards before they can be approved. For the Long Island Sound watershed, dredging activities should minimize undesirable impacts, such as reentrainment of contaminants in the water column. For existing dredged 156 /~e Natura/Coast channels, management plans should focus on opportunities to improve the physical and chemical characteristics of the water in those channels. For example, in some instances channel depth can be reduced, because smaller boats are using the waterway. Streambanks that are likely to be subject to erosion, causing significant nonpoint pollution, should be stabilized. When such stabilization is needed, there should be a strong preference for vegetative stabilization rather than the 'hard~ technologies Watershed Protection Programs In addition to specific requirements for specific sources, watershed and sub-watershed protection plans are needed. For example, while it might be possible to develop a site adjacent to a critical habitat and still meet ail specific guidelines listed above, the undisturbed site may be vah~ahle as, say, a streamside buffer. Therefore, governments should work together on a sub-watershed basis to develop watershed protection programs which articulate water quality goals for the sub-watersbed and the approaches which will be used to achieve them. Among the considerations the sub-watershed plans should include are: avoiding, where practicable, disturbance of particularly erosion prone areas, such as bluffs; the preservation of areas providing water quality benefits, such as wetlands and buffer zones; and site development which minimizes impacts on water quality and ecosystem integrity. On Long Island Sound, in particular, focus on the sub-watersheds surrounding the bays and harbors of the Sound is needed. Education Public education can help to reduce the severity of pollution problems by changing behavior and increase support for additional pollution control measures. Existing and planned education programs in the Sound watershed address many of the most important aspects of pollution control, and should be continued. For some issues, such as the availability and efficacy of nitrogen reducing OSDS technology, increased effort is needed. APPLYING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL APPROACHES The preceding analysis focused on particular types of land uses and activities which can result in adverse impacts on water quality for the Sound as a whole or for smaller components, such as embaymants. The particular interplay of these numerous factors will vary from site to site within the Sound watershed. Following are two examples of particular bays with existing water quality problems, together with site-specific recommendations for improving water quality. Oyster Bay Harbor As noted in the previous section, shellfishing is precluded in the lower portion (762 acres, or 14% of the 5,040 acre area) of Oyster Bay Harbor and in Mill Neck Creek, primarily because of the presence of high coliform levels. A number of sources account for this, including a wastewater treatment plant, on-site sewage disposal systems, vessel wastes, waterfowl, and urban runoff. A volatile organics remediation program is needed to aid in the cleanup of the Jakobsen's Shipyard site. Oil spills have occurred at the Commander Oil facility. While the priority given to this harbor is high, the 1991 DEC Priority Water Problem List notes that "Technical/Economic/Social Resources Do Not Allow Resolution." Such an assessment is not meant to imply that progress cannot be made: rather, it can serve as a notice that solution of the water quality problems in the area will require concerted The Natural Coast 157 action to deal with a number of pollutants and sources. Even if such factors preclude a complete cleanup of the harbor, there are many individual actions which could be taken which would, in sum, greatly improve harbor water quality. The recent improvements to the wastewater treatment plant demonstrate that progress can be made, even if direct water quality impacts are not immediately discernable. Given the variety of sources of contaminants, it is clear that an effective management program will require implementation of a number of the recommendations discussed earlier. In the past, the Oyster Bay wastewater treatment plant was one of the major contributors to nitrogen and coliform loadings in Oyster Bay Harbor. A few years ago, the plant was hydraulically overloaded, with an average flow of 1.;5 MGD (million gallons per day) and a design capacity of 1.2 MGD. Much of the problem could be traced to infiltration and inflow problems in the collection system. In addition, the Oyster Bay wastewater treatment plant, like others in the Sound watershed, is affected by the freeze on nitrogen loadings designed to reduce hypoxia in the Sound. These factors led to a moratorium on new sewer hookups. That moratorium was lifted as of June 1993, after plant capacity was expanded to 1.8 MGD by reengineering existing facilities and adding additional capacity, including rotating biological chambers (RBCs) and tanks allowing for an extended chlorine contact time. It should be noted that the moratorium was enacted as a response to the overall capacity issue, not strictly because of nitrogen outputs. At this time, the plant does not have tertiary nitrogen removal capacity. This situation represents a case in which there was some opposition to an upgrade because of fears that such an action would allow additional development. Clearly, if restrictions on future development are desired, there are other approaches which would accomplish that goal, while still allowing for reduction of pollution loadings into the harbor. From the perspective of environmental protection, the ideal solution is the combination of development and enforcement of regulations aimed at managing future development to minimize environmental impact with the reduction of pollution from existing sources. Problems with on-site sewage disposal systems, largely cesspools and septic tanks, also need to be addressed. Like many examples of nonpoint pollution from urban sources, management might best be divided into two major components, new and existing systems. Existing system management can be achieved through routine maintenance and prompt repair or replacement of falling systems. Because many homes located in areas served by sewer systems are not hooked up but instead continue using OSDS, such maintenance programs should not be limited to areas not in sewer districts. In practical terms, this implies several management strategies. One viable approach is for municipalities to create a utility dealing with OSDS siting, installation, and maintenance. Such an approach seems likely to be useful in Oyster Bay, given the number of OSDS in the watershed. This approach can readily be adapted to incorporate both new and existing systems. Polluted runoff from roads is a major issue in the Oyster Bay Harbor watershed. At Mill Pond, for example, although available documentation is poor, it appears that fish survival is threatened primarily by urban runoff, in particular, runoff from roads. The preceding general discussion provided some guidance or approaches to reduce pollution from new roadways, both during and after construction. 158 The Natural Coast More important for the Oyster Bay watershed is pollution minimization from existing development. In many instances, runoff management structures can be added as retrofits when roads are resurfaced or otherwise improved. For areas with remnant pervious areas, such areas can be made subject to restoration requirements. This approach has the additional advantages of increasing protection for open space, and may in many instances improve habitat protection, groundwater recharge, and provide other benefits. Median strips, artificial wetlands, retention basins, and other road associated space can be engineered to improve pollution control potential. Because most roads in the area are owned and maintained by a unit of government, application of these practices can be achieved without the requirement of regulatory authority. However, such a regulatory approach may be needed to deal with those roads which are privately owned. Another aspect of urban nonpoint pollution of importance in the Oyster Bay system is the use of fertilizers and pesticides on lawns, gardens, and grounds, and the use of deicing salts on parking lots and roadways adjacent to the harbor. Use of fertilizers at a level far exceeding that needed for optimal growth is common. For municipal property, such as parks, this problem can be addressed through greater care in management. Additionally, use of vegetation adapted to local conditions can drastically reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers. A clear first step in this area is the reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use at the state facilities, and reductions in the amount of deicing salts for roadways. In particular, rough areas of golf courses are excellent candidates for conversion to native vegetation, with consequent reductions in management intensity needed. Resultant benefits include both environmental protection and reduced maintenance costs (see recommendations in natural coast section). Oil spills are to some extent inevitable at a working oil transshipment terminal. However, it is possible to reduce their environmental impact in two ways, by reducing the frequency and size of spills and by proper management of spills which do occur. This can be done through both structural and operational management. In some cases, economic and environmental considerations will imply a phasing out of certain facilities (see discussion in working coast section). For all operations, adequate spill containment and cleanup equipment should be available, and personnel should be trained in spill cleanup techniques. Because of theft location, marinas represent another category of pollution sources which should be addressed in any complete Oyster Bay management plan. While it is unlikely that there will be significant development of new or significantly expanded marinas, site design and proper facility maintenance can minimize adverse environmental impacts from these activities. More important for the Oyster Bay situation, management of the seven existing marinas (1 private and 2 public), yacht clubs (2), and boat yards (2) can reduce pollution of the bay. It must be recognized that such pollution reduction will not automatically result in opening to shellfish harvesting areas which are currently closed. Public health standards require closure of shellfishing beds around marinas and mooring areas because of the potential for pollution from vessel wastes. However, as discussed in the previous section, improvements in water quality can be measured in several different ways. Reduction of oil and grease pollution, for example, will have direct aesthetic benefits as well as less tangible but important effects on a wide range of marine organisms. The Natura/Co~t 159 Table 14 Management Techniques for Oyster Bay and Stony Brook Harbor SOURCE ] OYSTER BAY ] STONY BROOK On-site ~ a) municipality assumes re.~on~ibllity for maintenance, b) refine same systems regulations to minimize environmental impact Overloaded WWTP at) revise land use regulation to restrict fvture development, b) not applicable expand and upgrade e~stnig system Road runoff at) variety of option, including detention basins, b) preservation of variet~ of options, remnant pervious areas, etc. esp~ially detention basins Home fertilizer use a) education pro~ntm, b) tax ou fm~.ilize~, po~tiou of ~ to go same to education and remediation of other pollution la. blume, e) ~ncourage u~ of native veb~etatinn Oil termimil t) require adequate spill eounrol pre.-am, including equipment and not al~liceble training, b) routinize procedures to minimiz~ spills, 3) pba~ out operations aa di~us~d in W~king Coast ~tion Marinas a) reduce runoff from hull maintenance area~, b) reduce same ¢outamination through materials mana~ment pro,rum, c) treat runoff using sand filtma, wet ponds, etC. d) limit number and iocatious of new marinas Boat waetea It) provide l~lmgout facilities at ali gubllu marin~, b) require same ~ivato facilities to gt'ovide Pemlx~ts individually ~ jointly, e) dual,nato and enforce th~ embayment sm no di~ ~ Waterfowl It) develop and implement FtoBram to reduce population of exotics, same minimize impe~ts of mi~rutoty waterfowl The management of storm water runoff, particularly from hull maintenance areas, is a major factor in reducing the environmental impacts of marinas on waterbodies. Runoff from the hull maintenance areas and other locations which are likely to have significant levels of pollutants can be reduced in several ways. Contamination of runoff is minimized if maintenance activities take place under roofs, which channel stormwater away from the pollution. If the activities occur on an impervious surface, such as cement, routine maintenance, such as sweeping or vacuuming, will reduce pollutant loadings. Vacuum attachments to sanders used in hull preparation can further reduce pollutant loadings. Each of these measures can and should be required. Further protection can be afforded by the use of pollution interception and treatment systems, such as sand filters, wet ponds, and infiltration basins or trenches. While these do not remove all pollutants generated on-site, theY do reduce the levels of some major pollutants. As is the case with oil terminals, it is to be expected that spills will occur at marina fueling stations. Proper siting of fueling stations can minimize the effect of spills. Further protection can be obtained by the development of a spill contingency plan, which should be practiced so that all personnel know how to implement it. Obviously, adequate spill containment equipment should be accessible. Sewage wastes from boats can also be a significant problem. Given the limited circulation of waters within the Oyster Bay Harbor complex and the presence of significant shellflsheries, it is logical to prohibit dumping within the complex. Before such a prohibition could be workable, there must be adequate provision of pumpout facilities. This could be accomplished by municipal action at the two public marinas, but may require regulation for 160 The Natural Coast the five private facilities in the bay. Clearly, such facilities must also be maintained properly. A variety of harmful materials are routinely used at marinas, including solvents, paints, antifreeze, and cleaning chemicals. Entry of these materials to surface waters can be minimized through such actions as provision of appropriate disposal facilities, the encouragement of recycling where possible, and the construction and maintenance of curbs or berms to reduce runoff from the areas in which the materials are used. The use of harmful chemicals, such as lye, can be discouraged through education programs when environmentally more benign alternatives are available. While the preceding discussion should not be viewed as exhaustive, the basic problems of municipal wnstewater treatment, urban runoff, inadequate on-site sewage disposal systems, marina and vessel pollution management must be addressed if water quality in Oyster Bay is to be significantly improved. The preceding recommendations highlight some of the approaches which might be used to deal with these problems. Stony Brook Harbor The DEC 1991 Priority Water Problem List notes that shellfishing is impaired in Stony Brook Harbor, largely due to coliform loadings. The primary source of pollution in the harbor is urban runoff, particularly from streets and parking Iota. For Stony Brook Harbor, stormwater runoff, exotic waterfowl, and vessel wastes have been identified as the most important problems, with on-site sewage disposal systems a possible problem. Excessive use of lawn and garden fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, especially at the Nissequogue Golf Club, also contributes to pollution in the harbor. The low density residential development within most of the harbor's narrow drainage basin presents the problems of inadequately designed, located, and maintained sewage disposal systems. Several approaches for resolving this problem are discussed in the section focusing on Oyster Bay Harbor, including a proposal that the municipality assume responsibility for maintenance in return for an annual fee. Such a management strategy may also be appropriate for this waterbody. The problem of street runoff is particularly important in Stony Brook Harbor, in large part because of the relatively steep slopes leading to the harbor. It is unlikely that future development will necessitate extensive construction of new roads, so the most important factor to consider in pollution control is reduction of runoff from existing impervious surfaces and reducing and preventing vessel waste discharges and malfunctioning septic systems. The installation of infiltration systems, detention basins, and artificial wetlands in filled areas would greatly reduce pollution of the harbor. Local regulations require new construction to limit runoff on-site to pre-development levels and minimize increases in total suspended solids (TSS) leaving the site. This can be done through such approaches as minimizing the extent of impervious surfaces and the use of on site retention facilities. Ideal sites to demonstrate management practices to reduce and control runoff from streets and parking lots include Cordwood Path Beach at the south end of the harbor and the filled lands adjacent to the Long Beach Town Park parking areas on the north side of the harbor. Parking lots and open space park areas in the hamlet of Stony Brook might also prove excellent examples of the possibilities of retrofitting for pollution control. One somewhat unusual problem encountered in Stony Brook Harbor is the nutrient and coliform loadings from waterfowl. Large-scale habitat changes have led to shifts in the The Natural Coast 161 migration patterns of many waterfowl. This has led to localized problems with large populations of waterfowl contributing significantly to nutrient and coliform loadings. The problem is exacerbated by the presence and growth of exotic populations (introduced or non- native species), such as the mute swan. While complete control of wild waterfowl is neither possible nor desirable, it is possible to reduce the adverse impacts of some species. Reduction of the mute swan and Pekin duck populations would likely have beneficial impacts on local water quality as well as improve habitat for native species, such as wood and black ducks. Such population reduction can be achieved in several ways. One approach is to coddle eggs. This technique reduces the reproductive efficiency of the population by destroying the viability of eggs while reducing the probability of second clutches, leading to an eventual population decline. In addition, it is possible to discourage large concentrations of such migratory waterfowl from remaining in an area permanently through fairly subtle habitat changes. For example, Canada geese prefer to maintain visual contact with water, and even a relatively narrow band of shrubs or other tall vegetation around a waterbody reduces its attractiveness to the geese without actively harming the waterfowl. The importance of the harbor as a natural area and the water quality implications both support such programs. Marinas present another set of water quality issues. Restrictions on new marina development and expansion of existing marinas should not be construed to imply that existing marinas cannot alter their operations in ways which will improve water quality. As an example, the provision of pumpout facilities or dumping stations for wastes may be an expansion of the services offered by a marina, but is clearly beneficial. It may be appropriate to require ail marinas to either provide or contribute jointly towards operation and maintenance of such facilities. Similarly, existing marinas may be required to retrofit or alter management approaches so that runoff from parking areas and potential contamination are minimized. The discussion of the Oyster Bay recommendations provides greater detail. Table 14 summarizes the significant water quality problems in Oyster Bay and Stony Brook Harbor. As can be seen, many of the same problems are important in the two areas. In some cases, the same management techniques will be appropriate. In other cases, however, different techniques will be appropriate. Even within one basin, full resolution of a problem may require the use of several different approaches. For example, road runoff can be minimized by appropriate design, the use of infiltration basins, filter strips, and several other techniques. The most cost effective technique can only be determined on a site-by-site basis. It is therefore likely that Oyster Bay, for example, will use many different specific techniques in order to achieve its goal of reducing road runoff. Stony Brook might also use all of the same techniques, but because such site conditions as slope are somewhat different and the watershed is not extensively developed, the final mix might be very different from that found in Oyster Bay. 162 ~ The Natural Coast NATURAL COAST FINDINGS The natural coast is comprised of a rich diversity of natural resources that are the basis for the productivity of the Sound, as well as a source of scenic beauty and recreational enjoyment. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program concentrates on three areas of concern in the natural coast--the integrity of ecological communities, appropriate responses to natural coastal processes, and improved management of water resources and overall water quality. Ecological Resources l ndings · Approximately 65 percent to 75 percent of the Sound's total vegetated tidal wetlands have been destroyed by filling and dredging over the past century. Impairments and threats to the remaining wetlands and habitats continue on the Sound coast. Impacts fall into three categories: physical loss and fragmentation of resources, degradation of resources, and functional loss of resources. · While there has not been a major loss of wetlands since enactment of the Tidal Wetlands Act and the Freshwater Wetlands Act, impairment and degradation of wetlands are continuing problems. Restoration of wetland values, as well as pursuing a net increase in wetlands, would have a positive effect on habitat, water quality, and recreational enjoyment. · In the western part of the Sound coast, impairments are most directly related to impacts of nearby heavy development and use. Habitat value is affected by lowered water quality that results from combined sewer overflows, strained waste water treatment plants, hazardous waste contamination, stormwater contamination, the introduction of exotic plants and domestic pets. · In the central part of Long Island, wetlands are affected by loss of vegetated buffer, as well as some instances of illegal fill, and limited mosquito ditching. Road runoff and sedimentation add pollutant loadings to wetlands in this part of the coast. Use of motor boats and jet skis in shallow waters destroys wetland vegetation both by direct physical disturbance and through the indirect effects of wave action. Water quality impairments, including vessel discharge and contaminated sediments, groundwater plumes, and human use, affect habitat viability. · Vegetated tidal wetlands in eastern Long Island are located at two tidal inlets. These areas are also the focal points for fish and bird habitat. The beaches are used for bird and turtle nesting and seal haulouts. Disturbances to bluffs and resulting beach erosion threaten bird nesting and seal haulout areas. Habitats located in the inlets are affected by poor water quality. On Fishers Island, nutrient pollution impairs water quality and habitat value. Fragmentation of habitat along the Sound shoreline threatens the diversity of wildlife and marine life. In addition, changing vegetative cover from native species to exotics in domestic, commercial, and institutional landscaping affects bird and animal use of the coast and requires greater inputs of water and fertilizers. Invasions of exotic species adversely affect natural ecological communities. The Natu~a/C~ 163 Coastal Flooding and Erosion Hazards Findings · Development in erosion and flood hazard areas is continuing. Presently, more than 8,200 structures are located in special flood hazard areas. Over 1,200 structures are currently located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. · The trend toward shoreline hardening is increasing. In 1969, only 8.96 miles of Suffolk county's 132.5 miles of Long Island shoreline were hardened with riprap, bulkheads, or seawalls. Today, 43.7 miles of the county's shoreline are hardened. Approximately 50 percent of the Sound shoreline has been armored with erosion control structures. Many of these structures do not serve an erosion control function. Even for those structures that are intended to control erosion, poor design, siting, n~ntenance, and lack of downdrift remediation have created erosion and other problems on and off the site. · Areas of rapid erosion on the Long Island Sound shoreline occur at Bayville, Asharoken, and along the bluffs of Smithtown, Brookhaven, and Riverhead. · The historic rates of erosion along the Sound need to be measured to define structural hazard areas, so that the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act can operate more effectively. · Development in eroding areas has not been managed to ensure there is a reasonable likelihood that structures will remain safe. Development in flood hazard areas has not been adequately addressed and building continues in coastal high hazard areas. Water Resources and Water Q~_,_a!ity Findings · For the Sound as a whole, point sources of water pollution are the most critical contributors to water quality impairments. The draft Long Island Sound Study Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan estimates that about 35 percent of the total nitrogen loadings to the Sound are from point sources. · Urban nonpoint pollution (street runoff, lawn chemical pollution, etc) is also a significant source of contamination at 20 percent of the anthropogenic nitrogen loading from sources in the Sound watershed. Of particular concern are problems in emhayments on the Sound. Nitrogen deposition from atmospheric sources Cacid rain") provides about 25 percent as much nitrogen as the preceding category. · On-site sewage disposal systems contribute to pollution problems in several areas of the watershed, from Guion Creek in Westchester County to nine segments in Suffolk County. Problems arise from poor siting and lack of maintenance. · Siting of marinas in areas with poor flushing and vessel waste discharge in enclosed emhayments reduce water quality, affecting both shellfish harvesting and human enjoyment. Improperly conducted boat maintenance in marinas and boat yards can contribute to water quality impacts. · Groundwater transport of hazardous waste plumes is affecting Port Jefferson Harbor, and Glen Cove Creek. Evaluation and remediation of problem sites needs to proceed. 164 The Natural Coast In Oyster Bay Harbor and in the Oak Neck Creek portion of the Mill Neck Creek wetlands, high concentrations of heavy metals warrant continued monitoring. RECLAIMING THE VALUE AND SUSTAINED RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE SOUND'S NATURAL RESOURCES: Recommendations for the Natural Coast The following recommendations are proposed to reclaim the Sound's natural resources by: Improving the Quality and Function of Ecological Systems Recommendation 13: Identify and protect Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are proposed to be established. Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas contain significant natural features or an essential geographic component of an important ecological complex requiring special management measures and increased protection to maintain or improve its features and ecosystem viability. In combination with establishing Areas for Concentrated Development, the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas will reduce cumulative and secondary impacts of development and human use by avoiding development of sensitive natural areas. Within these areas, protection and restoration of natural resources and their related uses would be the state's primary objective. Implementation: The Depa~.ment of State (DOS) will amend the coastal policies to establish Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas (ONCA). Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas, the criteria for their selection, and candidate areas for identification are presented in detail in the draf~ Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. Candidate areas recommended include: Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area, and Stony Brouk-Setauket Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. A draft nomination process has been developed to allow nomination of additional Detailed management plans will be prepared for each ONCA. The plans will provide guidance on measures to protect sensitive natural resources. In addition, the plans will set state investment priorities. Recommendation 14: Amend the coastal policies to protect and manage the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas identified in the Long Island Sound coastal area. To improve and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the identified Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas on Long Island Sound, the coastal policies of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program should incorporate the management objectives developed for each Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. Management plans will be developed for each Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. Implementation: DOS will revise the coastal policies to provide for appropriate management and set state priorities for investment to restore and enhance natural resources within outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Natural Coast 165 DOS, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and local governments, will prepare management plans for the Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas, based upon the management objectives outlined in chapter 7. These managemem plans will specify actions to enhance and protect the resource values in the ONCAs, as well as actions to restore impaired resources. Upon completion of management plans for ONCAs, coastal policies will be further amended to reflect standards specific to ONCAs. Recommendation lS: Ref'me the coastal policies to reflect the need for integrated management and protection of the ecological communities and ecological complexes of the Sound. The following principles should guide this policy refinement: · Manage the living resources of the Sound in a broad and holistic manner which recognizes that these resources are linked by strong physical, chemical, and biological factors and that negative impacts on one component of an ecological system may have far-reaching effects on other components of the same or a related system. · Over time, reduce effects from the numerous existing land and water use activities, that impair ecological systems. · Minimize effects of proposed land and water use activities that would otherwise cumulatively impair the various natural ecological communities and systems important to the quality and biological diversity of the Long Island Sound ecosystem. · Prevent the physical and functional loss, or degradation of the natural ecological communities and ecological systems important to the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. · Restore impaired areas within ecological communities and complexes, where restoration and enhancement will contribute to the improvement of the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. The above general principles should be incorporated into the coastal policies along with the specific refinements described below. These refinements relate to the following three resource types: (1) vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species and important ecological community types (Heritage State Rank SI-S5), (2) coastal fish and wildlife habitats, designated as significant, and (3) regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands. Vulnerable species and important community types. The policies should cite the following as requiring special protection: · vulnerable f'mh and wildlife species (those listed in regulations 6 NYCRR Part 182.5 as endangered species, threatened species and special concern species) and the habitat for these species to accommodate the needs of the species through all stages of their life cycles · vulnerable plant species (those listed in regulations 6 NYCRR Part 193.3 as endangered species, threatened species, exploitably vulnerable species, and rare species) and the habitat identified by the occurrence of a vulnerable species 166 The Natural Coast important ecological community types in the coastal area defined as: (1) rare ecological communities, Heritage State Rank of Si or S2 and (2) those which qualify for both a Heritage State Rank of S3, S4, or S5, and an Element Occurrence Rank of A. Policy standards having to do with the above resources should: · Require that developers conduct field surveys of proposed development sites to determine whether vulnerable fish and wildlife species, vulnerable plant species, or rare ecological communities occur. · Include measures to protect vulnerable living resources and theft habitats, which would result in appropriately scaled and designed land and water use projects that integrate or are compatible with the requirements of the natural ecological communities within which vulnerable living resources are found. Sign~fwant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The coastal policies should specifically provide for restoration of Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Long Island Sound coastal area to ensure their continued existence as natural, self-regulating systems. Policy standards should require that, where practical, actions should be taken within Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and in areas contiguous to Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats to: reconstruct lost physical features essential to the functioning of the habitat; change altered chemical characteristics that adversely affect the habitat; and reintroduce native flora and fauna which enhance the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat's contribution to the health and diversity of the ecological complex and the Sound ecosystem. 17dal and freshwater wetlands. The policies should be strengthened to require that development actions not result in the net loss of vegetated wetlands. Policy standards should specifically include the following provisions, the first two of which are generally reflective of the tidal wetlands regulations: · Prohibit filling or dredging of wetlands that support rare or endangered species, are par~ of a special management area, are relatively pristine, or where additional wetland loss would significantly impair the wetland. · Prohibit placement of fill on or excavation of other wetlands, including vegetated wetlands, except in rare cases where: clear evidence is presented which proves that the activity is in the public interest; ali alternative sites have been thoroughly evaluated; and all efforts have been made to reduce the scale or intensity of the proposed activity, or select alternative site designs that result in the least impact on wetlands. · Specify that actions should not only avoid direct impacts on wetlands, but also not adversely affect the functioning of the wetlands through activities such as ditching, introduction of sediments or pollutants, fragmentation of wetland communities, and changes in the hydrologic conditions. · Require that a compensatory mitigation program be used where unavoidable adverse impacts to vegetated wetlands remain al~er all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize impacts have been considered. Such a program would be used: to restore former wetlands on, or contiguous to the site; to restore wetlands in close proximity to the site, where restoration of wetlands on or contiguous to the site is not appropriate; The Natural Coa~ 167 or to create new tidal wetlands in suitable locations, where conditions for a successful project exist and the project will not result in the loss of resource values. Criteria for determining the desired size and natural functions of wetlands that are to be restored or created would be established for the mitigation program. Successful mitigation should be assured through development of specific mitigation plans and a long-term performance bond. Specify the activities which have a high potential to significantly impair vegetated wetlands of Long Island Sound. · Give heightened importance to maintenance, protection, and where needed, expansion of wetland buffers, in order to adequately protect wetlands. Buffers should reflect site conditions like topography, soil type, drainage, and vegetative cover. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies. Recommendation 16: Establish priorities for wetlands restoration in the Long Island Sound coastal area. Over the past 200 years, the acreage of tidal and freshwater wetlands in the region has declined. The remaining tidal and freshwater wetlands, therefore, take on added significance. There is a critical need to restore natural ecological communities and their functions in the remaining wetlands of the Sound to more fully realize the economic, ecological, and aesthetic potential of those areas and of the Sound ecosystem as a whole. Undeveloped lands which historically provided buffer to the Sound's wetlands have been greatly .reduced. The long term viability of wetlands is linked with the existence of sufficient lands to provide buffers to these wetlands. Various sources, including the Long Island Sound Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, local planning documents, and park management plans, were consulted to identify the proposed wetland restoration sites. These sites are shown on map 10.0 and the accompanying table. Restoration within these wetlands and in contiguous areas should be considered a starting point for restoration of wetland systems. Many of these sites will be more fully evaluated as part of management plans for Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas to determine additional action(s) which may be appropriate. Implementation: DEC, in cooperation with DOS, will establish a strategy and set priorities for the restoration of tidal wetlands. Priorities will be based on the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (LIS CCMP), the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, and the state Open Space Conservation Plan. The participation of local agencies, conservation groups, and the public will be included in outlining strategies and priorities. A high priority will be given to restoration projects within Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Additional sites will be added to the list of proposed wetland reswration sites as information becomes available. Evaluation of potential reswration sites will likely include the following considerations: · no known endangered, threatened, special concern, or rare species or rare natural communities 168 The Natural Coast · existing functionality and wildlife utilization · site history: past uses including past function of wetland · topography: surface topography including elevations of levees, drainage channels ponds, islands; and slope · existing water control structures, location of culverts, pumps, and outlets · hydrology: conditions affecting the site like tidal range, orientation to prevailing winds, current flow, flow velocity, overland flows, and flood events · sediment budgets: inflow, outflow, retention · soil: description of existing soils with analysis of suitability for supporting wetland plants · existing vegetation · timing of restoration project · potential impacts to site from adjacent human activities · project costs and benefits analysis including subsidized funding sources · ownership · secondary public benefits · connectivity to other functional habitats Cooperative efforts, such as the Parmers in Wildlife program, Will be encouraged. The Natural Coast 169 Table 15 Proposed Wetland Restoration Sites in Long Island Sound O A S L L N C C W I CD F RS A / W P S SUGGESTED RESTORATION ACTION M H C Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands X X dredge portinna of river to impt~ve tidal filching; provid~ dredge material diapo~l ~ite Pelham Bay Park * X remediate landfill leacbato; reconstruct culv~-ta to restore tidal flow to Turtle Cove culverts Alley Creek, Alley Pond Park, Linle remove phragndtes au~tralis and provide lrestment for roadway runoff entering Alley Creek; restore Neck Bay * X freshwater wetland at ravine leading to Oakland Lake; implement erosion control at Udalls Cove ravine and Alley Pond Park Nog~h Sheets Creek 'X remove debris from wntlaad amd resatabl~l~ vegetation; provide treatment for roadway runoff East Creek X establish native vegetation as buffer dong western bank of creek to improve habitat value; investigate need for dredging to improve tidal flushing Glen Cove Creek X remediate superfund sites; re, hove cont~amlnated sediment Frost Creek X X ~ovide treatment for road nlnoff; inerease vegetative buffers Oak Neck Creek X X X remove solid waste from wetland and barfer; replant, as necessagy Crab Meadow X X ! X remediate mosquito ditching; de~tmine need for falling mosquito ditches and open marsh wate~ management Sunken Meadow Creek * X X remove emhen dam and replace with bridge to improve tidal flow Nissequogue River at Routes 25/25A * X X install infiltration basins to heat rondway runoff Eastern branch hendwaters of the . remove cong~ruction and demolition debxin from wetland buffets, replant; determine need for filling Niesequogue River mo~quito ditches Southern end of Stony Brook Harbor X X ~ovide treatment for road runoff Conscience Bay * dredge Setauhet Mill Pond to reduce ~miiment and nutrients entering the bay; provide stormwater treatment Wading River X restore salt marsh to areas distodsed by mosquito ditching Maltituck Creek X X ~ovide treatment for road rnnoff; restore vegetative buffers ONCA: Wetland is in an Outstanding Natural Coastal Area identified in LIS CMP. ACD/MC: Wetland is in an Area of Concentrated Development or Maritime Center identified in LIS CMP. SCFWH: Wetland is in n designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. LWRP: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program recommends wetland restoration. LISS: Long Island Snund Study recommends wetland restoration. * Wetland is in a proq~ective ONCA identified in the LIS CMP. Natural Coast Proposed Wetland Restoration Sites MAP 10.0 CONNECTICUT SUFFOLK NYC N~SSAU LEGEND RESTORATION SITES FR - Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands PB - Pelham Bay Alley Creek Alley Pd Perk Little Neck Bay NC - North Sheets C~eck EC - East Creek GC - Glen Cove Creek FC - Frost Creek OC - Oak Neck Creek CM - Crab Meadow SM - Sunken Meadow Creek NR - Niasequogue River at 25125A NR2 - Eastern Branch of Nissequogue River SH - Sonthem end of Stony Brook Harbor CB - Conscience Bay MC - Mattituck Creek WR. Wading River Recommendation 17: Develop a state wetlands management strategy and plan that encourages a net gain in the quality and quantity of tidal wetlands and no net loss of same for freshwater wetlands. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources calls for preparation of a wetlands management strategy to protect, restore, and enhance the state's wetlands resources. This strategy should identify receptor areas for wetlands mitigation actions when mitigation is required but cannot be undertaken on, adjacent to, or in proximity to the site where disturbance of wetland resources is proposed. This strategy should also encourage a net gain of vegetated wetlands through incentives in cases where mitigation is not required. Actions should be taken within wetlands and in areas contiguous to wetlands in order to: reconstruct lost physical features essential to natural functioning of the wetland, change altered chemical characteristics that adversely affect the wetland, promote a net gain in wetlands, and enhance the wetland's contribution to the health and diversity of the ecological complex and the Sound ecosystem. Wetland creation projects should not be located where destruction of other natural ecological communities would be required. Wherever possible, wetland creation projects undertaken by the state should be located on previously disturbed sites on public properties. The Department of Environmental Conservation has begun preparation of a wetlands conservation plan. This effort should coordinate with the recommendations of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, and should reflect actions defined in management plans to be developed for Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Implementation: DOS will cooperate with DEC in preparation of a wetlands strategy for the Long Island Sound coastal area. DEC, Division of Marine Resources, is revising Tidal Wetland Land Use Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661 to provide increased protection so there will be no net loss of tidal wetlands. DOS will revise coastal policies to reflect these revisions and to provide for compensatory mitigation. Recommendation 18: Prepare management plans for designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The Department of State, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation, has designated 35 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats on Long Island Sound. Management plans now need to be prepared for these habitats. Based on available resources, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of State in cooperation with other agencies, environmental organizations, and land owners will prepare the management plans. The plans would make recommendations, for direct action to mitigate existing problems that interfere with the viability of the habitat and otherwise improve the habitat. The plans would become enforceable parts of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. Priority for preparation of these plans would be given to Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats that are located within the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area, the Crab Meadow-Fresh Fond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area, and the Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. 172 The Natural Coast As part of the Long Island Sound Study, the Department of Environmental Conservation, with assistance from the Department of State and others, will be developing a habitat management plan for Oyster Bay. Implementation: This recommendation will be implemented through the preparation of individual management plans for each of the identified SCFWHs. The plans will be prepared by DOS, in cooperation with DEC and other state agencies, local governments, and conservation groups. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat plans will be integrated with harbor management plans to ensure that they are complimentary. Individual SCFWH management plans will incorporate appropriate portions of site-specific habitat management plans developed as part of the Long Island Sound Study. DEC is in the process of developing a site-specific management plan for Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor. DOS will revise the coastal policies to reflect the plans. Recommendation 19: Establish a Long Island Sound native plants program. The native plants which have evolved in the Long Island Sound coastal area have adapted to its geographic and climatic conditions and, therefore, are well suited for the area. Animals which reside in and migrate through the Long Island Sound coastal area are adapted to and depend on the presence of these diverse native species for their survival. Non native invasive plants overrun native plants, replacing diverse plant communities of high habitat value with plants unable to provide for the needs of native animal species. Increased use of native plants will protect the diversity of indigenous plants on Long Island and reduce the need for the use of pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers. A native plants program would call for state leadership in initiating interest in and use of native species. Implementation: An Executive Order should be considered directing state agencies to use native plants on state properties, in state-funded projects, and on properties using state funds. State agencies should use existing state nursery facilities or work with native plant nurseries in the region to obtain native plants for use on state-owned properties. DOS, in cooperation with DISC, Comell Cooperative Extension, and the State Museum, will develop a native plants guidebook, which explains the benefits of the use of native plants in landscaping. Recommendation 20: Through implementation of the State Open Space Conservation Plan and related efforts, assure protection of natural resources within the following ecological complexes. Include the following sites, and other sites recommended by the Region I Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in the New York State Open The Narrows Complex. Priority should be given to protection of poixions of stream bank corridors and the upland perimeters of freshwater wetlands to enhance their ability to filter contaminants and sediment and to provide wildlife habitat. The protection of a number of the remaining privately owned and relatively undisturbed forested lands buffering the tidal wetlands should also be considered, especially where these can be linked to existing state and local parks or other natural lands. Portions of large parcels of vacant land which are no longer in industrial use, such as those along Hempstead Harbor and Manhasset Bay, should The Natural Coast 173 be restored to natural areas to create wildlife habitat and to buffer wetlands. The Sounds small, rocky islands are irreplaceable and rare in New York State. Protection of their rocky intertidal shores, wading bird rookeries, seal haulout sites, and other natural resources from impacts associated with development, dredging, marinas, oil spills, and other activities that could cause impairments to their fragile natural ecological communities is critical. Mainland Coast. In the mainland coast area: · Premium River-Pine Brook: Portions of lands above mean high water, including formerly connected tidal wetlands, that buffer the Premium River-Pine Brook wetlands should be acquired, or otherwise protected. · High Island: If acquired or otherwise protected through deed restrictions, the upland portions of the island could be enhanced as habitat for breeding birds in the nearby · Gull's Landing, City Island · Hen Island: Acquisition would allow removal of structures which would improve natural ecological communities and protect seal haulout sit~. Western Bays. In the western bays area: · Alley Pond Park: F, asements and portions of other properties bordering the park should be obtained for the construction of stormwater detention basins to improve water quality in Little Neck Bay. · Alley Creek: Properties bordering roadways which drain into the creek should be purchased for the construction of stormwater detention basins to improve water quality. · Udalls Cove and Ravine: Support the recommendation for acquisition of several remaining undeveloped private parcels for park land made in the Open Space Plan. · Plum Point: Support the Nassau County recommendation for acquisition, but only of those portions of land above mean high water, for least tern habitat protection. · Hempstead Harbor: Support the recommendations for acquisition made by Nassau County and the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee for the upland portions buffering tidal wetlands. The Harbors Complex. Protection efforts should be focused on lands that buffer wetlands and stream corridors, especially tributaries to these wetlands: to achieve improvements to water quality, where necessary; to maintain high water quality, necessary for continuing recreational and commercial harvesting of shellfish species; to retain and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species of fish and wildlife through the establishment of wildlife corridors; and to maintain and enhance the biological diversity provided by natural ecological communities juxtaposed with regulated wetlands and SCFWHs. Several abandoned waterfront sites and relatively undisturbed private lands exist within the complex. If acquisition is not practical, establishment of vegetated buffers in perpetuity, through deed restrictions or conservation easements on portions of properties, or through agreements to allow certain areas to remain undeveloped, could be part of development approvals. 174 The Natural Coast · Frost Creek: The wetlands Of Frost Creek may have been affected by an adjacent golf course. A deed restriction or conservation easement may be appropriate to ensure that the portions of property buffering the creek, once physically restored, remain undisturbed. · Oyster Bay Harbor: Support the recommendations of the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee for acquisition of a mix of wooded estates, undisturbed mixed hardwood and chestnut oak forests, and sections of Oyster Bay Harbor drainage basin that total approximately 23:5 acres. Such protection would forward the goals listed above and would offer the opportunity for wetland restoration and establishment of a marine education center at this location. · Acquire the mixed hardwood forest and freshwater wetland on institutional land adjacent to Lloyd Harbor on West Neck in the Town of Huntington. · Crab Meadow: Acquire land which borders the western tributary of Crab Meadow and freshwater wetlands contiguous to Crab Meadow. Support the recommendations of the Region 1 Iand Acquisition Advisory Committee for acquiring approximately 34 acres which would preserve the quality of the Crab Meadow wetlands. · Fresh Pond: Acquire privately owned freshwater wetlands tributary to Fresh Pond. To protect water quality in Fresh Pond, acquire upland area in vicinity of State Route 25A in Fort Salonga for treatment of road drainage. Mitigate frequent flooding in same The Ntssequogue River Complex. In the Nissequogue River Complex: · Acquire parcels for the purpose of improving water quality of the river and enhancing habitat and access values. Both upland buffers and riparian corridors should be considered. · Nissequogue River: Acquire three parcels at the intersection of Routes 25 and 25A. The Central Bays Complex. Acquisition in this complex should concentrate on improving water quality in the several tributaries draining to the bays and on preserving and extending the upland forested areas which support state-deaignated rare plants and threatened and endangered species of wildlife. · Porpoise Channel: The Region I Land Acquisition Advisory Committee recommended acquisition of 235-acre area. It should be determined if all land proposed to be acquired is privately-owned. · Mount Sinai Harbor: Support recommendations of the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee to acquire parcels of upland to maintain wetland buffers, to form corridors between natural areas of Suffolk County parkland, town land, and forested institutional properties, and to prevent disturbance and development of steep slopes, which would cause erosion, and, consequently, sedimentation in freshwater and tidal wetlands. Acquisition of freshwater wetlands bordering Mount Sinai tidal wetlands would preserve the overall quality of the Mount Sinai wetland ecosystem. Promote environmental education activities in the area. The Eastern Bluffs Complex. Acquisition efforts in this complex should be concentrated around buffering the wetlands of Wading River, Baiting Hollow, and Mattituck Creek, and The Natural Caast 175 in maintaining the large, relatively undisturbed forest which covers portions of the bluffs. This forest remains in remnants of the vegetation which historically covered a large portion of the Harbor Hill moraine and cea~tal bluffs; it still supports numerous endangered, threatened, and rare species and rare natural communities. Lands which could be linked to connect existing blocks of forested areas to create wildlife corridors should be strongly considered for acquisition. · Long Creek-Mattitock Creek. Mattituck Inlet: Support acquisition of the portions of the 6.4 acres recommended by the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee which are in the upland drainage area of Mattituck Inlet to maintain and enhance buffering of tidal wetlands and water quality. · Dam Pond: Acquire the upland buffer in the watershed of Dam Pond to protect the habitat for osprey and least tern and the quality of the tidal wetlands which have recently come under development pressure. Support recommendations made by the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee for acquisition of 55 acres of upland (not the tidal wetlands, already in the public trust) noted in their report. · Should it become available, acquire Baiting Hollow Boy Scout Camp to establish a NYS DEC residential environmental education center. · Friars Head bluffs and forest: Acquire the bluffs and forested areas which contain and provide a buffer for maritime beech forest (considered by the NY Natural Heritage Program to be globally rare). Publicly owned open space around the 4H Camp will enhance the existing uses of the camp. In addition, the rare forest community and its possible stabilizing effect on the bluffs could be studied in its relatively undisturbed state. · Support the recommendation for acquisition of Brecknock Hall, a 155-acre property recommended by Region I Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. The property is located west of Island End Golf & Country Club and north of Route 25. The site contains a forest community along the bluffs, freshwater ponds, open fields, and historic resources. The formerly mined portions of the property should be reclaimed. The site may have potential a~ a state park. The Fishers Island Complex. In the Fishers Island Complex: · Acquire or obtain conservation easements for the three land areas recommended for preservation in the Fishers Island Water Sunolv and Watershed Stodv: Ecolo£ical Comnonent for preservation of rare plant species and wildlife habitat. Implementation: DEC will evaluate the above sites and others recommended by the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee for inclusion into the State Open Space Conservation Plan. Those sites which are shown to have significance to the Long Island Sound region will be included for acquisition or other forms of protection through an amendment to the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. 176 The Natural Coast Fee or less-than-fee interest in the lands noted above will be pursued using all available sources, including the EPF, other state and federal funding sources, and the capacities of private groups, such as the Nature Conservancy. Recommendation 21: Develop a wildlife corridors plan for the Long Island Sound coastal and watershed areas Development continues to destroy wildlife habitat by fragmenting wetlands and other natural ecological communities. Loss of habitat leads to local extirpations which have increasingly dramatic negative effects on regional populations. Where a local extirpation occurs, obstacles, such as dense development, highways, and fences, can prevent repopulation. This is true especially for amphibians, reptiles, some small mammals, and many wetland species. Linking ecological communities by habitat corridors will benefit certain species by allowing increased movement to search for food or to escape disease or other adverse conditions. Existing wildlife corridors, such as those which link the Long Island Sound with the Peconic Bays (e.g. Mattituck Creek) and the Long Island Sound with the Atlantic Ocean and bays along the south shore of Long Island (e.g. Nissequogue River and Connetquot River corridors) are necessary to the survival and viability of neotropical migrants (bird species which nest north of Mexico and winter south of the U.S.-Mexico border). In this instance, a wildlife corridor could consist of planning for the protection and enhancement of a series of habitats which serve as stopover sites necessary for successful bird migration, rather than a contiguous stretch of land. A wildlife corridor plan should be developed for the Long Island Sound coastal watershed. Centering on clusters of protected, wetlands, undeveloped open and forested lands, the wildlife corridors would allow natural movements of animals and would preserve breeding, feeding, and resting habitat. State agencies, local governments, environmental groups and the development community should cooperate in such an effort. A wildlife corridor plan would provide an opportunity to manage non-regulated ecological communities in an integrated fashion to enhance their viability and contribution to the Sound ecosystem. In developing a wildlife corridor plan, consideration should be given to integrating wildlife corridors with greenways, where appropriate, to increase public enjoyment of wildlife in the Sound region. Implementation: Cooperative identification of existing wildlife corridors and development of plans for protection of these individual wildlife corridors will be prepared by state agencies (e.g. DOS, DEC, DOT, ORPHP) and local government with input from environmental groups, and the development community. The planning process will also include evaluation of new corridors where wildlife movement might be encouraged. DOS, DEC, and OPRHP will evaluate the corridors for inclusion in the Open Space Conservation Plan. Recommendation 22: Develop an ecosystem monitoring program for Long Island Sound Public agencies and conservation groups are involved in a wide variety of efforts to improve the natural resources of Long Island Sound. The combined effectiveness of these individual efforts within the seven ecological complexes of the Long Island Sound coastal area has not been eval. m,~d. The Natural Coast 177 A monitoring program should be established that would evaluate the results of these public and private efforts and identify opportunities to better coordinate efforts. Another major component of the monitoring prograra should include routine surveys of plants and animals within the complexes. This data could serve as the basis for identifying additional actions that are needed to improve conditions within the ecological complexes. Implementation: Consistent with the LIS CCMP recommendations, the Department of State should cooperate with the Depmtulent of Environmental Conservation to develop a standardized format for gathering information necessary to moniWr the biological diversity and functions of the Sound ecosystem. The format of the information gathered should encourage data entry into a geographic information system by the state. Recommendation 23: Golf courses in the Long Island Sound watershed should be encouraged to remain, but to modify their management practices to reduce impacts on water quality and wildlife Golf courses require significant maintenance to remain green and weed free. This includes the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, as well as frequent watering. Golf course chemicals can leach into groundwater or run overland into coastal waters, degrading water quality. Golf courses are important recreational and open space resources in the region, and should continue. However, an overall reduction in chemical and water use and greater use of native plants is desirable to reduce impacts on water quality and wildlife. This can be achieved by reducing the amount of chemicals and focusing intensive management on putting greens, rather than the entire golf course, using integrated pest management (the use of fewer pesticides, especially broad spectrum pesticides, in conjunction with nonchemicai practices, such as beneficial insects and bacterial systems), planting native vegetation in rough areas and for shade along fairways, and creating less severe transitions between natural areas and managed areas through altered mowing practices. These actions will reduce the incidence of continuing pollution and the cost of maintaining the golf course. State-owned facilities should take the lead in applying these practices. Implementation: State-operated golf courses in the Long Island Sound coastal area should adopt modified management practices. Recommendation 24: Improve the quality and functioning of ecological systems within the Sound's ecological complexes. Impacts to natural resources have occurred within each of the Sound's ecological complexes. Numerous opportunities to reduce existing impairments exist throughout the Long Island Sound coastal area. Implementation: The following illustrates needed action within ecological complexes. The list was compiled from sources including the Long Island Sound Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats narratives, local planning documents, and park management plans and is not presented in priority order. The Narrows Complex. The New York City Depa~hnent of Environmental Protection should continue to finalize plans for remediation of the Pelham Bay Landfill. Remediation is critical to the entire complex because contaminated leachate can be transported to coastal waters. 178 The Natural Coast The ecological complexes to the east are indirectly affected by currents, fish, and wildlife that move between the Narrows Complex and these areas. Increase or replace vegetation along steep slopes, creeks, ponds, and wetlands to attenuate sediments and contaminants. These waterbodies include: Guion Creek, Otter Creek, Turtle Pond, Lily Pad Pond, Decodon Pond, Muskrat Pond, and Little Alley Pond, and Udalls Cove and Ravine. Reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff in the ravines and over steep slopes by installing appropriate vegetation or through structural means. In addition, increase management of public access and public access trails in Alley Pond Park to reduce erosion and trampling of stabilizing vagetation. A former wetland adjacent to Oakland Lake should be restored to a red maple-hardwood swamp to provide improved habitat and reduce sedimentation of Oakland Lake. To protect Oakland Lake, ensure that any state or local proposal to use the ravine adjacent to the lake for discharge of runoff from highways includes a design that incorporates freshwater wetland restoration and settling ponds. Acquire remaining undeveloped private lands in the Udalls Cove and Ravine for a sedimentation control project. These lands should be mapped for park purposes. Dredge the Premium River to restore tidal flow. Pursue location of suitable spoil disposal area or provide funding necessary for containment and capping. Evaluate whether tidal flow should be reestablished at Van Amringe Mill Pond. Provide funding for opening culverts to restore tidal flow to Turtle Cove from Pelham Bay Lagoon. Coordinate dredging within major channels and anchorages in Milton Harbor, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor, Echo Bay, Hutchinson River, Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, and Glen Cove Creek to reduce the length of time the embayments are subjected to physical disturbance and turbidity. On the west side of Little Neck Bay, in parkland along the Cross Island Parkway, use native plants for landscaping and develop a related, "passive" interpretive program along esplanade. Develop a voluntary program to encourage replanting of native vegetation adjacent to coastal waters in existing residential and commercial areas to reduce the use of lawn chemicals, attenuate runoff, and create habitat. The Harbor~ Complex. Work with the golf course adjacent to Frost Creek to reduce loadings of fertilizers. Establish buffer plantings along the golf course and along roadways. See the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor and Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area management needs discussion in the chapter 7. Remove dumped materials and other potential sources of contaminants in forest and salt marsh between Factory Pond Road and Oak Neck Creek. Include sediment basins for bio-filtration systems at the northeast corner of the Nissequogue River and Main Street aa part of the bridge improvement project. This would entail purchase of three parcels or easements, and remediation of any oil contamination at these properties, formerly used for gas and oil storage. The Natural Coast 179 Prohibit motorized vessels in the lower reaches of the Nissequogue River, north of Caleb Smith Park, to reduce damage to wetlands and bank erosion. Regulate use of jet skis south of the Nissequogue River boat ramp. Remove illegal construction and demolition fill at the southeast tributary to the Nissequogue River and revegetate. Evaluate expansion of fencing program at the Nissequogue River inlet beaches to include other nesting sites of least terns and piping plovers. The Town of Smithtown should continue its program to remove goldenrod and other vegetation that interferes with nesting. The Central Bays Complex. Develop a detailed stormwater management plan for Setauket Mill Pond with specific capital proposals to reduce 'sedimentation from urban runoff. Undertake shoreline planting to discourage use of the pond by waterfowl to reduce nutrient loads. See also Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA management needs, chapter 7. The Eastern Bluffs Complex. Establish a vegetative buffer at the parking lot at the end of Luthers Road along Mattituck Inlet in Southold to filter contaminants before they reach the beach. Repair the fence intended to prevent vehicular access to the inlet beaches and reestablish vegetation on disturbed areas. Increase monitoring to insure that the fences remain intact. Evaluate the benefits of removing the bulkhead on a portion of the site of the former asphalt plant south of Mattituck Inlet. Regrade the shoreline and create a vegetated buffer that blends into the existing vegetated shoreline. Where not recognized as an area of extensive public investment, promote removal of hard erosion control structures at the base of the bluffs to allow sand to replenish beaches. Complete the restoration of clear-cut bluff areas to the east of Friar's Head (Roanoke Landing) in Riverhead. Satisfactory establishment of native bluff vegetation should be achieved and maintained. Contain direct stormwater runoff from the street end and the parking lot at Roanoke Landing in Riverhead to prevent sediment and contaminants from entering coastal waters. Prohibit off-road vehicle access to the vegetated areas south of the bluffs and along low-lying areas leading to the beach from the Riverhead-$outhold municipal boundary to Aldridge extension. Restore disturbed areas. Maintain remaining large forested tracts in the Town of Riverhead that extend from the bluff face inland, west of Roanoke I.,anding. This area includes the rare maritime beech forest, which should be further investigated to determine its extent and management needs. The Fishers Island Complex. Encourage management of the golf courses on the island to reduce the amount of nutrients and pesticides entering coastal waters. Adopt the recommendations of the Fishers Island Water Sunnlv and Mana~,ement Study: ~ that call for establishing preserves at Sunken Forest and the adjacent wooded area northeast of Barlow Pond, the Beach Pond barrier beach, and the pitch pine woods between Treasure Pond and Middle Farms Pond. Disturbance to these areas should be prevented. 180 The Natural Coast Respecting the Dynamics of Shoreline Change Based on the inventory and analysis of coastal processes and coastal hazards within the region, the following hazard management actions are recommended. Map 10.0 and the accompanying table show major recommendations. Recommendation 2S: Refine the coastal policies to state a clear preference for maintaining the 50% of the Sound shoreline now in its natural condition, while providing for protection of areas with significant public investment. Although the Long Island Sound shoreline has been heavily fortified, there are significant stretches of the coast that remain in a natural state. The coastline in the region should generally remain in a natural condition to respond to coastal processes. The primary approach to accomplish this is regulation of development and redevelopment in hazard areas to reduce exposure of human development to baTards. Hardening of the shoreline is to be avoided, except as a last resort to protect principal structures on a site or where extensive public infrastructure investment exists. Areas of extensive public investment include City Island and the Throgs Neck in the Bronx, the Cross Island Parkway section of Queens, Bayviile, the Asharoken tombolo, Sunken Meadow State Park, portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development, and the ten identified Maritime Centers (see chapter 7). With the exception of portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers, where hardened shorelines are acceptable in association with a water- dependent or water-enhanced use, these areas of shoreline should be maintained, preferably, through the use of soft protection alternatives, such as beach nourishment, revegetation, offshore bar building, or inlet sand bypassing. Barrier landforms that protect significant public investment or natural resources should be maintained. Soft shore protection methods are to be used to conform with the natural coastal processes. Barrier beach landforms should be maintained by using clean, compatible dredge material, when feasible, to complete beach nourishment, offshore bar, or marsh creation projects. Implementation: DOS will refine the state's coastal policies. Recommendation 26: Avoid the use of hard erosion control structures. When hard erosion control structures are necessary, mitigate their likely impacts. Numerous shore protection structures already exist along the Long Island Sound shore, and many continue to be built. Although the cumulative impact of these structures has not been quantified, it is potentially large. Increased erosion, aesthetic impairments, loss of public recreational resources, loss of habitats, and water quality degradation are all possible results of hardening the shoreline. Before a permit is granted to allow construction of hard erosion control structures, purpose, function, impact, and alternatives need to be carefully evaluated. Coastal policies should ensure that hard erosion control structures are used only as a last resort. Consideration could be given to the use of performance bonds for mitigation and clean-up activities resulting from the construction, removal, or damage to hard erosion control structures. The Natural Coast 181 Table 16 Coastal Hazard Recommendations LOCATION [ MAPREF Co~t~l Erosion Monitoring Sites Bayville 1 Asharoken 2 Makamah Beach 3 Rocky Point/Sho~ham 4 Wadin~ River Landin~ 5 Camp Orant-J'acobs Point 6 Mattituck Creek 7 Peeonic Dunes County Park 9 Mulford Point 10 Orient Point 11 Public Infrastructure Sites City Island CI Cross Island Pkwy/Thro~s Neck CIP Bridge Bayville l~V Asharoken AS Sunken Meadow State Park SM Sediment Bypassing Study Sites LILCO/Nm~hport NP Mattituck Inlet MI Goldsmith Inlet G1 182 The Natural Coast Coastal Hazard Recommendations MAP 1 1.0 CONNECTICUT SUFFOLK NYC Legend '~ Critical Erosion Monitoring Areas* [] Public Infrastructure Protection Sites [] Sediment Bypassing Study Sites * Areas for Nassau County & Fishers Island have not been Identified With the exception of portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development and Maritime Centers, where hardened shorelines are acceptable in association with a water- dependent or water-enhanced use, these areas of shoreline should be maintained, preferably, through the use of soft protection alternatives, such as beach nourishment, revegetation, offshore bar building, or inlet sand bypassing. Barrier landfurms that protect significant public investment or natural resources should be maintained. Soft shore protection methods are to be used to conform with the natural coastal processes. Barrier beach landforms should be maintained by using clean, compatible dredge material, when feasible, to complete beach nourishment, offshore bar, or marsh creation projects. Implementation: DOS will refine the state's coastal policies. Recommendation 27: Avoid the use of hard erosion control structures. When hard erosion control structures are necessary, mitigate their likely impacts. Numerous shore protection structures already exist along the Long Island Sound shore, and many continue to be built. Although the cumulative impact of these structures has not been quantified, it is potentially large. Increased erosion, aesthetic impairments, loss of public recreational resources, loss of habitats, and water quality degradation are all possible results of hardening the shoreline. Before a permit is granted to allow construction of hard erosion control structures, purpose, function, impact, and alternatives need to be carefully evaluated. Coastal policies should ensure that hard erosion control structures are used only as a last resort. Consideration could be given to the use of performance bonds for mitigation and clean-up activities resulting from the construction, removal, or damage to hard erosion control structures. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies. Legislation is required to amend the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act, ECL Article 34, to provide for required mitigation and use of performance bonds. Recommendation 28: Ensure that state expenditures do not contravene the purpose of the federal Coastal Barrier Resource Areas Act and areas defined in the Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force Report as Coastal Hazard Areas. Coastal barrier resource areas have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the region. This designation requires that no federal dollars be spent on projects that promote development in these fragile areas which are not suitable for development. Through an Executive Order, ensure that state expenditures do not contravene this federal law by eliminating similar state expenditures in these locations. Implementation: Executive and/or legislative action should be considered. Recommendation 29: Amend the Tax Code to reduce state tax deductions for casualty losses resulting from coastal The state tax code should be amended to reduce tax deductions for casualty losses for new structures or substantial reconstruction or addition to existing structures used for non-water- dependent use in V-zones and coastal erosion hazard areas. Tax exempt financing should be 184 The Natural Coast eliminated in erosion hazard areas except for water-dependem uses which may continue to make use of this program. Implementation: The Legislature should consider an amendment to the Tax Code. Recommendation 30: Amend the Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code to specifioally incorporate FEMA standards for new construction in identified coastal risk areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain construction standards, as reflected in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, should be applied to all new construction in areas where there is a reasonable risk of flooding during the life of the structure. Affected areas include the class I, II, and III hurricane inundation zones mapped by the United States Army Corps of Engineers Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. The Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code should be amended to apply FEMA standards within these areas. In addition, higher construction standards, particularly to limit wind and wave damage, should be considered for incorporation into the building code for structures located in V-zones. Implementation: Implementation of this recommendation will be accomplished through changes in UFPEC. Recommendation 31: Require flood insurance for all mortgages issued by state chartered banks within spedal flood hazard areas and in coastal erosion hazard areas. State-chartered banks would be required to demonstrate that flood insurance is obtained and stays in effect for all mortgages on properties within special flood hazard areas and in identified erosion hazard areas. Federally chartered banks currently comply with this requirement. Implementation: The Legislature should consider requiring state-chartered banks to demonstrate that flood insurance is obtained and in effect. Recommendation 32: Implement recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion, including those needed to improve emergency response to coastal storms and long-term management of coastal hazards. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion is releasing a comprehensive report proposing a series of recommendations to improve the state's response to, and management of, coastal hazards. Its recommendations should be fully implemented. Implementation: DOS will refine the state's coastal policies to reflect coastal erosion task force priorities. Additionally, state legislation will be required to amend existing laws and enact new laws to implement some of the task force's recommendations. State investment to undertake studies and projects is also required. The draft reports of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion provides detail on implementation needs. The Natural Coast 185 Recommendation 33: Establish a coastal processes monitoring program for the Long Island Sound shore. Detailed information on coastal processes and shoreline response is lacking throughout the region, and is necessary for improved hazard management. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion proposes a site specific coastal processes monitoring program be designed and implemented. Initially, it should focus on the most rapidly eroding locations identified in the inventory. These areas are Bayville, Asharoken, Malcam~ Beach (Smithtown), from Baiting Hollow to Jacobs Point Bluffs in Riverhead, and Mattituck Creek, Goldsmith Inlet, Peconic Dunes County Park, Mulford Point, and Orient Point, all in the Town of Southold. Implementation: Through the Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force, a research design for an investigation of coastal processes and shoreline response in the Long Island Sound coastal area has been completed. Recommendation 34: undertake a comprehensive shoreline erosion rate study and remap the coastal erosion hazard area accordingly. Structural hazard areas, locations experiencing an average rate of erosion of 1 foot per year or greater, should be mapped for the Long Island Sound coast. Currently, only natural protective features are def'med. Erosion rate analyses would allow for accurate determinations of eroding areas and remapping of the coastal erosion hazards area line to reflect the differences in erosion rates throughout the Sound. This would allow for improved coastal erosion ba~rd area regulation of new development and redevelopment in areas where risk is greatest. Implementation: DOS and DEC, through a consultant, will design and undertake a comprehensive erosion rate study in the Long Island Sound coastal area. DEC will remap the coastal erosion hazard area accordingly. Recommendation 35: Evaluate the impact of new inlet formation and determine which new inlets should be dosed. The Long Island Sound shoreline should be evaluated to determine the impact and significance of potential new inlets breached through barrier landforms. The study would identify areas vulnerable to breaching and determine which potential breaches should be closed. Until such studies are complete, interim plans for the closure of new inlets should be incorporated in state, county, and local government emergency response plans. Implementation: DOS and DEC will evaluate the impact and significance of potential new inlets breached through barrier landforms within the Long Island Sound coastal area. Upon completion of the study, DOS will revise the coastal policies to reflect the selected response. Until the study is complete, emergency response plans will incorporate interim plans for closure. Recommendation 36: Develop a comprehensive plan for sediment bypassing along the Long Island Sound coast. The effects of existing shore perpendicular structures should be evaluated to determine the need for sediment bypassing. A comprehensive plan to bypass sediment or alter the size and configuration of structures, or remove the structures would result. Initial site locations to be addressed include Mattituck Inlet, Goldsmith Inlet, and the LILCO jetty at Northport. 186 The Natural Coast Implementation: DOS and DEC will evaluate effects of existing structures and identify the need for sand bypassing within specific areas of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Based on the study, DOS and DEC would work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop requirements and guidelines for specific areas. The state's coastal policies for the Long Island would be revised to reflect these needs. DOS, DEC, and other appropriate state agencies will act to implement recommendations of the study. Reeommendation 37: Prepare ernsion management plans that include a post-storm redevelopment component for communities on Long Island Sound. Encourage preparation of erosion management plans that specifically address local hazard conditions and solutions. A post-storm redevelopment component of the plan would specify redevelopment in a less hazardous location, thereby taking advantage of opportunities created by storm damage. These redevelopment plans should be completed on a pilot basis for areas where substantial unavoidable loss is likely. Implementation: Local governments should participate in preparation of the post-storm plans and incorporation of these plans into their LWRPs. Communities that are not preparing LWRPs should be encouraged to do se. Local law changes may be required. DOS will provide technical assistance to local governments to complete or revise Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs to include erosion management plans for Long Island Sound. Communities may be eligible for funding under the EPF. Recommendation 38: Encourage development of local zoning regulations to adequately address siting of structures and land uses in flood and erosion hazard areas. Local governments should be encouraged to use their land use powers to limit building in bnTard areas, Ihnit building size and type in b~Tard zones, require additional setbacks, and initiate local acquisition programs (taking advantage of federal funds for acquisition), as appropriate, in hazard areas to reduce future exposure to hazard risk. Setbacks should be in addition to routine yard setbacks, established under existing zoning regulations. Recession rates, to be obtained from a comprehensive shoreline erosion study, would be used to determine appropriate additional setbacks. In addition, local zoning laws should make allowances for water-dependent uses and for small, moveable structures, such as cabanas, that might be appropriate temporary seasonal uses in certain shoreline areas. Implementation: DOS will provide technical assistance to local governments on methods to reduce development's future exposure to hazard risks. Local governments should develop and adopt improved land use regulations to protect public health and safety through management of development siting. These regulations should also provide for temporary seasonal uses. Recommendation 39: Develop public education programs on coastal processes and Public education about coastal flooding, erosion hazards, and coastal processes should be undertaken through distribution of pamphlets, classes, public meetings, and public lectures The Natura/Coast 187 on hazard issues to encourage people to become more informed about coastal processes and involved in the management of coastal areas to avoid coastal hazards. Implementation: DOS, DEC, NYS Sea Grant, and the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) will develop written material which could be used by local groups to educate the public on coastal processes and flooding and erosion hazards. Recommendation 40: Amend appropriate state laws to require notification of coastal hazards during real property transactions. The New York State Real Property Law, the New York State Banking Law, and the zoning enabling statutes should be amended to require recording of hazard information in deeds, notification by mortgage lenders and realtors of hazards conditions, and designation of hazard areas on zoning maps, tax maps, and property deeds. Implementation: DOS will draft proposed amendments to the appropriate laws. Providing High Quality Coastal Waters The following three recommendations are derived from the draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Long Island Sound. They are among the major Long Island Sound Study recommendations of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. They and all other enforceable policies of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program will be incorporated into revised coastal policies. They are subject to further revision based on the final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Recommendation 41: Implement a "no net increase" policy for nitrogen to the Sound. Implement feasible nitrogen removal options at several key sewage treatment plants to begin to reduce the load of nitrogen. Make further reductions based upon model recommendations. The Long Island Sound Study found that nitrogen is the most significant cause of decreasing oxygen levels in the Sound, with attendant impacts on the Sound ecosystem. As an example, nitrogen levels in the Long Island Sound contribute to hypoxic events which result in fish kills. Implementation: The Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan describes in detail the various implementation methods the state will employ. Specific actions needed to implement a "no net increase" policy include: · Achieve secondary treatment at all sewage treatment plants in the watershed. · Where feasible, incorporate nitrogen removal (BNR) in treatment plants. · Nitrogen reductions will also result from implementation of the nonpoint controls discussed below. Recommendation 42: Reduce loadings of toxic substances in order to reduce risk to humans, wildiife, and ecological communities. Toxic substances in the Long Island Sound can result in acute toxicity, which causes fish and invertebrate mortality, and chronic or long-term effects related to bioaccumulation of 188 2~he Natural Coast contaminants. Poor flushing of receiving waters, especially in semi-enclosed embayments, allows toxics to accumulate and concentrate in sediments. Reduction of the loadings to the embayments would benefit the living resources of the Sound. Based on results from the Long Island Sound Study, assessments of contaminated sediments should be improved, and remediation developed and implemented, where appropriate. Implementation: The Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan describes in detail the various implementaion methods the state will employ. Recommendation 43: Control combined sewer overflows to minimize pollution by pathogens, nutrients, toxic materials, and flontable debris. Sewer overflows discharge untreated or inadequately treated sewage into the Sound. Nutrients in the sewage allow the growth of algae which depletes oxygen from the waters of the Sound as it decays. Oxygen depletion results in numerous adverse effects, including fish kills. Pathogen contamination can result in closure of beaches and shellfishing grounds. Adopt the recommendations of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan to: · Implement existing plans for combined sewer overflow abatement. · Identify, set priorities, and control dry period overflows and illegal sewer connections. Implementation: The Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan describes in detail the various implementaion methods the state will employ. Recommendation 44: Control vessel sewage discharge to reduce direct contamination of waters and shellfish. Vessel sewage discharge can result in direct contamination of waters and shellfish by pathogens, nutrients, and chemicals, and indirectly cause water quality problems through oxygen depletion in harbors and embayments. No-discharge zones where vessels are prohibited from discharging wastes into marine waters should be designated. Implementation: DOS, in cooperation with DEC, will conduct a survey of vessels requiring pumpout facilities, by major Long Island Sound embayment and will update surveys of existing pumpout facilities. DOS, in cooperation with DEC, will prepare a plan, pursuant to the Clean Vessel Act, for the construction, renovation, and maintenance of pumpout facilities, where facilities needed to meet standards for no-discharge zone designation. DOS and DEC will pursue designation of vessel waste no-discharge zones. DOS and DEC will seek a single designation, by EPA and the state, of ali Long Island Sound embayments as vessel waste no-discharge zones to control vessel waste discharge, to reduce direct contamination of waters and shellfish by pathogens, and to reduce nutrient loading to embayments. Ifa Sound-wide designation would delay designation of specific embayments, individual embayments that meet EPA standards for approval should be designated as no discharge zones, as soon as possible. DEC will request that federal no-discharge zone enforcement authority be delegated to the state and its political subdivisions by agreement between the Coast (~uard and the state. DEC and DOS will encourage individuals to construct, renovate, and maintain pumpout facilities where necessary in all embayments on Long Island Sound using Clean Vessel Act funds. The Natural Coast 189 SeaOrant, OPRHP, and other agencies, as appropriate, will implement public information and education programs to encourage compliance. DOS and DEC, through permits conditions, will require public and private marinas to maintain pumpout facilities. Legislation may be necessary. Local governments can provide for pumpouts at municipal facilities and maintain these facilities. Recommendation 45: Implement the federal Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program in Long Island Sound and its watershed. The federal Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program recognizes that there are certain basic management practices which can be used effectively to reduce water quality impacts from nonpoint source pollution. While unfocused nonpoint source control responses may help to reduce water quality impacts, a coordinated program of management practices undertaken on a watershed or sub-watershed basis will have a greater impact. Implementation: DOS and DEC will implement the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program for the land use categories of interest, as outlined below. In addition, DOS and DEC will assist in the preparation of more detailed, watershed- and sub-watershed-based plans for land areas contributing to use impairments or threatened waters, such as many of the Long Island Sound embayments. The following are specific recommendations and implementation means for each land use category. Agriculture. The wide range of activities inherent in agriculture imply many opportunities for nonpoint pollution and thus for pollution management. Because of the range of types of agriculture in the area, concerns include nutrient, sediment, and toxic loadings. Implementation: DOS, in cooperation with DEC, DOH, and Agriculture and Markets, will recommend expansion of soil and water conservation plans to include the following: nutrient management, pest management, and, where applicable, irrigation. DOS will recommend new legislation to provide authority for the preparation and implementation of expanded soil and water conservation plans with greater incentives and disincentives to assure compliance with soil and water conservation district law. Urban and general development. · For new construction (including roads and bridges), standards should require post- development runoff not to exceed pre-development for peak runoff rate and average volume, as nearly as is practicable, and post-development total suspended solids (TSS) loadings not to exceed pre-development rates. · Development standards and local land use regulations should be reviewed and, where applicable, amended to provide for the protection of lands that provide or can provide significant water quality benefits or are needed to maintain riparian or aquatic life. · Siting for new development should minimize to the extent practicable adverse impacts on the natural integrity of drainage basins and waterbodies. 190 The Natural Coast · Practices, such as maximum slope constraints, should be incorporated into development regulations in order to limit, to the extent practical, the development of areas particularly susceptible to erosion or sediment loss. · Development standards should limit the creation of additional impervious surfaces, to the extent practical. Similarly, cut and fill operations and land grading and clearing should, to the extent practical, limit disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation. · During construction, sediment should be retained on-site, to the extent practicable, through such techniques as limiting the footprint of disturbance, sediment retention basins, and care in selection of development sites. · At construction sites, steps should be taken to minimize the use, generation, and migration of toxic substances. Toxic materials should be properly stored and disposed of. · In reestablishing or maintaining vegetation on construction sites, nutrients should not be applied in levels or by methods that will cause significant nutrient runoff to surface or ground waters. · Technical guidelines for on-site sewage disposal systems should be reviewed and amended as appropriate for local conditions, such as sandy soils and elevated water tables. Amendments should make provisions for proper siting, design, installation, operation, and maintenance, so that discharges to ground surface are eliminated and discharges to groundwaters that are hydrologically connected with surface waters are minimized to the extent practicable. These amendments should include provisions for adequate setbacks from surface waters, wetlands, and floodplains, based on soil type, slope, hydrologic factors, and type of on-site sewage disposal system. In particular, on- site sewage disposal system design for new construction or redevelopment should require a reduction of 50% in total nitrogen loadings to groundwater, from the baseline of total nitrogen entering the on-site sewage disposal system. · Use of garbage disposals for sites with on-site sewage disposal system should be discouraged. · Effective maintenance strategies for on-site sewage disposal systems, applicable to both new and existing systems, should be developed and implemented. · Education and other appropriate programs should be developed and conducted to reduce nonpoint pollution from use, storage, and disposal of household hazardous chemicals; use and disposal of lawn and garden chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides; turf management; pet excrement; discharge of materials into swrm drains; and pollution from commercial activities not covered under NPDES programs. · Roads and highways should be planned and developed in a manner which protects areas of importance in water quality maintenance and areas particularly susceptible to erosion or sediment loss; limits land disturbance such as cut and fill techniques; and limits disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation. · Bridges should be sited, designed, and maintained to prevent adverse impacts on sensitive and valuable aquatic ecosystems and areas providing important water quality benefits. The NaturaJ Coast 191 · Road and bridge construction, restoration, resurfacing, or rehabilitation should incorporate methods to reduce erosion, to the extent practicable and, where possible, retain sediments on-site during and after construction; to require the preparation and implementation of an approved erosion control plan; to limit the application, generation, and migration of toxic substances; to ensure proper storage and disposal of toxic materials; and to apply nutrients needed for revegetation at rates that do not result in significant nutrient runoff to surface waters. · Pollution prevention procedures should be incorporated into the operation and maintenance of roads, highways, and bridges. Pollution prevention or reduction opportunities should be identified, priorities should be established, and schedules for implementation of appropriate controls should be developed. Implementation: DEC, DOS, and NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) will coordinate to develop standards for new construction (including roads and bridges), which require that post-development runoff should not exceed, as nearly as is practicable, pre- development for peak runoff rate and average volume; and post development TSS loadings should not exceed pre-development rates. Consideration should be given to amending the Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code to address nonpoint pollution issues, such as sediment and erosion control and use, storage, generation, dispo~l, and mitigation of toxics. State agencies will provide technical assistance in the development of comprehensive watershed management and protection programs. State agencies, including NYS Department of Health, and the Nassau County and Suffolk County health departments will review OSDS technical guidelines and amend as appropriate for local conditions, such aa sandy soils and elevated water tables. DOS and DEC will amend technical guidelines for OSDS, making provisions for proper siting, design, installation, operation, and maintenance, so that discharges to ground surface are eliminated and discharges to ground waters which are closely hydrologically connected with surface waters are minimized to the extent practicable. State and local health departments and local sanitary districts and municipalities, should develop and implement effective maintenance strategies for OSDS, applicable to both new and existing systems. Such programs should include routine inspection. State and local agencies, private groups and citizens groups, Cooperative Extension, and the state Water Resources Institute should continue to cooperate to further develop and conduct education programs and other prograrms as appropriate to reduce nonpoint pollution from a variety of sources. DOS will work with OPRHP and DEC to recommend changes in practices at state-owned golf courses in the Long Island Sound watershed which will minimize watering and the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, in order to limit volumes of nutrients and contaminants leaching into groundwater or running overland into coastal waters and impacting water quality. State DOT and local highway departments will consult with state agencies, such as DEC and DOS, and with local communities (through LWRPs) to ensure that planning, developing and maintaining roads, highways and bridges is done in a manner which protects water quality, 192 The Natural Coast limits disturbance of natural drainage features, and reduces use of hazardous materials and nutrients, among other considerations. DOS will seek legislative authorization to amend the Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code to address nonpoint pollution issues, such as sediment and erosion control, and the use, storage, generation, disposal, and mitigation of toxics. Local governments should incorporate appropriate best management practices into their LWRPs. Marltms. · New marinas and expansions of existing marinas should be sited and designed in a manner which will allow adequate flushing by tides or currents. Siting and design should minimize adverse impacts on water quality, shellfish resources, wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. · When stabilizing shorelines, strong preference should be given to nonstructural methods. · New marinas should not be sited in SA (shellfishing) waters. · Average annual loadings for TSS from hull maintenance areas should be reduced by 80 percent. Effective runoff control strategies should be implemented for hull maintenance · Fueling stations should be designed so as to allow ease in cleanup of spills. · New or expanding marinas should provide sewage pumpout facilities or dumping stations. Such facilities should include adequate signage to promote use, and be readily accessible. · Solid and liquid wastes generated from marina activity and hazardous or toxic materials. used in marina activity should be stored, contained, and disposed of in a manner which does not contribute to water pollution. · For areas with a significant fishery, fish waste management provisions should be made. · Minimize the release to surface waters of paint and harmful cleaners and solvents from in water hull cleaning. · Where sewage disposal or pumpout facilities exist, they should be kept in good working order. The public should be encouraged to use these facilities. · Where appropriate to reduce turbidity and other undesirable impacts on surface waters, boating activity should be restricted. These restrictions could include speed limits (i.e., no wake zones) and exclusion of boats from sensitive areas. Implementation: DOS and DEC will use exisfmg permitting authorities to implement recommendations for siting, construction, expansion, and operation of marinas. DEC, United States Coast Guard (USCG), harbor authorities, and others should restrict boating activity, where appropriate to reduce turbidity and other undesirable impacts on surface waters. These restrictions could include speed limits (i.e., no wake zones) and exclusion of boats from sensitive areas. The Natural Co~st 193 Harbor management plans developed for Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will reflect the need for maintenance dredging operations and for activities related to existing uses to be designed to minimize impacts to water quality. Local governments should incorporate standards for marinas and marina-related activities into their LWRPs and local laws. Hydromodiflcations. · Channelization and channel modification proposals should be evaluated with respect to potential impacts on the physical, chemical, and biological impacts on surface waters as well as impacts to riparian areas. Such activities should be designed and executed in a manner as to minimize such adverse impacts. · For existing channels, an operation and maintenance program which includes the identification and implementation of opportunities to improve the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the waters in the channels should be developed. · Stream banks should be stabilized if they present a nonpoint pollution problem. When such areas are to be stabilized, very s~'ong preference should be accorded vegetative or "soft" methods rather than structural or "hard" methods. Implementation: DOS and DEC will use existing regulatory authority to implement these recommendations. 194 The Natural Coast Chapter 4 The PUBLIC COAST Connect people to the Sound and its public resources by improving visual and physical access, and providing a diversity of recreational opportunities. The public's right to gain physical and visual access to the recreational opportunities and beauty of New York's coastal resources has long been recognized. However, this right has not always been easily exercised, particularly in the Long Island Sound region. Here, there are few facilities open to everyone that offer major recreation opportunities. The general public is usually excluded from local access and recreational facilities because of residency restrictions. Furthermore, the nature of existing as well as continuing development makes the provision of additional coastal access and recreation facilities more difficult. Visual access to the waters and shores of the Sound is often blocked by development. The basic right to use and enjoy public trust lands is increasingly being thwarted by development that limits the public's ability to reach public trust lands. Often associated with development are such structures as long docks which obstruct lateral access along public trust lands and impede public use of surrounding public waters. The need to ease the limitations on the general public's ability to exercise its rights of physical and visual access to the Sound coast is reflected in the theme for the public coast: Connect people to the Sound and its public resources by improving visual and physical access and providing a diversity of recreational opportunities. As more fully explained in the following sections, there are a variety of ways by which this theme can be advanced. These include: acquisition of coastal land by the state and development for access and recreational purposes; taking advantage of opportunities on state owned lands for enhancing physical and visual access and recreation facilities; developing creative new partnerships with local government and land conservation groups; establishing travelways to and through public open spaces and public trust lands and waters; maintaining and creating visual access to the Sound and to significant land and water vista.* that define the Sound's unique qualities; exaction of public access through the development approval process; and reasserting and guaranteeing the public's rights and interests in the waters and foreshore of the Sound and. its natural and scenic resource base. PUBLIC ACCESS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE AREAS AND FACILITIES Currently, both the public and private sector are involved in a variety of ways with public access and recreation in the Long Island Sound region. Local, state, and federal government agencies plus the private sector plan, acquire, develop, and manage waterfront public access, recreation, and open space facilities in the Sound region. Local governments are responsible for planning, acquiring, developing, and managing most of the public access, recreation, and open space facilities along the Sound. At the state level, the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) operates and manages state parks, while the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), manages The Public Coast 195 conservation areas and fishing access sites in the Sound region. A third state agency, the Department of State (DOS), plays a lead role through the State Coastal Management Program, which provides for the development and implementation of state coastal policies dealing with access, recreation, and open space facilities. DOS, through its consistency review process, ensures that the coastal policies are adhered to by federal and state agencies. At the federal level, there are two wildlife refuges and a national historic site along the waterfront that are operated and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, respectively. Funding for the acquisition and development of facilities comes from both federal and state sources. Management and maintenance funds come from state sources, such as the State Park Infrastructure Fund. Privately owned waterfront areas along the Sound provide the general public with some access and passive recreation opportunities, or if the public is excluded, offer open space benefits. These latter areas are primarily golf courses, while the areas offering access and passive recreation are generally nature preserves owned by The Nature Conservancy or local conservation groups. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) was used in the preparation of this component of the LIS CMP. To ensure that the state and its communities are well- served by public access and recreation facilities, OPRHP prepares a SCORP every five years. The most recent plan is entitled *People, Resources, Recreation, 1985-1993.* The plan serves as a status report and overall guideline for recreation resource preservation, planning, and development. It is the state's assessment and policy document for the executive and legislative branches of state government, other units of government, recreation and preservation interest groups, and the general public. SCORP is utilized as a basic information source, particularly for recreational issues, policies, priorities, and for supply and demand forecast data. Another important document used in the development of the LIS CMP and its recommendations was "Conserving Open Space in New York," released in 1992 after being prepared through a mutual effort by DEC and OPRHP in conjunction with nine regional advisory committees appointed jointly by the state and county governments. The plan proposes what open space should be saved for the state's future, and describes how to conserve and manage that open land in a sensible and affordable way. It is thus a guide for the implementation of policies and programs to conserve open space by DEC, OPRHP, and other state agencies. A third document prepared by DEC, entitled "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan," was also important in the preparation of the LIS CMP. The objectives of this plan, released in March 1993, were threefold: (1) to inventory existing marine recreational fishing access sites in the state's marine and coastal district; (2) to determine additional marine recreational fishing access needs and those benefits that accrue from expanded access; and (3) to develop a plan to satisfy the marine recreational fishing access needs identified in the study. In the following discussion of the regions's public access, recreation, and open space resources, the types of access discussed are defined as: general public access--all members of the public regardless of residency or any other factor are allowed to use a facility; restricted public access--there are residency restrictions on one or more public uses of a facility (nonresidents may not be allowed to use a facility, may be allowed to use some but not all of the features of a facility, may be charged a higher fee than residents to use some or all of the features of a facility, or may be allowed to use facilities only at certain times 196 The Public Coast of the week); and private access--access is allowed only to members of a private club or other group such as shore and beach clubs, golf clubs, yacht clubs, neighborhood beach associations, etc. The Westchester County Shore Approximately seven miles of the county's 36 miles of shoreline are in public ownership, with most of this being parks and open spaces providing general or restricted public access to the water and various kinds of active and passive recreation. The areas and facilities are either municipal or county operated; there are no state parks. Shoreline areas in private ownership as private recreational facilities provide water-dependent recreation for members only, but in a few cases, such as the Larchmont Manor Park, access and recreation opportunities are available to the general public. Map 12.0 shows the locations of public and private waterfront access and recreation areas along the Westchester County Sound shoreline. Three categories of areas are shown: (1) general public access areas, (2) restricted public access areas, and (3) private access areas and facilities. Also shown on the map are some street end access points and beach closure areas. Appendix 4 contains specific information on various facilities for all communities in the Long Island Sound coastal area. One major waterfront recreation park, Playland Park, operated by the county, and two smaller municipal parks along the shore, Harbor Island Park in the Village of Mamaroneck, and New Rochelle's Five Island Park, are open to the general public without any restrictions. Other municipal parks with beaches and swimming pools restrict use to residents, although most communities allow nonresidents to use other areas of parks for passive recreation. Two of the four boat launch sites are restricted to county or local residents. Limited or no parking in the vicinity of the few street end access points generally restricts use of these areas to nearby residents. Conservation/open space areas, such as the Marshlands Conservancy, are usually open to anyone. The Bronx and Queens Shore of New York City A high percentage of the shoreline in this area is publicly owned. Most of this public shoreline consists of parks and open spaces providing general public access to the water and various kinds of active and passive recreation activities. There are no residency restrictions on use of the city's parks and natural areas in the area, although certain activities have an admission fee. Map 12.1 shows the locations of three categories of public and private waterfront access and recreation areas, as described for Westchester County above, along the New York City Sound shoreline. Appendix 4 summarizes the types of public waterfront access and recreation sites and facilities. Not listed, but shown on the inventory map, are numerous street ends which are important for providing point access to the shore. Pelham Bay Park, the city's largest park with 2,764 acres and 13 miles of shoreline, is in the northeast corner of the Bronx and contains Orchard Beach, one of the city's major swimming beaches. In addition to swimming, this park offers a variety of other active and passive recreational activities. Alley Pond Park, located at the southern end of Little Neck Bay on the Queens north shore, is the other major park in the region with public access to the waterfront. The park offers both active and passive recreation in its 654 acres of forests, The Public Caast 197 ponds, salt marshes, and Alley Creek. The third major park is Udalls Cove and Ravine at the northeastern corner of Queens. Its 52 acres are managed as a nature preserve, but provide a variety of passive recreation activities. In addition to four other parks in the region, there are numerous street ends, a bicycle and pedestrian path, and a public promenade. In the East Bronx, there are some shoreline areas owned by private clubs that provide water- dependent recreation for members only. A large, impressively sited parcel of public land in Queens, Fort Totten's 147 acres, remains under military jurisdiction with no general public access. On City Island, there are many street ends which are technically public; however, they have been illegally taken over by block associations and improved with beaches, benches, and other street furniture. The associations maintain the areas and generally permit use by members only. The Nassau County Shore The largely residemial coastline of Nassau County is interspersed with public parks and open spaces, providing both general and restricted public access to the water and various kinds of active and passive recreation. Approximately 12.5 miles of the county's 73 miles of Long Island Sound shoreline are publicly owned. The facilities are either federally, municipally or county operated. There are no state parks along the county's waterfront. The federal government has two facilities: the Sagamore Hill National Historic Site and the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Map 12.2 shows the locations of three categories of public and private waterfrom access and recreation areas along the Nassau County Sound shoreline. Appendix 4 lists and describes the types of public and private waterfront and recreation sites and facilities. The sites are keyed to the waterfront access and inventory map. Not listed, but shown on the inventory map, are street ends which are locally significant for providing waterfront access to public trust lands. While there are some local parks that have no residency restrictions, invariably these are parks offering only passive recreational activities such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, etc. Parks with active recreational facilities such as beaches and swimming pools are usually restricted for use by residents only. Only three out of twenty fishing access sites along Nassau County's north shore have no residency restrictions. Shoreline areas in private ownership include beach clubs or associations, which provide water-dependent recreation for members only, and nature preserves, such as those owned by the Nature Conservancy, which provide access to anyone if prior permission is obtained. The Suffolk County Shore For ease of discussion, the Suffolk County shoreline is divided into two sub-areas. The western sub-area extends from the Nassau County border to include the Village of Port Jefferson. The eastern sub-area continues from the eastern boundary of Port Jefferson to Fishers Island. The western Suffolk County area is predominantly residential, but there are numerous parks and open spaces providing general and restricted public access to the waterfront, as well as 198 The Public Coast both active and passive recreational facilities. In addition to the preponderance of areas and facilities that are municipally owned, particularly resident-only beaches, the county, state, and federal government also own property. The federal government has one facility, Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge, while the state operates three state parks. Only one state park, Sunken Meadow State Park, is highly developed. It is the largest beach facility on Long Island Sound in both Nassau and Suffolk counties and draws the highest number of visitors per year to the Sound of any facility. Of the other two state parks, Caumsett State Park is not developed for active recreational uses, but offers several passive recreational activities, as does Caleb Smith State Park, which is primarily a natural area. Maps 12.3 and 12.4 show the locations of three categories of public and private waterfront access and recreation areas along the western Suffolk County shoreline. Appendix 4 lists and describes the types of public and private sites and facilities along the sub-region's waterfront. Not listed, but shown on the inventory map, are street ends which are locally s~gnificant for providing waterfront access to public trust lands. However, most of these street ends have residency restrictions. As in other parts of the Sound region, there are some local parks that have no residency restrictions. Invariably these parks offer only passive recreational activities such as hiking, picnicking, and nature study. Parks with active recreational facilities., such as beaches and swimming pools, are usually restricted for use by residents only. Of the 23 municipal or county-owned fishing access sites in the sub-region, ten are open to nonresidents. Shoreline areas in private ownership include beach clubs or associations, which provide water-dependent recreation for members only, and nature preserves, such as those owned by the Nature Conservancy, which provide access to anyone if prior permission is obtained. The eastern Suffolk County area gradually becomes less residential from west to east, with vacant or agricultural lands becoming more predominant along the waterfront. Municipalities and the county operate a number of waterfront parks and beaches. There is only one major State facility, Wildwood State Park, although there are several DEC conservation areas that provide limited general public access for passive recreation purposes. There are no federal government facilities in this sub-region. Maps 12.5 and 12.6 show the locations of three categories of public and private waterfront access and recreation areas along the eastern Suffolk County shoreline. Appendix 4 lists and describes the types of public and private sites and facilities along the sub-area's waterfront. Not listed, but shown on the inventory map, are street ends which are locally significant for providing waterfront access to public trust lands. However, most of these street ends have residency restrictions. Many of the municipal and county facilities are closed to nonresidents, although seven of these facilities do allow nonresident use with payment of higher fees than are charged residents. Of the 15 municipal or county-owned (one is owned by DEC) fishing access sites in the sub-area, only five are open to nonresidents. There are a total of 24 private beach clubs and property owner associations in this sub-area, which provide water-dependent recreation for members only. There are also two privately owned nature preserves which provide access to anyone if prior permission is obtained. Tlte Pttblic Coast 199 Westchester County Existing Waterfront Recreational Access MAP 12.0 Legend ~ PubJin - No ~ons ~'~ Street End ~ Point New York City Existing Waterfront Recreational Access MAP 12.1 Legend Public - Restricted Public - No R~o~ B~au~, C~o~ure Areas [] Coastal Boundary Street End Access Point Nassau County Existing Public Recreational Access MAP 12.2 Legend [] Private ~ Ise~ Oo~ure ~es [] Public - Restricted [~ Coastal Boundary ~ Public - No Restrictions ~ Street End Access Point Western Suffolk County Existin.q Waterfront Recreat,onal Access MAP 12.3i Legend [] Private Public - R~,-;cted [] Public - No Restrictions ,~ Beach Closure Areas ["--] Street End ~ Point MIt. ES 0 I 2 3 Smithtown - Port Jefferson Existing Waterfront Recreational Access MAP 12.4 Legend PHvate A ~% Oosure A~'eas Public - ~i~ed ~ ~ Boundaw ~ - NO R~i~o~ ~ S~O~ End ~ ~inl Eastern Suffolk County Existing .Waterfront Recreational Access iMAP Legend M Pdvam ~ Ilii~; Clo~ura Area. · Plddil: - Rastricted [~_ ~'A,,,qal Boundary m Publk= - No Restrictions I"--I Street End A----_~e~_; Point Eastern Suffolk County Existing Waterfront Recreational Access [] Public - Restricted Trends Affecting Public Access,..R..e.¢reation, and Open Space Areas and Faaliaes The current supply and existing use of the region's waterfront public access, recreation, and open space facilities, as well as future levels of demand, are examined in the following sections, which also bring together and incorporate various elements of recent state agency and local government plans for the future use and improvement of such facilities and the development of new facilities. It is especially important at this time, in a period of economic slowdown and a pause in the region's development, to make sure that there is consensus on what facilities are needed and where they are needed to satisfy the region's future public access, recreation, and open space needs. Historically, the general public has been excluded from the use of the majority of public access, recreation, and open space facilities on the Long Island Sound coastline, particularly those facilities offering active recreation, such as beach swimming, fishing, boat launching, and non-water-dependent court and field games. As shown on Map 13.0, there are only five major wateifiont parks around the Sound that offer active recreation and that are open to the . general public. Among Sound municipalities, only New York City's facilities are open to residents and nonre~idonts alike, without any differences in use restrictions for these two classes of users. Over the years, other Sound counties and communities have developed numerous public access and recreation facilities, but mostly for residents only. The result is that the general public is either excluded or discouraged from using more than half of the public access and recreation facilities and open space areas on the Sound and most of those offering active water-dependent recreation. If they are not specifically excluded, they are often discouraged from using these facilities by parking regulations that prohibit nonresidents or by lack of public transportation to facilities. Local parks which received partial federal and state funds for their development or improvement are required to be open to the general public, such as Five Islands Park in New Rochelle and Harbor Island Park in the Village of Mamaroneck, but many municipalities forego such federal and state funds to avoid having to admit nonresidents. Several of DEC and locally operated fishing access sites are also open to the general public, sometimes for a fee. According to DEC's 'Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan,' 28 out of 75 public fishing access sites in the Sound region are open to the general public. Coastal nature preserves, such as Westchester County's Marshlands Conservancy, are usually open to the general public. Map 14.0 shows the locations of such preserves and parks around the Sound that are open to the general public for passive recreation. Visual access to the Sound is also limited for the general public. Much of the shoreline is residentially developed, with some commercial uses in and near community centers. Although eastern Suffolk County is less developed than the rest of the Sound shoreline, visual access continues to decrease in that area becanse of residential development. While the Sound may be occasionally viewed from some streets and highways, residential and commercial development usually blocks views of the Sound. The only locations where the general public may obtain more than fleeting glances of the Sound from streets and highways are those public access, recreation, and open space facilities open to everyone. As a result, for most people, the ability to obtain visual access to the Sound is dependent on gaining The Public Co.st 207 physical access at the relatively few facilities without residency restrictions. Even at street ends, the general public is invariably prohibited from viewing the water due to restrictions prohibiting nonresident parking. On the other hand, it is important to realize that Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties, and many municipalities each have large populations who are eligible to use the many facilities within their own jurisdictions and who may not feel deprived because they cannot use facilities in an adjoining community or county. Moreover, Long Island's north and south shores cannot be viewed as discrete areas for public access, recreation, and open space purposes. For example, the lack of many swimming facilities for the general public on the Sound is not necessarily a serious issue, for these facilities are complemented by numerous federal and state parks a few miles away on the south shore, which have long been open to everyone and provide a type of ocean beach and swimming experience not duplicated on the Sound. In addition, many Sound communities, because of their attractive shorefront environments, became enclaves for the affluent, who formed numerous private clubs along the shore, offering access and recreation opportunities, but to members only and at a steep price. The establishment of many private golf clubs over the years has resulted in several thousand acres of open space in coastal areas, which have become valued for aesthetic and environmental reasons as they have been surrounded by development. SUPPLY OF AREAS AND FAC~ In recent years, there has been no significant increase in the amount of public access, recreation, and open space facilities along the Sound open to the general public. For example, the number of state parks and preserves has remained at four for many years, although within the parks themselves there have been improvements, which have increased capacities and made the parks more attractive to users. Incremental increases in the quality and quantity of general and restricted public access and recreation opportunities have occurred along the Sound over the years, as communities and counties have developed some new facilities and made improvements to existing ones. An example is a major new facility, Five Islands Park, which has been acquired and developed by New Rochelle as a park and nature preserve offering many types of passive recreation without residency restrictions. Another example is expansion of the existing boat launch ramp on the Nissequogue River at the Kings Park Psychiatric Center for general public use, now the subject of a tentative agreement to provide for this outcome. A final example is Port Jefferson, where obsolete or non-water-dependant industrial uses that formerly occupied strategic locations along the waterfront have been replaced with commercial and recreational uses that provide greater public access. With the exception of New York City, where facilities are open to all, the established pattern of a few facilities open to the general public, and numerous other local facilities open to residents only, remains in place. The only exception is the relatively high number of public fishing access sites open to the general public, 28 out of 75; however, this varies by county. In Nassau County, only 3 out of 21 sites have unrestricted access, while in Suffolk County 15 of 38 sites are open to the general public. In New York City, all such sites are unrestricted, while in Westchester County almost half are. SCORP characterizes trends in public access, recreation, and open space in the Sound area. In referring to the southern zone of the state, which includes the Sound region, SCORP 208 The Public Coast Major Waterfront Parks With Active Recreation and Open to the General Public MAP 13.0 CONNECTICUT SUFFOLK NYC Major Waterfront Parks or Preserves With Passive Recreation and Open to the General Public states: "Due to extensive commercial development pressure throughout the zone, open-space and water-access limitations are more severe here than anywhere else in the state .... The extensive recreation resources of this zone are found amid the densest population concentrations of the state. Supply is severely limited by access and travel constraints on the zone's residents. Furthermore, the recreation supply is periodically impacted by particularly overcrowded conditions. In this zone, the recreation resources are threatened by the demands of development over-reaching its limits" (pages 2.21 and 2.22). Visual access to the Sound's coastal lands and waters is closely linked to physical access opportunities. With relatively few access facilities open to the general public,, and with continuing shoreline development increasingly blocking visual access sites and corridors, the general public's ability to enjoy the visual qualities of the Sound's coastal areas is very restricted. Frequently, only glimpses of the Sound can be seen from nearby streets; a chance to enjoy the view is usually not possible because parking is not allowed on these streets, there are no puiloffs for temporary parking, and any nearby local parks are closed to non-residents. Given the character of a highly developed shoreline in Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and western Suffolk County, there are relatively few opportunities for significantly increasing the amount and type of public access, recreation, and open space facilities along the Sound shoreline for the general public, short of opening local facilities to nonresidents. Moreover, many of these local facilities are designed to serve only a local population and may not be able to accommodate increased use by a larger segment of the public. There are some opportunities for increasing the amount of general public physical and visual access and recreation facilities. First, the fate of Davids Island has not yet been settled. There is always the potential for all or parts of this significant open space to be used for public access and recreation purposes. Second, Caumsett State Park in Suffolk County, near the Nassau County border, remains a passive recreational park with potential for providing more access for the general public that is compatible with the park's natural environment. SCORP notes this park's potential for more day use, water access, special events, and support facilities such as parking and roods. Similarly, Sunken Meadow State Park is seen by SCORP as having potential for more water access. Third, there are opportunities for using public non-park waterfront lands for public access and recreation, such as sewage treatment plants (already done in New York City) or military facilities, such as Fort Totten in Queens. Fourth, the large number and acreage of private yacht and shore and beach clubs along the more developed areas of the Sound may provide future opportunities for public use if they should cease operating, as soma already have. However, due to the high cost of such waterfront land, this may not be a viable option for many communities. Fifth, and perhaps least likely, there is the possibility of the state negotiating with counties or municipalities to allow nonresident use of appropriate larger facilities in return for state funds or other incentives. USE OF ARF~ AND FACILITIES SCORP refers to the southern zone of the state, which includes the Long Island Sound region, as having a" . . . recreation supply [that] is periodically impacted by particularly overcrowded conditions" (page 2.22). DEC's "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan" states, with respect to unrestricted boat launch ramps, that there is overcrowding at these facilities throughout the entire Marine and Coastal District. The Public Coa.vt 211 While there is heavy use of local, restricted public access, recreation, and open space facilities in Westchester County, most county and local officials indicated that most facilities are not being overused to the detriment of the resource, with some exceptions. For example, the Village of Mamaroneck's Harbor Island Park on the waterfront was said by a local official to be overused to the detriment of the physical condition of the park. At some facilities, the capacity of parking lots limits overuse. For example, Westchester County noted that Glen Island Park is heavily used on summer weekends when the weather is good, to the extent that traffic backs up outside the park, waiting until parking spaces are available. Similarly, a relatively small parking lot at the Marshlands Conservancy serves to limit attendance, which is desirable according to the curator, due to the fragility of the natural resources being protected. In other areas, municipal residency restrictions tend to limit overuse. According to county officials, the beaches at the two Westchester County facilities are utilized to capacity on weekends, but underutilized on weekdays, like many recreational facilities of this type. Overall, county and local officials did not indicate that underutilization of public access, recreation, and open space areas is a'serious problem. Other factors have also affected the use of public access, recreation, and open space facilities in recent years. Lack of maintenance of facilities has reduced the quality of the access and recreation experience and in some cases has served to eliminate access. For example, lack of maintenance of Playland Pier at Playland Park in Westchester County resulted in its deterioration and recent partial destruction due to storms, with a corresponding elimination of the opportunity to use it for fishing and viewing the water. The pier is proposed to be rehabilitated. Poor water quality has directly affected the use of recreational resources by causing closures of beaches for swimming and prohibitions of fishing. During the four summers from 1987 through 1990, there were 35 separate closures of Westchester County beaches on the Sound. During 1989 alone, Mamaroneck area beaches were closed for about 20% of the entire swimming season. In Nassau and Suffolk counties, 15 out of 90 bathing beaches were closed for one or more days during 1991 or 1992. In New York City, episodes of degraded water quality in Long Island Sound continue to disrupt recreational activities periodically, particularly swimming at Orchard Beach in Pelham Bay Park. Water quality here is among the best in the city, but the beach is closed at times due to high coliform counts and medical Beach closures result from water pollution, in part, because of excessive rainfall causing stormwater runoff that forces sewage treatment plants to divert untreated sewage directly into the Sound. Another contributing factor to water pollution is direct stormwater and sheet runoff into surface waters (nonpoint source runoff), which contains pathogens picked up from impervious surfaces and the land. Much of the increased stormwater runoff is a consequence of the great deal of residential and commercial development that occurred in watersheds both inside and outside of the coastal area after World War H. Another adverse result of greater runoff has been the increased siltation of streams and harbors, which limits access to some of the harbor waters for boaters, unless dredging is regularly undertaken. Several severe storms in the past few years have caused significant erosion of beaches and bluffs and damage to facilities at waterfront parka and access areas. Sometimes this has occurred because of inappropriate erosion control structures. Lack of funds to repair 212 The Public Coast damages quickly has reduced the quantity and quality of the access and recreation experience at these Facilities Until the recent recession, long waiting lists at public and private marinas were undoubtedly responsible for the increased use of boat launch sites by trailered boats that might otherwise be docked at marinas. Now, with the recession in the region still in evidence, waiting lists remain only at the lower-priced public marinas; nevertheless, demand for boat launch sites remains high, because boat owners who might otherwise have used private marinas are keeping their boats on trailers and using the boat launch sites in an effort to save money. With no waiting lists at private marinas, there are fewer being built, a positive development from an environmental standpoint, because of the lessened environmental impacts of the construction and operation of a boat launch site, as opposed to a marina. Finally, persons with a variety of disabilities have become increasingly vocal about their legitimate right and ability to use public facilities on an equal basis with other persons. This has affected the manner in which public access and recreational facilities are made available, so that all persons, regardless of disabilities, are able to make use of and enjoy such facilities. Neither the state, the counties, nor the municipalities have made quantitative projections of future demand for recreation along the Sound or for specific sites. Nevertheless, an analysis of general population trends, along with information from other sources, provides some insights into the future demand for public access, recreation, and open space facilities, in general, as well as the demand for specific types of facilities. In recent years, there has been no significant population growth in the Long Island Sound region. In Westchester County, the population of most coastal communities, as reflected by 1990 figures, continues a slow decline. Also slowly declining are populations in the community districts in the Bronx and Queens adjacent to the Sound. On Long Island, the population is remaining relatively constant, slightly declining in Nassau County and rising somewhat in Suffolk County. In common with much of the nation, populations in the region are generally aging, with declining family size and more households with fewer people in them. A relatively stable population might suggest that there will be no increase in overall demand for public access, recreation, and open space facilities. SCORP notes, however, that ~-endance at state parks on Long Island has been consistently rising over the years from 14,923,000 in 1977-78 to 20,760,000 in 1987-88, indicating that other factors than population growth also are important in determining the overall demand for public access, recreation, and open space facilities. Furthermore, changes in lifestyles, the economy, and population age groups could cause changes over time in the popularity of different types of public access and recreation activities. SCORP's 1987 General Public Recreation Survey, which is a projection on a statewide basis of twenty-four recreation activities of which many are coastal related, showed that 'in spite of the slow population growth and the general aging of the population over the projection period [1985- 2010], most of the activities are expected to experience growth in both the number of participants and total activity days' (page 2.43). Thus, despite a relatively stable population, the number of participants in coastal activities such as boating (motor boating and sailing) is projected by the survey to grow eight percent on a statewide basis between 1985 The Public Coast 213 and 2010, which will cause substantial increases in demand for facilities supporting the activity, such as boat launch sites. Likewise, the number of participants in ocean swimming is projected to grow by eight percent in the same period. Table 17, modified from one in SCORP, summarizes the percent change for selected coastal related recreational activities. The changing population numbers in different age groups, a circumstance noted throughout the Long Island Sound region, causes changes in the types of activities called for in public access, recreation, and open space facilities. SCORP's survey analysis indicated that "age is found to be a significant factor in determining whether or not an individual will participate in a given activity. Tablel7 Projected Growth in Recreational Activities 1985-2010 RECREATIONAL GROWTH ACTIVITY 1985-2010 Relaxing in park 9% Ocean swinuning $ ~ N~mre walking 10% Bicycling 5 % Fishing 7% Row b~atin~ 7~ Motorbo~ing 8 ~ Sailin~ Generally speaking, individuals participate in different types of activities as they get older" (page 2.45). The survey noted that "the activities which are declining in total activity days are the very age sensitive activities, such as baseball, football, and other physically demanding sports" (page 2.43). Consequently, current and future levels of activity can be predicted by looking at current and projected age structures, which has implications for the types of facilities and activities provided in public access and recreation areas. The aging population in the region may bring demands for changes in the types of recreation and facilities provided in waterfront parks. As a current example, the increased number of walkers using such facilities as Glen Island Park in Westchester County in all seasons reflects the healthful aspirations of an increasingly older population in the county's coastal area. Such year-round park uae has led the park to keep toilet facilities open all year. Similarly, there may be greater use of waterfront parks for such activities as bird watching, photography, painting and sketching, or nature study by an aging population. An increasingly elderly population may require that more facilities make appropriate accommodations in the activities they offer for the higher percentage of physically impaired persons among the elderly. An aging population also will be increasingly less able to use private transportation to reach public access, recreation, and open space facilities. To continue to meet the needs of this population, public transportation routes will have to reflect the desire of the elderly to continue to make use of coastal public access and recreation facilities. Also, because of the higher percentage of physical impairments among the elderly, facilities may be required to make appropriate changes in the activities they offer to accommodate the needs of this group. Moreover, it is likely that all persons with physical disabilities will continue to demand that recreation and access facilities in waterfront parks be made more readily available for their u. se. As environmental awareness continues to increase among ali age groups, the use of waterfront parks and protected conservation areas for environmentally related activities will probably expand.. The previous table showing changes in some coastal-related recreational activities projects a ten percent growth in nature walking from 1985 to 2010. To accommodate this growth, the development of greenways as linkages among the numerous parks and open spaces near and along the Sound can provide many oppor'mnities for walking 214 The Public Coast as well as for the inclusion of bikeways. A group on Long bland, the non-profit Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference, establishes and maintains many miles of hiking trails in and between parks and open spaces on the island. Substantial portions of their trails are within the coastal area. More specifically, DEC's final "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan," projects a strong demand for future additional marine shorefishing access sites. Based on projected demands, DEC's plan includes recommendations for boat launch ramps, fishing piers, and beach access to promote marine recreational fishing in Nassau and Suffolk counties. The plan's findings coincide with the observations of Westchester County and local officials, based on their experience with various public access and recreation facilities, and with the conclusions of the New York City Comprehensive Wat~[t[ont Plan. Most Westchester County officials believe that the greatest demand in the future among various types of water-dependent recreational activities will be for recreational boating, which includes such purposes as access for fishing. This will generate a demand for additional public boat launch facilities in waterfront parks. In most parks, these facilities are now heavily used. While space may exist in waterfront parks for additional boat launch facilities, the area required for such a facility is substantial, with space for parking being a major consideration. Therefore, there may be a strong reluctance to take space from current uses in existing parks. Adjoining neighborhoods may also take a dim view of the secondary impacts of increased traffic and activity such a facility would generate. The New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan notes that the number of fishing access sites and public boat launching areas does not meet current, let alone future, demand. In the city's Sound study area, there are no public boat launch sites and only four official public fishing access sites. Evidence of demand is indicated by continued unofficial fishing at sites which are closed or present safety baT~rds. ~n Westchester County, there will be a continued demand for swimming facilities, both at beaches and pools. The existing private shore and beach clubs are expected to satisfy a substantial part of this demand. A Town of Mamaroneck-Village of Larchmont official noted that closure of the private clubs would put a severe strain on public facilities; however, there was no indication from any officials that future demand for swimming would require additional facilities, given continuation of the existing private clubs. Moreover, officials from the county and the City of New Rochelle both said that beach attendance has been steady or declining in recent years. Local officials noted a continued strong demand in their parks for non-water-dependent recreational activities, such as field sports and court games, hi satisfying this demand, officials face limited park space that competes with other demands for water-dependent recreational activities, more appropriate from a coastal policy standpoint. The Public Coast 215 NONRESIDENT VISITORS TO THE REGION Except for Playland Park in Westchester County, the four state parks on and near the Sound shoreline of Long Island, and some unrestricted boat launch and fishing access sites, there is little use of the public access and recreation facilities along the Sound by "tourists" or nonresidents. There are several reasons for this. Most coastal municipalities have residency restrictions preventing use of their facilities by nonresidents, particularly those facilities with active recreation, such as beach swimming. Tourists staying at local hotels are not considered residents and are thus unable to use local facilities, and there are few hotels on or near the Sound shoreline with their own facilities. Sometimes the access and recreation facilities themselves do not contain the attractions that induce widespread use by persons outside the area, even if they are open to nonresidents. Thus, while New Rochelle's Five Islands Park has no residency restrictions and provides pleasant waterfront access with scenic views and passive recreation opportunities, it seems highly unlikely that these attractions alone would cause extensive use by nonresidents of the city, especially for those traveling any significant distance. Similarly, while public open spaces and conservation areas are generally open to all, total attendance figures from Westchester County's Marshlands Conservancy on the Sound indicate that this type of facility attracts relatively few persons, whether residents or nonresidents. The latest figures for visitors to Marshlands indicate a total 1991 attendance of 26,690. In contrast, Playland Park has averaged nearly one million visitors annually in the past five years, many of are undoubtedly from outaide Westchester County. Increases in nonresident visits to the Long Island Sound region for public access and recreation purposes are partially dependent on improvements to existing, and acquisition and development of new, state or state-funded facilities. For example, Caumsett State Park could use additional interpretive programs about its natural environment to encourage additional use for passive recreation purposes. Another state park, Sunken Meadow, has deteriorated areas needing repairs to improve access and recreation capacities as well az the quality of the experience of visiting the park. Other areas, such as Davids Island, could be acquired and developed by the state for public access and recreation purposes. Significance of Public Access, Recreation, and Open Space While there is usually general agreement that public access, recreation, and open space are significant and have value for society, this significance and value have not always been quantified. One attempt to do so calculated the economic value of water-dependent activities related to public access and recreation for Long Island Sound (The Economic Imoortance of Lon~, Island Sound's Water Oualitv Denendent Activities. U.S. EPA, Dr. Marilyn A. Altobello, January 6, 1992). For New York, adding together the user values, direct expenditures, and multiplier effects for beach swimming, sportfishing, and boating for Long Island Sound gives a total value of Long Island Sound recreation of approximately $2.238 billion annually. The societal values and benefits of open space are discussed in "Conserving Open Space in New York." Those values important for the Sound region include the following: · Parks, beaches, scenic landscapes, historic sites, lakes, streams, and coastal areas are central to the state's $17 billion dollar a year tourism and travel industry. 216 The Public Coast · Open land, scenic and historic sites, and the availability of recreation are important to the state's quality of life and thus are a primary factor in attracting and retaining economic investment. · Retaining open land can be the least-cost approach to environmental protection. · Protection of open space can help shape growth in a way which saves money on public · Parka and open space can enhance the property values of nearby residences. · Open land and clean water sustain fish, wildlife, and .plant species, all of which have economic as well as intrinsic value. · Freshwater and tidal wetlands filter and process polluted water. · Open, undeveloped land protects the quality of underground water suoplies such as Long Island's sole source aquifer. · Open, undeveloped land is essential if the state is to retain a diversity of plant and animal species. · Open space systems, such as wetlands and barrier beaches, buffer settled areas from inland and coastal flooding. · Parka and preserves can provide the opportunity for escape and relaxation for the state's residents. · Forests, fields, beaches, and marshlands offer unique opportunities for education of people of ail ages about our environment. The significance and value of public access, recreation, and open space facilities around Long Island Sound for individuals are partly related to their residency and partly related to the distribution of the facilities. A nonresident of any So. nd community or county, with no opportunities to make use of residency restricted public access, recreation, and open space facilities along the Sound, obviously attaches little significance to these facilities. Rather, the focus of nonresidents is on the need for additional facilities in ail parts of the Sound region that can offer access for the general public. Similarly, major facilities along the Sound open to the general public, with the exception of facilities in New York City, tend to be farthest away from the largest population centers, perhaps diminishing their significance and value for many of the region's residents. Residents of shoreline communities place a high value on their local public access, recreation, and open space opportunities. In every Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, this value is reflected and stressed. Major sections in each program are devoted to the analysis of issues, the establishment of policies, and the propusai of projects and programs for improving public access, recreation, and open space opportunities. Local residents and their communities cite several reasons for the significance of the region's local public access, recreation, and open space facilities: · Their aesthetic and recreational values have, in part, contributed to the high quality of life and desirability of the area as a place to live, and have helped maintain the high value of real estate. In mm, this provides a strong tax base that generates the revenues needed to support extensive public access and recreation areas and open spaces for local residents. · Certain types of recreational activities, such as boating, are important to some local economies. For example, Mamaroneck Harbor, a significant recreational boating harbor in the region, is described as one of the village's most vital areas from an economic standpoint. The Public Coast 217 · The region's open spaces are extremely important from the standpoint of flood control, wildlife habitat, control of nonpoint source pollution, and the provision of passive recreational activities. In New York City's Sound area in particular, the significant number of open spaces are exceptionally valuable in light of the highly developed nature of the city's Sound waterfront. · The numerous parks and open spaces in the coastal area are significant for their aesthetic values. With their natural or manmade landscapes, they relieve the monotony of development and are visually pleasing with their varying colors, forms, and varieties of vegetation, landform, and wildlife. Issues and Opportunities ACCESS FOR ~£ GENERAL PUBLIC The one greatest widespread need for the region is to provide the general public with more opportunities to make use of the Sound's public access, recreation, and open space resources. This is particularly so in light of proposals to spend millions of dollars of public funds to improve the Sound's water quality. The residents of New York City, for example, have access to only five major facilities on the entire Sound shoreline outside of the city: Westchester County's Playland Park and four state parks in Suffolk County, two of which are largely nature preserves with one of these being inland from the shoreline, but still within the coastal boundary. Legitimate questions can be raised about the expenditure of great sums of public funds on water quality improvements for the Sound, when most people in the state will have very limited opportunities to benefit from these improvements as they affect public access, recreation, and open space uses of the Sound. The situation is exacerbated by the highly developed character of much of the Sound's shoreline, with the exception of eastern Suffolk County, which further limits opportunities to provide the general public with more public access, recreation, and open space facilities. In many areas, the nature and character of this shoreline development, together with the few facilities open to the general public and the exclusion of nonresidents from local parks, make it difficult for the general public to even see the Sound's waters. The existing restrictions against nonresident use of most local facilities are felt by many local residents to be strongly justified, and any propusals to change the restrictions would undoubtedly be vigorously fought. The opportunities for increased general public access are unlikely to come from providing many more large, new facilities, although there is the possibility of one or more such facilities being established in eastern Suffolk County. Rather, opportunities are more likely to come from undertaking smaller, more incremental actions, such as making improvements at existing state parks, improving more local parks with state funds and thereby opening them to nonresidents, and increasing the number of state and state-assisted fishing access points, many of which are also boat launches. It is important to emphasize that the fishing access points open to the general public should not completely exclude people from using these sites for other access purposes. They can be extremely valuable as access points for passive recreation of many kinds, such as nature study, photography, bird watching, or just relaxing and enjoying the views of land and water. They also can provide access to public trust lands, such as beaches, for walking and other 2!8 The Public Coast passive recreation, important for nonresidents who have great difficulty finding access points to the shore. MoI~ RECIW. ATIOIVAL ACCESS FACII, ITIES In SCORP's General Public Survey, respondents in the state's southern zone, which includes all of the Sound region, cited the need for swimming pools first, followed in order of importance by tennis courts, beaches, and picnic areas. Local parks and fishing access ranked lower, although still within the top ten needs. In its further analysis of statewide need, SCORP indicates that the southern zone has the greatest needs, because of the lack of adequate recreation facilities in the state's population centers. New York City and the three Sound counties all have high indices of need for almost all recreation activities. More specific needs and opportunities for the region, based on other sources, are described in the following section. DIIC's "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan" indicates a clear need for more marine recreational fishing access facilities throughout the region. The plan sets the following priorities for the first five-year phase of implementation, based on the assumption that a long- term, stable funding source will be established: · Rehabilitate and/or expand as many existing boat launch ramps as can be identified and funded. · Construct at least one new fishing pier in each county (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester); rehabilitate and/or expand as many existing fishing piers as can be identified and funded. · Acquire at least five new marine b~ch aec~s properties in the Marine District. Priority will be to address areas on Nassau County's north shore and on Suffolk County's mid-north shore and east-end ocean, Sound, and bay shores. A priority should be given to locating the above boating and fishing facilities in either the Areas for Concentrated Development or the Maritime Centers identified by the LIS CMP (see chapter 7). There is overcrowding everywhere at unrestricted public boat launch facilities, which are used by many to gain access for fishing. Fishing pier development is a high priority need especially in New York City, but all areas would benefit from such development. Gaining increased perpendicular access points to public trust land beaches for fishing is needed on Nassau County's north shore and on Suffolk County's mid-north and east-end Sound shores. The provision of additional public boat launching sites presents challenges in highly developed areas because the amount of land needed for a launch site is fairly substantial. With very little vacant public waterfront land available, the construction of additional launch The Public Coast 219 sites might involve taking land from existing public waterfront park uses. This, plus opposition to secondar~ impacts of increased traffic and activity by neighboring residents, may cause proposals to be controversial. However, proposals may be less so if they are small in scale and appropriate to their surroundings. An alternative to a public boat launching site is a community boating and sailing center which rents small boats (rowboats, canoes, sailboats, etc). Such a facility provides a significant amount of access to the water from a relatively small waterfront parcel. Making more recreational access facilities available without actually increasing the supply can occur through the use of intermunicipal reciprocity agreements. Such agreements between municipalities would allow residents of a municipality to use access facilities of any other municipality that is a participant to the agreement. SAFEGUARDING EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE The need to maintain the existing system of public and private open space, which includes private golf clubs and shore and beach clubs, particularly in the highly developed areas of Westchester and Nassau Counties, the western part of Suffolk County, and New York City, is seen as essential for preserving the aesthetic character of the area; for reducing stream flooding, particularly in Westchester County; for protecting fish and wildlife habitats; reducing stream and harbor siltation; for improving water quality in the Sound; and for providing public access and passive recreation activities. While there are significant amounts of open space that are in public ownership and are thus protected, there is also considerable acreage in private golf clubs, shore and beach clubs, and undeveloped parcels. The development of these privately owned lands, especially in the highly developed areas noted above, could have substantial adverse impacts on drainage patXerns, scenery, water quality, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Several of the shore and beach clubs on Davenport Neck in New Rochelle have ceased operations and remain vacant. A proposal was made in the last few years for furore residential development of portions of the 140 acre Bonnie Briar Country Club in the Town of Mamaroneck, which has created concern about environmental consequences and engendered studies and recommendations for rezoning the town's golf courses. ACOUIRE ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE In addition to maintaining existing public and private open space, it is equally essential to acquire additional open space before it is threatened by development. This is especially true for the more undeveloped reaches of Suffolk County, where the opportunity exists to preserve those parcels of open space that are most worthy of preservation for a variety of environmental, scenic, access, or recreational reasons. However, there are parcels throughout the region that are suitable for public acquisition as open space, as described in the plan "Conserving Open Space in New York State." MAINTAIN AND MANAGE EXISTING FACIZJTIES All governments throughout the region have a need to ensure that the quality of their existing public access, recreation, and open space areas is maintained. The need to establish a maintenance and management program for these areas is as crucial as providing the space itself. Too ofmn, concern for the usefulness and quality of public spaces stops at the point of construction and does not take into consideration day-to-day operation and maintenance. Sufficient funds are necessary to maintain and manage the parka and open spaces in a 220 The Public Coast condition that will allow continued full and appropriate public use consistent with their purposes. Admission fees for use of some facilities have traditionally been a source of funds for maintenance, but especially for many types of local parks, admission fees are impractical. Funds for maintenance must then come from local revenue sources. A Court of Appeals decision interpreting the Public Health Law with respect to the provision of toilet and washing facilities at bathing beaches has left municipalities with the possibility of having to provide such facilities at each and every street end or other access point to a beach where swimming is possible. The expense to a municipality of carrying out this decision may lead to the closing of such access points, thus depriving residents of opportunities to gain access to the shore for a wide variety of purposes other than swimming. Legislation is required to clarify the appropriate Public Health Law provision to have it apply only to those beaches operated as recreational facilities. FtnVD~NG pog N~'W Fnciz/lrl~s A major need is funding for the acquisition and/or development of general public access, recreation, and open space facilities at both state and local levels, particularly in the absence of significant st_nt_e funds, which were previously available through various bond acts. The state Environmental Protection Fund is an important new source of funding for these facilities. The amount of federal Land and Water Conservation funds available to New York has declined significantly in recent years, currently amounting to about one to two million dollars per year. This small amount is used for a mixture of state and local projects. For capital development of state parks, a State Park Infrastructure Fund has been established for use by OPRH'P. The fund, supported by park admission and other fees, will provide $300 million over ten years. Opportunities for alternative sources of funds are sometimes available, either through private sector sources associated with waterfront development or through revenue-producing activities on waterfront public lands. USE OF P~GULATORY TECHNI~2UES With the scarcity of public funds available to purchase valuable private open space and wate~i'~ont access threatened by development, municipalities have opportunities to use regu!ztnry techniquas to prevent the adverse consequences of development and to promote public physical and visnai access to or along the waterfront. However, this latter requirement is not conditioned on the existence of any specific state enabling legislation as authority for requiring, for example, developers to provide public access to coastal lands and waters. As pointed out in "public Access to the New York Shoreline" (New York State Department of State, 1988), "Local regulations pertaining to zoning and subdivision of land have, thus far, served as inadequate authority for requiring public access from developers of coastal land" (p. 154). Nevertheless, the study does indicate that the state's zoning enabling legislation gives some authority to municipalities to promote public access to the waterfront, as follows: · The local comprehensive plan can be adopted or amended to express a policy of improving the waterfront and public access and places along it. · The heights and density of buildings in the waterfront zone can be limited to preserve visual access to the water from the nearest road. Public Coast 221 Fences can be restricted or prohibited on the public foreshore and to a more limited extent on privately owned foreshore in which the state or local government has granted away all rights. · Only water-dependent land uses such as boat yards, marinas, beach clubs and public recreation areas can be listed as permissible land uses for the waterfront district. · Reasonable public access can be listed as a requirement for all special permitted uses in the waterfront district. · Cluster development can be approved to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open lands, where appropriate. · Municipalities may engage in incentive or bonus zoning which allows the developer to exceed limitations imposed by the zoning ordinance, if the developer agrees to certain things specified in the ordinance. For example, under a bonus or incentive zoning system, a developer could receive a density bonus in exchange for providing additional amenities, such as a waterfront promenade open to the public. In addition to zoning requirements, village, town, and city laws governing the subdivision of land give the authority to require that recreational pari~ be provided as a condition of plat approval or, if impractical, that monies be provided by the developer for use by the municipality for park acquisition or development elsewhere. The state Coastal Management Program consistency review process, which requires that state and federal actions be consistent with state coastal public access and recreation policies, among others, provides opportunities at the state level to obtain physical and visual public access as a condition for the approval of public and private development on the waterfront under certain circumstances. When development by a public agency or authority is being undertaken, there is very little question that public access must be provided to the extent appropriate for the site and the nature of the proposed development and consistent with public health and safety. While there is no explicit state authority to condition approval of proposed private development in the coastal area on mandatory dedication of public access without just compensation, there are mitigating circumstances under which physical or visual public access can be obtained. Examples include iustance~ where the proposed development may require the purchase of publicly owned land as part of the project (as was the case for the proposed Davids Island residential development project in New Rochelle), when public access or recreation would be adversely affected by the development, or when visual access for the public exists and the proposed development would adversely affect or remove the visual access. IMPROVE PUBLICLY OWNED NON-PARK LAND FOR PUBLIC ACCESS There are opportunities for improving waterfront public access on state and municipally owned non-park lands, especially when facilities on these lands are developed, improved, or current uses are discontinued. While not all such lands can provide access, the potential for providing access should be evaluated at what might appear to be unlikely candidates. For example, the Tallman Island Sewage Treatment Plant in Queens successfully incorporated public space along the water's edge. 222 The Public It is also important to look at all publicly owned non-park waterfront lands, even if there are no plans for development, to determine if they can be currently used for waterfront access. An example is historic Fort Schuyler at the end of the Throgs Neck Peninsula in the East Bronx. Home of the New York State Merchant Marine Academy, the entire site is an historic and spectacularly scenic resource which contains the historic fort, a maritime museum, piers where large vessels dock, and excellent views of the East River and the Long Island Sound. While the museum is open for limited hours, the entire site is rarely visited by the general public. This underutilized waterfront resource, from a public access point of view, offers the potential for increased public use without interference with its primary function. Another prominem publicly owned non-park waterfront site with great potential for providing waterfront access is Fort Totten, a 147 acre federal military installation located on a peninsula at the western entrance to Little Neck Bay in Queens. While previous efforts to have this site made available for public use have been unsuccessful, renewed efforts should be undertaken. Excellent opportunities for new or improved point access, scenic overlooks, or visual corridors are available from streets terminating at the shoreline. Existing restrictions against nonresident parking at the many street ends on the north shore of Long Island and along the shoreline in Westcheater County need to be reviewed for their legality in light of a court decision preventing the City of Albany from restricting nonresident parking on its public streets. Also, the state's Community Highway Improvement Program (CHIP), which provides stat~ funds to communities for local highway improvements, should be reviewed to determine if it could be used to ensure, through application of the CMP consistency review process, that nonresidents have the same parking rights as residents at street ends on the Sound. While New York City has taken advantage of many street ends for improved public access, many public street ends on City Island have been taken over by adjacent landowners or neighborhood associations, which then illegally prevent the general public from using them. The City of New York should take the appropriate actions to ensure that these street ends are reclaimed for use by all of the public. PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION ~IIROUGH ~RgnEVELOPMENT AC1'IVIT~$ There are some areas, such aa along Glen Cove Creek, Hempsteud Harbor, and Mattituck Creek on the North Shore of Long Island, where intensive industrial uses in the past have left many deteriorated, unattractive, and underutilized sites, some of which are contaminated with toxic materials. There are opportunities in such areas for developing marine commercial uses to serve recreational booting, furthering public physical and visual access by establishing waterfront walkways and linear parks, developing active and passive recreational parks, and restoring and protecting natural areas. County and town-owned lands along and adjoining the west shore of Hempstead Harbor offer a particularly attractive opportunity for an integrated waterfront and upland redevelopment scheme to provide the general public with enhanced physical and visual access to the waterfront, a variety of waterfront and upland recreation activities, and preservation of natural areas. The approximately 960 acre site is entirely publicly owned and includes the Port Washington Sand Pits, Nassau County's Hempstead Harbor Park, the Town of North Hempstead's Bar Beach, and the North Hempstead Town Landfill. As an alternative to other proposals for a mixed use redevelopment of golf courses, commercial properties, and The Public Coast 223 housing, a federally funded study matched by funds from the Sierra Club Foundation, the North Hempstead Park and Recreation Facility Feasibility Study, proposes that the site be developed into a regional park that includes both active and passive waterfront and upland recreation facilities, with two golf courses, and protected natural areas. To provide funding assistance and to ensure that the general public could use the facilities, the state could financially participate in the redevelopment, through such means as acquiring some of the existing county waterfront facilities. While intensive water-dependent recreational uses in the form of a full scale marina would not be appropriate for the site, smaller scale uses, such as mooring areas in the lower harbor and boat launch sites, would be compatible. The detailed plans for redeveloping the site in accord generally with the feasibility study proposal should be included as part of the Town of North Hempstead's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. G~AY$, BLU~WA~$, WILDLII~ CORRIDORS, BII~WAYS, AND WALKWAY$ Existing parks and open spaces near and along the Sound shoreline offer the opportunity for establishing important linkage~ in the form of greenways and blueways that would improve access to the coast and to coastal recreational facilities. As noted above under "Acquire Additional Open Space," it is also essential to acquire additional open space before it is consumed by development. An important objective for acquiring this open space can be the development of greenways, particularly for the more undeveloped stretches of shoreline in Suffolk County. Greenways can be as simple as pedestrian linkages between parks or open spaces that would indicate particularly attractive or interesting corridors for community residents to walk in and between, or walkways around the edges of the Sound's many harbors that would allow pedestrians visual access to the always interesting sights and activities taking place. Other greenway linkages can be established between conservation areas to encourage the protection of valuable fish and wildlife species and other environmental values and to retain visually attractive, natural corridors that interrupt the flow of development as well as enhance its setting. Chapter 3, The Natural Coast, refers to these as *wildlife corridors~, and calls for development of a Wildlife Corridor Plan for the Long Island Sound coastal and watershed areas. Within these wildlife corridors, there are opportunities to include bikeways and pedestrian routes where compatible with the protection of wildlife. In New York City, there are proposals for a Brooklyn-Queens Greenway that would connect an already existing greenway-trall system along Little Neck Bay from Fort Totten to Alley Pond Park to the Atlantic Ocean at Coney Island. New York City has also formed a bicycle and pedestrian working group to develop a plan for on-road bikeways, off-road multi-use trails, and other related programs, as a first step to obtain funding under the 1991 Federal Intermodal State Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which may be used for bikeways and pedestrian trails. On Long Island, the non-profit Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference, Inc. has taken an active role in building and maintaining hiking trails that take advantage of greenway links between parks and open space throughout the island. Two of their trails, the Long Island Greenbelt Trail and the Nassan-Suffolk Greenbelt Trail, have portions located within the northshore coastal area. A substantial portion of the Long Island Greenbelt Trail's northern section from Sunken MeadoTM State Park south along the Nissequoge River to Caleb Smith State Park is within the coastal area. A smaller portion of the northern end of the Nassau- 224 The Public Coast Suffolk Greenbelt Trail is also within the coastal area as it extends south from Cold Spring Harbor. Another type of linkage between waterfront parks is a blueway, a course for hand-launched boats along the waterfront delineated by buoys, and including signage identifying each resting point. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing such a blueway along Little Neck Bay from Alley Pond Park to Flushing Bay Marina. Blueways may be developed independently or in concert with greenways, in order to improve opportunities for public access to the water. The establishment of an effective greenway-blueway system for the Long Island Sound region would require an extensive network, crossing many municipal boundaries. The need for intermunicipal cooperation and coordination in establishing such a system requires a regional approach. The development of a regional greenway-blueway plan for the Sound would be a logical first step that would integrate existing greenway linkages with new proposals into a regional system. LOCATING PUBLIC ACCESS SITES AND FACILITIES Finding public access, recreation, and open space sites and facilities can often be a challenge. The development and uae on signs of a universal symbol for public access should be considered. In conjunction with the development of a uniform system of signs, state and regional maps for uae by visitors should indicate those public access, recreation, and open apacesites and facilities that are open to the general public. Also, the general public is oRen unaware of opportunities for obtaining access to the lands and waters of the Sound, in addition to those opportunities provided by the few well-known state parks. The availability of a public access guide will enable the public to seek out those other lesser known locations which are also open to the general public but which may not offer the types of active recreation found in the state parks. These would include public and private nature preserves, historic sites, municipal and county parks, street ends, etc., many of which offer opportunities for a variety of passive recreation such as hiking, nature study, birdwatching, or photography. The guide would also indicate locations providing visual access to the Sound. MANAGING CONFLICTS AMONG P*.ECREATIONAL ~IS~S Conflicts among recreational uses are an issue at some public access and recreation areas. The use of ali terrain vehicles (ATV) on beaches and dunes is often incompatible with fishing, sunbathing, and other passive recreation, and can be damaging to the natural resources. The operation of jet skis in near-shore waters can be dangerous to swimmers and damage or destroy fishing gear and fragile wetlands. It is essential that conflicts between these uses and resources be minimized without completely restricting the use of ATVs or jet skis. The Public Coast 225 SHIPWRECKS AND RECREATIONAL DIVING The Long Island Sound region contains one of the most diverse environments for recreational diving in the country. It includes rocky nearshore areas, sandy and muddy offshore areas, an extensive variety of shipwrecks and other man-made objects, and a wide range of plant and animal species that inhabit these areas. Both shore-based diving and diving from private and charter boats take place on Long Island Sound. Recreational diving using self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) is the fastest growing water-dependent recreational activity in the region. The recreational diving industry estimates that there are more than 80,000 certified recreational divers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties alone, and that dive shops in the region are certifying approximately 4,:500 new recreational divers a year. There are hundreds of shipwrecks located within Long Island Sound, including historic 17th century vessels, paddle wheelers and steamers, ships of war from the first and second world wars, tugs and barges, and private pleasure vessels of all sizes and shapes. Many of these wrecks are of historic and archaeological value, while others are nothing more than rusting or rotting hulks of debris lying on the bottom of the Sound· All of these wrecks are, however, of interest to professional and sport divers, and many of them have become artificial reefs which provide habitat for various marine vertebrates and invertebrates. An example of a commonly known early 20th century shipwreck is the side paddle wheel passenger steamer "Glen Island' that sank in 1904 and rests in approximately fifteen feet of water off Glen Cove on Long Island's north shore. Issues and Opportunities Despite the growing popularity of recreational diving, access to the shoreline and boat ramp access for recreational divers on Long Island Sound are extremely limited. All state parks on Long Island Sound prohibit diving from shore and within the offshore boundaries of the parks, unlike state parks in California which encourage diving. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987, the United States asserted title to all abandoned shipwrecks in submerged lands of the state, and transferred this title to the state. The Act states, in part," ... In order to... clarify that.., shipwrecks offer recreational and educational opportunities to sport divers and other interested groups, as well as irreplaceable state resources for tourism, biological sanctuaries, and historical research.. · reasonable access by the public to such abandoned shipwrecks... "should be permitted by the state, consistent with policies to" . . . protect natural resources and habitat areas; guarantee recreational exploration of shipwreck sites; and allow for appropriate public and private sector recovery of shipwrecks consistent with the protection of historical values and environmental integrity of the shipwrecks and the sites." No federal or state survey or inventory of shipwrecks has ever been conducted in Long Island Sound. Almost every shipwreck in Long Island Sound has been found by amateur divers. The locations of many of the more historically significant vessels are kept secret by those who discover them, primarily out of fears of the vessels being stripped or disassembled by other divers, or out of fear of the state claiming ownership of artifacts having historical significance or value and removing it from the finder's possession. 226 The Public Coast Most vessels that have been discovered by divers have been stripped of artifacts or anything else that can be removed, including portions of ship's wooden hulls with identifying marks. Many other vessels are of historic significance and should be protected or preserved by the s~te for their historic or archaeological value and importance, just as other historic or archaeologically important finds are protected. Identifying these resources and ensuring access to them, while protecting those of historic and archaeological importance, is extremely difficult. UNDERWATF. R LANDS, THE FORF. SHORE, AND THE PUBLIC TRUST Also important for public access to coastal resources are public trust lands--foreshore and underwater lands held in trust by the state or local government under the public trust doctrine for the benefit of the public. As development has spread eastward along the Sound in Suffolk County, many informal access points on privately owned undeveloped land, used for many years by commercial and recreational fishermen and others to reach state or town-owned public trust lands, have disappeared or, where still existing at street ends, are prohibited for use by nonresidents. This inability to obtain access to public trust lands, which are open for use by anyone for a variety of recreational and other purposes, has increasingly become a problem as ever larger portions of the state's coastline are devoted to private residential, commercial, and transportation uses. In many highly developed urban areas, it is almost impossible to reach public trust lands along the waterfront because of industrial and commercial land uses, decaying piers and bulkheads, abandoned buildings, or other impediments to access. Often, it is only when such areas are redeveioped that opportunities arise to improve waterfront access. In less densely developed suburban areas, it is usually just as impossible to reach public trust lands in many locations because of the continuous strip of waterfront residences, difficult terrain, such as high bluffs, or lack of road access. In some of these areas, if public trust lands can be reached, the proliferation of long docks into the water blocks lateral access along public trust lands, and obstructs and encumbers public trust uses of surface waters and underwater lands for such activities as swimming and small craft boating. In conjunction with spreading development, many shore hardening structures in the form of bulkheads, sea walls, revetments, and groins have been built, ostensibly to protect developed property from erosion. However, in many cases the result has been a narrowing or even loss of the beach, which reduces or eliminates opportunities to use public trust lands for lateral access along such shores. New York's marine coast has the potential to offer a continuous right of access along the shore. Given the dense population and developed nature oftbe Long Island Sound coast, the opportunity to walk from Orient Point to the border of Connecticut is a value_hie public asset. It remains, however, largely a theoretical assei because the right of continuous access is useless without the ability to get to the shore and, once on the shore, to walk unfettered. On the Long Island Sound shore, the public's rights in the foreshore have been constrained, and sometimes precluded, by private development. This is a major public policy concern. The Public Coast 227 Public Trust Doctrine The legal geography of New York's beaches, tidelands, and lands underwater is defined by the public trust doctrine and the court cases that interpret its application. The public trust doctrine is the basis for the public's right to swim, fish, and walk along the Sound· Under the public trust doctrine, the foreshore and underwater lands are held in trust by the sovereign for the benefit of the public. In the colonial era, the English king exercised sovereign authority, both proprietary and governmental, over Long Island Sound. Following the Revolutionary War, New York succeeded to the crown's rights in the waters, soils, and shores of Long Island Sound· Tidality .is the linchpin in establishing the public's right to use and pass over the foreshore of navigable waters. In Tucci v. Salzhauer, a case involving the use of land in Hempstead Harbor, the court defined the public's rights in the foreshore: When the tide is in, he may use the water covering the foreshore for boating, bathing, fishing, and other lawful purposes; and when the tide is out, he may pass and repass over the foreshore as a means of access to reach the water for the same purposes and to lounge and recline thereon. (336 NYS2d 721) New York courts have long upheld the principle stated in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the state cannot divest itself of its public trust interest. In Illinois Central, the court said that the state's title to underwater land: ·.. is a title different in character from that which the state holds in lands intended for sale... It is a title held in trust for the people of the state that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction of interference of private parties. New York State has the power to grant interests in state-owned underwater lands to owners of adjacent uplands, subject to the restrictions of the public trust doctrine. In Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396 (1895), the Court of Appeals said that the title of the state to the foreshore is: (A) sovereign right, and it has been said that a trust is engrafted upon this title for the benefit of the public of which the state is powerless to divest itself .... The title which the state holds and the power of disposition is an incident and part of its sovereignty that cannot be surrendered, alienated or delegated, except for some public purpose, or some reasonable use which can fairly be said to be for the public benefit. Application of the Public Trust Doctrine W'tthin Long Island Sound Almost all of the Long Island towns were created by royal charters and patents, which created not only the corporate bodies with the power of government, but also conveyed title to the land and land under water within the bounds of the town. Although New York State has never relinquished its territorial authority or legislative jurisdiction, the state constitutions until I962 have confirmed the various colonial charters vesting interest in upland commons and land underwater in the towns, or the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of certain Long Island towns. The colonial charters have also received judicial recognition. 228 The Public Coast The state has recognized the grants from colonial governors and the state legislature giving New York City the authority to administer underwater lands for the purpose of improving its waterfront. Submerged lands have been conveyed by the state and towns to private owners for commercial purposes and to develop waterfront infrastructure. Thus, with few exceptions, the ownership of most lands underwater, or formerly underwater lands that are vested with a public trust, is in three forms: (1) state ownership; (2) local government ownership; or (3) private ownership, either by grant from the state or town. In most instances where publicly owned underwater lands have been conveyed into private ownership, the public trust interest remains intact. The municipalities in Westchester County were formed from lands given as private patents to individuals. As a result, these municipalities do not hold colonial grants to underwater lands. Since 1786, however, New York State has conveyed underwater lands to municipal and private owners of adjacent uplands. These grants have taken several forms, including grants for full beneficial enjoyment, conditional beneficial enjoyment, restricted beneficial enjoyment, commerce or beneficial enjoyment, and commerce. The rights conveyed by these grants vary from private use or the potential for private use (full beneficial enjoyment grant) of trust lands, to limited use for a specific water-dependent business (commerce grant). With the exception of a study of underwater lands undertaken jointly by the New York State Department of State and the Village of Mamaroneck, the pattern of ownership of trust lands in Westchester County remains undocumented. The character of Mamaroneck Harbor is typical of many of the. communities located on Long Island Sound. Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, the state has conveyed almost the entire extent of the Mamaroneck shoreline for municipal and private use. The Village of Mamaroneck study found that 66 grants and easements, totalling about 245 acres of underwater lands, were conveyed in the harbor. Of the 56 land grants made by the state, 11 were for full beneficial enjoyment (issued between 1892 and 1899); 19 were for conditional beneficial enjoyment; eight were for restricted beneficial enjoyment; 17 were for the purpose of commerce or beneficial enjoyment; and one was for commerce. Ten easements and no leases were conveyed. As a result of this activity, many areas within the harbor have been filled and bulkheaded, resulting in the shoreline becoming private and the public foreshore being eliminated. Nmv YoM; Crrr The manorial grants to lands in the Westchester County towns that were later incorporated into New York City as the Borough of the Bronx, did not convey lands below the high water mark. Some time later, underwater lands within the Sound were conveyed by the state to New York City as part of Pelham Bay Park. Lands underwater within the Borough of the Bronx that are ungranted are owned by the state. Similarly, lands underwater in Long Island Sound within the boundaries of the towns incorporated into the Borough of Queens were not conveyed in the colonial grants. In an opinion issued to the commissioners of the land board, dated November 17, 1893, the attorney general stated that "there is no patent which has been produced granting to the Town of Hempstead or its successor in interest, the Town of North Hempstead, any harbors or havens as far northerly as Long Island Sound% Thus, within the Borough of Queens, lands The Public Co~t 229 not conveyed by the land office or its successor agency, the Office of General Services, remain in state ownership. Through the New York City charter, the New York State legislature authorized the commissioner of the New York State Land Office to convey land underwater deemed necessary by the New York City commissioner of docks for the construction of "wharves, docks, piers, bulkheads, basins, and slips". Lands conveyed and improved through these provisions are inalienable, but can be leased for limited periods. Underwater lands which have not been improved for pert purposes are deemed to be subject to public rights. New York City charters have made a distinction between "waterfrom property', which includes city-owned property froming on tidal waters, including underwater land and upland (to the first street or first adverse owner), and "wharf property,' comprising improvements such as piers and bulkheads. Wharf property was reserved for active pert development until a 1991 charter amendment enabled the new Depa~hnent of Busineas Services to lease wharf property for purposes other than commerce. Waterfront property, underwater lands, ferries, wharves, docks, and waterways, according to Section 383 of the city charter, are inalienable and cannot be sold without authorization from the state legislature. NASSAU COUNTY The boundaries of patents to towns along the north shore of Long Island end at the high water mark of Long Island Sound Loondes v. Town of Huntington, !53 U.S. 1 (1894). Title to the foreshore of and submerged land under Long Island Sound is vested in the New York State, unless otherwise conveyed by the state. Within the original towns of Long Island, colonial grants gave control of tidewaters of coves, bays, and rivers to the towns. In the Town of North Hempstead there has been much contention over ownership of the lands underwater in Hempstead Harbor and Manhasset Bay. New York State, through its land office, granted parcels of land underwater in this area beginning in the late 1800s. Also, in 1893 and 1901, the state attorney general published opinions stating that Town of Hempstead patents could not be interpreted to include Little Neck Bay, Manlmsset Bay, or Hempstead Harbor. However, the Town of North Hempstead interprets the Kieft Patent of 1644 and the Dongan Patent of 1685 as granting Manhasset Bay and Hempstead Harbor to the town. In 1967, a court reaffirming a 1917 decision found that the town held title to the underwater lands in Manlmaset Bay (Riveria Association Inc. v. Town of North Hemnstead, 52 Misc. 2d 575, 276 NYS2d 249 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 1967), aff'd bv reference. Mannor Marine Realty v. Wachtler. 22 N.Y. 2d 825 (1968). The only portion of Hempstead Harbor and the associated underwater lands owned by the town with the consent of the state is located south of Bar Beach, as described by New York Laws of 1966, Chapter 508. The Town of Oyster Bay claims ownership to the following waters and underwater lands: Oyster Bay, Oyster Bay Harbor, South Oyster Bay, Mill Neck Creek, and Cold Spring Harbor. This claim is based on the Andross Patent of September 29, 1677. A substantial part of these lands underwater was transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Deed Liber 7929, cp 28 filed in the office of the Nassau County clerk. These lands are part of the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The Town of Oyster Bay owns the submerged land of Cold Spring Harbor by patent. This ownership had been contested by the Town of Huntington, which clahned the eastern portion of Cold Spring Harbor because of the existing mid-harbor boundary. Huntington's claim was overturned by the decision in Nance v. Town of Oyster Bay, 41 Misc. 2d 446, 244 NYS 2d 230 The Public Coaxt of Cold Spring Harbor because of the existing mid-harbor boundary. Huntington's claim was overturned by the decision in Nance v. Town of Oyster Bav, 41 Misc. 2d 446, 244 NYS 2d 916 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 1963), and affirmed 23 AD 2d 9, 258 NYS 2d 156 (Second Dept., 1965). The appellate court stated that the submerged land of Cold Spring Harbor to the high water line of Huntington belonged to the Town of Oyster Bay by virtue of its colonial patents. Underwater lands within Caumsett State Park were transferred by the Office of General Services to the Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission. SUFFOLK COUNTY The Town of Huntington lays claim to all lands underwater within its bounds by virtue of several colonial patents: the Nicolls Patent, November 30,1666; the Dongan Patent, August 2, 1688; and the Fletcher Patent, October 5, 1694. These lands, although now generally accepted as within town ownership, were from time to time disputed. The state clarified town ownership of Huntington Bay in the New York Laws of 1888, Chapter 279. This law established a northern line limiting the town's jurisdiction in the bay. The town's title to lands underwater flowing from the three patents noted above was confirmed in Knann v~ F~bender 1 NY 2d 212, 151 N.Y.S. 2d (1956). Unlike the other towns in Nassau and Suffolk counties, the Town of Smithtown enjoys only limited rights to portions of the foreshore and underwater lands. Smithtown was formed from private patents to Richard Smith from Governor Nicolis in 1665 and Governor Andros in 1677. The grant ran only to the mean high water and included no foreshore or underwater lands. As a result, the state holds title to land below mean high water. In 1895, 1910, and 1953, the state ceded portions of the Nissequogue River, Smithtown Bay, and Stony Brook Harbor to the town for shellfish management and navigation (New York State Laws of 1895, Chapter 9:52; New York State Laws of 1910, Chapter 343; and New York State Laws of 1953, Chapter 776). In the Town of Brookhaven, the waters and underwater lands of Port Sefferson Harbor, Setauket Harbor, Conscience Bay, and Mount Sinai Harbor are owned by the town under the Nicolls Patent of March 7, 1666, and the Dongan Patent of December 27, 1686. The Town of Riverhead was formed from the Town of Southold (New York Laws of 1792, Chapter 24). Since Riverb,,~l does not predate the Revolution, colonial patents do not apply to the town. In 1964, Riverhead obtained quit claims from the trustees of Southold of ail rights in land within Riverhead Town. Such conveyance did not include lands under Long Island Sound. The jurisdiction for lands underwater adjacent to Wildwood and Orient Beach State Parks was transferred by the New York State Office of General Services to the Long Island State Park Commission. The Town of Southold lays claim to its lands underwater by virtue of the Andros Patent of October 31, 1676. The actual waters included were partially clarified by litigation in Town ~kl~~, 41 Misc. 4:56, 84 NYS 2d (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County, 1903) affd. per curiam 97 App. Div. 636 (Second Dept., 1904), affd. mem. 183 NY 513 (190Y). This case described the southern boundary of Southold as the high water mark of Crardiners and Peconic Bays. Southold's town ordinances of 1944 and 1949 described town waters as all land underwater in any harbor, bay, or creek, and including #all waterways and creeks cutting the shoreline of the town to the average high water mark from headland to headland." 2he Public Coast 231 In Nassau and Suffolk counties, the tidally influenced public trust lands are administered by the tom or trustees for the benefit of the people of the towns, and for the public generally. The towns and town trustees may give leases, easements, or grants for the use of trust property, and they may set rules governing access to and use of trust lands. Significance of Trust Lands The use of trust lands by the public generates billions of dollars for the state economy. The foreshore and underwater lands of Long Island Sound are used for recreation, boating, fishing, swimming, and visual enjoyment of the Sound's environment. The tidal areas provide habitat and breeding areas for shellfish and finfish of commercial and recreational importance. Private actions that interfere with these activities diminish the public's use and enjoyment of these commercially and recreationaily productive areas. In 1992, the legislature amended the Public Lands Law (Laws of 1992, c. 791) codifying, in part, the public trust in underwater lands. The legislature found that regulation of projects and structures, proposed to be constructed in or over state-owned lands underwater, was necessary to responsibly manage the state's proprietary interests in trust lands. Additionally, the regulation would severely restrict alienation into private ownership of public trust lands owned by the state. The intent of the amendment was also to ensure that waterfront owners' reasonable exercise of riparian rights and access to navigable waters did not adversely affect the public's rights. The legislature stated that use of trust lands is to be consistent with the public interest in reasonable use and responsible management of waterways for the purposes of navigation, commerce, fishing, bathing, recreation, environmental and aesthetic protection, and access to the navigable waters and lands underwater of the state. Issues and Opportunities Perhaps the most significant threat to underwater lands has been the tendency of the courts and trust authorities to treat each underwater parcel as a discrete commodity, and not to examine the cumulative 'consequences of conveyances. While a single facility located on underwater lands will usually have little impact by itself, a large number of installations will have significant cumulative impacts on the region. The Mamaroneck Harbor case study of underwater land ownership shows how a policy of small individual conveyances can result in the alienation of almost an entire waterbody. In other instances, for example, a single, large grant of land or similar area, the courts have held to be an impermissible abdication of legislative authority. (Marba Sea Bay Corn. v. Clinton St. R Corp. 272 NY 292, 5 N.E. 2d 824). Another important cumulative impact on underwater lands in the Sound is the proliferation of private docks, many exceeding 100 feet in length, within the shallow waters of harbors. In some instances, docks and catwalks have extended more than 600 feet into public trust areas. As the number of these long docks and other private obstructions increases along the Sound, convenient access to navigable water and along the shoreline for the general public becomes more difficult to obtain, and the general public is increasingly excluded from public trust lands. This is a particular problem within shallow embayments, where shoreline residents often seek to extend their docks for convenient access, presenting a conflicts with the preservation and public use of the trust resource. Not only is lateral pedestrian access along the foreshore compromised, but use of the surface waters for navigation and shellfishing is also adversely affected. On Long Island, for example, the greatest number of long docks, greater than 100 feet in length, are located in the most intensively used harbor 232 The Public Coast Table 18 Distribution of Docks 100 Feet or Longer, Nassau and Suffolk Counties DOCKS > or -- LEIqOTH OF DOCKS PER 100' COAST MILE OF COAST Nassau County 176 80.4 2.19 county line- Hewlett Point 27 5.2 5.19 Hewlett Point - Sands Point 62 14.1 4.40 Sands Point - Do~ofi~ Island 34 17.4 1.95 ~ Island - Lloyd Point 53 43.7 1.21 Western Suffolk County 79 53.7 1.48 Lloyd Point - l~on's Neck Point 79 43.6 E.~ou's Neck Point - 0 10.1 0.00 Sunken Meadow State Park Central Suffolk County 27 51.5 .53 Sunken Me. iow State Park - 9 28.3 0.32 Crane Neck Point Crsne Neck Point - Mt Sinai Harbor 18 23.2 0.78 Eastern Suffolk County 42 93.1 .46 Mt. Sinai ~ inlet - 15 29.0 0.52 Al&ich Lan* (we~t of Mattituck ~et) Aldrich Lane (west of Mattituck Inlet) - 1 40.02 0.02 Orient Point and shoreline of Plum Island Shorelines of Fishers ~land, North 26 23.9 1.09 Dumpling Island and South Dumpling centers at the westerly end of Nassau County. These are also the most densely populated areas of the Sound coastal area where public access is at a premium. Table 18 illustrates this issue. Once access is obtained to public trust shorelands, theopportunities for lateral access along significant distances of these shorelines have diminished over the years due to increased shoreline development and associated shoreline hardening structures which have been built to protect against erosion. There are often insurmountable difficulties of crossing legal and illegal shoreline obstructions, such as fill and structures, as well as long docks. Requirements that these obstructions be removed or that access be provided around, under, or over them would constitute a relatively low cost opportunity for the public to regain the ability to traverse long distances of public trust shorelines. Furthermore, the use of the foreshore, nearshore surface waters, and underwater lands for recreation activities is being particularly inhibited by long docks. The Public Coast 233 PUBLIC COAST FINDINGS Public Access, Recreation, and Open Space Findings The economic value of water-dependent activities relat~l to public access m and recreational use of Long Island Sound is substantial. It has been calculated for New York at approximately $2.238 billion annually. With the exception of two state parks on Long Island's north shore, Playland, an amusement park in Westchester County, and a New York City facility, most larte scale active oublic access and recreation facilities on the Long Island Sound coastline exclude ~ The major state facilities open to the general public along the Sound tend to be farthest away from the largest population centers, i.e. all state parks are all located in Suffolk County. · Opportunities to significantly increase the amount and type of public access, recreation, and open space along the Sound shoreline for the general public are limited, short of opening local facilities to non-residents, many of which may not be able to accommodate increased use. · Opportunities for increased general public access will come from smaller, more incremental actions such as making improvements at existing state parks, improving more local parks with state funds and thereby opening them to non-residents, and increasing the number of state and state-assisted fishing access points and boat launches. · Only a third of the 75 public fishing access sites are open to the general public and these are not evenly distributed through the region. · Legitimate questions can be raised about the expenditure of great sums of public monies on water quality improvements for the Sound, when most people in the state will have very limited opportunities to beoefit from these improvements due to lack of public access and recreation uses of the Sound open to the general public. · Acquisition of additional open space in the more undeveloped reaches of Suffolk County is essential, although there are parcels throughout the region that are suitable for public acquisition as open space, as described in the plan "Conserving Open Space in New York State' and the recommendations of the Region 1 Advisory Committee. · Maintenance and management programs for existing public access areas are as crucial as providing new space. · There are opportunities for improving waterfront public access on municipally and state- owned non-park lands, especially, but not limited to, when facilities on these lands are developed, improved, or current uses are discontinued. · Excellent opportunities for new or improved point access, scenic overlooks, or visual corridors are available from streets terminat'mg at the shoreline. · There are some areas where intensive industrial uses in the past have left deteriorated, unattractive and underutilized sites, some of which are contaminated with toxic materials. There are opportunities for increasing access by developing marine 234 The Public Coast commercial uses to serve the recreational boating industry and for furthering public access by establishing waterfront walkways and linear parks. The existing system of parks and open spaces near and along the Sound shoreline offers the opportunity for establishing linkages among them in the form of greenways and blueways, both at the neighborhood and wider scale. Shipwrecks and Recreational Diving Findings · Recreational diving is the fastest growing water-dependent recreational activity in the Long Island Sound Region; yet, access to the shoreline and boat ramp access for recreational divers is extremely limited. · Shipwrecks are important historical, archaeological, and recreational resources that should be afforded greater protection by state and local governments. Public Trust and Underwater Lands Findings · The cumulative impact of transfers of underwater lands into private ownership has not been addressed in the past, and public trust lands have been treated as a commodity rather than a public resource. · Extension of doci~ and catwalks over public trust lands to reach deep water often exceeds the littoral interests of shorefront landowners and prevents full public enjoyment of trust lands. · Legal and illegal shoreline obstructions such as fill, structures, and long docks block lateral access along significant distances of the public trust shorelands. Increased development has eliminated many informal access points along the Sound that were used by fishermen and others to gain access to public trust lands. Visual access to the Sound is also limited by development. CONNECTING PEOPLE TO THE SOUND: Recommendations for the Public Coast The following recommendations are proposed to connect people to the Sound by: Improving Visual Access Recommendation 45: Revise the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to ensure that visual access to coastal lands and waters is protected, maintained, improved, and expanded. The importance of visual access to the Sound and to the water vistas and landscapes of the coastal area is heightened by the lack of physical access to much of the shore, particularly for the general public. The coastal policies should focus attention not only on protecting and maintaining existing points of visual access, but on advancing opportunities to improve and expand visual access. Coastal policy standards should require that new development and redevelopment be sited to avoid blocking existing views of the Sound, its embayments, landscapes, and historic villages or working waterfronts. Visual access should not be diminished by structures or uses by The Public Coast 235 reason of scale, design, the type of use or activity. Landscape design should flame and enhance views. Screening for commercial or industrial facilities should be allowed where views can be improved by concealing discordant elements. Where appropriate, vegetation should be selectively cleared to afford visual access from public roads. Mature stands of trees and native vegetation typical of the Sound coastal environment should be incorporated into views. Street ends and other types of view corridors such as those along streams down to their mouths at the Sound and views of the Sound from natural heights along roads should be specifically protected. Visual access to both natural resources and working coast uses of the coastal environment can be enhanced by providing for interpretive exhibits at appropriate locations. Coastal policies should recognize this opportunity. Implementation: The Department of State (DOS) will revise the coastal policies to focus attention on protecting and maintaining existing points of visual access, as well as advancing opportunities to improve and expand visual access. Recommendation 46: Identify, preserve, and provide access to regionally important In eve~ part of the Sound area, there are scenic land and water vistas of state and regional significance. These include the views from Larchmont Manor Park, of the Huntington Harbor complex from Ocean Avenue in the Village of Northport, of the Sound and the distant Connecticut shoreline from Route 25A in Smithtown, or, in Smithtown again, the panoramic view of the Sound and the Nissequogue River from the bluff on the west shore at its mouth. The identification and evaluation of these views, together with recommendations for their protection and provisions for public accessibility, can come from establishment of the State Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance Program in the Sound area. Important to this program would be intermunicipal cooperation in undertaking the necessary comprehensive planning and zoning to accomplish implementation objectives. Implementation: DOS will identify and evaluate regionally important scenic land and water vistas in the Long Island Sound region, as part of the state Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance program. DOS will prepare management plans for each area designated as a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance, which will identify specific means to protect regionally significant visual access. DOS will work with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Scenic Byways Advisory Committee to increase the number of Long Island Sound road segments that are designated as components of the New York State Scenic Roads Program. These highways automatically become State Scenic Byways, making them eligible for a variety of projects to enhance recreational opportunities and to preserve and protect scenic, regional, historic, archeological and other cultural resources. DOS will assist LWRP communities to identify suitable locations where eligible projects can be funded to protect and enhance visual access and. to apply for ISTEA enhancement funds. DOS, utilizing the funding available from the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) and the Scenic Byways Program, should provide assistance to local governments for the preparation 236 The Public Coast of appropriate land use controls to protect the scenic integrity of roads identified under the Scenic Byways Program. Through funding available from the Scenic Byways Program or the IS'lEA Transportation Enhancement Program, interpretive exhibits to enhance public enjoyment of views of the coastal environment should be provided at suitable locations. The state, using funding from the Scenic Byways Program and the ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program, should take specific actions, such as the establishment of trails, selective cutting of vegetation, creation of overlooks along streets and highways, and provision of interpretive exhibits, to ensure maximum public understanding of designated Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance. Utilizing funding available from the Environmental Protection Fund, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and IS'lEA Transportation Enhancement Program and the Scenic Byways Program, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and/or the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) should acquire, either outright or by use of easements, key parcels of land in areas designated as Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance that are essential to their protection and management. Improving Physical Access Recommendation 47: Complete a comtal network of community and regional greenways and blueways that would link public waterfront access points, the foreshore, nearshore surface waters, and large and small public parks and open spaces to improve linear and perpendicular access to the coast and to coastal recreation facilities. There are a number of actions that can be taken to further the creation of a network of greenways and blueways. The first priority is the development of a Long Island Sound regional greenway-blueway plan. Such a plan is needed due to the intergovernmental nature of such a system and the consequent need for intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in its development. Cooperation would also be important with private groups such as the non-profit Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference, Inc., which has taken an active role in building and maintaining hiking trails that take advantage of existing greenways. The regional greenway plan would integrate existing greenway linkages with new proposais into a regional system. Local governments through their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs also have an opportunity to identify and implement a variety of grcenway projects. For example, simple walkways around the edges of the Sound's many harbors can be established to allow pedestrians to have visual access to the always interesting sights and activities taking place. Communities can identify linkages between local parks and open spaces that would indicate particularly attractive or interesting corridors for community residents to walk in and between. Communities can also establish blueways for hand-launched boats. The acquisition of additional open space in the Long Island Sound region is not only important for environmental and scenic reasons. It is also important for the development of greenways, which can serve many public access and recreational purposes. Implementation: DOS should cooperatively prepare a Long Island Sound regional greenway-blueway plan with pertinent local governments and state agencies. In accordance The Public Coast 237 with the findings of the regional greenway-blueway plan, and using funds from the EPF, Land and Water Conservation Fund and the IS'lEA Transportation Enhancement Program, DEC and/or OPRHP should develop appropriate greenway and blueway systems within and between its own properties. Funds should also be made available from the same fuming sources plus the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist local governments with the development of greenway and blueway projects within and between state and local public parks, open spaces, and other publicly owned properties. DEC and OPRHP, in acquiring additional open space in the Sound region in accordance with the recommendations of the state open space plan, should consider how these open spaces can be linked within the regional greenway-blueway system. DEC and OPRHP should acquire, and make funds from the Environmental Protection Fund available to local government to acquire parcels of land that are essential to complete key greenway linkages. Communities with LWRPs should identify local greenway and blueway systems, including those which could form linkages with the wider regional system. Recommendation 48: Revise the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to direct that existing water-related recreation facilities and uses, open space, and physical access to coastal lands and waters are protected, maintained, improved, and expanded, and that new facilities open to the general public are developed. Ali improvements, expansions, and development of new facilities should respect the constraints presented by the natural resources of the site. Continuing development along the Sound and the general public's inability to use many major recreation and access facilities and open space areas make it important for the coastal policies to protect and expand these existing opportunities for the general public. In addition, the coastal policies should support the development of new facilities open to the general public. The policies should re. quire existing facilities to be adequately managed and maintained, so that the quality of the facilities is preserved. The facilities need to be protected from adverse impacts and disturbances resulting from adjacent activities. In particular, traditional public accessways to the water, such as street ends, need protection from activities that could reduce or eliminate their use. Policy standards should also ensure that existing facilities are improved through renovations, facility expansion, and provision of new activities appropriate to the facility and site. The standards should directly address needs, in both existing and in the development of new facilities as well as in transportation to these facilities, of special groups such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. In the provision of new facilities, there should be an emphasis on the establishment of greenway corridors linking open space and recreation areas and improving linear and perpendicular access to the coast. Policy standards can also emphasize the provision of new access and recreation facilities for the general public to be located on both non-park waterfront lands (not including public trust lands) and in areas where past industrial uses have left deteriorated, unattractive, and underutilized sites. 238 The Public Coast In both existing and new facilities, policy standards should ensure that the level of public access and the type of recreational activities provided meet needs based on proximity to and the availability of transportation from population centers, present and future public demand, and the purpose of public institutions which may exist on the site. A particular focus of standards, both in the improvement or expansion of existing access and recreation facilities and open space areas and in the provision of new facilities, should be the prevention of adverse impacts on the area's natural resources, including the open space and visual values associated with these resources. Implementation: DOS will revise the coastal policies to provide for protection and expansion of existing public access, recreation, and open space facilities and areas as well as development of new ones. Recommendation 49: Revise the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to provide that physical access to and along coastal lands and waters, plus water- related recreation on these lands and waters, be provided in proposals for major industrial, commercial, residential, and other types of private development or activities on the waterfront, which because of their scale, nature or location are likely to affect the public's use and enjoyment of the public coastal lands and waters. The continuing development of the Sound coastline, plus redevelopment activities in certain locations, offer numerous opportunities for providing the general public with physical access to and recreation on coastal lands and waters. Coastal policy standards should ensure that physical access to coastal lands and waters, as well as recreational uses, are provided for the general public in all proposals for major industrial, commercial, residential and other types of public and private development, redevelopment, or activities, including the sale, lease, grant, or purchase of public land. The focus here is on those types of development or activities which because of their scale, nature or location are likely to affect the public's use and enjoyment of the public coastal lands and waters. Understandably, such public access and recreation must have a number of factors evaluated for each site to determine the type, character, and extent of access and recreation to be provided. These include compatibility with the purpo~m of the proposed uses or activities, as well as protection of public safety and preservation of natural resources on or near the site. If it is not practical to provMe physical access to the coast, visual access can often be provided from adjacent areas by the use of appropriate structural design, building siting techniques, and landscaping. Where proposed development or redevelopment activities unavoidably detract from overall coastal visual quality, policy standards should require appropriate vegetative or structural screening. Implementation: DOS will revise the coastal policies to ensure that public access and recreational uses are provided in public and private development projects and activities, as described above. The Public Coast 239 Recommendation 50: Revise the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to clarify and strengthen public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust. Coastal policies for Long Island Sound should reflect the following refinements: Free passage along public trust lands should be assured. Public access to and along public trust lands is often obstructed by private fill and private structures such as docks, jetties, groins, and seawails. The public's rights to use public trust lands should be ensured by providing free and substantially unobstructed passage along public trust lands. Private obstructions that interfere with public use of public trust lands should be limited to the extent reasonably necessary to exercise riparian rights to gain access from the upland to the water. Where an obstruction to public access is built or where an obstruction exists, provision must be made for public passage over the obstruction or around the obstruction through adjacent uplands. Approval for such obstructions should be denied unless public passage is provided. Docks, catwalks, erosion control structures, and in-water structures should not obstruct access to trust lands or waters. There is an increasing trend toward excessively long private docks and catwallcn built in and over public trust lands to provide riparian access to coastal waters. Construction of piers, docking facilities, and catwalks should not have a significant impact on natural resources, public access opportunities, visual quality, and traditional water uses or impinge on public access to and enjoyment of public trust lands. Coastal policies should be revised to provide that these structures should be of minimal length and may only obstruct public trust lands to the minimum extent necessary to achieve access to navigable waters. In all cases, alternatives to the construction of excessively long piers should be considered, including the use of dinghies to reach moored boats. Dredging to accommodate deeper draft boats should generally not be considered an alternative solution for excessively long private docks. Coastal policies should further reflect the importance of public access to coastal waters by stating that free and unobstructed public use of coastal waters for navigation and recreation is to be provided. If obstructions are to be allowed, they should be limited to in-water structures required for coastal industry and transportation, or for commercial recreational boating facilities, and provided that there is sufficient public benefit to outweigh the loss of access to navigable waters and there is satisfactory mitigation. Perpendicular access to public trust lands should be expanded. The public's ability to exercise its trust rights is meaningless if perpendicular access to trust lands is not available. Consequently, it is imperative that the state seek out and provide opportunities for perpendicular access to trust lands. Perpendicular access can be provided in a number of ways, but the first priority for action should be to require that all publicly owned land suitable for perpendicular access to trust lands provide access ways. Auention should also be focused immediately on gaining public perpendicular access through easements established through prescriptive use. Public and private navigation should not be hindered. Obstructions to navigation or to underwater public trust lands should be limited to ensure that private and commercial navigation is not unreasonably hindered. Commercial navigation, because of its intrinsic importance to the economy of the state and special operational needs, has priority consideration in determining rights to navigable waters. 240 The Public Coast Common docks should be treated as commercial ventures. Common docks constructed as part of a condominium or other residential development are not functionally different from docks used for a marina or yacht club development. Consequently, where common docks are considered subject to Department of Environmental Conservation permits or an Office of General Services lease, they should be treated as commercial ventures for purposes of permit review. Common docks used by individual riparian owners and which replace individual private docks will not be considered commercial docks when the public benefit of the common dock outweighs the private benefit of the same number of private slips. Easements and leases of underwater lands should be limited to u~es that fulfill the public trust. It is critical that leases or easements of underwater public trust lands or leases, grants, or easements of formerly underwater lands reflect the uses appropriate under the public trust doctrine. Therefore, any easements or leases of underwater lands should be limited to water- dependent industry, commerce, or business. Easements, grants, or leases of formerly underwater lands should be given only in support of water-dependent industry, commerce or business, or if a grant is necessary for marketable title of an upland parcel that has no potential to provide public access to the coast. In addition, when grants, easements, or leases of public lands are made, specific provisions should be included to preserve public trust rights or mitigate their loss. Confltct~ on surface waters should be minimized. Concerns for safe use of coastal waters, and minimizing conflicts on and within coastal waters should be expressed in policies addressing use of public trust waters. The following concerns should be expressed as standards in revised coastal policies: · avoiding increased or additional use of surface waters where an increase in traffic would pose a public safety hazard · limiting uses of surface waters which are inherently incompatible with the character of the waterbody or with other uses that have priority · allowing no intrusions in navigation channels · ensuring safe operation of motorized vessels within marinas and anchorage areas Implementation: DOg will revise the coastal policies to reflect this recommendation. Recommendation $1: Examine the entire Lon~ Island Sound coastline to determine the locations of public a'ust lands. As a long range project, the state should examine and map the entire Sound coastline to obtain basic inventory information on the exact locations of public trust lands as well as ownership of other lands. Because of the cost of the project, it should be done incrementally when major planning activities or studies are undertaken for specific geographic areas such as harbor management plans, concentrated development area plans, etc. The mapped information will show where the public has a right to go, serve as a basis of information for approval of permits for structures and activities over or in public trust lands, and be an important source of information for reasserting public trust rights on public trust lands being used in a manner that is inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. Implementation: DOS, DEC, the Office of General Services (OGS) or any state agency undertaking major plans or studies for specific geographic areas of the Sound should map the coastline for that area as described above. The Public Coast 241 Recommendation 52: Base approvals for construction of in-water structures and activities over or in public trust lands on adequate information with regard to ownership. Approvals for construction of in-water structures and activities over or on public trust lands should be based on adequate information with regard to ownership. Applicants for permits and authorization for work below mean high water or on lands which may have been formerly underwater should be required to demonstrate that they are the littoral owner and/of have littoral rights and that they are legally using any public trust lands. Implementation: The state should request documentation from permit applicants showing that they have littoral rights and are legally using public trust lands. DOS will revise coastal policies to reflect the intent of this recommendation. Towns with public trust responsibilities would be encouraged to seek similar information. Recommendation 53: Incorporate the potential cumulative effects of grants, easements, and leases of public trust lands into decision-making. The design and review of development proposals on lands subject to the public trust should take into consideration the potential cumulative impacts on regional resources and the capability of Long Island Sound's coastal resources to support development without significant disruption of the natural environment. Either singularly or cumulatively, the effects of such actions on public trust rights must not create an unreasonable restriction on public access to and use of trust lands, nor should adverse environmental impacts result. Implementation: DOS will revise the coastal policies to reflect the intent of this recommendation. Recommendation 54: Reassert public trust rights on public trust lands that are used in a manner that is incompatible with the public trust doctrine. Over the past 200 years, the state has mede grants of underwater land to private owners for purposes other than beneficial use and enjoyment. Those grants retained, in most instances, the right of the public to use the foreshore. ,also, in instances where full fee grants have been made, the use by the present owner must comport with the best public trust use and not be injurious to the public good. This fee interest may be revoked by the state when the uses proposed are not in conformity with the public trust doctrine. State and local officials with administrative authority over public trust lands should evaluate opportunities to return to the public trust those underwater land grants or portions of underwater land grant that may be determined robe inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. Also, the state should review, possibly with the cooperation of municipalities, letters of patent to determine compliance with the public trust doctrine. Because of the cost of undertaking such a project all at once, it can be done incrementally when major planning activities or studies are undertaken for specific geographic areas such as harbor management plans, concentrated development area plans, etc. ff conditions of a grant have not been complied with, the letters of patent should be cancelled. Implementation: DOS, DEC, OGS or any other state agency undertaking major plans or studies for specific geographic areas of the Sound should review: grants of underwater land 242 The Public Coast to private owners to determine the status of their use with respect to public rights under the public trust doctrine; and letters of patents as described above. Based on the findings of the above reviews, OOS and the Attorney General should seek revocation of grants or bring trespass actions in order to reassert public trust rights on those public trust lands not being used in a manner consistent with the public trust doctrine. Recommendation 55: Develop educational materials to inform the public and local governments of public trust rights. Local government and law enforcement officials, private landowners adjacent to the foreshore, and other individuals should have knowledge of the public's access rights along the foreshore. Also, the development and distribution of brochures and other publications will assist in making the general public more aware of its rights to use public trust lands. hnplementotion:' DOS in cooperation with OGS should undertake an educational program to inform governmental authorities (including local government and law enforcement officials), private landowners adjacent to the foreshore, and other individuals of the public's access rights along the foreshore and should develop and distribute brochures and other publications to assist in making the general public more aware of its rights to use public trust lands. Recommendation 56: Prepare and distribute a guide to public access and recreational areas and facilities for the Long Island Sound region. The general public is often unaware of opportunities for obtaining access to the lands and waters of the Sound, in addition to those opportunities provided by the few well-known state parks. The availability of a public access guide will enable the public to seek out those other lesser known locations which are also open to the general public but which may not offer the types of active recreation found in the state parks. These would include public and private nature preserves, historic sites, municipal and county parks, street ends, etc., many of which offer opportunities for a variety of passive recreation such as hiking, nature study, birdwatching, or photography. The guide would also indicate locations providing visual access to the Sound as well as provide discussions of important historic, natural, and cultural features of the Sound region. Several states, particularly California and South Carolina, have prepared excellent public access guides, which could be used as models for a Sound guide. Implementation: DOS, DEC, OPRHP, and OGS should cooperatively prepare a public access guide for the Long Island Sound region. Recommendation 57: Protect shipwrecks and other underwater sites of historic or archaeological importance. There is a need for state agency cooperation to protect shipwrecks of historic and archaeological significance and value as well as protect and increase access to these and other shipwrecks. The coastal policies for Long Island Sound shouM specifically recognize the historic, archaeological, and recreational value of shipwrecks. Where shipwrecks of historic or archaeological significance are in danger of physical destruction over a short period of time, an in-depth archaeological survey and excavation of the vessel should be conducted to conserve as much of it as possible and to preserve the historic integrity of the vessel and the information that can be derived from it. Where the vessel is not in immediate danger of The Public Coast 243 physical destruction, preserve it in place for recreational diving and historic preservation. Where historic shipwrecks of state or national importance are identified, underwater sanctuaries should be established to preserve the shipwrecks and sites for their historic, recreational, and/or biological values. Implementation: DOS, OPRHP, OGS, and the State Museum should cooperatively protect shipwrecks of historic and archaeological significance and value as well as protect and increase access to these and other shipwrecks by: 1) conducting an inventory and physical survey of all known shipwrecks in Long Island Sound; 2) identifying and conducting in-depth surveys of historic and archaeologically important shipwrecks which are or should be prot~t~ by federal and state historic protection laws; and 3) identifying shipwrecks that are not historically or archaeologically important. DOS will revise the coastal policies to reflect this recommendation. The Legislature should consider amendments to the Navigation Law to clarify the definition of *wrecks' to provide greater protection for historic shipwrecks. Providing a Diversity of Recreational Opportunities Recommendation 58: Develop an appropriate mix of, and establish priorities for, public access and recreation facilities, and open space areas to meet needs. The following tables list site-specific recommendations by county and grouped into three general categories under public access, recreation, and open space: fishing and boating access; parks, beaches, and street ends; and trails, walkways, and greenways. There are many overlaps between these categories with respect to the types of activities that can take place. Thus, a boat launch site can provide access for fishing from boats as well as for pleasure boating. Likewise, the provision of a fishing access site, such as a pier, not only enhances fishing opportunities, but presents a chance for visual access to the water or for simply relaxing and reading a book at a pleasant waterfront location. Fishing can also take place in other categories, such as at parks and street ends or on beaches. Similarly, in all of the categories, there are many possibilities for engaging in a variety of passive recreation activities, such as nature study, hiking, photography, bird watching, picnicking, or just relaxing and enjoying the waterfront scene. Other activities are obviously conf'med to a single category; for example, ocean swimming is limited to beaches. The third column of the tables shows the source of the recommendation. Many of the recommendations were obtained from draft or approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. A significant number came from the Depa~ttilent of Enviromnental Conservation's *Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan', released in March 1993. Several recommendations came from the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation's SCORP, a few came from the Long Island Regional Planning Board, and one each came from an application to be funded under the 1.992 Job Bonds Act and from the Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference. The recommendations of the LIS CMP are also noted. The fourth column of the tables shows: (1) whether a proposed site is located in one of the special management areas (SMA) identified by the LIS CMP (see chapter 7) or (2) whether it is recommended that a non-site-specific proposal be located in an identified SMA. The SMAs include Areas for Concentrated Development (ACD), Maritme Centers (MC), and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas (ONCA). 244 The Public Coast At this time, there are no priorities given for implementation among the many recommendations, although recommendations cited from draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs can be considered to have a lower priority, because they may be subject to change during the process of completing and approving the draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. DEC's 'Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan' sets the following priorities for the first five-year phase of implementation, based on the assumption that a long-term, stable funding source will be established: rehabilitate and/or expand as many existing boat launch ramps as can be identified and funded; construct at least one new fishing pier in each county (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester) and rehabilitate and/or expand as many existing fishing piers as can be identified and funded; and acquire at least five new marine beach access properties in the Marine District, giving priority to areas on Nassau County's north shore and on Suffolk County's mid-north shore and east-end ocean, Sound, and bay shores. The recently completed plan by the Depa~h~sent of Environmental Conservation and the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 'Conserving Open Space in New York State," forms the basis for the recommendations for the acquisition and protection of open space along the immediate coastline in the Long Island Sound region. The plan identifies 7:5 priority projects statewide within resource areas and ~ corridors deserving immediate ~__n_ention from the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and their partners in land conservation. There were no priority projects identified on the Long Island Sound coastline for their recreational and access values alone, although the only two priority projects located on the immediate Sound coastline, in addition to providing wetland preservation benefits, will provide limited access and passive recreational opportunities. These projects are: · Udalls Cove, New York City: Acquisition of additional land is needed to complete this important tidal wetland preserve on Long Island Sound. · Oyster Bay Waterfront, Town of Oyster Bay: A project on Oyster Bay Harbor to preserve and enhance sensitive wetlands and enhance water quality in the Sound. These two projects were selected by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation from the many areas proposed for acquisition by the three regional advisory committees covering the Sound region. Even if all of these areas are acquired eventually, they will only incrementally improve public access and recreation opportunities. On Long Island, for example, only 89 out of 673 acres of open space proposed for acquisition along the Sound coastline are principally for access improvement purposes. Nearly 400 acres are proposed acquisitions to protect wetlands and habitats, although many of these areas will also provide for some access and passive recreation opportunities. Another 162 acres along the shoreline are to protect historic resources, although these, too, will provide for public access and passive recreation. This underscores the need to pursue non-traditional means of increasing public access and recreational opportunities, as set forth in other recommendations of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. These other areas proposed for acquisition by the regional advisory committees plus additional ones should be weighed and evaluated by the committees as part of the plan update in 1994, particularly in light of the findings in this program concerning insufficient access and recreational areas along the Sound for the general public. 7he Public Coast 245 The establishmem of priorities for state land conservation actions will follow the criteria for the new, unified system for evaluation of land conservation projects presented in "Conserving Open Space in New York." The plan has among its goals one which is particularly important for the public coast: "To provide high quality outdoor recreation, on both land and water, accessible to New Yorkers regardless of where they live, how much money they have, or their physical abilities. ~ The unified system for evaluation of land conservation projects is designed to meet the following objectives: · Identify specific place~ with exceptional natural resource or recreational values which may be threatened by land use change or which could serve critical recreational needs. · Determine the most appropriate strategy for conserving the resource values of those places including what action should be taken by the Department of Environmental Conservation or the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. · Evaluate the costs and benefits of individual land conservation actions. · Establish priorities for land conservation actions given limited public resources. · When state land acquisition is the most appropriate strategy, ensure that land to be acquired is worthy of public investment and clearly meats the goals of this plan. · Provide for statutory and reasonable outside input into the project evaluation process. An important source of funding for project implementation is the Environmental Protection Fund. This is a permanent fund which will grow over the next several years. During the 1994-95 fiscal year, $5 million for municipal park, recreation and historic preservation projects and $1.27 million for local waterfront revitalization projects. Another $1 million is expected to be available for the same fiscal year through OPRHP for local recreation projects from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Criteria for distribution of these latter funds will also be applied to the distribution of the $5 million from the Environmental Protection Fund for local park projects. Public access and recreation projects will be among those eligible for funding from $I .27 million for local waterfront revitalization projects. Note should be made that some of the project recommendations obtained from draft or approved LWRPs may never receive federal/state funding due to the reluctance of the municipalities to open the access or recreation project to non-residents as condition for receiving such funding. Implementation: Because the state plan, "Conserving Open Space in New York State," did not recommend any recreation and public access projects along the Sound, the 1994 update of the plan should be more cognizant of the recreation and public access needs along the Sound identified in the LIS CMP. As part of the plan update, the three regional advisory committees covering the Long Island Sound region should re-evaluate their lists of proposed land conservation projects, plus consider additional sites, in light of the findings in this regional program concerning insufficient access and recreational areas along the Sound for the general public. Prime sites to consider include Fort Totten, Davids Island, and the publicly owned properties on the west shore of Hempsteed Harbor at Port Washington. To identify all local government properties along the Sound providing or having the potential to provide significant access opporranities to coastal lands and waters, the Depa~h~ent of State should update its 1983 public access and recreation study undertaken by the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Department should also identify state-owned, non-park waterfront lands (not including public trust lands) to determine if opportunities exist to provide a level of public access and recreational use which is consistent with such factors as 246 The Public Coast proximity to population centers, public demand, the type and sensitivity of natural resources affected, and the current uses of the state-owned lands. The Department of State should take steps to improve access at street ends by: 1) determining the legality of municipal prohibitions against nonresident parking at street ends along the Sound that provide access to public trust lands; and 2) reviewing the Community Highway Improvement Program, which provides state funds to communities for local highway improvements, to determine if it could be used to ensure that nonresidents have the same parking righta as realdents at street ends on the Sound. In addition, state legislation should be enacted regarding the State Public Health Law to clarif~j that toilet and washing facilities are required to be provided by municipalities only at developed bathing beaches. OPRHP should continue improvement of facilities and their use at existing state parks through increased maintenance, renovations, adding new facilities, and improving tranaportation access to the parks. The State Park Infrastructure Fund is an important source of monies for these tasks as would be the expansion of the Environmental Protection Fund with revenues from unclaimed deposits on beverage containers ($2:5 million would be allocated to this purpose for 1994-9:5 if these revenues can be used). OPRHP and DEC should continue to adapt existing public access and recreation facilities and provide new activities and facilities to meet the needs of both persons with disabilities and a demographically changing population, specifically at this time, an increasingly elderly population. OPRHP and DRC also should pursue possibilities for increasing recreational diving opportunities by allowing recreational diving from the shore in state parks and other state lands on the Sound, where the activity would be compatible and not interfere with other activities. Through OGS and the Attorney General, steps should be taken to improve access to and use of public trust lands by requiring the removal of physical barriers or establishing upland easements or other mitigative measures that would eliminate obstructions to free and unimpeded passage along and use of public trust shorelines. DEC and OPRI-IP should provide perpendicular accessways to public trust lands at all suitable locations on their access and recreational facilities. Through concesalons, community boating and sailing centers should be established at state access facilities to rent small boats (rowboats, canoes, sailboats, etc.). Such centers can provide significant amounts of access to the water from relatively small waterfront parcels. Local governments should examine the feasibility of making more recreational access facilities available without actually increasing the supply through the use of intermunicipal reciprocity agreements. Such agreements between municipalities would allow residents of a municipality to use access facilities of any other municipality that is a participant in the agreement. The Public Coa~ 247 Table 19 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Westchester County CATEOORY [RF~OlVIMENDATION [SOURCE [SIVA Fishing and New Rochelle, Five Island Park: expand ~ to provide more fishing and boating facilities. MRFAP bo~tting Village of Mamaroneck, ~ Island Park: rehabilitate and expand oxisfing boat launch ramp (recently comple~d). MRFAP MC access City of Rye, Playland Park: rehebil;~-*,- existing fishing pier. MRFAP, LWRP Westchester County: constxuct at least one new fishing pier within the next five years. It is recommended that the pier he MRFAP located in Po~ Chester dee to its designation as a ACD. City of Rye, Playland Park: recommend that Westohester County dovdop a boat lanneh facility to meet the growing demand L~.P For recreational boating facilities. Parks, ¥il[age of Pest Chester: expand and enhance Columbus Park to capitalize on its waterfront location by developing new water LV~P ACD beaches, and mhaoced recreational facilities and ll, klng the park via * pedestrian path to · !~ near'oy public marina. MC street ends ¥illage of Po~t Chester: expand and improve William Jsmes Memorial ~ us a passive water enhanced recreation facility. LWRP ACD,, MC Village of Port Chester: develop a new 'gsteway perk" at the entrance to tbe centa'al business dis~'iet and the eonstal zone to .V~P ACD,~ provide needed open space in this area and to serve as u small passive ~ MC City of Rye: provide · vista area at the end of ~ Avenue on the Sound by und~rt*kln~ limited impmvemants on existing LWRP oity owned property for some ~ benches and trash receptacles. City of Rye, Playland Park: tho county must mnlntain the breakwaters around the beach area to prevant ban~ erusion and LWRP retain the beaches as an attxactive swimming area. Village of Lar~hmont: study poasi~Ritie~ for r~moval of leaf comporting at Flint Parlt. LWRP City of New Rochelle: Eusur~ that Datvids Island, the largest undeveloped island in the Sound, is retained for f~l or partial LIS CMP ~bli¢ use that takes advantage of lira island's histmic, natural, and scenio setting. Trails, Village of Pc~t Chester: eousms~ an apl~y scaled continuous pe,~e~tian walkway in as many locations as feasible along LWRP ACD [walkwaya, the entire Byram River waterfront of the village. MC ~nd City of Rye, Blind Brook: ~ and extend a walkway along Blind ~ frmn the Rye Nature Cen~er through Disbrow LWRP grcenways Paxk to Oakland Beach Avenue to ~...t,~ove access to waterfront for Fassive ~reation purposes. Source of Recommendation--LIS CMP: Long Island Sound Cc~/el Management Program; LWRP: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; MRFAP: DEC "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan" SMA: Special Management Area; ACD: Area for Concentrated Development; MC: Maritime Cetger Table 20 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, New York City CATEGORY [RECOMMENDATION { SOURCE { SMA Fishing and Queens, UdeH's Cove, Little Neck Bay: provide fishing acceaa at DEC tidal wetland site) MRFAP boating ~,.~, Pelham Bay Park: construct beat launch ramp and develop fishing area. MRFAP Qu~a~,Bayaide Marina: rehabilitate exiating boat launch ramp. MRFAP Queens, Little Bay Park: eonatsuct fishing pie~ and boat launch ramp. MRFAP City laaud: detennino ~ ~ for ~hing and boating landing piers. MRFAP, MC NYCCP Park~, Qa~.~,., Udelh Cove/Ravine: aoqui~ la-lvate land and map as parkland. NYCCP beaches, and Qu~nm~,FortTotten:examinotbefeauibilityofpatkuseatthehistoriehattoryofthefo~. lmproveancessbyexpandingtbe NYCCP stre~ ende · · · ~yas~ng btcy¢le path between the fo~t's entrance and Northern Boulevard. 3.~.~, Pelham Bay Park: implement · c~ainment program for Pelham Bay Landfill as a first step in makin~ geeater use of NYCCP the ncuthem zone of Pelham Bay Park. Bronx: develop s~reet end point nccese at Laf·yette Avenue within the Bm~ Avenue industrial area; to the Triberough NYCCP Bridge and Tunnel Authority Park at Throge Nnck Bridge; and at Layton, Outlook, Watt, and lt.mt~l! l~t'~, Co-op City: locate · CSO balding tank on · publicly-owned site in the area and ~ the site's surface for park use if NYCCP no longer needed by DOT. Trails, Q-~m, Udalls Cove/Ravino: und~ta~ studies to establish · trail system. NYCCP Walkways, and I~',,~, Co-op City: develop an esgt.,,.a, at the Co-op City w~. NYCCP Rreel~w·vs Source of Rseommendation--MRFAl~: DEC 'Matim~ Recreational Fishing Access Plan*; NYCC~ New York City Comprehensive Plan SMA: Special Management Area; MC: Marithne Center ~MRFAP ~ two po~ibilities for improving fi~ing ~s: · Limited~-s~e~parkingcaubedevel~edat~h~sesitesWithedequateup~andprope~ttytoace~mm~dat~aparkingares~ Aelearing(outlinedbyplantingsaud/or wooden posts) large enough for five or ten cars co~ld supply a user opportunity now very often limited only to local residents because of pa~ing relictions. · On-street parking regulations should be reviewed in those municipalities where there are DEC tidal wetland properties. Municipalitiesthat restrict on-s~reat parking in the vicin~y of such ' propertaes should be requested to allow some limited on-street I~-rking within reasonable distance (1/4 mile) surrounding these sites. Table 21 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Nassau County c^ co v 10 coMM o^ o Is° cE IsM Fishing and V~ of M~ven: ~ ~ib~/~ ~ys~ f~ d~k ~i~on ~ u~ of adjace~ ~blie l~. L~ ~g ' S~ ~, Ta~ ~h Mmm: ~ove e~g unu~le laumh ~p ~ ~a~; ~et ~. M~AP P~ W~, Webs~r P~k: ~ct ~g pier. M~AP MC P~, V~la~ of S~e R~k ~ ~ N~ U~s M~ Po~ ~d P~: ~ve u~on of ~ ~ ~bfic ~c~s L~ ~s, ~ ~ ~ ~'s s~l~. ~ cn~ V~a~ of M~hven: ~ ~ ~e ~ ~velop a long ~ ~ ~ f~ u~s ~ M~v~ P~ L~ V~age of M~ven: ~ ~ ~ u~g a f~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~y~ f~ ~ ~fli~ ~ ~ N~ L~ S~ ~ ~e w~ ~, ~vel~ a ~lic acc~ ~d ~ ~ ~. Town of No~ Hem~, He~ H~: mvi~ ~e Scud~ ~ ~ ~ & &e Gl~w~ ~g ~ ~ L~ ~e ~b~c ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~, ~g ~vision of a ~ ~h. ?~n ~ N~ Hem~, ~ W~: ~el~ ~e 9~ ac~ ~y~ s~ ~ong ~ ~j~nlng ~ w~ sh~ ~S C~ ~ H~ H~ m ~ ~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ess m ~ w~, a vm~ of ~ ~ up~d ~ve ~ ~ive ~ ~ ~ ~on ~ ~ m. To~ ~ N~ Hempen, M~ ~y: ~i~ ~i6o~ ~blie ~ ~ ~ive ~r~i~ on ~-ow~ ~ IS C~ ~g ~ ~ s~ of ~ ~y. ~ u~ m w~ a ~ ~ways ~ ~w~ e~d&g ~ ~ ~H lm~ of ~ ~. T~s, V~ of S~ ~, Hem~e~ ~: ~ ~ to ~h ~ ~ w~ay/~ ~ ~ s~ ~ S~ (~) w~ays, ~ ~h ~ Rum Po~, ~o~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. md C~ of Glen ~ve, Glen ~e ~: ~ ~ ~ ~fi~ w~ ~ M~g ~ e~k ~d ~ ~B ACD, ~ways ~g ~ w~ays ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~b~ ~ ~ ~nies M~g ~ ~. MC N~ Hem~, Hem~ ~: ~el~ ~ ~ of W~ S~ R~ ~n ~ ~h ~ R~ ~ ~ ~B, ~ ~ ~nway ~ ~e v~ ~ ~ ~. l~lusi~ of R~yn ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ w~ ~ a~ L~ w~ a~ess to R~lyn CBD, w~h ~ a mj~ ~ ~ti~ ~ of ~q~ ~c ~. N~ Hem~, H~-*a ~: e~ ~ ~lic w~ay ~ ~ ~ T~n ~k ~ P~ W~ w~h .~ Su~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ju~ n~ ~ ~ ~ Yac~ ~. Source of Recommendation--LIRPB: Long Island Regional Planning Board; LIS CMP: Long Idand Sound Coastal Management Program; LWRP: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program M~FAP: DEC "Marine Recreational Fishing Access Plan'. SMA: Specinl Management Area; AC1): Area fc~ Concentrated Development; MC: Maritime Center tFrom aPldicafion of Village of Sea Cliff fc~ project to be funded under 1992 Job Bonds Act. Table 22 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Western Suffolk County Fishing and ~ M~w S~ P~: ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~t 1~ ~. ~AP ~ ~ P~, ~s P~ Psyc~n~c ~: ~ u~ of e~g l~h ~p ~ N~e ~v~ ~ ~ ~blic u~. ~ ~ ~ ~ cu~y a ~ve ~ ~ ~v~ f~ ~ ~tc~e. ~, C~ie~e ~y: ~v~ ~ u~ ~-~ ~g ~ 5 ~ D~ ~ w~ln~ si~.t ~ ONCA ~d F~d, ~ P~: ~vel~ llm~ u~ ~-~ ~g ~ 1~ ~ DEC ~ w~l~ si~.~ M~ ONCA N~l, S~ ~ ~: ~ ~v~ ~ f~ fis~ ~. ~AP ~, ~ ~ C~: ~ ~ ~i~g ~ s~. M~ MC S~, ~v~i~ ~v~ ~: ~ e~ ~vem~ ~ ~ m ~ ~le i~ u~ ~ ~ ~ c~ L~ P~, Town ~ Smi~wn, ~ Smi~ ~ ~: OP~ ~ld s~ke ~ ~s ~ ~e ~ ~ ~p m~ i~ L~ ~ e~ Town of Smi~own: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~gs P~ ~ ~ ~e ~ e~g bluff ~g m ~ ~ L~ m~ ~k ~ ~ bl~. To~ ~ Smi~wn, ~'s ~h: ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~ion ~ ~!~ ~ u~ L~ ~ ~g ~ ~c~c ~. Town of Smi~wm ~v~ ~ ~c ~s ~ ~ w~ ~ Sunk~ M~ 8~ P~. SCO~ V~e of Uoyd ~, ~ ~ p~: ~d~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~blic ~cc~ f~ ~vc ~i~, SCO~, w~d~~. Source of Recommendation--LiS CMP: Long Island Sound ~ Management Program; LWRP: Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; MRFAP: DEC "Marine Recreational Fishing Aecess Plan'; SCORP:. Sine Conaprehenaive Outdoor Recreation Hah SMA: Special Management Area; MC: Maritime Center; ONCA: Outatanding Natural Coastal Area MRFAP notes two pa~biltt~es for unprovmg fishing ar. tess: · Limited off-~'eet parking can be developed at tlmae sites with adeq,~e upland propet~ to aecommo,~-_~e a parking m. A desring (outlined by plantings and/or wooden po~) large enough for five or ten ea~ could SUpl~y u user opportunity now very ~ limited only to lecnl residents because of parking remictinns. · On-am~et parking regulations should be reviewed in those munieiFnlitiea where there are DEC tidal wetland properties. Municipnlities that restrict on-~treet parking in the vicinity of such properties should be requested to allow some limited on-~trect parking within reasonable di~anc~ (1/4 mile) ~urrounding these sites. Table 23 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Eastern Suffolk County CATEGORY [ P. ECOMMENDATION I SOU~C~I~M~ Fishing and Mt. Sinai, Davis Island: devdop limited upland off-street p~rking at 6 acre DEC tidal wetland site.~ MRFAP boating Riverhead, Baiting Hollow: develop limited upland off-s~eet parking at 77 acre tidal wetland site.~ MRFAP access Matlituck, Oregon Marsh: develop limited upland off-street parking at 31 acre tidal wetland site.~ MRFAP MC Peconic, Goldsmiths Inlet: consm~ct concrete launch ramp in location n~ subject to croton fi'om existing jetty. MRFAP Maltituck: constmet boat launch ramp on 1.3 acre site purclmsed from Ca~y Re~urces, Inc. MRFAP MC Mattituck, Luther's Road Launch Ramp: construct concrete launch ramp. MRFAP MC Jamespo~, Iron Pier Beach: rehabilitate existing boat launch site and stabilize beach, if it can determined that slabilization is MRFAP feasible. Wading River, Wading Rivel' Cree~ ~ Launch: rehabilitate existing ~ map; increase parking area and dredge river ~4~RFAP mouth. Parks. Ma~tuck, MMtituck Creek: lX'ovide fc~ recreation and varieos other public uses, including tontine x~creation and marine LIRPB MC beaches, and ~onune~cial, in connection with the phase-out and removal of varies inaustrial uses ~m the west side of the mouth of sueet ends Mattituck Creek. Inlet Point Pond County Pa~ lwovide · small parking area for fishing and other lmssive activities. LIRPB Peccoic, Goldsmiths Inlet County Pa~: improve site and parking lot f~ furore uses ~ach as swimming, fishing, and hilrlng LIRPB Source of Recommendafi0z--LlRPB: Long Island Reg/onal Planning Board; MRFAP: DEC "Mmine Recreational Fishing Aec. ess Plan' ~IA: Special Management Ar~; MC: Maritime ~MRFAP nc~s two po~ilities for improving fi~hing accel: · Limited off-street l~king can be developed at those sites with adequate upland t~rty to ace~mmo~te a parking area. A clem'lng (outlined by plantings and/c~ wooden p~) large enough fc~ five er te~ car~ could supl~y · user ~po~tunity now very oflem limited only to local residents because of parking relictions. · ~n-street~kingtegu~ati~nssh~dbereviewedinth~emunicu.~litie~wherethereareDEC~w~ies. Municil~litiestl~trestrietoo-streetpnrking in the vicinity of such properties sh~mld be requested to allow some limited on-s~reet Farking within reasonable distance (1/4 m/lc) surrounding these sites. Table 24 Public Access and Recreation Recommendations, Western and Eastern Suffolk Counties CATEGORY RECOMMENDATIONISOURCE ISMA Trails, Cann~ett, Sunken Meadow, and Wildwood State Parka: provide latrrul ac. ce~ along significant distances of the shorelines LIS CMP walkways, on either side of these parks to Inovid~ ol~Ix~unltiea for increased recreational u~ of public trust lands adjacent to the and pacl~. Involved in this would have to be the removal of any shoreline ob~metion~ to lateral access along public trust lands. ~eenways This might include removal ~f illegally placed fill of stnlctures, provi~ion of ace,~s int~t structures legally located on public trust lands, or provi~ion of in-kind public acceu through adjacent uplamt ea~menta or other mitigation. Street end access puinta to the shoreline st varying dis~ancea on either side of the parka could be designated as links hack inland. Eaat-west hiking trail through Riverbead and Southold; north-south trail from Paconie River headwaters to Wildwood State LIGTC Park. Source of Recommendation--LIGTC: Long Island Greenbelt Trail Conference, towns of Rivcrhead and So~thold; LIS CMP: Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program Westchester County Recommended Public Recreational Access Recommended F - Rs~ing and Boating ~ P - Parks and Beaches T - TrOis, Walkways, and Greenways S - Street Ends MAP 1 5.0 J~ pr~n Existing ~1~ ~ Clesure ~ess [] Public - NO Restflc~ions 1--] Street End Access P~lnt New York City Recommended Public Recreational Access MAP 15.1 Recommended Fishing and Boating Access Parks and Beaches Tralb, Walkway& and Greenways Street End~ Existing Private ~, Beach Closure Areas Public - Restricted [~ Coastal Boundary Public - No Restrictions ~-] Street End Access Point Nassau County Recommended Public RecreationBI AP 15.2 Recommended F - fishing and Boating P - Pa~s and Beaches T - Trails, Walkways, and Greenways S - Street Ends [] ~ Existlng,~k Beach (:1oaure Areas [] Public - No R~;~ions ~ ~a'6et End A---~,:~- Point Western SUffolk County Recommended Public. Recreational Access !MAP 15.3 Recommended F - Fishing and Boating Access P - Parks and Beaches T - Trails, Walkways, and Greenways S - Street Ends Public - Restricted [] Public - No Restrictions Beach CIo~ure Areas [] ¢~?~; Boundary Street End ~ Point MILE8 0 I 2 3 Smithtown - Port Jefferson MAP 15.4 Recommended Public Recreational Access Recommended F - Rshino and BolEing ~ P - Parks and __lt,~e~ T - Trails, Wal;walm, and Greenways S - Street Ends ~ Private ,~k Beach Closure Axeas · Public - Restricted [~ Coastal Boundary ~ Public - No Restrictions [] Street End Access Point 0 2 4 · Eastern Suffolk County Recommended Public Recreational Access MAP 15.5 Existing Public - Restricted ~ C~ala; Boundary [] Public - No Restrictions FI Street End Acc~ Point Recommended F - Fishing and Boating ~ P - PMks and Beaches T - Trails, Walkways, and Greenways $ - Street Ends MILEB Eastern Suffolk County Recommended Public Recreational Access MAP 15.6 Existing ~, Chapter 5 The WORKING COAST Reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront, its jobs and products, at appropriate locations by protecting uses dependent on the Sound, furnishing neceesary infrastructure, providing business and marketing assistance, and promoting efficient harbor operation. The working coast consists of uses and businesses that share a common trait: They require a location on the shoreline to function, or they depend on harvesting living or mineral resources in coastal waters. Protecting and promoting Long Island Sound's working coast uses is important to the region's maritime heritage and economy. Long Island Sound, nearly 110 miles in length and 21 miles in width at its widest point, with an area of 1,300 square miles and an average depth of 80 feet, provides an environment conducive to working coast uses few other waterbodies can match. The Sound's many harbors and bays provide safe ports for commercial and recreational vessels. A variety of significant fisheries exist both inshore and in deeper waters. Although the Sound is sheltered from the ocean, access to sea lanes ~u'ough the Fast River to the west and Block Island Sound to the east is convenient. These desirable conditions have made the Long Island Sound a place where water-dependent uses have flourished. During colonial times, ports were established to transport timber, grain, menhaden, livestock, and whale products. Due primarily to the reliance on ships as the basic means of transportation, several communities in the region became shipbuilding centers during the first half of the nineteenth century. Beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, the Sound became increasingly popular for yachting and excursion boats. Shipbuilding once again became a major focus during World Wars I and II to meet national defense needs. Today, there are nearly 200 working coast nses loca_t._~_ along the Long Island Sound shoreline. The Sound working coast consists of areas where individual public or private marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards exist; concentrations of commercial or recreational fishing vessels exist; petroleum products, aggregates, or other waterborne commerce are imported or exported; or ferries arrive or depart from the shore. Most of these uses and activities are clustered in sheltered bays and harbors that have historically been developed with water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. These sheltered bays and harbors, or maritime centers, are essential for waterborne commerce and recreation, and are important components of the state's transportation system. The balance of working coast uses is dispersed along the Long Island Sound shore. The locations of these uses are shown on maps 16.0-16.6. Agriculture, a working coast use, is discussed in this chapter, although it is not reflected in the figure above or shown on the maps. The working coast generates billions of dollars for the regional ~conomy and is vital to the economic health of the region. A report prepared for the Long Island Sound Study, Th~ Economic Imoortance of Lon~, Island Sound's Water Oualitv Deoendent Activities. estimates that the total 1990 use value to New York State of recreational boating and recreational The Working Coast 261 fishing alone was in excess of $1.8 billion. The total use value was calculated by adding estimates for use value plus the economic impacts or multiplier effects resulting from the use. The $1.8 billion figure does not include other significant economic activities on the Sound, such as commercial fishing, ferry transportation, waterborne commerce, industrial uses; they also do not include the value of the Sound's natural resources. Although recreational boating and fishing are the predominant water-dependent uses on the Sound, other'water-dependent commercial uses and activities contribute significantly to maintaining the diversity and economic balance in the region. Thousands of New Yorkers earn their livelihood from Long Island Sound-based coastal businesses and support services. The economic contributions of working coast uses to the region could be enhanced if the factors that significantly impair their ability to function were better understood and addressed by state and local government and the public. Some of the challenges facing water-dependent businesses include: competition for space on the waterfront and space in the water; inadequate or deteriorated coastal infrastructure; impacts of regulation and taxation; degradation of coastal resourco~; and a lack of public understanding of the day-to-day operational needs of working waterfront uses. Addressing these problems would significantly enhance the economic, commercial, recreational, and cultural values associated with the Sound's working coast uses. Solutions can be developed. Comprehensive harbor management planning can ensure the orderly growth of working coast uses in maritime centers and reduce surface water conflicts among uses. Appropriate zoning can address issues of competition for space. Public sector investments are necessary in maritime centers to improve infrmtructure to better support existing investment, and to foster private sector investment in developing new, water- dependent commercial and industrial uses. Solutions to the region's dredge spoil disposal problem must be found to ensure safe, cost-effective navigation to and from the Sound's many harbors and ports. Marketing assistance is necessary to better inform the public that many products on which people rely for sustenance come from the Sound's waters and farmlands and that better management of these resources is essential to sustain bountiful harvests. An overview of working coast uses in each county of the Sound region is provided below. This is followed by an analysis of each working coast 'use, including a description of its significance or value, trends, and associated issues. Recommendations to address the specific needs of the Sound's working corot are provided at the end of this chapter. L(~NG ISLAND SOUND'S MARITIME BASE Westchester County Concentrations of working coast uses are located in Port Chester Harbor, Mamaroneck Harbor, Echo Bay, and New Rochelle Harbor. Fewer working coast uses are located in Milton Harbor, Larchrnont Harbor, and the upper reach of the Hutchinson River. With the exception of the Hutchinson River, the predominant use in each waterbody is marinas or yacht clubs. The Westchester County shoreline of Long Island Sound is a major yachting center in the United States. Many large racing yachts make their home port in this area of the Sound, as do thousands of other large yachts and power boats, mid-size boats, and smaller vessels. The 37 marinas/yacht clubs and boat yards along the Westchester coast 262 The Working Coast are concentrated in' New Rochelle and Echo Bay with 14, Mamaroneck Harbor with 12, Port Chester with 5, Milton Harbor with 4, and Larchmont Harbor with 2. Several lobster boats and pot or crate storage areas are also located in Port Chester and Echo Bay. There are two harbors where water-dependent industrial uses exist. One is Port Chester Harbor where petroleum and aggregates are unloaded. The other is the upper reach of the Hutchinson River where petroleum, aggregates, and scrap metal are shipped. Port Chester and Hutchinson River are major aggregate transshipment points. In 1989, these two ports received a combined total of slightly less than :50 percent of the total volume of aggregates imported to Long Island Sound harbors (see table 28). In the same year, the petroleum unloading and storage facilities located in the Hutchinson River received 20 percent of the total volume of petroleum products imported to Long Island Sound harbors. Port Chester, by contrast, received only 1.:5 percent of the total volume of petroleum products imported to Long Island Sound harbors in 1989. Federal dredging projects are authorized primarily to establish and maintain navigation channels or basins in Port Chester Harbor, Hutchinson River, Milton Harbor, Mamaroneck Harbor, Larchmont Harbor, Echo Bay, and New Rochelle Harbor to ensure waterborne commerce. Most dredging today is undertaken to serve the thousands of recreational boats, including large sailboats, which require navigable channels and harbors to operate. No agricultural business exists in this region of the Sound. New York City There are 21 marinas and yacht clubs and two boat yards in this section of the Sound coast. City Island is the center of marine activity with 14 marinas/yacht clubs, 2 boat yards, and numerous recreational boating-related businesses. City Island also serves as a port for many lobster vessels and party and charter sport fishing vessels. Just west of City Island, along the shoreline of Eastchester Bay, there are six marinas and yacht clubs. In Little Neck Bay there is one marina. Hundreds of boats are moored offshore in the general anchorage areas of F, astchester Bay and Little Neck Bay. There are two marinas and one yacht club immediately west of the Throgs Neck Bridge, just outside of the Long Island Sound coastal area boundary. Only one federal dredging project has been authorized in this region, for the Hutchinson River, to create and maintain a navigation channel for waterborne commerce in the upper reach of the Hutchinson River in Westchester County. Nassau County Concentrations of working coast uses are located in Port Washington, Glen Cove Creek, and Oyster Bay. Additional working coast uses are dispersed along the west shoreline of Manhasset Bay, the east and west shoreline of Hempstead Harbor, and Mill Neck Bay. Marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards are the predominate uses in each waterbody. There are 23 marinas/yacht clubs and 9 boat yards. Refer to table 2:5. Port Washington is the center of marine activity .with 19 marinas/yacht clubs and 5 boat yards. Other harbor areas where marinas/yacht clubs and boat yards are located, in descending order of numbers, include: Hempstead Harbor and Glen Cove with nine, Oyster Bay with seven, and Little Neck Bay with two. Port Washington and Glen Cove contain some lobster boats. Port Washington also contains a concentration of party/charter boats, and numerous recreational boating- The Working Coast 263 related businesses. Commercial baymens' boats and facilities are concentrated in Oyster Bay. Transshipment locations for both aggregates and petroleum are located in Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove Creek, and Oyster Bay. Manhasset Bay is also used as a transshipment point for petroleum, but not for aggregates. Hempstead Harbor is a major transshipment point in Nassau County and the Long Island Sound region for aggregates and petroleum products. Exports of sand and gravel from Hempstead Harbor ceased in 1988 when the Port Washington sand and gravel mine closed. No north shore port currently exports sand and gravel. In 1989, Nassau County (led by Hempstead Harbor) received 35 percent of the total volume of aggregates imported to Long Island Sound harbors. During the same year, Nassau County (led again by Hempstead Harbor), received 25 percent of the total volume of petroleum products imported to Long Island Sound harbors. Federal dredging projects have been undertaken or been proposed primarily to create or maintain navigation channels in Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, and Glen Cove Creek to ensure waterborne commerce or recreational boating activity. No agricultural land exists in the coastal area of this portion of the Sound. Suffolk County Concentrations of working coast uses are located in Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Stony Brook Harbor, Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck Inlet. A few working coast uses are also located in Cold Spring Harbor, Northport Bay, Nissequoque River, and Fishers Island. As in the other counties, the predominant uses in each waterbody are marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards. Harbors with the largest concentrations of marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards in descending order of numbers are: Huntington Harbor with 12, Northport Harbor with 7, Stony Brook Harbor with 7, Port Jefferson Harbor with 5, and Mattituck Inlet with 5. Harbors with fewer marinas/yacht clubs and boat yards are Cold Spring Harbor, Mount Sinai Harbor, Nissequogue River, Fishers Island, and Centerport Harbor and Setauket Harbors. Over 140 full- and part-time commercial fishing vessels are based in ports in Suffolk County. Vessel types include: trawlers, lobster boats, shellfish dredges, and numerous small baymens' clam boats. When moored, many of these vessels are concentrated in Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Setauket Harbor, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck Harbor. Of the estimated 100 party and charter boats operating within the Long Island Sound region, many are located in Huntington, Northport, Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck. The majority of these recreational fishing vessels are smaller charter boats, usually less than 40 feet long and mostly used on a part-time basis. There are three ferry services linking the shores, of Suffolk County to Connecticut: Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company, operating between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport; Cross Sound Ferry Services, operating between Orient Point and New London; and Fishers Island Ferry Service, operating between Fishers Island and New London. There are four locations on the north shore in Suffolk County where petroleum products are imported. In 1989, these four locations received 50 percent of the total volume of petroleum products imported to Long Island Sound harbors. The two major locations are Northville and Port Jefferson. The other two locations are Northport Harbor, where imports are used to fuel the Northport power plant, and Hay Harbor, serving the energy needs of Fishers Island residents. Port Jefferson is also a principal transshipment point for the aggregate Working Coast Westchester County MAP 16.0 Working Water Del~ndent Lisa Sites Watershed Boundary Coast Channels to be Maintained Channels to be Phased Out Proposed Spoil Areas Y - Yacht Club B -BoatY=d C- Commerdal Fishing F - Fern/ Terminal O- Oil Transfer A- Aggregate Transshipment 3 Marinas Yacht Clubs Y New York City MAP 16.1 Working Coast /Vt- Public Marina Y - Yacht Club B - Boat Yard R - Re~eational Fishing ' (Par~ and Gbertor 8naU C - Commerd. al Fishing F - FerW Terminal 0 - 011 Trar~er A - Aggregate Tranashipmem [] Watorahed Boundar~ Channels to be Maintained Chanrmls to be P~u;ed Out Propo~md Spoil Areas Nassau County 16.2i 10 Ivbdnm 5 Yacht Clul~ 6 Boat Yards Party/Chartar Oil Transfer Glen Cove 2 Madnm 2 Yadzt Club~ Aggregate Tran~hipment Oil Tmnsfar I / M- M~ina M- Public Marina Y - Yacht Club B - Bnat Yard R- Recreational Ft~ing C- Commercl FIsNng F - Far;y Tarminal 0- Oil Tranafar A - Aggregat~ Tranashlpme~t Legend ~r Water Depende~ -~;? Maritime Center [] W,~sh~d Soun~y Channels to be i~n~ Channels m be ~ Out Proposed Spo, A~ees Western Suffolk County Working Coast MAP 16.3 ~- Public Marina Y - Ya,~'%~. Club B- Boat Yard R- Recreational Fishing {Party and Omrter Boat~ C ' Commemial FIshfng F- Ferry Ten~inal 0- Oil Transfer A- Aggre~t~ Transshipmem '. Northport Harbor 3 MaHnm 3 Yacht Clu~ ; 1 Boat Yard ." Commen:ial F'~ing V_~_I~ Hunting~'on Harbor 4 Yacht Club~ Commercial Fl~ng Vessels /)' ~,/'/ I Legend m 'k Wat~- Dependent U~e Sites ~ ChanneJ~ to be Maintained Channels to be I~,,~d Out Smithtown - Port Jefferson MAP 16.4 Working Coast ~..,,,~" '"'/" "J Party/ChaftefC°mmerctal FlshlngBoats Vessels Aggregate Transshipment · Oil Transfer M- Marina M- Public Marina Y - Yacht Club B - Boat Yard Il - Rec~e~nel FlsNng {Party and Ch~t~ Boats C - Commercial Fishing F - Ferry Terminal 0 - Oil Tmnefar A - Aggregate Transshipment Legend · ' W~tar Dependent Use Sites [] Wm~hed Bo.nd.fy Channels to be Maintained Channels to be I~d Out Pro~o.d Spoil Areas Eastern Suffolk County Working Coast MAP 16.51 M- Marina M' Public Marina Y - Yacht Club B - Boat Yard R- Recreational fishing (Party ~nd Chmer C- Commercial Fishin~ F- Fen'y Te.ninM 0- Oil Transfer A- Aggregate Tran~hlpment Legend [] Channal~ to be Malr~ned [] Channels to be Phamd Out ~ Proposed Spoil A~eas 0 · 4 · Eastern Suffolk County Working Coast imports. In 1989, Port Jefferson imported 20 percent of the total volume of aggregates imported to Long Island Sound harbors. Federal dredging projects have occurred or been proposed primarily to create or maintain navigation channels in Huntington Harbor, Northpor~ Harbor, Port Jefferson, Mattituck Harbor, and Hay Harbor on Fishers Island. Local government sponsored dredging projects have been authorized to create or maintain navigation channels in Stony Brook Harbor, Nissequogue River, Mount Sinai Harbor, and Wading River. These projects were authorized to ensure waterborne commerce, transportation, or recreational boating activity. The vast majority of agricultural lands in the coastal area of the Long Island Sound region are located in eastern Suffolk County in the towns of Riverhead and Southold. Small, isolated pockets of agricultural land exist in the coastal area in western Suffolk County. WORKING WATERFRONT BUSINESSES Water-Dependent Commercial Uses MARINAS AND BOAT YARDS There are 155 marinas and boat yards in the Long Island Sound region, 37 in Westchester County, 23 in New York City, 42 in Nassau County, and 53 in Suffolk County (see table 25). The locations of marinas and boat yards are shown on maps 16.0-16.6. The majority of marinas and boat yards, 137, or 89 percent of the total number of these uses on the Long Island Sound shoreline, are located in the bays and harbors of the western half of the Sound. Only 18 marinas, or 11 percent of the Sound's marinas, are located in the eastern portion the Sound from Port Jefferson to Fishers Island. Marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards represent 75 percent of the working coast uses on the Sound shoreline. Nearly two-thirds of all marinas and boat yards are clustered in ten developed harbor areas, or maritime centers, where water-dependent uses have historically been located. Typically, these are the larger, intensively-used facilities. These developed harbor areas are suitable for marina and boat yard expansions or development of new marinas and boat yards due to physical attributes, such as suitable hydrology and basin depths, protection from storms, proximity to developed areas with upland support services, few natural resource development constraints, and sufficient landside transportation infrastructure and support services. Marinas All marinas, which are either publicly or privately owned or operated, provide dockside slips or offshore moorings for vessels, allowing people to use and enjoy coastal waters. Types of marinas include: marinas that provide slip spaces and a wide range of related or support services, marinas that provide slip space or mooring services only, and yacht clubs. Yacht clubs are distinguished from marinas because yacht clubs are non-profit membership organizations, whereas marinas are profit-making businesses. The functional characteristics, maintenance and operating needs, problems, and environmental effects of marinas and yacht clubs are the same. Many marinas provide all of the services necessary for operating, sWring, and maintaining vessels and often provide the specialized services once offered almost exclusively by boat yards, such as engine, hull and deck, and equipment repairs. Maintenance or repair services are provided by marina employees or independent contractors who bring their equipment to 272 The Working Coast Table 25 Long Island Sound Marinas and Boat Yards [PRIVATE[YACHT[PUBLIC[ BOAT [TOTAL MARINAS CLUBS MARI]qA$ YARDS W~r Port C"l~m~r Harb~ 2 2 I - 5 Milton Ha,"oor I 2 I -- ~k Harbor 4 4 1 3 12 Larchmont ~ - 2 -- - 2 F, eho Bay 3 2 I -- 6 New Rochelle Harbor 2 6 -- - $ TOTAL 12 18 4 3 37 ~ity tUand ~nst:lmster B~y 4 2 - - 6 Little Neck Bay I ...... 1 TOTAL 13 7 0 2 23 LiVde Neck Bay 1 I - - 2 Manima~set ~.y 9 8 2 5 24 snd Po~ Washin~on ~Ite~q~ Cov~ 4 3 - 2 9 Oyst~ nay TOTAL 15 14 4 9 42 Western S.,~.fol/~ Coum~ Co~d Sl~ing Harbor NotthFo~ ~ 2 3 1 1 7 Huutln~,ton ~ 7 4 2 - 12 $t~y Brook I-IaFoor - 2 3 2 7 Ni~q~o~ue River - 2 I - 3 TOTAL 11 14 7 3 35 Pu~t S& Fmrbc~ 1 2 1 I 5 ,~m~mt l.Ia~cn- - -- 1 1 Mount $imi Pm~bcs' I 1 1 I 4 Mattituok Ini~ 4 - 1 -- 5 Fishers Island 2 I - - 3 TOTAL 8 4 4 2 18 (]RAND TOTAL 59 58 19 19 155 ~l~eWor~ngCoast 273 the site. Marina support services include a wide range of activities: boat repair and maintenance, boat storage, boat launch and haul out, vessel winterization, boat sales, fuel, pumpout facilities, sail making and repair, and other related support services. These activities may be part of the marina operation, a separate business operating with the marina, or an independent business either in proximity to or removed from a marina or waterfront site. Although these support activities are not all water-dependent, support services and marinas complement and support each other. Boat Yards The few boat yards in the region that are not also marinas provide: specialized vessel support services, such as vessel construction; commercial vessel and large cruising vessel repair and maintenance; general engine and hull repair; equipment rigging; and launch services to and from offshore moorings. The more successful boat yards have diversified and provide service to ail types and sizes of vessels. Boat yards can be located on the water or inland. At a shorefront location, a boat yard is likely to have some permanent or transient slips. Boat yards servicing large vessels that are difficult to transport on land, such as cruising yachts, commercial fishing vessels, or tugboats, require waterfront locations, because it is impractical and sometimes impossible to transport large vessels inland for repairs, maintenance, or service. Boat yards servicing large vessels require substantial upland space for rails, travel lifts, indoor storage or work areas, and upland storage of vessels. There are only two boat yards in New York on Long Island Sound which are capable of servicing very large vessels (150 feet or greater). Jakobson's in Oyster Bay is the only facility specializing in tugboat repairs and the servicing of similar commercial vessels, some as large as 250 feet. Derector's in Mamaroneck Harbor is devoted primarily to building, repairing, and servicing very large luxury vessels over 75 feet in length but has taken on a few commercial vessel contracts in response to a decline in luxury vessel contracts due to ~n economic downturn in that industry. Large vessels require boat yards such as Jakobson's and Derector's in order to remain operational. Boat yards that service or maintain small to moderate-sized boats do not require waterfront locations, although such a location provides greater conveniences and does not necessitate upland transportation to off-site facilities. Boats, engines, or accessory equipment may also be taken to inland locations for servicing, repairs, or storage. Inland locations have an advantage over waterfront locations in terms of lower land prices and taxes. Significance to the Region Recreational boating, which relies on marinas and boat yards, generated in excess of $1.4 billion estimated value in 1990 according to a study prepared for the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program. This is higher than the 1990 recreational use values estimated for sport fishing ($429 million) and swimming ($381 million) combined, and is the highest economic use value on the Sound. These estimated values, which include the use value plus economic impacts or multiplier effects resulting from the use, represent the values for the New York portion of the Long Island Sound. 274 The WorkingCoast As a major industry, marinas and boat yards benefit communities and the region in many ways. Marinas generate tax revenues and provide jobs while placing only a modest demand on municipal infrastructure and services. Marina patrons boost local economies with their expenditures for food, lodging, boat equipment and supplies, fishing gear, and transportation. Marinas and boat yards meet important needs in the Long Island Sound region. They respond to the strong demand in the region for recreational boating and services. Marina and boat yard customers include local boaters as well as transient boaters who use marinas, boat yards, and other nearby services during short-term stopovers between locations within and outside the region. Marinas help support leisure activities associated with and dependent upon coastal resources. In a region where public access opportunities are inadequate, marinas provide a type of access to coastal waters and areas otherwise inaccessible to the public. In addition to public access, marinas often provide other public amenities, such as: boat launching ramps, fishing piers, waterfront walkways, fishing supplies, snack bars and restaurants, picnic areas, transient slips and moorings, restrooms, and marine sanitation pumpout facilities. Viable and active water-dependent uses, such as marinas and boat yards, deter the conversion of limited commercial waterfront space to non-water-dependent uses. This helps to ensure not only the wise use of limited waterfront space, but also a retrievable commim~ent of scarce commercial waterfront land if future economic circumstances or public needs require the reuse of the land for other water-dependent uses. Marinas and boat yards can also provide visually appealing landscapes, unique only to the shoreline, that maintain the nautical character and maritime heritage of many Long Island Sound communities and the region. Trends Recent trends in the marina industry include: Conversions from Individual or Family Ownersh~ to Corporate Ownersh~ An increasing number of small, individual, or family-owned and operated marinas and boat yards are converting to corporate-owned and operated businesses. Corporate-owned businesses, often having sources of capital other than that provided solely by a marina or boat yard, are also more successful than small business owners at generating or borrowing the necessary capital for major maintenance, operating, and improvement costs. Loss of Small, Marginally Profitable Marinas Most successful marinas are large and diversified, involved in selling, servicing and storing boats. According to the North Atlantic Water-deoendent Use Study prepared for the New York/New England Coastal Zone Task Force and confirmed by marina and boat yard operators during interviews for this program, economies of scale (i.e., costs of operation rise by a lesser proportion than the increase in the size of the facility) appear to be associated with marina operations. Small marinas (marinas with approximately 100 or fewer slips) usually do not provide diversified services, do not have a wide profit margin, and do not have enough equity to secure the capital necessary to provide ordinary maintenance, comply with permit requirements or regulations, or provide the competitive services or amenities of larger marinas. Although the demand for slip space is high throughout the region, small The Working Coast 275 marinas cannot raise enough capital to take advantage of this demand, so they are less able to compete with larger facilities. Even where there is adequate capital, inadequate upland space for parking, support services, or other amenities often limits opportunities for expansion. The result is that over the past 20 years, particularly during the fast-paced construction period of the mid-1980s, many smell marinas have either been converted to other uses, such as residential condominiums, merged with an adjacent marina to create a larger marina, or become part of a chain of marinas owned by a single entity. Diversified Services Development of convenient, one stop boating centers offering a wide variety of services is an important trend. In successful marinas, over 50 percent of gross revenues can be attributed to support services: boat sales and brokerage, boat and engine maintenance and repair, boat accessory equipment sales, pumpout facilities, boat storage, limited retail items, and amenities, such as pools, tennis courts, restaurants, and rest rooms with showers. These types of services give boating centers a competitive edge over nther marinas. Services which are considered absolutely essential to survival, in addition to boat slip rental, are boat storage, boat sales, and maintenance and repair services. Need for Increased Revenues for Operation, Maintenance and Expansions Interviews conducted with marina owners and the North Atlantic Water-deoendent Use Study prepared for the New York/New England Coastal Zone Task Force confunn that many marinas require substantial revenues generated from services other than moorings for economic survival. Marinas are seasonal and simply do not generate enough capital from slip or mooring fees to cover costs for facility maintenance, payroll and benefits, taxes, insurance, and annual operating expenses. The average profit margin from slip rentals represents approximately one percent of a marina's total investment. Of particular financial concern are the large capital investments in such activities as dredging and the repair of docks, piles, and bulkheads which are necessary simply to maintain a facility and retain customers. High operating costs, combined with a relatively short boating season, require additional revenue sources. Boat yards, like marinas, often require some sort of mixed use or temporary off-season use which can take advantage of a boat yard's equipment (such as automobile engine repair) to subsidize their vessel repair operations and seasonal boat yard income. Some boat yards have added boat slips, moorings, or restaurants to their operations. The additional revenues generated by these accessory uses can improve the economic viability of the boat yard and prevent total conversion to non-water-dependent uses. Adapting to Economic Climate The recent economic recession has reduced the demand for large vessel slips while increasing the demand for smaller vessel slips. Marinas have responded to this demand by redesigning existing dock layouts and open water mooring grids to accommodate more smaller boats. The ability to adapt to these demands and conditions allows marina owners and operators to increase the volume of customers and generate needed capital. 276 The Working Coast Limited Growth Potentlal Growth opportunities or expansions for new marinas and boat yards appear to be limited to areas where concentrations of water-dependent uses, or maritime centers, exist. There is some potential to expand existing facilities or to site new facilities in maritime centers where there are few natural resource or development constraints and where the necessary landside infrastructure and support services exist. These areas will need to be protected for these water-dependent uses. High start-up costs for land acquisition and construction and for obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals, which can be a protracted and expensive process, further constrain development of new facilities or expansions. There is a trend in the marina industry throughout the nation toward dry rack upland storage of vessels. Dry rack requires little in-water or linear shoreline space and offers an opportunity to expand and efficiently utilize upland space. Additional benefits include: reduced maintenance costs for damaged in-water facilities, less need for extensive dredging to enlarge basins, and fewer adverse effects associated with in-water marina and boat yard activities. Dry rack does not appear to be popular in the New York portion of Long Island Sound due to a variety of both real and perceived problems, such as community opposition, visual impacts, vessel damage liability when transferring vessels, possible damage from fires or other ba~rds while stored on racks with other vessels, and customer demand for in-water storage. These issues will inhibit the use of dry rack storage for marina and boat yard expansions in the near future. However, the opportunity to use dry rack storage as a means of expanding the induslry while preserving sensitive areas should not be lost. Successful dry rack facilities could serve as a promotional example for expanding the customer base and number of people served by marinas and boat yards. Dry racks could also be used to demonstrate how cumulative and secondary impacts of new or expanded marinas and boat yards could be minimized. Loss of Boat Yards Servtcittg Large Vessels Only two boat yards exist on Long Island Sound in New York that are capable of providing the services needed by large luxury and commercial vessels. Jakobson's Boat Yard in Oyster Bay may soon be discontinued and sold to the Town of Oyster Bay for a waterfront park, leaving Derector's in Mamaroneck Harbor as the only facility capable of servicing very large vessels on Long Island Sound in New York. Derector's is geared toward servicing luxury vessels rather than commercial working vessels such as tugboats. This single yard is not likely to meet the needs of the region for both large luxury and commercial vessels. As a result, operators of these vessels may be forced to seek services at inconvenient locations and at greater expense, outside the Sound region or state resulting in an economic loss to the state. I$$tle$ The Need for Increased Predictability A variety of circumstances, an unpredictable regulatory environment and high land, construction and dredging costs, make some investors reluctant to invest in marina expansion or development. Obtaining permit approvals in the highly unpredictable and usually protracted regulatory process adds significant cost and uncertainty to project development. Costs to obtain permits, combined with site development and operating costs such as maintenance, taxes, and insurance, make it difficult to demonstrate to lenders that there will be a positive return. There is often a lack of certainty about project approvals because local The Working Coast 277 planning and zoning documents do not provide clear guidance on acceptable locations and development standards. Inadequate Land and Water Use Controls No marina, no matter how successful, is inunune to the lure of high profits from conversion to non-water-dependent uses. There is a constant pressure and threat to replace marinas with non-water-dependent uses, primarily residences and restaurants, in many areas throughout the Sound. The short-term incentive for marina and boat yard owners to convert or sell waterfront land for these non-water-dependent uses is high, but the long-term economic value of the land for water-dependent use, such as marinas and boat yards, is higher. Marinas can and do make profits, and there is a need to retain them since they are important uses on the coast. Some municipalities, through their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, have enacted land use regulations to protect and promote marina and marina support facilities in harbor areas having sufficient basin depth, upland support, and associated facilities adjacent to or near the waterfront. Approach channels and public anchorage areas in harbor areas enhance the ability of these uses to exist. Harbor Management Plans being developed by some communities have begun to address surface water use conflicts by establishing water use guidelines and regulations. Less than five percent of the Long Island Sound shoreline in New York is occupied by marinas and boat yards. Although some communities, such as the Village of Mamaroneck, protect marinas and boat yards through land use regulations, only a fraction of the water- ' dependent uses on the Sound are protected by or given preference over non-water-dependent uses in zoning laws. In the Town of Huntington, which has adopted a harbor use district for one of the most intensely used harbors on the Sound, some non-water-dependent uses are allowed directly on the waterfront in an area that is clearly appropriate only for water- dependent uses. There is a need to protect, promote, and give preference to these uses, particularly within the harbors where these uses are concentrated. Complex PennitProcess There is a need for regulatory simplification whether the project is to complete minor modifications to an existing marina, expand an existing marina, or construct a new marina. The increasingly complex, lengthy, and unpredictable regulatory process, involving all levels of government, has become a major impediment and financial burden for marinas and boat yards. Different agencies with different legislative 'missions' and discrete or narrow regulatory concerns apply different standards; as a result, comprehensive and consistent regulatory standards are lacking. Project review requirements differ from agency to agency and can even differ among project review staff within the same agency. Many marina and boat yard operators report that complying with an unpredictable regulatory maze increases overhead costs for legal and technical services and that these costs could be better spent on maintenance and other operating costs. In the view of many operators, project review results in nothing more than delay, adds costs to a marina or boat yard project, and breeds disdain for the regulatory process. Existing marina operators are adversely affected by long project approval times. They are, for instance, not able to advise potential customers of future slip availability and cannot respond rapidly to changing market conditions. Because the existing regulatory process is so rigid, it is extremely difficult to accomplish relatively simple, small-scale maintenance, site layout modifications, or expansions, such as dock reconfiguration and dredging, within 278 The Working Coast a relatively short boating season. If minor modifications involving the location of docks and piles are completed without a permit, or are not precisely in accord with an issued permit, the operator or owner may receive a large fine and be ordered to remove the modification, even though it may eventually be allowed after the regulatory process is completed. Dredging is often required to navigate in areas where other upland activities have caused channels and basins to fill in or shoal. Although some pollutants in basin sediments come directly from marinas and boat yards, many other pollutants originate from upland sources. These pollutants crossing marina or boat yard sites in sheet runoff, through culverts, or along roadways before entering the water column and basin sediments. In some cases, dredging and disposing of this sediment have become prohibitively expensive because of the costs associated with toxics analysis (required as part of the dredging project review) and with transporting, disposing, and capping contaminated spoil. Unsupporttve Zoning and Unfair Tax Assessments Marinas are often assessed for non-water-dependent uses, such as residential uses, even where residential uses are prohibited by local zoning laws. The result is a higher tax assessment which reduces the profitability of the marina and becomes a disincentive for remaining as a water-dependent use. This is the case in the Village of Mamaroneck where portions of the waterfront are zoned exclusively for marine commercial uses but still taxed for residential use. In the City of Rye, marinas and boat yards are again at a disadvantage. In this case both marinas/boat yards and residential uses are allowed with all uses being asseased at residential levels. Appropriate tax assessments which treat marinas and boat yards as water-dependent uses can help these uses remain profitable. Waterfront areas developed with water-dependent commercial uses need to be protected for water-dependent uses rather than converted to uses not requiring a waterfront location, since this results in a permanent loss of scarce land to water-dependent uses. The value of existing marinas and boat yards on the Sound is expected to be high over the long term given the region's affluence, recreational boating demand, and limited growth potential for new marinas. While short-term real estate values for waterfront property may be higher for residential uses, the long-term public value of marinas and boat yards on the shoreline is high and supports the need for protection. Comp~ililon Between Prl~atel~ O~ned and Publiel~ Ovmed Marinas Public, or municipally owned marinas, which are usually taxpayer supported, can adversely affect demand at privately owned marinas. Municipal marinas can charge as much as two- thirds less than a private marina, since they do not carry comparable overhead costs for taxes, insurance costs, sales tax, interest on loans, and payroll. The marina industry has suggested that if public marinas are permitted, municipalities should demonstrate that the fees from public marinas are adequate to cover the operating costa. This would demonstrate to municipal taxpayers that the entire municipality is not subsidizing a non-essential facility that the private sector could provide. Public marinas do, however, provide a type of boating access to a segment of the general public in a municipality that would not otherwise be able to afford the fees charged by private marinas. Public marinas on Long Island Sound often do, however, reserve a municipal resident's interest in a slip for the life of the resident or as long as the resident owns a vessel. Waiting lists for municipal marinas can result in waiting periods of over ten years for slips, so many residents who can afford the municipal marina, but not a private marina, are left The Working Coast 279 without a slip. Various solutions to these issues have been explored. However, given the competing interests of public versus private marinas, and the complexity of the issues, a solution to this problem is not readily apparent. Impacts of Large Dock Facilities Associated ttrtth A Non-Commercial Use With increasing frequency, requests are being made to construct large dock facilities, having the capacity to accommodate from 4 to 40 boats and associated with a non-conunercial upland use. Often the upland use is residential, usually high density condominiums, townhouses, or apa,'tments, and is in a location that is entirely unsuitable for a large, commercial dock facility. The dock facility is likely to adversely affect the residential character of the development and the shoreline aa well aa public trust lands and waters, natural resources, and aesthetics, in the same way an inappropriately sited marina would. COMMERCIAL FISHING An integral part of Long Island Sound history and the economy for over 300 years, commercial fishing continues today using both state-of-the-art equipment and traditional harvesting methods. Over 45 species of finflsh, crustaceans, and shellfish are caught in Long Island Sound. Offshore fishing in deeper bay water and in the Sound itself centers on species such aa lobsters, surf clams, butterfish, Atlantic mackerel, herring, flounders, squid, and porgy. This commercial fishing activity is centered in six locations, the west end of the Sound, Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson and Setauket Harbors, Mount Sinai Harbor, and Mattituck Harbor. (These fishing centers are described in more detail below.). The inshore harbors and bays on Long Island Sound produce some of New York's most productive fisheries and shellfisheries. Commercial harvesters who work these inshore areas are independent baymen or lobstermen and represent the largest segment of the commercial fishing industry in New York. Baymen use traditional hand harvesting methods, such aa raking for hard clams, digging for soft clams, tonging for oysters, and combing for eels. Lobstermen set pots for lobsters and conch. In the Huntington Bay complex, there has been a return to the use of the traditional clam boat powered by sail to dredge for oysters in waters that are too deep for hand tonging. Trends Commercial Harvesters and Volume of Harvest There are nearly 146 full and part-time commercial trap and trawl fishing vessels based in Long Island Sound harbors: approximately 20 trawlers or draggers which tow nets through the water to catch species like flounder and cod; 122 lobster boats which carry lobster traps or pots to locations in the Sound; and 4 shellfish dredges which harvest clams and other shellfish from the Sound bottom. In addition, several hundred inshore commercial bay boats, called garvies or sharpies, are moored or trailered to most harbors and bays. Baymen ply inshore harbor and bay areas in these small, shallow-draft vessels which are used as work platforms, culling stations, and a means for transporting the harvest back to shore. In 1991, New York's total harvest from Long Island Sound was 16,567,563 million pounds of fish and seafood with a dockside value at $21,244,262. This represented 33 percent of the total volume of fish harvested in New York State and 40 percent of the total value. It is important to note that the dockside value does not represent the total use value which 280 T~e Working Coast includes, in addition to dockside value, the economic impacts or multiplier effects resulting from commercial fishing activity in the New York portion of the Sound. If computed, the total use value in 1991 for commercial fishing activity would represent a value equivalent to approximately three times the dockside value or close to 63 million dollars. The overall volume of commercial fishing landings in Long Island Sound increased by approximately 50 percent from 1987 to 1991. Table 26 shows the total landings for the Sound from 1987 to 1992. These figures are derived from two special statistical runs made by the National Marine Fisheries Service in August, 1991 and March, 1993. The 1992 data is classified as preliminary. In contrast to the harvest volume from 1987 to 1991, the overall harvest value remained relatively flat (a decrease of $0.58 in the average price per pound). The decrease in value can be attributed to a shift in harvest effort from high-value fmfish and shellfish to underutilized and non-traditional species, such as squid, Atlantic mackerel, and herring which do not command high prices per pound domestically. The greater volume may have resulted from increased fishing activity and different harvesting techniques. The data depicted in table 26 demonstrates the economic importance of three species in particular, American lobster, hard clams, and surf clams. In 1991, these three species accounted for 80 percent of the total value and 67 percent of the total volume of landings made by Long Island Sound commercial harvesters. From 1987 through 1991, American lobster and hard clam harvest values made up an average of 70 percent of the total value of the New York Long Island Sound commercial harvest. The lobster harvest increased in volume by over 50 percent though its price per pound decreased. In these same years surf clam landings averaged 47 percent of the total catch from the Sound, representing a 1,040 percent increase in volume from 1987 to 1991. The hard clam harvest, however, remained flat. Historically, New York's hard clam fishery was one of the most productive in the United States. Hard clams favor certain conditions which prevail in the waters of Long Island Sound, i.e., shallow, brackish water and sandy botWm areas. However, between 1976 and 1987 the industry declined rapidly due to overfishing, loss of habitat, and water pollution. In recent years additional areas have been closed to shellfishing as a result of water pollution and the presence of large numbers of boats. Currently, all waters off New York City and Westchester County are closed or conditionally closed to the taking of shellfish. The decrease in harvest areas has resulted in the decrease of shellfish harvesting activity, as evidenced by a decrease in issued shellfish licenses. New York's commercial harvest accounts for more than half the total amount of fish and seafood taken from the Sound. Connecticut and Rhode Island make up the rest of the harvest. Data from 1980 to 1991 indicates that New York has been gaining an increasingly larger share of the catch from Long Island Sound. Connecticut's volume has also been increasing, but not at the same rate as New York's. Despite this, the value of Connecticut's harvest has increased due to that state's oyster production and harvest. Since 1984 Rhode Island's share of the Long Island Sound harvest has been decreasing. Seafood Packaging and Sal~s There are four packing houses on the Sound, all located in Mattituck Inlet. Two of these houses, Long Island Sound Seafood Company and King Seafoods, operate their own boats. The other two, Cook's Dock and Petersen's Dock, are used to pack-out fish and lobsters for transport to local fish markets, regional packing houses, or the Fulton Fish Market. The Working Coast 281 Table 26 Shellfish and Lobster Landings as Percentage of Long Island Sound Total Landings oo 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Amount % Amount ~ Amount ~ Amount % Amount % Amount Total US Landings Pounds 8,360,600 100~ 10,800,619 100% 9,747,200 100~ 15,790,970 100~$ 16,567,56:3 100% 11,534,716 100% Value in $ 15,533,691 100~ 18,533,096 100~ 18,540,107 100~$ 23,810,213 100~ 21,244,262 100% 20,756,001 100% l..obnter,. American Pounds 849,900 10% 1,347,619 12~ 1,443,100 15~ 1,888,795 12~$ 1,932,940 12% 1,786,695 15% Value in $ 2,806,748 18% 4,453,006 24% 4,793,431 26~ 5,951,647 25~$ 5,665,394 27% 5,784,314 28% Hard Clams Pounds 1,15'/,700 24% 1,157,100 11% 1,137,900 12% 1,384,668 9% 1,171,608 7% 1,302,540 11~ Value in $ 7,225,079 65~ 7,550,963 41% 8,337,470 45% 8,688,849 36~ 8,798,776 42% 7,634,225 26% Sud Cinm8 Pounds 692,300 8% 993,900 9~ 3,704,900 38% 8,788,677 56~ 7,916,968 48% 3,677,746 32% Value in $ 229,667 1.4~ 397,675 2~ 1,367,419 7% 3,076,039 13~ 2,421,893 11% 956,214 11~ SOURCE: 1987-1989: NMFS 8/26/91 special run, Washington, DC. 1990-1992: NMFS 3/30/~3 special mn, Woods Hc~e, MA. The Long Island Sound Seafood Company is the largest of the four houses in Mattituck and one of the oldest on Long Island. The company ships between 75 and 80 percent of its product to the Fulton Market. The remaining product is sold locally. There are two 5,000 square foot warehouses at the facility, including cold storage. King Seafood is a small family-owned business operating in a fashion similar to Long Island Sound Seafood. Frank Flowers and Sons in Oyster Bay, which specializes in shellfish culture, harvests and sells shellfish at wholesale. Of all the harbors on the Sound, only Huntington has a fish buyer to serve the commercial fleet. Elsewhere, harvesters market their catch locally or have arrangements with wholesalers who transport the harvest to distributors or processors in New York City and sometimes as far north as Canada. Most baymen sell their products directly to retailers and wholesalers immediately after harvesting, either at the dock or shoreline when the product is transferred to shore or within a few miles of the harvest area. Hard clams, oysters, soft clams, mussels, and lobsters are often sold directly to restaurants or retail food establishments without using wholesalers as middlemen, although many baymen sell to wholesalers when demand from favored retail buyers is reduced. Conch and eel are occasionally sold locally, but usually trucked or shipped to regional seafood centers such as the Fulton Fish Market in New York City. Many baymen have established export contacts for American eels and conch and air freight their product directly to markets where the demand and dollar value of the product is highest. Commercial ~¥shing Harbors Inshore Harvesting The inshore harbor and bay shellflshery consists of hard clams, oysters, soft clams, mussels, and conch. It is harvested primarily by inshore baymen operating from small bay boats and occurs in at least part of all the bays and harbors of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Inshore baymen also harvest lobsters within the harbor and bay complexes and occasionally harvest them from deeper waters in the Long Island Sound basin. Baymen also harvest eels from nearshore areas near the heads of many of the Sound's embayments. A total of 1,368 commercial shelifishing permits were issued to harvesters residing in towns with frontage on Long Island Sound in 1992. Of these, approximately 412 'permits were issued to harvesters from towns with embayments located in Long Island Sound exclusively. Many of the remaining 956 permits were issued to residents of towns with embayments located in Long Island Sound and Long Island's south shore or Peconic Bay. The greatest number of these harvesters most likely harvested shellfish on the south shore in the towns of Oyster Bay and Brookhaven and in the Peconic and Flanders areas in Riverhead and Southold. Some permit holders do not harvest on a full time basis. The numbers of permits issued by DEC to residents of towns with frontage on Long Island Sound in 1992 were: Towns Frontin~ Lont laland Sound Qnly N. Hempstead 12 Huntington 361 Smithtown 39 Total 412 Towns Fronting Long Island Sound and South Shore or Peconics Oyster Bay 167 Brookhaven 544 Riverhead 37 Southold 208 Total 956 The Working Coast 283 West End of Long Island Sound Although the west end of Long Island Sound, from west of Huntington Bay to the Connecticut/New York border, is dominated by recreational boating, commercial harvesting also occurs in the Sound and its bays and harbors. Lobster harvesting accounts for the bulk of the harvest in this section of the Sound. Echo Bay and Hawks Island in New Rochelle, City Island in the Bronx, Whitestone Harbor, Westchester Creek, Manhasset Bay, and a number of smaller tributaries are home ports for lobster boats. A 1989 study prepared for the Department of State, Development of a Commercial Fisheries Industry Strategy for the State of New York (AT Kearney Study), estimated that there were between 30 and 50 resident full-time lobster boats operating in the western Sound and about 100,000 lobster pots. Because of fear of poaching, pots are rarely marked. Most inshore baymen operate within the Oyster Bay complex, and a few work and keep their vessels in the Hempstead Harbor area. The Frank M. Flower Oyster Company cultivates oysters in Oyster Bay Harbor, and is the largest oyster industry in the state. - There are few facilities in the western Sound harbors that cater to the needs of commercial harvesters. Most lobster harvesters do not have access to dock space. Consequently, if they cannot get access to a public dock, they transfer their catch from their moored boats to skiffs for unloading. Those harvesters who do have dock space often pay a premium price. Fueling is also difficult and expensive. Most marinas charge commercial boats the same price for fuel as recreational boats. In some cases fuel is brought by pickup trucks to the docks. There are no commercial ice facilities, so many lobster harvesters have to purchase ice at local delicatessens. Maintenance and repair services are also limited. There are no boat yards or repair facilities (diesel, electronics, and gear) that cater to commercial fishing in this area of the Sound. As a result, if vessels operators or owners need these services, they travel out of the area or pay a premium price for these services from businesses that service recreational boats. Huntington and Centerport Harbors Offshore commercial fishing from Huntington Harbor centers almost exclusively on lobster. The harbor is saturated with recreational boats. In 1991 there were seven or eight lobster boats located in Huntington Harbor. Centerport Harbor has two trawlers and 10 or 12 lobster boats. These boats do not work through the winter. Offshore harvesters from this area have established informal proprietary fishing grounds that extend from west of the harbor to Connecticut, ten miles across the Sound. Transient commercial fishing boats rarely use this harbor. Over 100 inshore baymen keep their vessels in Huntington Harbor, and several are kept in Centerport Harbor. The Huntington Bay complex, including Huntington and Centerport Harbors, also supports the largest inshore shellfishery on Long Island's north shore. Basic services needed by commercial harvesters are limited. If commercial boats need maintenance or repair, including electronic or gear repair, they pay a premium price for these services from marinas or they take their boats to Massachusetts or Rhode Island where commercial harvesters can purchase fuel and ice at a reduced rate. Unlike boats in the western Sound, commercial fishing boats-are allowed to unload and pack fish at Huntington's public dock. However, these boats are not allowed to berth overnight. Most of the boats are moored in the harbor; some are tied up at a dock owned by a commercial fisherman. 284 The Working Coast ~orthport Harbor Northport Harbor is located in the eastern section of the Huntington Bay complex. Northport is primarily an offshore lobster port and inshore bay boat port, although several small trawlers and a shellfish dredging fleet are also located there. There are about 20 lobster boats in Northport Harbor. A number of inshore bay boats are also kept in the harbor year round. Most of the lobster fleet works throughout the winter. Like lobster fishermen in other parts of Long Island Sound, the Northport harvesters have established informal territories for lobster harvest. Only one of the trawlers is presently active, making day trips to Long Island Sound. Facilities and services are somewhat more conducive to commercial fishing needs in Northport. Commercial fishing boats pack out at the village dock, located in the center of the community. The dock was rehabilitated in 1986, but commercial fishing boats cannot use it at low tide. A float dock is used during these periods. The commercial marinas in the harbor supply the commercial fleet with fuel at a reduced cost during certain hours of the day. However, due to the high volume of fuel that a commercial fishing boat holds, the marinas cannot fully supply the boats, and twice weekly fill-ups are necessary. Like the harbors on the western end of the Sound, overnight docking is not available for commercial harvesters. Those lobster boats that fish year round moor their boats near the Long Island Lighting Company's plant in the winter, because the heated effluent prevents ice formation. Port Jeffenon and Setauket Harbors The next major concentration of commercial fishing boats is found in Port Jefferson and Setauket harbors, about ten miles east of the Huntington Bay complex. The Village of Port Jefferson lies at the head of Port Jefferson Harbor. This is one of the largest natural deep draft harbors on Long Island. By contrast, Setauket is a shallow harbor, part of a bay complex contiguous to the western portion of Port Jefferson Harbor. Boats from Setauket access Long Island Sound through Port Jefferson Harbor. Setauket has a maritime and fishing tradition going back to the 17th century. Port Jefferson and Setauket harbors, and Conscience Bay support a substantial hard clam and oyster sheilflshery. The offshore harvesters here concentrate most of their efforts on the open waters of the Sound adjacent to the bay. These waters, together with the western part of the Sound, are considered to be some of the best lobster grounds on the East Coast. The AT Kearney study estimated that an active lobster harvester can pull 350 to 400 pots per day from this area. Offshore commercial fishing in Port Jefferson and Setauket harbors is conducted mostly by family-owned businesses. There are three trawlers and eight to ten lobster boats working out of the harbors. In Setauket, catches are offloaded onto smaller vessels and rowed ashore for loading onto trucks. Over the past several years the volume of finfish taken has decreased, and with the state prohibition against taking lobsters by trawlers, it is difficult for these boats to sustain operations in the Sound. However, modifications to some of the trawlers have allowed operators to enter into the live fish market. Commercial harvesters in Port Jefferson have generally beuer access to dock space than in other harbors. The Town of Brookhaven sets aside six slips at the public dock for commercial fishermen, although no security or services are provided. Catch is unloaded from the boats to the parking area, but this has become more difficult since the installation of a public esplanade. No gear storage is available. The Working Coast 285 Fuel and repair services for commercial fishing boats are available in the harbor. Most vessel owners do their own minor repairs, but diesel repair services and small maintenance services are available locaily. For larger boats or annual overhauls, the Port Jefferson fleet generally goes to Connecticut. The Port Jefferson waterfront has been transformed from a largely commercial and industrial harbor to a recreational harbor that attracts tourists. Due to the changing focus of the harbor, there are increasing conflicts between recreational and commercial users of the harbor. Mount Sinai Harbor Mount Sinai Harbor is located three miles east of Port Jefferson. The harbor is generally too shallow and congested with recreational boats to accommodate fishing boats over 50 feet in length. The largest commercial boats in the harbor are 45 foot lobster boats. Mount Sinai is home port to a highly productive lobster fleet. Although recreational boats are dominant, about 15 active lobster boats and a trawler still operate out of the harbor. These boats fish between 10,000 and 20,000 pots per year. In 1987, they accounted for over one million pounds of lobster. Each commercial lobster harvester from the harbor has staked out their territory, which is guarded agaiust intrusions by newcomers. Generally, the Mount Sinai fleet operates in the area between Shoreham and Crane Neck Point to the west. Several commercial bay boats are moored in the harbor. The harbor supports a small hard clam, soft clam, and oyster harvesting industry. All but one of the commercial boats in the harbor are moored because dock space is lacking. Products are unloaded at the two town floating docks. However, these docks are also used by recreational boaters, and commercial harvesters often have to wait to use the facilities. Maflituck Inlet Mattituck Inlet is the narrowest and shallowest commercial fishing vessel port on Long Island. These physical constraints limit use of the harbor to boats less than 60 feet in length. Shoaling at the mouth of the inlet poses some obstacles to deep draft boats. The commercial fishing vessels in Mattituck center on 12 to 15 trawlers. While most boats make daily runs, several captains make extended trips. The fleet fishes 150 to 200 days per year, but the small size of the boats prevents winter fishing. There are also between six and ten small lobster boats in the harbor making day trips to Long Island Sound. A couple of lobster beats also fish for conch. Only one inactive surf clam boat remains at Mattituck due to the decrease in surf clams which were once gathered in large numbers from Long Island Sound. The inlet supports a small hard clam, oyster, and soft clam industry. Almost all of the commercial fishing activity in Mattituck is family-owned and operated. Mattituck provides excellent dock opportunities for commercial fishermen. Over 250 feet of dock space is available. One of these docks has an hydraulic crane to unload fish. Unlike many ports on the Sound, there is some gear storage space available in the harbor. No ice is available, and individual captains have fuel hauled directly to their boats. Hauinut and annual maintenance of commercial fishing boats is provided by one firm in the harbor, however, shoaling in the haulout area has made it difficult to service large boats. Mechanical and engine repairs are done by on-call mechanics. 286 The Working Coast Unlike the other ports on the Sound, Mattituck is used by transient vessels from Shinnecock during the summer. Significance to the Region New York's commercial fishing industry provides valuable fish and seafood products to the citizens of the state. While there are some people that catch their own fish and seafood for personal consumption, the vast majority of people in New York must rely on the state's commercial fishing industry for their source of fishery products. In that sense New York's commercial fishing industry provides an invaluable service to seafood consumers. Commercial fishing harvests of Long Island Sound are sold both domestically and overseas creating revenue for the state and local communities. The industry provides local employment, not only for commercial harvesters and employees of directly related businesses but also for individuals working in local businesses which supply the fishing fleets. Typical purchases or expenditures made by the commercial fishing fleets include fuel, ice, repairs, mooring, hardware, and fishing supplies. The The commercial fishing industry also positively affects the state and local economies through the payment of sales and property taxes and the purchase of goods and services by the households of commercial harvesters. Finally, the commercial fishing industry is important to the culture of the Sound region in that many of today's industry members and their families continue traditions handed down to them by their ancestors, despite the difficulties they encounter. Issues Competition For Limited i*ish Resources and Environmental Stress The commercial fishing industry is experiencing numerous problems. Chief among these are: competition for limited fish resources; competition from other uses of coastal lands and waters, primarily residential and commercial development and recreational boating; and the environmental stresses caused by human activity in and around the Sound. Commercial harvesters are competing strenuously among themselves as well as with recreational harvesters for limited fish resources. Harbors, once centers of commercial fishing activity, have become recreational boating centers and have become developed at a rapid pace. In the process, prime wetland habitats, including fish spawning and nursery areas, have been and are being compromised. In upland areas, increasing urbalniTation is diminishing the viability of fisheries by adversely impacting shoreline habitat and contributing to water quality problems. Contaminated seafood can pose a potential threat to human health, therefore constant vigilance is necessary to assure that safe fishery products are brought to market. For example, increasing numbers of shellfish beds are being designated each year as uncertified due to bacterial contamination or the threat of bacterial contamination. Economic and Operational Pressures From an economic standpoint, new development has driven up the cost of doing business for commercial seafood harvesters. They are often not in a financial position to pay the high prices for fuel, boat maintenance, housing and other expenses which recreational boaters and other newcomers can afford. Many captains, especially in Port Jefferson and Huntington, must pay full retail prices for fuel. From an operating standpoint, commercial harvesters are fighting for space in the harbors where they have traditionally worked. Many harbors on Long Island Sound are so full of The Working Coast 287 recreational boaters and marinas that commercial harvesters are unable to find overnight dockage and must moor offshore. In addition, because of a lack of fish landing facilities, they must pack their catches offshore and unload the boxes onto skiffs for transport to shore. Insufficient Support Services Onshore, commercial harvesters often lack ready access to services needed on a dally basis. These include dockside fuel tanks, ice and refrigeration, and gear storage facilities. Some ports lack dockside fuel tanks making it necessary for harvesters to truck in fuel. Harvesters also generally purchase ice from an ice producer and truck it in. Some buy it from recreational marinas or even local delicatessens. Although there are a dozen or so major refrigeration and freezing facilities on Long Island, these facilities usually have contracts with agents such as processors and buyers. Thus harvesters are limited to dealing directly with these agents if they are to obtain refrigeration and freezing services. Vessel operators have a great deal of gear that requires storage. During fishing seasons this gear must be easily accessible. With the possible exception of Mount Sinai and Mattituck, no port provides adequate gear storage space. Such space is a critical component of efficient commercial fishing operations. All these shoreside inconveniences cut into the time available for fishing and thus into potential profits. Commercial fishing boats require constant maintenance and repair. Unfortunately, with the exception of Greenport, major repair services for commercial vessels on Long Island are non- existent. Marinas generally cater to recreational boaters, and prices for servicing are very high. For most major repairs, owners of commercial fishing vessels on the Sound travel to Staten Island, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts. Fuel Prices In New York State commercial fishing vessel owners pay state tax on fuel, which is refunded at the end of the year after the owner submits receipts and the appropriate paper work to the New York State Deparhilent of Taxation. This process is viewed by the majority of vessel owners as an inconvenience they would prefer to avoid. In fact, many captains will purchase fuel outside of New York State where these taxes are not applicable. Inadequate Fish and Seafood Processing Facilities There is a shortage of fish and seafood processing facilities on Long Island, so fish and seafood is frequently shipped out of state for processing. This is especially true for Long Island Sound lobster which is shipped to other states and Canada for processing. Ironically, most of the processors in New York rely on outside sources of seafood and do not use locally harvested products. There are a number of reasons for this which include: long-established buying patterns that do not include the purchase of locally harvested products; processors' need for certain species harvested from outside the region, such as salmon and shrimp; and the inability of local harvesters to provide the necessary quantity of fish. Consequently, New York loses sales revenue and does not reap the gain which would be achieved through the value added to fish and seafood products by processing greater volumes of locally harvested seafood in Long Island plants. This is key to the growth of the industry, because processed fish and seafood receives 24 percent of every consumer dollar spent, generating more income than unprocessed seafood. Such revenues could be folded back into the local commercial fishing industry, processing plants, and the fish and seafood sales network, thus ensuring their continued viability in New York State. 288 The Working Coast In some instances, processors do supplement their supply with local harvests. To increase the volume of seafood processed at existing processing facilities in the Sound region, harvesters should improve their marketing efforts, and processors should become better informed about the availability of locally harvested products. The shortage of processing facilities is due to a number of factors: constraints to locating facilities directly on the waterfront (e.g., a highly developed coastline, expensive waterfront property, local zoning restrictions, inadequate infrastructure) · high energy costs · high overland transportation costs resulting from traffic delays, the necessity of transporting products through New York City, and the expense of maintaining trucking fleets in the New York City area · inadequate wastewater treatment capacity at municipal plants to handle the large amounts of water used in cleaning and processing seafood · high cost of labor, to retain workers on Long Island to do messy, unpleasant work, processors must pay two or three times the minimum wage Need for State Guidance For Aquaculture Development The culture of aquatic animals and plants has developed into a billion dollar industry in the United States. Many states have aquaculture plans and guidelines and work with commercial harvesters or encourage and guide private-sector-led development of aquaculture facilities. Some states actively seek out aquaculture investors by offering low interest loans, grants, and technical assistance. The State of New York does not have an aquaculture plan to guide investors planning to develop aquaculture facilities in the state. The neighboring state of Connecticut, through the Connecticut Department of Agriculture working with local commercial shellfish operations, has organized a very successful aquaculture program for the state's prime oyster seed producing areas. Since 1987, the state has invested $4.8 million dollars to restore 3,000 acres of seed beds. Connecticut's restoration program is considered by many to be the major reason for the significant increase in the state's oyster harvest, which was estimated at over $:53 million in 1992. Culturists harvesting seed from the beds restored by the state must 'pay a 10 percent tax on the retail value of their harvest. The revenue generated by the tax is deposited into the fund to restore the beds. Unfavorable Public Perception Whether fresh or processed, Long Island seafood faces marketing obstacles. These are due to the general public's perception that, because the waters around Long Island are polluted, seafood harvested from these waters is not healthful to eat. This is especially so for Long Island shellfish which is often consumed raw. The shellfish industry has been undermined by adverse press reports of shellfish-related illness, which has a ripple effect on all seafood consumption. To assure that the public is protected from unsafe seafood products, the State Department of Health in consultation with the State Department of Environmental Conservation releases Fish The Working Coast 289 Health Advisories. Care should be taken with advisories to ensure they are not misinterpreted by the media and the general public and do not result in unnecessary alarm about the safety of consuming certain species not intended to be the target of the. advisory. PA rr BOATS FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING Recreational fishing includes angling from the shore or beach, fishing from private boats, and fishing aboard a recreational-for-hire fleet. The recreation-for-hire fleet consists of both party and charter boats. There are an estimated 100 party and charter boats operating within the Long Island Sound region. The regional distribution of major port areas where concentrations of party and charter boats exist is the following: New York City--City Island; Nassau County--Port Washington; and Suffolk County--Huntington, Northport, Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck. Party boats are vessels that allow the general public to board the vessel without reservations and typically depart on a regular schedule for recreational fishing outings. These boats are large, ranging in size from 40 to 135 feet, and usually carry 35 or more passengers per trip. Charter boats, which range in size but can be as large as party boats, are vessels that have been reserved by a group or association for a recreational fishing outing on a specific date. The majority of the estimated 100 recreational fishing vessels on the Sound are smaller charter boats called "six packs". The name comes from the license necessary to operate these boats, which limits them to carrying no more than six passengers. These boats are usually less than 40 feet long and are mostly used on a part-time basis. The owners of these boats usually have another occupation as their principal source of employment and are in the business of operating their boats for hire, usually for charter by a group or association, to supplement their income. Larger boats, seven people or more, are also used as charter boats. There are fewer of these boats on the Sound than the "six packs" and even fewer are used on a full=time basis. Party and charter boats are recreationally and economically valuable. Party and charter boats provide access to a recreational fishery in the open waters of the Sound not otherwise accessible by those who do not have a private vessel. Statewide data from the AT Kearney Study prepared for the Department of State indicates that the leading recreational fishing activity in the state involves organized day trips on professional for-hire boats. For the years of 1984 to 1987, salt water recreational fish harvest .statistics show that charter boats led other modes of recreational fishing, angling from a beach and pier, and private boats, in the number of fish caught and weight of catch. The draft Long Island Sound Study estimates that the 1990 total sport fishing value for the New York State portion of Long Island Sound was $418 million. This figure does not include the recreational boating value estimate for Long Island Sound which was $I .4 billion. The estimated values for these uses includes the use value plus associated economic impacts or multiplier effects. Availability of dock space for charter and party boats is a major problem. There are few docks on the north shore that will accept large party or charter boats. In response to the lack of dock space, some operators have resorted to open water moorings and transport passengers to and from the larger fishing vessel using a small motor boat. Due to the lack of port areas in the eastern half of the Sound, temporary docking and fuel or other services can be difficult to obtain. Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck Inlet are the only port locations in the eastern end of the Sound. 290 The Working Coast Many charter and party boats stationed in ports in the west half of the Sound are traveling with greater frequency to the eastern half of the Sound. These longer trips are necessary, because fish populations are declining in the western portions of the Sound due to a number of factors, including poor water quality and over harvesting. The decline in fish populations has resulted in increased competition between recreational fishermen and commercial harvesters for limited fishery resources. FERR/E$ Regular cross-Sound steamship connections between New York and Connecticut were established in 1883 when a group of investors formed the Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company. The service, inaugurated to provide the industrialized Bridgeport region with agricultural products from Long Island, has continued for over 100 years. Today there are three ferry services providing service between Long Island and Connecticut. The Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Company operates between Port Jefferson and Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Cross Sound Ferry Service operates between Orient Point and New London, Connecticut. It is estimated that the combined ridership of these two ferries is over 800,000 passengers and 350,000 vehicles per year. Only about 10,000 of the 350,000 vehicles are trucks. A third ferry, the Fishers Island Ferry service, operating between Fishers Island and New London, is used principally as a means to transport residents, visitors, cargo, and goods to and from Fishers Island. A number of problems affect the ability of the existing ferry services to move goods for Long Island's businesses and to provide passenger service. These problems include: traffic congestion within the Village of Port Jefferson and low clearance in the City of Bridgeport that precludes large trucks from using ferry service. The Orient Point Ferry is of limited use due to its remote location and the approach road which cannot accommodate significant traffic volume. In the early 1960's, fast ferry service was proposed as a desirable alternative to a third cross- Sound bridge to facilitate transportation of goods and people across the Sound. When first investigated in 1965, the ferry alternative was rejected because it was thought that future traffic volume would be too great for the ferries to handle. In the 1970's the potential environmental impacts and high cost of building a bridge over the Sound revived interest in improving ferry service. A 1981 study, conducted by the states of Connecticut and New York, which did not recommend a route, concluded that existing service could be augmented by another ferry service. The study identified the following objectives that an additional ferry service could be expected to achieve: reduced travel time and costs for trips between Long Island and New England; reduced traffic congestion; improved connection to markets between Long Island and New England, providing an economic stimulus in both regions; reduced shipping costs; and promotion of recreation, tourism, and clean air objectives. A 1991 feasibility study established that ferry service between Shoreham and New Haven could meet the objectives expressed in the 1981 study and holds the greatest potential for significant ridership. Such a service offers the following major advantages: accommodation of large commercial vehicles; a direct link to a deep water port in New Haven, allowing direct import and export of products by Long Island and Connecticut companies; and direct access to major highways, i.e. William Floyd Parkway and Long Island Expressway, on Long Island and Interstates 95 and 91, in Connecticut. The Wor~ng Coast 291 Governor Mario Cuomo's New York Initiative, announced on September 24, 1991, supports a number of public works projects designed to improve the state's competitive position and stimulate the economy. As one segment of the program, the New York State Urban Development Corporation has proposed institution of new ferry services to facilitate the movement of cargo and passengers in the region. One type of ferry service consists of a high speed cargo and passenger ferry service between Shore. ham and New Haven, Connecticut. Although New Haven and Shoreham are separated by the widest section of the Sound, a distance of 23 miles, high speed ferry service can make this a viable route by reducing overland travel time and presenting cost savings to drivers. Unlike existing ferry services, approach roads to the proposed landing sites present no physical constraints to trucks or passenger cars and both have excellent access to connecting roadways. This new service is not expected to adversely effect the viability of existing ferry services. However, the potential environmental impacts of a ferry service at this site and other considerations, such as the impacts of dredging, site preparation, increased traffic, the construction of terminal buildings and parking areas for cars and trucks, road improvements, and growth- inducing effects must be addressed. Further, the effect on nearby wetlands and habitats, the use of underwater land, the dual nature of site ownership, and a proposal to install a natural gas facility on the site need to be considered. Another type of ferry service, as yet um'eaiized in the region, consists of commuter ferry connections serving Manhattan from regional terminals within and outside New York City, including points adjacent to Long Island Sound. Locations that have been considered for commuter terminals on Long Island Sound to provide access to New York City are: Rye Playland, Port Chester Harbor, and Oyster Bay. Specific issues to be addressed in establishing a commuter ferry terminal are: the intended route; terminal site location; terminal site design, including provisions for adequate dock facilities, sheltered waiting areas, rest rooms, and concessions; services to be provided at the terminal; parking and suitability of landside access; and estimated costs of construction. Recently, Governor Cuomo and the High Speed Ferry Task Force, an intergovernmental group that includes representatives from various state and city agencies, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, announced that three companies have been chosen to negotiate for rights to operate commuter ferry routes. The routes from points located in Long Island Sound have yet to receive interest by the companies wishing to establish ferry services. As traffic congestion and air pollution increase, transporting cargo and people on Long Island becomes more difficult and the impacts on the regional economy and environment more serious. The Northeast's coastal counties are among the most densely populated areas of the country. In 1990, the population of Nassau and Suffolk counties stood at over two and a half million. Between 1988 and 2010, this number is expected to grow by over two hundred thousand. Population increases will only worsen traffic congestion and make it more difficult to transport cargo and people to and from the region. Increasingly, the states and localities on the Sound are treating economic and infrastructure development as a regional issue. One factor contributing to the regional outlook is the increasing time-sensitivity of inter-urban commodity flows. The current recession has forced many industries to look carefully at the costs they incur when doing business on Long Island. It is generally recognized that the "dead end' and congested transportation situation on Long Island significantly adds to the time needed to move goods. For the region to function efficiently as an economic unit, improved transportation linkages are necessary. Maintaining 292 The Working Coast existing ferry services and augmenting them with newly established services will improve regional transportation linkages. Water-Dependent Industrial Uses WATERBORNE COMMERCE ON LONG ISLAND SOUND The primary source for describing waterborne products that are imported to or exported from the New York State shoreline of the Long Island Sound are yearly reports published by the United States Depatanent of the Army Corps of Engineers, titled Waterborne Commerce of the United States Waterways and Harbors. Atlantic CQ~t. The latest publication available was for 1989. The New York harbors on Long Island Sound are used for waterborne commerce primarily to import petroleum products and aggregates, mostly crushed stone, by barge or tanker. In 1989, locations where petroleum products or aggregates were imported included: Port Chester, Echo Bay, Hutchinson River, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove Creek, Oyster Bay, Northport Harbor, Huntington Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Northville, and Hay Harbor. Other types of general cargo products are imported by barge or ferry but represent a very minor amount of the total weight of products imported, usually less than five percent of the total weight of waterborne commerce shipped in an individual harbor. Harbor areas receiving general cargo in 1989 include: Hutchinson River which received scrap metal; Northport Harbor which received tar and asphalt products; and Hay Harbor which received a variety of goods for Fishers Island residents. Most cargo and goods are brought into the Sound region through New York Harbor, air freight, or truck. Relatively few products are exported by vessel from Long Island Sound harbors. Although in 1989, a variety of goods, over 40 different types, were exported from Port Jefferson Harbor by barge or ferry. Still, the weight of goods exported from Port Jefferson represents less than 2 percent of the total weight of waterborne commerce shipped in the harbor. Table 27 and table 28 show tonnage figures reported by the Corps of Engineers in the Waterborne Commerce of the United States Waterways and Harbors. A~lam'i~ CO~t reports for 1973, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1988, and 1989. These years were selected to give an indication of import and export trends for petroleum and aggregates since 1973. The figures shown in the petroleum and aggregate tables represent thousands of short tons rounded off to the nearest thousand. A short ton equals 2,000 pounds. TRANSFER AND STORAGE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Petroleum products are delivered by tanker and barge to unloading terminals in ten areas: Port Chester and Hutchinson River in Westchester County; Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove Creek, and Oyster Bay in Nassau County; and Cold Spring Harbor, Northport, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Northville, located in eastern Long Island Sound, in Suffolk County (see maps 16.0-16.6). The unloading facilities at Northport and Northville are offshore terminals in Long Island Sound where water depths are approximately 45 to 60 feet. All other petroleum unloading and storage terminals in the region are located in embayments where water depths are relatively shallow. The Working Coast 293 Petroleum unloaded from barges or tankers in the Sound region is destined for either the three power generating plants, which also receive petroleum fuel products by truck, or for temporary storage for later consumption. In Hempstead Harbor, petroleum is unloaded at a major oil storage facility and the Long Island Lighting Company's Glenwood Landing Power Station. In Northport, petroleum is unloaded for use by the Long Island Lighting Company's Northport Power Station only. In Port Jefferson Harbor, petroleum is unloaded at the Long Island Lighting Company's Port Jefferson Power Station and an Unloading facility which transports the petroleum by pipeline to three major inland storage facilities in East Setauket, Holtsville, and Plainview. Except for the power plant, petroleum is not stored on the Port Jefferson shoreline. All the storage terminals that had been located on the Port Jefferson shoreline have been phased out. The major types of imported petroleum products are gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and residual fuel oil. In 1989, these products constituted 99 percent of the total import volume of 5.1 millon short tons of petroleum products (gasoline, 44 percent; distillate fuel oil, 43 percent; and residual fuel oil, 12 percent). Jet fuel, kerosene, and miscellaneous petroleum and coal products constituted one percent of the total import volume. The figures in table 27 indicate that the locations that consistently received the largest volume of petroleum products in the region are Hutchinson River, Hempsteud Harbor, and Port Jefferson. Northville is also a major importer of petroleum products; however, import figures from Northville were unobtainable. Northville has by far the greatest storage capacity of any petroleum facility on the Sound shore. An industry source has indicated that as much as one-third of all petroleum products coming into Nassau and Suffolk counties are brought in through the Northville facility. Of the 5. ! million short tons of petroleum products imported to New York ports in the Sound in 1989, 4.3 million short tons of petroleum products, or 84 percent of all petroleum product imports received on the New York Sound shoreline, were imported at Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, and Port Jefferson. Assuming that Northville imported at least as much as Port Jefferson Harbor did in 1989, which is a conservative estimate, unloading facilities in these four waterbodies would have received at least 89 percent of all petroleum product imports delivered to the New York Sound shoreline in 1989. Making the same assumption that Northville imported at least as much as Port Jefferson Harbor did in 1989, 4.9 million short tons or 65 percent of petroleum products were imported at these two locations. Table 27 indicates that Port Chester, Glen Cove, Manhasset Bay, Oyster Bay, Cold Spring Harbor, Northport, and Hay Harbor have consistently imported modest volumes of petroleum products. In 1989, less than one million short tons of petroleum products (800,000 short tons) were received at these facilities. This represents only 16 percent of the total volume of petroleum product imports received by Sound ports in 1989, and this percentage would be considerably less if import figures from Northville were available. Table 27 indicates that no petroleum has been unloaded in Glen Cove and Hay Harbor but this is misleading. These locations have received petroleum imports, however, since the volume received is less than one short ton, it is not shown in table 27. Due to the navigation problems in Glen Cove Creek, caused by excessive siltation of the federal navigation channel, it is likely that a portion of the petroleum supplies delivered to the storage facility are delivered by truck. Since a small percentage of the total ~olume of petroleum products brought into the Sound region are imported at these locations, these facilities should eventually be phased out, except for the Northport and Hay Harbor facilities. The benefit of maintaining these uses does not 294 The Working Coast Table 27 Petroleum Product Imports for Long Island Sound Region 1973 1976 1981 1986 1988 1989 We~t~ke~ter Couaty Part CheWer Harbor 122 184 128 67 83 74 Mamaroneck Harbor 5 ...... Echo Bay 17 14 - .. 1 - Hutehimon River 1,243 1,301 1,322 1,309 1,137 1,149 Na.~au ~ Bay 396 323 162 78 128 138 I'I~ml~d Harbor 1,207 870 628 608 746 688 Glen Cove Creek 53 59 18 4 4 -- Oy~ Bay ~ '~5 33S 271 372 472 Suff~ Cou~ Nerthpo~ ~ ..... 8 139 115 tlunfing~m Pmrbor 13 19 Po~ J'df~men ~ 3,282 3,953 2,956 2,702 3,489 2,453 No~llviile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hay ~ (Fidm~ Isiend) 3 2 I sonren: U.S. Dep~n~t of the Army, C_~ of Engineers, 'W~borne Commerce of the United Stat~, Part I, Waterways ~nd ~, Atlantic Co~t," 1973, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1988, 1989. NOTES: (1) Figures are for thouesnd~ of sho~ tons rounded off to tho nearest thousand. A sho~ ton equals 2,000 pounds. Impo~ of less than one short ton are not shown. (2) Product types include gasoline, distill~e fuel oil, residual fuel oil, jet fuel, kero~ne, and miscellaneous p~roleum and coal products. outweigh the risks associated with oil or gasoline spills or leaks, which could cause immeasurable damage to natural resources and impair or ruin the use of the harbor area for water-dependent recreation and commercial activity. The Northport storage facility should be maintained, since it supplies fuel to the Northport Power Station. The Hay Harbor facility should be maintained or improved, since it is the only oil unloading and storage facility serving Fishers Island. Table 27 indicates that the number of locations to unlnad and store petroleum products, as well as the volume of petroleum product imports have decreased. Facilities that have been phased out or are no longer active tend to be small oil storage facilities. Petroleum products are no longer unloaded in Mamaroneck Harbor, Echo Bay, Huntington Harbor, and Mattituck Inlet. The sWrage facilities at these locations have either been removed or abandoned. According to industry sources, gasoline and fuel oil consumption has decreased over the past decade due in part to the implementation of a range of energy conservation practices. The recent recession has also reduced the consumption of petroleum products. Industry sources indicate that approximately 80 to 90 percent of petroleum supplies that are brought into the Long Island region are delivered by tanker or barge. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of petroleum supplies are brought by truck from tank farms in New Jersey. Transporting petroleum supplies into the region by barge is preferred to truck transportation, since it is less expensive to import petroleum by bulk on barges or tankers than by smaller The WorMng Coast 295 volumes in trucks. Vessel transportation is also preferred to truck transportation for environmental reasons. Oil delivery vehicles damage roads, contribute to traffic congestion, and increase air and noise pollution. Rail transportation is not a viable transportation option, since the existing railroad system is geared towards commuters, not petroleum transport. Transporting petroleum by tanker and barge is an efficient, cost effective way to move petroleum supplies into the region. However, the present system of petroleum importation presents environmental and land use concerns. Most of the existing petroleum terminals are located at the heads of embayments or in other poorly flushed and highly developed areas. Terminals located in these areas create a number of serious problems: · Nearly all of the region's major embayments and associated natural resources are exposed to the threat of damage from oil spills. This is due to the fact that most terminals are located in shallow embayments, and the small to moderate ocean tankers and barges that deliver the petroleum have relatively deep drafts, ranging from 12 to 28 feet. These two factors increase the likelihood of accidents and spills. Even small barges often have to walt for high tide before they can navigate shallow channels. · In the shallow embayments, dispersal and dilution of pollutants, such as oil or suspended solids, is poor when compared to the open waters of the Sound. Suspended or resuspended sediment and the wakes generated by propeller wash can significantly affect natural shoreline protective features, wetlands, habitats and wildlife. · Low flushing rates of shallow embayments result in high siltation rates within navigation channels, resulting in more frequent maintenance dredging. This is particularly true at embayment heads where surrounding urban development contributes large quantities of silt-laden runoff. · Storage tanks and terminal docks take up valuable commercial waterfront space and can present safety and aesthetic problems. Petroleum storage tanks are no longer strictly water-depandent facilities, since oil can be unloaded at offshore platforms and the petroleum product piped to inland storage locations. · Tanker and barge traffic can pose hazards to other harbor users, such as large and small recreation vessels, commercial fishing vessels and operations, and swinuners, especially within confined waterways. To address these concerns, the feasibility and benefits of completing a system of offshore unloading terminals and submarine pipelines to transport petroleum to inland locations using the existing, partially completed system should be explored. Industry sources have indicated that a completed system of offshore unloading terminals and pipeline systems to serve barges and tankers in the Sound is considered the most desirable and efficient way to transport petroleum supplies in the region. The completed portion of the existing pipeline system consists of three main components: (1) two offshore unloading terminals at Northport and Northville, (2) submarine pipelines that transport oil from the offshore unloading terminals to inland storage tanks,, and (3) an overland pipeline distribution system which transports petroleum unloaded in Port Jefferson Harbor to inland storage tanks. The pipeline travels from Port Jefferson, south to East 296 The Working Coast Setauket, south to Holtsville, and west to Plainview, a combined total distance greater than 30 miles. A completed pipeline system would eliminate the need for: (1) large petroleum carrying vessels and barges to enter embayments and eliminate associated impacts, (2) location of petroleum storage facilities on the waterfront, and (3) federal dredging projects in shallow harbors. Oil spills during transfer of petroleum products are a concern. Petroleum spills have occurred in surface waters at various transfer facilities, including spills while unloading barges at facilities located onshore and offshore and spills from vessels grounded during storms. Underground spills have also occurred at petroleum storage facilities, most recently at the storage facility in south Setauket which receives petroleum from the Port Jefferson off loading pipeline. The United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port for Long Island Sound assumes primary authority and responsibility for supervising responses to petroleum spills in the Sound. Local governments, under the supervision of the Captain of the Port, also respond to spills and occasionally provide equipment and personnel for spill containment and clean-ups. Petroleum companies also provide personnel and equipment for spill containment and clean-up under supervision of the Captain of the Port and the New York State Depath~ent of Environmental Conservation. Neither the federal government nor the state has completed a fully coordinated oil spill contingency plan for Long Island Sound. The Department of Environmental Conservation and local emergency service agencies have the primary responsibility for responding to underground spills. The Department of Environmental Conservation also has the primary responsibility for ensuring that underground spills are mitigated by the person responsible for causing the spill or discharge. AGGREGATE TRANSSHIPMENT Sand and Gravel Sand and gravel are essential resources used mostly in the construction of roads, parking lots, foundations, buildings, and other like structures. Historically, Nassau and Suffolk counties have been a major source of sand and gravel. In years past, mostly during the post World War II growth surge, large volumes of sand and gravel were extracted by mining lands adjacent to harbors and bays, under the Sound's waters, and from inland locations. Less than 20 years ago, Nassau and Suffolk counties produced as much as two-thirds of the sand and gravel produced in the Long Island Sound region, including Connecticut. No active sand and gravel mines remain in the coastal area of Long Island Sound, and no mining of underwater lands has occurred for over 20 years. The high cost of waterfront property and the strong market demand for residential development on the shore led to closing of waterfront sand and gravel mining operations on or near the north shore. Mining is done at inland sand and gravel minns, many of which are located near major roads such as the Long Island Expressway. For many years, Hempstead Harbor was the busiest pon in the region based on the annual tonnage of materials transported (see table 28). Most of this weight reflected outbound shipments of locally mined sand and gravel from the Port Washington sand pits, which originally encompassed more than 1,000 acres. Today, Nassau and Suffolk still produce significant volumes of sand and gravel, serving the needs of Long Island, but the overall volume of material produced has decreased. Sand and The Working Coast 297 Table 28 Aggregate Exports and Imports for Long Island Sound Region EXPORTS IMPORTS 1973 1976 1981 1986 1988 1989 1973 1976 1981 1986 1988 1989 West~hester County Po~ Cheater Harbor - 185 76 211 144 307 354 Mamama~k Harbor - .. 16 ~xho Bay - 40 7 - N~ Rnehell, Harbor - -- 1 - - Hu~hi~ River - 686 6~ 274 120 424 N,~s,m Cmm~ Mneh~t Bay - 31 - Hemp~d Haxtx~ 1870 88 1802 9 ~ - 848 526 165 531 538 438 Glen Cove Creek - 132 181 145 15 163 162 Oyster Bay - 17 232 181 - 1 1 Ituntingtoa H~oor - 458 198 128 - - - Port ~zffet~m Harbor 49 17 - 3 - - 522 372 129 361 348 344 Mattituck Harbor - 147 - - _ Soure~: U.S. Dq~mneat of the Army, C~. of Raglans, "W~ Commerc~ of the Ualted St~t~, Pm I, W~rways ~md H~rbor~, Atl~tio Coug," 1973, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1988, 1989. NOTE: Figures are for thousands of short tons rounded off to the nearest thousand. A short ton equals 2,000 pounds. Imports of less than one short ton are not shown. gravel suppliers in Nassau and Suffolk counties transport their products by truck to local construction sites. There are two principal reasons for the decline in the volume of sand and gravel exported from Long Island: there is less demand since there are fewer major road and construction projects compared to the post World War II growth era; and high land costs, preemption by other land uses, environmental regulations, and community opposition also combined to reduce the atU'activeness of waterfront sites for mining and export of sand and gravel. The recent recession has further curtailed the demand for these resources. The sharp decrease in exports is due to the absence of waterfront area mines and underwater land mining which made exporting sand and gravel convenient and cost effective since the supply was in close proximity to port areas. Transporting inland mined sand and gravel by truck to shoreline transshipment points for export by barge is not efficient or cost effective. Supplies must be located near demand or port areas to keep costs down. The cost of sand and gravel increases rapidly when the distance to a receiving area and handling of the material increase. Shoreline mining operations located principally in New Jersey are now the major suppliers of large volumes of sand and gravel to ports in New York and Connecticut. 298 The Working Coast Crushed Stone Like sand and gravel, stone is an essential resource used in the construction of roads, parking lots, and structures. Stone is also used in shoreline projects to construct jetties, groins, and revetments. Significant volumes of crushed stone must be imported, since there are no stone reserves in the Long Island Sound region. The major sources of stone are quarries located in the lower Hudson Valley region and western Connecticut. Barges are used as the principal means to transport stone from these quarries to north shore bays and harbors. When fully loaded, barges carrying stone have a relatively shallow draft. Transshipment points for stone imports in the region are: Port Chester and the Hutchinson River in Westchester County; Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove, and Oyster Bay in Nassau County; and Port Jefferson in Suffolk County (see maps 16.0-16.6). Stone is delivered by barge to distributors or asphalt and concrete manufacturers located either on the shoreline or inland. If distributors or users are located inland, the stone is transported from barge by truck to the inland location. Crushed stone is the second largest commodity, after petroleum products, shipped on Long Island Sound. Transportation by barge is by far the most cost effective and best way to facilitate the movement of crushed stone into the Long Island Sound region. Like sand and gravel, the cost of stone increases rapidly with distance to a receiving area and with additional handling of the material. A barge typically transports one thousand tons of stone. It would take forty truck loads to Wanzport the same amount of stone into the region. Transporting stone by truck over long distances, combined with increased handling costs, would dramatically increase the cost and perhaps make it prohibitive. Transporting Stone by rail is currently not a viable alternative since rail transportation in the region is geared towards passenger service, not freight. For example, despite the efforts by the Long Island Rail Road to revitalize its freight rail service, less than one percent of the total freight shipped on Long Island, estimated to be 93 million tons a year, is shipped by rail. The major impediment to transporting freight by rail to and from Long Island is competition for rail time from the 700 plus daily passenger trains. This results in most freight being moved in either the middle of the day between rush hours, or at night, when there is little commuter traffic. Maintaining transshipment points along the Sound shoreline is necessary to ensure that aggregates can be easily imported and, if necessa_~ although unlikely, exported from the region. These points are necessary to ensure convenient and efficient delivery of aggregates to distributors and customers and to keep the costs down. Maintaining transshipment points on the Sound will also help to ensure a diversified maritime economy. DREDGING Dredging in the Long Island Sound region is necessary to maintain sufficient navigation channels and basins for commercial and recreational navigation. Dredging is also necessary for the placement of submarine pipelines and cables in the Sound. All major dredging projects in the region are undertaken by the federal government, often with local assistance. In addition to major federal dredging projects, relatively small scale dredging projects are undertaken by local governments and the private sector to provide access, often from larger public channels, to public or private waterfront uses and facilities. The Working Coast 299 Major Public Dredging Projects Major public dredging projects have been undertaken primarily by the federal government to maintain and promote waterborne commerce and passenger transportation to and from the Hutchinson River in New York City and Westchester County; Little Neck Bay in New York City and Nassau County; Port Chester, Milton, Mamaroneck and New Rochelle Harbors in Westchester County; Manhasset Bay, I-Iempstead Harbor and Glen Cove Creek in Nassau County; Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Mattituck Inlet and Hay Harbor (Fishers Island) in Suffolk County. These projects have consisted of approach channels from Long Island Sound into well-defined embayments and harbors to support water-dependent commercial or industrial uses. In some instances, basins inside well-defined commercial harbor areas were dredged for temporary and long-term anchorages and vessel mm-around areas. Most developed harbors on Long Island Sound have been transformed from water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to harbors dominated mostly by recreational uses. In Port Jefferson, where this transformation has occurred fairly rapidly, the trend has been to replace water-dependent and non-water-dependent industrial uses with water-dependent recreation or water-enhanced uses. Examples of uses that have been removed or reduced in number on the Sound are: marine contracting and construction services, docks for tugboats and barges, sand and gravel mining and transhipment, boat yards, petroleum storage tanks, and storage yards for imported crushed stone. In many areas waterfront sites once occupied by water- dependent industrial uses are now used principally for marinas, yacht clubs, water-enhanced, or residential uses. This change in uses from water-dependent commercial and industrial uses which utilized large, deep-draft vessels has reduced the need for maintaining large, deep channels and basins as originally authorized in some areas. Some federally authorized channel and basin projects to support water-dependent industrial uses never began, such as a 1.4 mile long channel and a turning basin in the south end of Manhasset Bay, or are partially completed but no longer necessary, such as most of an authorized channel in the south end of Hempstead Harbor where water-dependent commercial and industrial uses no longer exist. These channels and projects are shown on maps 16.0-16.6 and tables 29, 30, and 31. Existing water-dependent commercial or industrial uses dependent on dredged channels, such as petroleum transfer and sWrage facilities, aggregate transshipment, other water-borne cargo, vessel building and repair, interstate ferries, and commercial and recreational fishing support facilities, are important to maintain. These uses are shown on maps 16.0-16.6. Maintaining existing channels and basins within these areas is necessary to ensure the continued function of these uses. Smaller Public and Private Dredging Projects Small public dredging projects are typically undertaken by local, and sometimes county, governments without federal or state assistance. No state dredging projects, large or small, have been undertaken in the Long Island Sound. The small public projects are usually limited to establishing or maintaining channels to provide recreational boating access to discrete public facilities such as marinas, boat ramps, or boat anchorage basins. Areas where small scale dredging has occurred include: Manorhaven and Port Washington, Glen Cove, and Oyster Bay in Nassau County; and Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Mourn Sinai Harbor, Nissequogue River, Stony Brook Harbor, and Wading River Creek in Suffolk County. Specific projects are: Tide Mill Creek channel (Oyster Bay); 300 The Working Coast Table 29 Dredging Projects, Westchester County WATERBODY AND AUTHORIZED DATE [ STATUS TO DATE RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING USES AND DIMENSIONS } Port Chester Hnrbor:'2 1910, commercial Completed as Maintain as authOriZed to - marina/yacht club channel and boat basin authorized support water-dependent - commercial fish~ Channel 1.7 miles lo.ng - oil transfer (dept,h ranges from 3 commercial, recreational, - aggregate transshipment to 12 , width ranges and industrial uses. from 100' to 175') Spoil Disposal: CLIS Responsibility: Federal Milton Harbor: 1965, Channel Completed aa Maintain as authOriZed to - marina/yacht club '1.87 miles !ong authorized support water-dependent - public anchorage and (depth of 6; width recreational uses. bont ramp ranges from 50' to 70') Spoil Dislx~al: WI.IS Responsibility: Federal, State, Local Mamaroneck Hacbor~': 1922, 1935, 1960 Comple~d as Maintain es authorized to - marina/yacht club Main channel (depth of authorized suplxm water-dependent - boat ysxd 10', width ra. nge~ from commercial, industrial ~nd - public anchorage and 80'to 100'); branch recreational uses. boat ramp channel (depth of 6', width Spoil Disposal: WLIS of 80'); west besin Responsibility: Federal, anchorage (depth of 6'); State, Local east basin anchorages, (depths of 6' and 10') New Rochelle Hacbort.: 1922 Completed as Mumtam as auth°rged to - marina/yacht club 0,4. miles long (depth of authorized suppo~ water-dependent - anchorage and beat rs, rap $'); second channel (depth recreational uses of 8; width of 120') Spoil Dispo~: WLIS i Responsibility: Federal, State. Local Echo Bay~.: 1910, 1973 chaneel 0.3 Channel and turning Maintain channel and - m$~na/yacht club miles long (depth of 10') basra completed as tumingbasm only. Channel turning basin authorized anchorage Spoil Disposal: WI. IS (depth of lO'deep); 2 not dredged Responsibility: Federal, anchor~es (depths of 6' State, Local and 7') Hutchinson River~ Channel 1941 5 Ptrtially comple~l as Complete and maintain as - aF~gregate transshipment !miles long (depth of 10'; authorized authorized for complete and - oil transfer width ranges from 150'to water-dependent industrial 500'), has y-shaped upper uses reach Spoil Dispo~l: WLIS and Mud Dump Responsibility: Federal WLIS: We~n Long Isl~ad Sound CLIS: Central Long Island Soond tPropo~nd Maritime Center ZExistmg Federal Navigation Channel The Working Coast 301 Table 30 Dredging Projects, Nassau Count/ WATERBODY AUTHORIZED DATE STATUS TO DATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND AND DIMENSIONS EXISTING USES Little Neck Bay 1962 Maintain as authorized for - marina/yacht club Entrance channel (depth of i Completed as - public anchorage 7', width of 200'); authorized water-dependent recreational uses and anchorage. Spoil anchorage (depth of 7', Disposal: WLIS or upland 350 acres) uses Responsibility: State, Local Manhasset Bay2 1930 No work done Maintain partial length for - marina/yacht club Channel 1.4 miles long water-dependent nsec, plmae - boat yard (depth of 8', width of - oil transfer mat s~Rhern half of channel. - public anchornge and 100'); turning bum (depth Spoil dispo~l: WILIS boat ramp of S') Responsibility: Federal, State, Local Heml:~-.ed Harbor2 1910, 1968 Only 16 per cent of Discontinue and pl'~as - marina/yacht club Channel 2.3 miles long work comleted (anuth ~11 but the northernmoet 20 - oll transfer (depth ranges from 6' - of NYS Rte. 25A) grcent which supports ' aggrel~te 13', width ranges from transshipment ~troleum and aggregate - public anchorage 70' - 150'); turning basin transshipment. and boat ramp (depth of 9', 2 acres) Spoil Dispo~l: WLIS ! Responsibilllity: Federal, State, Local. Private Glen Cove Creck~': 1925 Completed u eriginally Maintain original channel marina/yacht club Channel 1%0 miles long aut~°nzed, channel only as authorized, complete boat yard (depth of $ , width of ~widoning in upper remaining widening only oil transfer 100') aggrel~a, te roache~ n~ completed after, or u part of, transelupment Superf~nd remedintion. Spoil Disposal: As determined by ~uper~md rnmedintion plan~ responsibility: Federal, ~tete, Local, Superfund parties. Oyster Bay~ 2 small, shallow entrance Completed Maintain u authorized. - marina/yacht club channels to buins and Spoil Disposal: WLIS boat yard oil transfer boat ramp Responsibility: Local, aggregate transshipment Private commercial fishing public anchorage nad boat ramp WLIS: Western Long Isl~mil Sound CLIS: Central Long I~land Sound tproposed Maritime Center 2Existinl Federal Navigation Channel ~Local I~avigation Project 302 The Working Coast Table 31 Dredging Projects, Suffolk County WATERBODY AND AUTHORIZED DATE [ STATUS TO DATE RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING USES AND DIMENSIONS Cold Spring Hacbor3 Shallow approach Completed Maintiin aA authorized to - marina/yacht club Channel .5 miles long support w&ter-dependent - oil transfer (depth ranges from ?' - commercial, recreational, - public boat ramp 12'; width ranges from and industrial uses. 50' - 100') Spoil Dispo~h I~.~ch nourishment for cle.~n material, WI.IS or CLIS for ~me spoil Responsibili~: Private, Locnl (when public facilities Huntington HacborL: 1590, 1938 Completed as M~intain se authorized to - mtrina/yacht club Channel 2.2 miles long authorized support water-dependent - recrcational fishing (del~h r~nges ~om 6' to recre. Uional uses and - (party .e, ch~trter b~ts g', width ranges f~om commercial fishing. Spoil - commercial fishing 100' to 200') ~echora~e - public ~mchor~gs dislx~l: Beach (depth of 6') nourishment for cle~n m~tefial, WLIS for fine ~tl~lx~mbility: Federal, State, Lecai Centerpo~ ~ Shallow approatch channel Coml~ete~ Discontinue. - boat yard 1,850' long (depth t~tngs~ from 6' - 10'; width of 150') Northpo~ Harbor*': 1945 Completed ns M~mtain a~ ~th~rizedd to -manna/y~cht club Channel 0.,4 miles long authorized suppo~ wnter-dependent - recreational fishing (depth of 8 , width of recreational uses nnd (pa~y & chatter boats) 100'); anchorage (depth of commercial fishing. Spoil commercial fishing 6', 15 ~cres) public ~nchont~e disposal: nourishment for clean material, WLIS for ~ne ii ~°~po~ibiligt: Fed~nd, q[iseequo~e River~ Enmmee channel from Completed Ma~tain ss authorized to 6' yacht club Sound to Kings Pack only to Town bont ramp nnd public b~t ramp~ Psychiatric Center (KPPC) public anchorngs ~ m°~rmg ~a'~. KPPC ramp and boat ramp converts to public use, m~ channel ramp at depth of 6'. Spoil di~x~l: Be~ch nourishment and habitat creatio~ Reslxmsibility: Local, State (if boat ramp at KPPC converts to public use) l~q. lS: Western Long Island Sound CLIS: Central Long Island Sound ~Propo~d Maritime Center :Existing Federal Navigation Project ~Local Navigstion Project The WoH~ing Coast 303 Table 31 Dredging Projects, Suffolk County-continued WATERBODY AND I AUTHORIZED DATE ] STATUS TO DATEEx]STING USES AND DIMENSIONS RECOMMF. NDATION$ Stony Brook Harbor~ Porpoise Channel, yacht Completed Maintain existing dredged -marina/yacht clubs club spur, and Long channels and anchorage at - boat yard Beach anchorage to 6' depth of 6' - public anchorage and depth Spoil disposal: Beach boat ramps nourishment.. Responsibility: Local Setauket Harbor~ Shallow approach channel Completed Maintain as authorized to -Boat yard - (depth of 4'- 6' from Port support water-dependent commercial fishing }'efferson Harbor to public commercial and recreational public anchorage dock m Setauket Harbor lses. Spoil disposal: Beach n~rishmnnt Responsibility: Local ~or~ JeffersonI-2 1890, 1894, 1930, 1968 Channel partially Maintain channel only to 26 marina/yacht club Channel 2.3 miles long dredged to 16' to 26' feet deep to support w~tor- recreational fishing (depth of 40'; width of only dependent industrial, (party & chard/er boats) 350), turning basin (depth commercial, and recreational commercial fishing of 30; 23 acres) Turning beam not uses. public nnchorage dredged Spoil dispoeai: Beach nourishment for clean material, CLIS for fine spoil Responsibility: Federal Mt. Sinai H~door~ Entrance channel and Completed Maintain existing dredged ~uoablic mannas channel leg to Town ramp entrance channel and t yard channel leg to public marms - public boat yard ramp. to 8' deep.. - commercial fishing Spoil di~n~nl: Beach - anchorage (town only) nour/shment for clean spoil CLIS for fine spoil Responsibility: State (only if anchorage open to public), Local Wading River~ Entrance channel to Town Completed Maintain u auth°nZed. - public boat ramp boat ramp near mnnth of Spoil dispo~l: Beach creek tourishmnnt Responsibility: Local Mat~ituck Harbor~'2 1986, 1935, 1964 Completed ns ~lamtain u anthorized to - marin~yacht club Channel, 2.0 miles long authorized support commercial fishing, - reore~iooal fishing (depth of 7', width of $0' water-depondnnt recr~tinnsi - (pe~y & clm~er boats to 100') anchorage (depth uses, and anchorage area. - commercial fishing - public nnchorage of 7', 6 acres) Spoil dispo~h Beach neurishment Responsibility: Federal, State, Local Hay .Harbor~ Channel 0.4 miles long Completed as Maintain at depth of 8' marm~ (depth of 14'; width of author/zed Spoil dispos.~: CLIS public anchorage 100') Responsibility: Federal, Local WLIS: Western Long Island Sound CLIS: Central Long Island Sound ~Proposed Mar/time Ccnter 2Existing Federal Navigation Project ~Local I~avigetion Project 304 The Working Coast Oyster Bay Town Marina channel and basin (Oyster Bay); Nissequogue River channel (Smithtown); Porpoise Channel, Smithtown Town Marina and Town anchorage in Stony Brook Harbor (Smithtown); the Yacht Club Spur channel in Stony Brook Harbor (Smithtown and Brookhaven); Setauket Harbor Channel (Brookhaven); Brookhaven Town Dock and Marina in Port Jefferson Harbor (Brookhaven and Port Jefferson); and Mt. Sinai Harbor Channel. A small channel was dredged by Suffolk County to Centerport Harbor in the early 1970's that does not lead to or support public facilities. Private dredging projects are undertaken mostly to create and maintain channel spurs from larger, public channels to private water-dependent commercial or industrial uses. They are also undertaken to create sufficient basin depths for vessels within and adjacent to water- dependent uses. Most of these projects are located within maritime centers where concentrations of water-dependent uses are located. Outside of the maritime centers private dredging is limited to a few discrete areas, primarily: small sections in south Port Washington Harbor and the Mill Creek channel to Oyster Bay Harbor in Nassau County; the Long Island Lighting Company cooling water basin in Northport; portions of the Nissequogue River channel south of a town mooring area; the Stony Brook Harbor Yacht Club spur extension southwest of a town boat ramp to a yacht club basin; the Shoreham Long Island Lighting Company generating facility basin; and portions of Mattituck Creek in Suffolk County. Another private dredging project was completed to create a navigation channel in Cold Spring Harbor to provide commercial vessel access to petroleum transshipment and storage facilities located on the southeast shore of the harbor. Private dredging is also conducted to complete shoreline fortification projects for commercial or residential uses such as the installation of new, or the repair or replacement of, bulkheads, revetments, and groins. Dredging projects are also undertaken to establish or maintain basins adjacent to bulkheads to moor recreational vessels for residential uses. Spoil Disposal Historically, dredge spoil was primarily disposed of in intertidal or adjacent upland areas within harbors, moved by truck or barge to inland locations for use in construction or as fill material, or disposed of in landfills. Increasingly, spoil has been deposited in disposal sites in the Sound, as upland disposal options were constrained by new regulations, limited landfill space, and lack of markets for clean dredge material. Dredge spoil is most often dumped in Long Island Sound disposal sites when the spoil is contaminated. Contaminated spoil often originates in maritime centers where sediments are contaminated from former industrial uses, existing uses, or upland runoff. Approved offshore disposal sites for contaminated spoil are located in western and central Long Island Sound. Regulations for disposing of contaminated spoil offshore and associated costs for testing, transporting, and capping contaminated material have constrained dredging, primarily in Westchnster County. Testing and monitoring are required for individual projects before, during, and after dredging and spoil disposal. These requirements become more onerous and costly with larger projects. This has resulted in sponsors avoiding large-scale projects and has discouraged them from coordinating small dredging projects with other project sponsors. Numerous small, individual projects repeated over a period of time result in a series of continued disturbances and greater cumulative and secondary impacts to natural resources than if a larger project or a series of projects were conducted at one time. It appears as though testing requirements are imposed unilaterally, rather than being based on characteristics of a project site and proposed spoil disposal location. The Working Coast 305 With limited, but increasing frequency, clean dredge spoil is being put to better use for beach nourishment or other shoreline enhancement purposes. However, significant volumes of dredge spoil are still trucked away and used for non-coastal purposes, sometimes disposed of in valuable landfill space. This results in the loss of sand supplies from the coastal system and its beneficial use where it is most needed. ISSUES Need to Maintain Existing Channels and Basins The continuation and promotion of water-dependent uses in maritime centers and other limited areas/~utside of maritime centers depend upon channel or basin dredging. Navigation channels and basins need to be maintained to support existing and attract new water- dependent uses which rely on and benefit by sufficient navigation channels and basins. Dredging is necessary, particularly in maritime centers, to ensure waterborne transportation, commerce, and recreation. Deep draft channels which support water-dependent commercial and industrial uses need to be maintained. Less dredging would be necessary if less sediment from upland sources reached the Sound's channels and basins. An increase in the number and maintenance of silt traps and catch basins is necessary, as well as increased implementation of other non-point source management measures, to better control upland or upstream sources of silt from reaching coastal waters. Reduce Channel Depths and Discontinue Dredging Where No Longer Necessary Some channels or channel segmgnts no longer support water-dependent commercial or industrial uses and are no longer needed. Other channels do not ne~M to be as large or as deep as authorized. Discontinuing projects that are no longer necessary and undertaking maintenance projects at shallower depths reduces unnecessary dredging, the overall volume of spoil, and assBciated natural resource impacts. Need to Maintain Federal Involvement in Maintaining Channels and Basins Although the need to maintain federally authorized channels and basins has waned in harbors where there has been a transition from water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to public and private recreational uses such as marinas, there is still a need to maintain these channels to support water-dependent recreational uses. The Corps ofttngineers has a general policy not to maintain federal channels or basins which do not support water-dependent commercial or industrial uses which utilize water-borne transportation. Under existing Corps of Engineers policy, the Corps will not maintain these federally authorized and dredged channels and basins, even though recreational water-dependent uses are dependent upon the continuation and maintenance of the channels and basins at depths shallower than originally authorized. Recreational uses such as marinas are important to the region, the state, and the northeastern United States, since they support interstate commerce through recreational boating and its associated businesses. The continuation and maintenance of federal channels and basins is essential to the continuation, maintenance, and expansion of water-dependent recreational businesses in Long Island Sound, ensuring safe navigation, and the continuation and maintenance of the state's and the region's port infrastructure. 306 The Working Coast State Involvement is Needed in Maintaining Channels and Basins Navigation channels are critical components of the state's transportation system, yet the state does not contribute to the maintenance of these channels. The federal government and local governments bear the full burden of all dredging projects in the Sound. The state's interests in maintaining navigation channels are no different than its interest and obligation in maintaining roads and highways, especially where navigation channels support important water-dependent uses. The state's interest in maintaining channels and basins should be highest in maritime centers that support concentrations and a mix of water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. Need for Improved Coordination of Dredging Projects and Spoil Disposal Lack of coordinated management and oversight of dredging projects in the Sound raises several issues. Lack of coordination typically results in: the misuse of valuable sand supplies for non-related shoreline projects; excessive delays in completing simple maintenance dredging because suitable spoil sites remain unidentified; and dredging sponsors not being able to take advantage of combining their projects to reduce costs. Natural resources also are adversely impacted, since repeated small-scale projects increase sedimentation, exposure of organic and inorganic pollutants to the water column, disturbances to benthic organisms, and changes in chemical and biological parameters at and near dredging and spoil disposal sites. Clean dredge material is often removed from the waterfront and not used for purposes that benefit the shoreline. Dredged sand and gravel from well-flushed channels usually originates from adjacent or nearby eroding headlands and beaches. This material should be used for beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, or other useful shoreline enhancement or restoration projects, rather than removed from the littoral system which depends on the sand. Clean dredged material is also needed for capping polluted sediments disposed of offshore, but no reliable supply of sand is readily available for this purpose. Project sponsors in Westchester County, for example, must rely on capping material from a single source in Connecticut, which controls supply and cost. Improved dredging coordination could take advantage of opportunities to resolve such problems such as: the lack of clean spoil for beach and dune restoration projects, the lack of suitable material to cap polluted sediments, and excessive costa for testing and monitoring. Costs could be reduced by using equipment and conducting monitoring and testing for multiple dredging and disposal projects located in close proximity to each other at one time, rather than conducting projects separately at different times. Coordinating dredging and disposal projects would also minimize long-term resource impairments resulting from multiple dredging projects spread out over long periods of time. Reducing the number and long-term severity of multiple event projects would minimize the cumulative and secondary impacts within harbor areas and offshore disposal areas. When underIaking dredging operations, the Corps of Engineers incorporates the least costly method of dredge material disposal into the design of a dredging project, often resulting in the disposal of dredged material offshore for no useful purpose. In many instances, the least costly method of clean dredged material disposal is likely to be the use of the material for beach nourishment in areas near the dredging project or stockpiling the material for capping contaminated material from other projects requiring open water disposal. Since most dredging projects in the Long Island Sound region involve the dredging of state or town- owned underwater lands, the dredged material should be used for public uses such as beach nourishment along publicly-owned shorelines, or, where this is not feasible, sold to help Working Coast 307 offset the cost of the dredging project. To ensure that clean dredge material is put to beneficial use for projects such as beach nourishment and capping of polluted sediments, locations should be identified where clean dredged material can be stored that are near shoreline areas in need of nourishment or restoration. Coastal Agriculture Long Island Sound farms provide area and regional markets with locally produced fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, and wine. In addition, farmland provides significant open space and maintains.community character important to tourism in eastern Suffolk.County. In 1992, there were 34,000 acres of farmland in Suffolk County. Approximately 75 percent of this acreage, or 25,500 acres, is located in the eastern Suffolk County towns of Riverhead, Sou!hold, Southampton, and East Hampton. In the Long Island Sound coastal area there are !,964 acres of agricultural land representing 6 percent of the total agricultural acres in Suffolk County. Small, isolated pockets of agricultural land exist in the coastal area in western Suffolk County. No agricultural land exists in the coastal area of Nassau and Westchester Counties and New York City. The northern portions of two state agricultural districts are located in the Long Island Sound coastal area: District I in Sou!hold consists of 4,751 acres; and District 7 in Riverhead with 2,063 acres. Approximately 25 percent of each district is located in the coastal area. The combined acreage of farmland from these two districts that is located in the coastal area is approximately 1700 acres. Most of the 1,964 agricultural acres that are located in the coastal area are located in these two agricultural districts. State agricultural districts 2 and 6, which are significantly smaller than Districts 1 and 7, are located near but outside the coastal area boundary. District 2 is located in Brookhaven and consists of 321 acres, and District 6, in Riverbead, consists of 545 acres. During the colonial period, farming in the region supplied households and local communities with hay and cordwood as cash crops. Farmers soon began to raise livestock for sale and shipment to more distant locations. As land near New York City became more valuable, the type of farming changed from grazing to grain production. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 allowed produce and grains from the western part of the state to be shipped efficiently to New York City. This competition, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, led to the more intensive agricultural operations, such as vegetable, potato, and poultry farming in the Sound region which displaced grain cultivation. The estate era, during the early twentieth century, had a major effect on farmland. Estates and related uses such as country clubs, polo fields, golf courses, and horse racing stables, replaced many farms. The post World War II population growth, which was the largest growth period in the region and characterized by massive urbaniTa6on, further reduced the amount of farmland. Just after World War II, during Suffolk County's peak production period for vegetables, potatoes, and fruits, there were over 120,000 farmland acres. By 1972, there were only 60,000 farmland acres. Twenty years later, in 1992, the amount of farmland had been further reduced to 34,000 acres. This represents a 44 percent reduction in farmland acreage since 1972 and a 72 percent reduction since the end of World War II. Despite the continuing decline of farmland acreage, Suffolk County continues to be the leading agricultural county in the state based on the wholesale value of agrieultorai products sold. In 1987, according to the United States Agriculture Census, Suffolk County led with $114 million in market value of agricultural products sold. Although census data is not yet 308 The Working Coast available for 1992, Suffolk County is expected to lead again with an estimated $120 million in agricultural products sold. Suffolk County's good agricultural performance is due to the growth in nursery and greenhouse products, which accounted in 1987 for a majority of market sales with $67 million and, in 1992, is estimated to account for $75 million in market sales. Suffolk County accounts for close to 50 percent of the total production of nursery and greenhouse stock in New York State. Many of Suffolk's nursery and greenhouse operations consist of modern production facilities that produce unique and specialized products that are sold throughout the Northeast. In addition to nursery and greenhouse products, emerging agricultural uses are vineyards, vegetables targeted specifically for New York City's specialty markets, and sod farms. Over the past 20 years, the most significant change has been in the production of grapes and wines. Before 1973, only a few acres of grapes were grown for commercial purposes and none for wine. Today, approximately 1,600 acres have been planted for grape production and there are over 16 wineries in Suffolk County. Long Island produces only 2 percent of the total volume of wine in New York State but this volume represents a considerable amount of the premium wine sales in the state. These newer agricultural uses have replaced many of the more traditional vegetable, duck, and potato farms. Only 6,500 acres remained in potatoes in 1992, considerably less than the 19,000 acres committed to potato production in 1982. Despite the sharp reduction in acres in potatoes, Suffolk County is a leader in the state in potato production. Economic pressures from increasing operating costs related to land, taxes, labor, and utilities is the major factor that forced many farmers to shift from traditional potato and vegetable farms to higher return nursery stock and vineyards. Many farmers who did not move to higher return produce abandoned farming. As agriculture continues to change in Suffolk County, the trend is toward making higher capital investments on less land, requiring intensive and more skilled labor to produce a higher rate of return. Favorable growing conditions contribute to the diversity and volume of Suffolk County's agricultural produc~s. The soils in Suffolk County are primarily Class I and 2 according to the New York State Depa~'tment of Agriculture and Markets Land Classification System and are the richest, most fertile soils in the state. These loamy soils exist on a slight to moderate slope. These two factors combined with the relatively warm, insulating coastal climate, which provides for an extended growing season, allow for the diversity of produce, including a variety of ornamental landscape products, grapes and other fruits, potatoes and over 60 types of vegetables. In comparison, upstate Wyoming County ranks second to Suffolk County in agricultural products sold even though Wyoming County has over four times the amount of farmland acreage than Suffolk County. Wyoming County's colder climate and shorter growing season, clayey soils, and more difficult topography limit farm produce to mostly hay and corn silage for dairy cattle feed for milk production. According to a 1990 report prepared by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, titled Farmland Preservation Pro,,ram History and Current Persoective. nearly 7,000 farmland acres have been protected, 20 percent of the 34,000 farmland acres remaining in the county. Six techniques are being used by Suffolk County and local governments to preserve farmland: Purchase of development rights has been used by Suffolk County and the towns of Southold, Southampton and East Hampton as a primary method to preserve farmland. Over 6,100 acres have been preserved using this technique, about 5,000 acres by the county and 1,100 acres by the towns. The Working Cc~.vt 309 · Four towns, Riverhead, Southold, Southampton and Fast Hampton, are using clustering to protect significant farmland tracts. Over 530 acres have been protected through clustering. · Transfer of development rights has been used to a limited degree by Riverhead to protect 130 acres in an instance where a single landowner held title to both the land from which the rights where transferred and the receiving land. · Land trusts are also helping to preserve farmland, over 250 acres have been protected through donations or easements. · Outright acquisition has also been used by Suffolk County, but only to a limited degree, to protect farms of significant historic value or for watershed protection purposes. · State agricultural districts provide incentives for farmers to stay in agriculture through lower tax assessments and protection from nuisance suits. There are seven agricultural districts in Suffolk County covering 11,764 farmland acres. State agriculture districts, however, do not provide permanent protection. In combination, these techniques are being used to preserve or encourage the preservation of agricultural land in Suffolk County. Often an unfortunate consequence, in instances where transfer of development rights or clustering are used to protect large inland tracts of farmland, is the placement of residential development in or near the coastal area. Most of the farmland acreage in the coastal area of Riverhead and Southold is zoned for residential use requiring a minimum lot size of one or two acres for a single family dwelling. A tract of farmland in Southold is zoned for Agriculture-Conservation, however, residential use is permitted provided the minimum lot size is two acres. While this type of zoning may be effective in ensuring low density residential development, but it has not been effective in preserving farmland for agricultural use. Acquisition and clustering are the two principal techniques that are also being used to protect Special Ground Water Protection Areas which are generally located inland away from the coastal area over deep groundwater recharge areas. When clustering is used to protect a Special Groundwater Area near the coastal area, residential development is often located near the coast or existing hamlets to protect deep water recharge areas located further inland. Despite the distinction of having the richest, most productive soils in the state and leading all other counties in the state in wholesale value of agricultural products sold, farmland acreage continues to diminish in Suffolk County due to mostly residential development. State agricultural districts do not provide a permanent measure of protection for farmland. Agricultural districts temporarily preserve farmland, since they are geared to an eight year tax reduction period. The district provides a tax reduction and can protect a farm area from inappropriate assessments for services or utilities. However, it is possible to drop out of the program at any time and sell the land for development if the back taxes, plus interest, are repaid. Protecting farmland in the coastal area may prove to be difficult due to the inherent conflict that exists between protecting coastal farmland and efforts to protect inland farmland and 310 The Working Coast groundwater recharge areas. The latter two protection efforts are causing residential development to locate on the shore. Agricultural practices can adversely affect the environment and farmland value. Erosion, loss of soils, and the excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can adversely affect environmental quality, particularly the quality of groundwater, surface water and wetlands and the value of agricultural land. WORKING COAST FINDINGS General Working Coast Findings The Working Coast consists of uses and businesses that share a common trait--they require a location on the shoreline to function or they depend on harvesting the living or mineral resources in coastal waters. The Sound working coast consists of areas, where individual public or private marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards exist; concentrations of commercial or recreational fishing vessels exist; petroleum products, aggregates, or other waterborne commerce are imported or exported; or ferries arrive or depart from the shore. These uses generate billions of dollars for the regional economy and are vital to the economic health of the region. · There are nearly 200 working coast uses on Long Island Sound. Marinas and boat yards represent about 75 percent of all working coast uses; the remaining 25 percent include fuel transshipment, commercial fishing facilities, recreational fishing facilities, aggregate transshipment, and ferry terminals. Dredging activities and coastal agriculture round out the major types of working coast activities and uses. · Nearly 66 percent, or 125 uses, are concentrated in 10 harbor areas: Port Chester Mamaroneck Harbor Echo Bay/New Rochelle Harbor City Island/East Bronx Shore Port Washington Glen Cove Huntington Harbor Northport Harbor Port Jefferson Mattituck Inlet · Major challenges facing ail water-dependent uses to varying degrees include: competition for space on the waterfront and space on the water, inadequate or deteriorated coastal infrastructm'e, impacts of regulation and taxation, degradation or depletion of coastal resources, lack of public awareness of working coast uses and businesses, and market needs of working coast uses. Marinas and Boat Yard Findings · The Long Island Sound region supports one of the country's largest recreational boating fleets and is a nationally recognized sailing capital. · Growth opportunities for new marinas and boat yards or for expansion of existing facilities are limited mostly to areas where existing concentrations of water-dependent uses exist, since these areas are most suitable and present fewer environmental and siting constraints. The Working Coast 31 1 · Most successful marinas are large and diversified, selling, servicing, and storing boats. In successful marinas, over 50 percent of gross revenues can be attributed to support services related to marinas. An increasing number of small, individual or family owned and operated marinas and boat yards are converting to corporate owned and operated businesses to better survive. Public marinas can adversely affect demand at privately owned marinas by charging as much as two-thirds less for slip space. · There is constant pressure to replace marinas with non-water-dependent uses, primarily residences and restaurants, in many areas throughout the Sound. Although some communities protect marinas and boat yards using land use regulations, many communities offer no protection for these uses, or do not sufficiently protect or give preference to these uses over non-water-dependent uses. An added problem is that marinas are often assessed for non-water-dependent uses even where non-water- dependent uses are prohibited by local zoning laws. · There is a need for regulatory simplification whether the desired goal is to complete · minor modifications to an existing marina, expand an existing marina, or construct a new marina. Project approval times need to be coordinated and shortened. · There are only two boat yards in New York on Long Island Sound which are capable of servicing very large vessels. Boat yards, like marinas, often require some sort of mixed use or temporary off-season use which can take advantage of a boat yard's equipment to subsidize their vessel r6pair operations and seasonal boat yard income. The more successful boat yards have diversified and are likely to have some permanent or transient slips. Commercial Fishing ndings · There are a total of 146 full- and part-time commercial trap .and trawl fishing vessels based in ports' on Long Island Sound, some are nonresident vessels. Many of these vessels are concentrated in six locations, all in Suffolk County: Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Setauket Harbor, Mount Sinai and Mattituck Harbor. · The largest segment of the conunercial fishing industry is hundreds of independent .baymen and Iobstermen. · The volume of commercial fishery landings in the Sound has increased from 8,360,600 pounds (1987) to 16,567,563 pounds in 1991, over 50 percent. The major fisheries, which include American lobster, hard clams, and surf clams, were worth over $58 million, or 64 percent of the value of total LIS harvested product ($91 million). · The Long Island Sound fish and seafood industry's true value is not realized because much of its harvested product leaves the state for processing. · The commercial harvesters on Long Island Sound face an array of continuing problems. Many of the constraints on commercial fishers stem from impacts of waterfront development, conflicts with recreational boaters who have crowded harbors, and reduced services (repair, fuel, docking, gear storage, pack out space, ice, and processing). Other problems include conflicts with recreational fisherman ov. er space allocation in the Sound and depleted stocks. 312 The Working Coast Recreational Fishing Findings A report prepared for the Long Island Sound Study, The Economic Imoonance of Lon~ Island Sound's Water Ouali~ Deoender~) Activities, estimates that the 1990 total sport fishing value for New York State's portion of Long Island Sound is $418 million. There are an estimated 50 to 100 party and charter boats operating within the Long Island Sound region, and concentrated in: City Island, Port Washington, Huntington, Northport, Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, and Mattituck. The majority of the commercial recreational fishing vesseis on the Sound are smaller charter boats carrying no more than six passengers. · Availability of dock space is a major problem. There are few docks on the north shore that will accept large party or charter boats. In addition, temporary docking and fuel or other services is a problem in the eastern half of the Sound. · Many charter and party boats stationed in ports in the western half of the Sound are traveling with increased frequency to the eastern half because fish populations are so low in the western half due to seasonal poor water quality and overfishing. Ferry Development Findings · A number of problems affect the ability of the existing ferry services to support the improved operations of Long Island's industries and improve access to commuters. These problems are: traffic congestion within the Village of Port Jefferson; low clearance in the City of Bridgeport precluding large trucks from using ferry service; and the remote location and the narrow approach road of the Orient Point Ferry makes it of limited use for commercial transport. The 'dead end~ transportation situation on Long Island significantly adds to the time needed to move goods. For the region to fully function as an economic unit, improved transportation linkages will be necessary. · A third ferry service between Shoreham and New Haven holds potential for significant ridership and offers the following major advantages: accommodation of large coramercial vehicles; a direct link to a deep water port in New Haven allowing direct import and export of products by Long Island and Connecticut companies; and direct access to major highways, William Floyd Parkway and Long Island Expressway, on Long Island and Interstates 95 and 91 in Connecticut. Transfer and Storage of Petroleum Products Findings · Over 75 percent of the Long Island supply of petroleum products is delivered by tanker and barge to storage terminals in 11 locations. Northport and Northville receive product from offshore terminals where water depths are approximately 45 to 60 feet. All other petroleum unloading and storage terminals in the region are located in eight embayments where water depths are relatively shallow. · Four locations account for 84 percent of petroleum waterborne shipments in the region: Hutchinson River in Westchester; Hempstead Harbor in Nassau County; and Port Jefferson and Northville in Suffolk County. The Working Coast 313 · While transporting petroleum by tanker and barge is an efficient, cost effective way to import petroleum products, the present system presents environmental and land use concerns since most of the existing petroleum terminals are located at the heads of embayments, or in other poorly flushed and highly developed areas. Tanks and terminal docks can take up valuable waterfront land, and tankers and barges pose a risk of oil spill and conflicts with other uses in confi" ~. waterways. Aggregate Transshipment Findings · Sand and. gravel are no longer exported from any north shore location. There are no active sand and gravel mines in the coastal area of the Long Island Sound region and no mining of underwater lands has occurred for over 20 years. · Nassau and Suffolk still produce a significant volume of sand and gravel to serve the needs of Long Island, but the overall volume of material has decreased. · Stone must be imported. Barges are the principal means to transport stone from quarries to north shore bays and harbors. Transshipment points for stone import~ in the region are: Port Chester, Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove, Oyster Bay, and Port Jefferson. · Maintaining transshipment points along the Long Island Sound shoreline is necessary to ensure that aggregates can be easily imported and, if necessary although unlikely, exported from the region. Dredging Findings · Most dredging projects are for channels and basins supporting water-dependent uses in maritime centers. A few channels support water-dependent uses outside of maritime centers. · There is a trend toward reduced channel and basin depth needs in maritime centers as industrial water-dependent uses requiring deep draft channels are replaced by recreational water-dependent uses. · Some federal channel and basin projects that have been authorized, but not completed or are partially completed, are no longer necessary for deep draft industrial water- dependent uses. · Dredging and spoil disposal are not well coordinated, resulting in maintenance dredging delays, high costs, multiple event and long-term resource impairments from projects spread out over time, and the loss of opportunities to use clean dredge spoil for beneficial purposes such as beach nourishment and capping of contaminated spoil. Coastal Agriculture Findings · The vast majority of agricultural lands in the coastal area of the Long Island Sound region are located in eastern Suffolk County in the Towns of Riverhead and Southold. Relatively small, isolated pockets of agricultural land exist in the coastal area in western Suffolk County. No agricultural land exists in the coastal area of Nassau and Westchester counties and New York City. 314 The Working Coopt · Nursery and greenhouse products account for a majority of market sales, $67 million. Three other emerging agricultural uses are the grape and wine industry, horse farms, and the sod industry. · Farms provide freshly grown produce to area markets, as well as significant open space that maintains the community character important to the east end tourism industry. The open space that farmland provides on the east end is particularly significant since it provides relief from the dense development pattern that characterizes parts of the Sound shoreline and most of Long Island. · 'throughout Suffolk County, including the coastal area, the amount of agricultural lands continues to diminish due primarily to residential development. · Four techniques are being used by Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead and Southold to preserve farmland: purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, clustering of housing units, and outright acquisition (used mostly for historic or watershed protection purposes). · State agricultural districts do not provide permanent protection for'farmland. REINVIGORATE THE WORKING WATERFRONT: Recommendations for the Working Coast The following recommendations are proposed to reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront by: Protecting Uses Dependent on the Sound Recommendation 59: Revise the coastal policies to include Maritime Centers as the appropriate areas to protect, maintain, and facilitate the development of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses should be discouraged from being sited outside Maritime Centers. Water- dependent uses should be sited outside Maritime Centers only if' the use has unique siting requirements that require its location outside Maritime Centers and all potential significant impacts are mitigated. Maintaining and strengthening the working coast is a critical issue in the Long Island Sound region. To focus on the needs of the working coast, and to ensure the effective and efficient operation of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses, the state should designate 10 Maritime Centers: Westchester County New York City Nassau County Suffolk County Port Chester, Mamaroneck Harbor, and Echo Bay/New Rochelle Harbor City Island/Fast Bronx Shore Port Washington and Glen Cove Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Mattituck Inlet Maritime Centers are the most suitable and appropriate locations for new or expansion of existing water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. Keeping water-dependent The Working Coast 315 commercial and industrial uses concentrated in Maritime Centers will: ensure that the growth of water-dependent uses will be compatible with existing commercial or industrial uses, reinforce the maritime heritage of the Sound, protect the quality of natural resources and residential communities located outside Maritime Centers, and ensure that water-dependent uses will be able to take advantage of public sector infrastructure investments. The draft Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program contains full and short summary descriptions of the Sound's Maritime Centers. Implementation: The Department of State (DOS) should revise the state's coastal policies to include Maritime Centers. DOS, in cooperation with local governments, should complete a management plan for each Maritime Center and amend the LIS CMP to include the management plans. Local governments can advance this recommendation by assisting DOS in identifying the boundaries, objectives, and investment priorities for Maritime Centers and completing or revising their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, including harbor management plans, to include Maritime Centers. Recommendation 60: Revise the state coastal policies to define the following as water- dependent commercial, industrial, and institutional uses: marinas, yacht dubs, boat yards, commercial fishing vessels and support facilities, coastal aquaculture, recreational fishing vessels including charter and party boats and support facilities, petroleum unloading fadlities including offshore unloading platforms and submarine pipelines, aggregate transshipment facilities, ivaterborae commerce, commuter and cross island ferries, dredging, and marine educational or laboratory facilities. The coastal policies should be revised to eliminate uses from the current definition of water- dependent uses which do not exist, or would be inappropriate, on the Long Island Sound shoreline. The policies should be revised to better reflect the water-dependent uses of the Sound and their operational needs. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to reflect the types of water-dependent uses on the Sound. Recommendation 61: The Deparhuent of State should continue to work with local governments to initiate, complete, and update Local Waterfront Revitalization Pco~rams. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, implemented in large measure through local land use regulations, are a primary means of protecting and encouraging water-dependent uses on the Long Island Sound coast. Using the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program as a foundation, the Depa~'a~ent of State will work with local governments to initiate, complete, and update Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs; however, an emphasis must be placed on assisting local governments, currently in the process of preparing a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, in completing their local programs. Many working coast uses require substantial revenues to meet their economic needs. Substantial revenues are needed for maintenance of shorefront infrastructure alone, such as docks, piles, bulkheads and navigation channels. Revenues generated by uses which are 316 The Working Coast accessory to working coast uses can improve the economic viability of working coast uses and prevent total conversion of the site to non-water-dependent uses. Appropriate local policy and zoning are necessary to allow mixed use development, consisting of water- dependent uses and complementary water-enhanced uses and to generate the revenue necessary to support or maintain working coast uses. However, local policies and zoning must ensure that complementary non-water-dependent uses will not displace working coast uses. Implementation: DOS should provide increased planning, technical, and financial support through the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) to local governments to complete their local programs. Local governments should complete or update their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Recommendation 62: Improve siting requirements for marina and yacht club expansion and development in Long Island Sound. The coastal policies should be revised to include the following criteria for marinas and yacht clubs in the Long Island Sound: · site new or expand existing marinas in areas with suitable characteristics including: sufficient upland space for parking and support facilities, adequate near shore depth, absence of wetlands that could be affected, compatible water quality classifications, absence of shellfish beds or fish spawning grounds, minimal need for dredging, and adequate water circulation · give preference to siting new marinas and yacht clubs in Maritime Centers where suitable characteristics exist rather than outside Maritime Centers where siting of new uses is likely to be problematic due to unsuitable characteristics and be incompatible with various elements that comprise community character such as land use, aesthetics, and noise · avoid or minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods and communities · marinas incorporating marine services and boat repair should be a higher priority than those providing berthing or storage uses only · marinas should not displace or impair the operation of water-dependent transportation, industry, or commerce and should not encroach upon navigation channels or channel buffer areas · incorporate public access to the shore through provisions such as including access from the upland, boat ramps, and transient boat mooring · provide pumpout facilities unless existing pumpout capacity meets foreseeable demand, municipally owned and operated pumpout facilities should be provided free of charge or for a modest fee to help pay operating expenses · a large docking facility* that serves a non-commercial upland use should be treated as a commercial marina use, since the potential impacts from such a dock facility can be as significant as those from a commercial marina or yacht club. (* a large docking facility means one encompassing 4,000 square feet or greater of surface waters as The Working Corot 317 measured by the outermost perimeter of the dock and purposefully designed to accommodate 6 or more boats) Implmentation: DOS should revise the state's coastal policies to include marina and yacht club siting criteria. Local governments should incorporate these criteria, as appropriate to their needs. Recommendation 63: Revise the state coastal policies to specifically protect and strengthen the Sound's existing commercial fishing fleet, within the limits of sustainable stocks. Commercial fishing in Long Island Sound has occurred for over 300 years supplying seafood products to the region and beyond. Commercial harvesters are pressured by competition from other uses of coastal lands and waters, primarily residential and commercial development and recreational boating, and diminishing finfish and shellfish resources. Many harbors that were once centers of commercial fishing activity have turned into recreational boating centers at a rapid pace. The revised policies should call for the following types of actions which are necessary to maintain and strengthen the viability of the existing commercial fishing fleet at an optimal level: · protect commercial fishing activities and facilities from displacement by competing land and water uses through the state's designation of Maritime Centers and appropriate zoning in Maritime Centers by local governments · improve existing commercial fishing operations and facilities in Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Mattituck Harbor which are Maritime Centers and encourage and allow new commercial fishing support facilities or expansions to occur in these areas to support the existing commercial fishing fleet · protect existing commercial fishing operations and facilities in Setauket and Mount Sinai, but do not encourage major new commercial fishing facilities or expansions to occur since these harbors are not intensively developed and are highly valued for their natural resource and habitat attributes · facilitate the development of commercial fishing infrastructure by the public and private sectors to better support the existing commercial fishing fleet · protect and maintain small traditional commercial operations such as commercial shellfishing by baymen throughout the Sound · ensure sustainable stocks and provide equitable stock allocation Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to include the types of actions described above. Local governments should protect commercial fishing operations from displacement through local regulation and specific LWRP policies. Recommendation 64: State and local governments should increase efforts to preserve the Sound's shelWzshery. Maintaining and expanding efforts to protect water quality and habitat for shellfish, such as hard clams, surf clams, oysters, and mussels, must continue and be a high priority means in order to preserve the shellfish resources of Long Island Sound. Efforts to initiate, continue or expand shellfish assessments or surveys and to collect harvesting data in order to The Working Coast implement appropriate management measures are recommended, particularly for the high value hard and surf clam, and oyster shellfishery. Spawner stock protection efforts, such as the selective closure of harvest grounds, establishing maximum legal size limits for harvesting to protect the most productive shellfish, better non-point source pollution controls to improve water quality, and preventing and reducing use conflicts between shellfishing and other uses, such as vessel mooring areas, are recommended. Controlled entry in the coaunercial hard clam shellfishery in Long Island Sound should be considered in addition to maximum catch limits to help reduce over harvesting. State and local marine patrols must continue and should be coordinated to provide efficient and effective enforcement of shellfish, natural resource, and water quality regulations. Consideration should be given to the preparation of a shellfish plan by local governments and the state that would consider the actions above as well as others and include an action plan to preserve and improve the Sound's shellfishery. Implementation: The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) could prepare special studies that focus on shellfish resources, and DOS will prepare and management plans for Maritime Centers and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Amend the state's recreational and commercial harvest regulations and improve enforcement of existing regulations by state environmental conservation officers. State harvest and fishery regulations must work to prevent over-harvesting and ensure fair stock allocation between recreational and commercial users. Amend local recreational and commercial harvest regulations and improve enforcement of existing regulatio.ns by local environmental enforcement officers. This recommendation can also be advanced through the completion of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Recommendation 65: The state should ensure that lobster harvesting regulations fully protect the resource. Valued at over $24 million, the American lobster fishery must be maintained and protected from over fishing.~ Implementation: The state's commercial harvesting regulations for lobster should be reviewed and, if necessary, amended. State harvest and f'rshery regulations must work to prevent over-harvesting and ensure equitable stock allocation between recreational and commercial users. Recommendation 66: Revise the state coastal policies to recognize the importance of existing ferry service to Connectieut from Port Jefferson, Orient Point, and F'zshers Island. The Port Jefferson and Orient Point ferry services are important to maintain, since they provide an alternate form of access to and from New England for a significant ridership of over 800,000 passengers and 350,000 vehicles. These ferries provide a means of transportation that is an alternative to the congested road network of the metropolitan region. The third ferry, the Fishers Island Ferry service operating between Fishers Island and New London, is also important to maintain, since it serves as the primary means of transporting residents, visitors, vehicles, cargo and goods between Fishers Island and Connecticut. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding the need to maintain existing cross Sound ferry service. The Worlang Coast 319 Recommendation 67: Refine the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to: protect and, if necessary, allow the expansion of major petroleum unloading and storage facilities at Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Northville; and allow smaller petroleum unloading and storage facilities at Port Chester, Glen Cove, and Manhasset Bay. Allow displacement of these smaller facilities by other uses should redevelopment be proposed. Harbor locations that consistently receive the largest volume of petroleum shipments in the region are Hul~chinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Northville. Since the majority of petroleum imports received in the Sound region are imported at these locations, it is proposed that these facilities be maintained and protected and their expansion supported where necessary. Relatively small volumes of petroleum products are received at Port Chester, Glen Cove, and Manhasset Bay. These facilities have consistently imported modest volumes of petroleum products. It is proposed, since only a modest amount of petroleum products brought into the Sound region are imported at these locations, that these facilities continue but not be allowed to expand and that displacement should be allowed by other uses if proposed. These facilities should be phased out, since the benefit of maintaining the use does not outweigh the risks associated with oil or gasoline spills or leaks which could cause immeasurable damage to natural resources and impair or ruin the use of a harbor area for water-dependent recreation and commercial activity. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding petroleum transshipment and storage facilities. Local governments, through their LWRPs and land use regulations, can also implement this recommendation. Recommendation 68: Avoid the expansion of existing or the siting of new on-shore loading and storage facilities in Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor, and encourage the eventual phasing out the existing facilities there. Spills or leaks from the oil storage facilities could cause significant harm to the nearby federal wildlife refuge, state-designated significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat, and the hundreds of acres of productive shellfish beds. To reduce this potential, neither new facilities nor expansion of existing facilities should occur in these areas. In addition, the existing Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor facilities should be phased out. These facilities are relatively small-scale storage facilities, are served by an onshore offioading and storage facility, are not part of a pipeline transfer system, and are located in a harbor area that exhibits outstanding natural resource values. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding petroleum transshipment and storage facilities. Recommendation 69: Implement a state oll spill contingency plan. The Department of Environmental Conservation is working with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. I~PA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an oil spill contingency plan for the state's marine district. The petroleum industry, the Department of Environmental 320 The Working Coast Conservation, the federal government, public interest groups, and local emergency services agencies have all indicated that an oil spill contingency plan that is fully coordinated with and capable of using the equipment and personnel of all levels of government and the petroleum industry should be completed as soon as possible. Sufficient resources should be devoted to this effort, and other state agencies and local governments should cooperate in preparation of the plan. Implementation: DEC should complete an oil spill contingency plan for the state's marine district to implement this policy. Recommendation 70: Revise the coastal policies to protect existing aggregate transshipment points in Long Island Sound and specifically recognize transshipment points, particularly for crushed stone, as essential water-dependent uses. Prohibit new sand and gravel mining operations in the coastal area. Aggregates are essential resources used in the construction of roads, foundations, buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, and similar structures. Importing crushed stone to the Sound region by barge is the most efficient and cost effective way to transport the material. Transshipment points should be maintained at Port Chester, Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove Creek, Oyster Bay, and Port Jefferson to ensure that crushed stone can be provided to distributors and concrete or asphalt manufacturers at reasonable cost. The number of transshipment locations should only be reduced if the reduction would not result in a significant increase in transporting distance to distributors or concrete/asphalt manufacturers. Westchester County, Nassau County, and Suffolk County should each maintain at least one transshipmem point. Rely on inland mines for supplies of sand and gravel. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding aggregate transshipment needs. Local govenrments, through their LWRPs and land use regulations, can also implement this recommendation. Recommendation 71: The Long Island Sound coastal policies should specif'w~lly protect existing farmland and agFicultural use in Riverhead and Southold. Despite the distinction of having the richest, most productive soils in the state and leading all other counties in the state in wholesale value of agricultural products sold, the number of farms and farmland acreage continues to decline in Suffolk County. Approximately 2,000 acres or 6 percent of the total amount of farmland acreage in Suffolk County is located in the coastal area of the towns of Southold and Riverhead. The highly favorable growing conditions in Suffolk County, which are unmatched by any other region in the state, contribute to the diversity and volume of Suffolk County's agricultural products. Suffolk's fertile soils, moderately sloping topography, and relatively warm, insulating coastal climate, allow for the diversity of produce, including a variety of ornamental landscape products, grapes and other fruits, potatoes and vegetables. Farmland, whether it is located in the coastal area or inland, needs to be protected to ensure that Suffolk's agricultural economy and 300 year farming heritage are preserved. Protected farmland will also help to preserve open space and aesthetic values, key elements in defining the special character and sense of place that ara'acts tourists and visitors to eastern Long island. The Worlang Coast 321 Implementation: DOS will should revise the state's coastal policies regarding the need to ~. protect Suffolk's agricultural lands. DOS will encourage that grants to counties for farmland preservation. Increased planning through county farmland protection plans and the completion of the Southold and Riverhead Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will also advance this recommendation. County farmland protection plans are called for by the recent amendments to the state's Agriculture and Markets Law. Local governments, through their LWRPs and land sue regulations, can also implement this recommendation. Furnishing Necessary Infrastructure Recommeadation72: In Maritime Centers, the state should work with local governments and the private sector to set priorities for public and private investments in existing infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, maintenance dredging of navigation channels and anchorage basins, docks and piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, sidewalks and parking lots, rest rooms, pump out stations, and waterfront parks to improve the quality of these areas. By identifying Maritime Centers as targets for infrastructure investments, government and the private sector will be able to better plan improvements for inadequate or deteriorated infrastructure. This infrastructure, which is often too expensive for many water-dependent businesses to maintain or provide on their own, is necessary to sustain water-dependent uses and improve the quality and attractiveness of the working coast. Maritime Centers will better enable the public sector to target existing economic assistance programs to strengthen the region's waterfront economy. By targeting and directing the growth of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to Maritime Centers, existing public investment in waterfront infrastructure will be more fully used. The designation of Maritime Centers, and the preparation of a management plan for each Maritime Center, ensures an effective, systematic approach to planning and managing infrastructure in the Sound's Maritime Centers. Implementation: DOS will complete a management plan for each Maritime Center that establishes priorities for infrastructure improvements. Based on the established priorities, the state can begin to invest and complete projects in Maritime Centers. DOS will seek funding from existing state sources or fr6m other sources to construct necessary projects. Assistance is also necessary to complete Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, including harbor management plans that identify priority needs. Local government should work with DOS to establish improvement priorities. Recommendation 73: Investigate options to obtain capital funds needed for necessary infrastructure in the Sound's Maritime Centers as well as in Maritime Centers that exist in other regions of the state's coastal Since colonial times, waterborne commerce has been key to the economic growth and vitality of the state. Today the state's Maritime Centers and ports are critical links in the state's system of intermodal transportation since they allow commercial vessels to transfer 322 The Working Coast waterborne commerce to landside transportation facilities such as trucks and trains where goods are further transported to inland wholesale or retail markets or airports. Increasingly, Maritime Centers and ports are also being used for marine recreational purposes, contributing significantly to regional economies. The state's Maritime Centers and pons link many of the state's businesses to water transportation and help to ensure that a wide variety of low cost goods and services are available to consumers. Waterborne transportation is one of the least ~nXpensive, safest, .a0. d environmentally sound methods of transportation available today. trastructure facihties are aging and deteriorating in the Sound's Maritime Centers as well as in other port and Maritime Center locations in the state's coastal area. Declining infrastructure in the state's Maritime Centers and ports impairs the ability of water-dependent uses to function efficiently and prosper, having a negative affect on the state's maritime economy of waterborne commerce, transportation, and recreation. Waterfront communities and waterfront business owners find it difficult, if not impossible, to afford to pay for maintenance of existing infrastructure and to provide new improved infrastructure. A critical and costly infrastructure problem is the need to maintain adequate depths in existing navigation channels and basins to ensure unobstructed and efficient vessel access to and from Maritime Center and pons. Obstructed navigation channels and basins, mused by excessive silt accumulation, adversely affects the state's intermodal transport system rendering it inefficient and unsafe. This is a pressing issue facing nearly all of the state's Maritime Centers and ports. Many private or local government dredging proposals have either been significantly reduced in scale or abandoned all together due to prohibitive project costs for sediment testing, dredging, and disposal. Two major problems that contribute to the high cost of dredging projects are: (1) the cost to test sediment for contaminants, and (2) if contaminated sediments are found, the lack of suitable disposal areas. Finding suitable disposal areas can cause inordinately long delays in, or the cancellation of, dredging projects. The state's five designated pons of Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Oswego, and New York are managed by port authorities that are empowered to finance infrastructure projects primarily through the issuance of their own bonds. A source of funding should be established to ensure adequate infrastructure located outside of the state's five designated pons since no source of funds exists. Creating a source of funding for infrastructure in Maritime Centers would be similar to current state efforts to establish a funding source to pay for state infrastructure investments in the state's canal system. Recently, the New York State Canal Corporation, a subsidiary of the State Thruway Authority, approved a toll structure for recreational vessels that use the state's canal system. The funds raised from the tolls will be invested back into the canal system to rehabilitate locks and to spur commercial development in communities along the canal. One such development project is the Syracuse Inner Harbor Project the goal of which is to transform the inner harbor into a major boaters destination in central New York by constructing marinas, hotels, restaurants, retail shops, offices, and condominiums. The Thruway Authority has pledged $15 million dollars to the project. Implementation: The 121~p~uh~ent of Transportation (DOT), Department of Economic Development (DEl>), DOS, and the Thruway Authority should complete a study of the state's Maritime Centers to establish: the economic importance of these areas to the state, the range of primary infrastructure needs, what the state's role should be in providing necessary infrastructure, which state agency should be responsible for providing infrastructure, and the means to generate funds to pay for infrastructure improvements. A component of this study should be an analysis of the state's five ports to determine if the existing port authority The Worting Coast 323 management structure is effective in meeting port infrastructure needs, particularly dredging and disposal needs. Recommendation 74: Assist the commercial fishing industry in providing adequate commercial fishing infrastructure. Commercial harvesters are faced with problems related to inadequate fishery infrastructure on Long Island Sound. The following types of support facilities are necessary to meet the needs of the commercial fishing industry: · dock space and off loading areas at Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, Setauket Harbor, and Mount Sinai; maintain these facilities at Mattituck · gear storage space in Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Setauket Harbor · appropriately scaled baymen's docks in suitable locations near areas of significant harvest activity or provisions for mooring or dock space at existing piers · water and power hookups at Mattituck and at other unloading stations where hookups are needed · repair, commercially priced fuel, ice, refrigeration and storage facilities at appropriate locations · adequate road access to commercial fishing ports · commercial fishing support facilities in western Long Island Sound where no significant facilities exist · fish processing facilities, sin~e value-added product can return higher economic return to the fish and seafood industry and the region (following the example of other states, the feasibility of a state government built and/or funded, centrally located processing facility on Long Island that would process a wide variety of product from island-wide sources should be explored) Implementation: Investments by the state, including direct state actions, such as construction projects to provide fishing docks for harvesters and other necessary infrastructure, will advance this recommendation and fulfill a major recommendation of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. The completion of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, including harbor management plans, that identify priority commercial fishing infrastructure needs will advance this recommendation. Recommendation 75: Construct artificial fishing reefs to provide suitable fish habitat to increase fish populations and fishing opportunities. Artificial fishing reefs, such as the one in Smithtown Bay, create suitable habitat and sanctuaries to increase fish populations in the vicinity of the reef. In accord with the state's plan for the Develooment and lM'anaee_._m, ent of Artificial Reefs in New York's Marine and l.C~at6aLl2iaLc~, the state should site artificial reefs in the Long Island Sound off Matinecock Point in the Town of Oyster Bay, Eatons Neck in the Town of Huntington, Mount Sinai in 324 The Working Coast the Town of Brookhaven, and Mattimck Inlet in the Town of Southold; the state should maintain the existing reef in Smithtown Bay in the Town of Smithtown. Consideration should be given to establishing management zones in the vicinity of the reefs to minimize the potential for use and gear conflicts. Implementation: DEC should construct artificial reefs in the Sound as fiscal resources allow. DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding the siting of artificial reefs in the Sound. Recommendation 76: Encourage and support the development of commuter ferry services providing transportation to and from New York City, as an alternative to car, rail, and bus transportation. Finding acceptable alternatives to commuting by automobile, such as commuter ferries, has become necessary as traffic congestion and air quality have become intolerable in the metropolitan region. The state should support the development of commuter ferries and their location in Maritime Centers or Areas for Concentratexi Development. If ferries cannot be sited in Maritime Centers or areas for concentrated development, commuter ferries should be located in appropriate locations outside these areas. Implementation: Led by the Governor's New, New York High Speed Ferry Task Force, the state should continue to work with the private sector to establish new commuter ferry routes to New York City from shoreline locations on the Sound. DOS will revise the state's coastal policies regarding the need for, and criteria to guide the siting of, commuter ferries in the Sound. Recommendation 77: Explore the feasibility and benefits of completing a system of offshore unloading terminals and a pipeline distribution system to transport petroleum to inland locations. The completed portion of the pipeline system consists of: (1) two offshore unloading terminals at Northport and Northville, (2) a submarine pipeline that transports oil from the offshore unloading terminals to inland storage tanks, and (3) an overland pipeline distribution that begins in Port Jefferson and transports petroleum two miles south to storage facilities in East Setauket, then seven miles further south to storage facilities in Holtsville, and then 26 miles west to storage facilities in Plainview, a combined total distance of 35 miles. Completing the system would entail the construction of: · an offshore unloading platform and submarine pipelines at Port Jefferson; explore the feasibility of an offshore unloading facility to serve Nassau County · a pipeline distribution system from Northville south to Riverhead and then west to the major inland storage facilities in Holtsville; if an offshore unloading terminal is thought to be necessary for Nassau County, explore the feasibility of a pipeline distribution system in Nassau County to connect to the inland storage facilities at Plalnview A completed system would result in the elimination of: (1) the need to undertake federal dredging projects for the purpose of facilitating the movement of petroleum products, (2) the need for locating petroleum storage facilities on the waterfront, and (3) the need for large petroleum carrying vessels and barges to enter embayments and the risk of associated The Working Coast 325 impacts. Such pipelines should be well-maintained and closely monitored to assure that the risk of spills is minimized. Implementation: DED and the petroleum industry should complete a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of completing the system. Recommendation 78: New, major storage facilities should be constructed at an inland location away from the waterfront, since they are not water- dependent uses, and require that petroleum be transported to these facilities by pipelines. Waterborne transport and unloading of petroleum products are water-dependent activities; however, because petroleum products are transported by pipeline, petroleum storage is not a water-dependem use. Storage tanks take up Valuable commercial waterfront property, can present safety problems, and have undesirable aesthetic impacts. The successful use of pipelines to transport petroleum products to major inland storage facilities has been demonstrated by the existing pipeline system which transports oil from an unloading terminal in Port Jefferson. The oil is transported from Port Jefferson through a 35 mile pipeline to three major inland storage facilities. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to achieve this land use objective. Recommendation 79: Revise the coastal policies to require that dean dredge spoil be used for beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, and required capping of. polluted sediments disposed of offshore. Clean dredge material is often removed from the waterfront and not used for purposes that benefit the shoreline. This material, if required as a permit condition, could be used for beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, or other useful shoreline enhancement or restoration projects, rather than removed from the littoral system which is dependent upon the sand. Clean dredged material can also be used for capping polluted sediments disposed of offshore. Currently no reliable supply of sand is readily available for shoreline restoration or for capping polluted sediments. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to achieve this dredging objective.. Providing Business and Marketing 'Assistance Recommendation 80: Amend the state Tax Law to allow use value tax assessments for water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. The state Tax Law should be amended to allow use value assessments as a basis for tax assessments for working coast uses. Tax assessments for working coast uses are often based on uses, such ns residential, that do not exist or uses not permitted by zoning. Use value assessment legislation, similar to agricultural value assessment, should be adopted for working coast uses to protec~ these uses from unfair and high tax assessments, especially where water-dependent uses are the only uses permitted by zoning. Implementation: This recommendation can be implemented through an amendment to the state Tax Law. 326 The Working Coast Recommendation 81: Shorten the regulatory process for water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers. The following approaches should be considered to shorten and simpify the review process for proposed actions in Maritime Centers: A general permit could be devised for water-dependent uses to allow a range of moderate improvements or routine maintenance activities. This permit could be similar to, or a slight variation of, the proposed state program general permit that is now being discussed by state agencies and United States Corps of Engineers. This permit would not represent a new layer of regulation or be in addition to existing permits, rather the general permit would consist of existing permits necessary for a coastal development project, such as tidal wetlands, water quality, and coastal erosion hazard permits. The various existing permits and coastal consistency review could comprise, and be folded into, one general permit. The permit would specify time frames and project thresholds to guide the timing and scale of routine improvements or maintenance activities. Improvements or maintenance could occur only once or repeatedly, during specific time frames, over the life of the permit. This approach deals with streamlining the review of projects involving federal permits. A refined general permit, based on a state-approved Maritime Center plan, would provide harbor specific information about existing land and water uses, natural resources, permitted land and water uses, redevelopment opportunities and objectives, natural resource protection and restoration objectives, and performance standards and design guidelines to guide future development. Actions covered by the general permit, discussed above, would be expanded to reflect a range of additional activities identified in a particular Maritime Center plan as consistent with objectives of the plan. Such actions would be determined, as part of the plan, as not compromising the environmental and safety standards, appropriate to the harbor. An example is a state general permit that allows maintenance dredging of an existing navigation channel and basin to a depth and volume not exceeding the amount specified in the Maritime Center plan. In addition to the refined general permit, Maritime Center plans would also contain data on environmental conditions, and perhaps a generic environmental impact statement, that covers information typically asked of applicants by regulators. This' information can serve to expedite and simplify the regulatory process. A consolidated application process could be developed to contain: a single standard application which is copied to, and reviewed by, all the involved state agencies; for major proposals, a pre-application meeting or scoping session attended by involved agencies; a single hearing; and issuance of one state agency permit and approval. Additionally, prmits for water-dependent uses in the Maritime Centers should receive priority processing. The use of reconfiguration perimeter conditions by the Department of Environmental Conservation should be continued and expanded. Perimeter conditions allow the alteration or reconfiguration of in-water structures, such as the number, width, length, and location of docks, piles, and ramps within the perimeter or envelope of an existing docking facility. This type of permit condition allows owners of marinas or other water-dependent uses to respond more rapidly to changing market conditions regarding vessel widths and lengths, and the number and location of boat slips. The reconfiguration perimeter should be shown on a map or survey that clearly shows the The Worlang Coast 327 relationship to neighboring properties, underwater land boundaries and owners, existing facilities and uses, and natural resources. Reconfiguration perimeter conditions should be site and facility specific. If a state-approved Maritime Center plan were in place, an increased number or greater range of activities could possibly be allowed based on the state approved plan. Implementation: Amend relevant state permit regulations to improve the regulatory process in Maritime Centers. Local governments can also cooperate with the state to improve the regulatory process. Recommendation 82: Continue and increase state efforts with the private sector to develop markets for commercial f'tshery products. The Department of State, Department of Economic Development, and Department of Agriculture and Markets should continue and increase their effort~ with the commercial fishing industry by providing information and guidance on product development and marketing assistance to locate in the most lucrative foreign and domestic markets. Product and marketing assistance will focus primarily on underutilized species. The potential to establish new foreign and domestic markets is promising given the close proximity of New York's two international airports and the specialty markets created by the large number and diversity of restaurants in New York City. This can be achieved by: · Increasing the seafood industry's access to federal government programs, such as the Market Promotion Program and Eastern United Stares Agricultural Food Export Council, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, and the United States Food and Drug Administration. These programs provide assistance in developing export market opportunities. · Assisting the seafood industry in applying for grants to develop export market plans for seafood products through the Global New York Program administered by the Department of Economic Development · Assisting the industry in applying for low interest loans from the Department of Economic Development's various economic development programs to improve their effectiveness in accessing domestic and foreign markets. · Exploring ways the Sound's commercial harvesters can sell their products directly to consumers from unloading stations or locations near unloading stations. Implementation: Increased efforts by the DOS, DED, and Agriculture and Markets is necessary to improve product development and identify new marke~ for the commercial fishing industry. Recommendation 83: Promote and encourage the private sector development of aquaculture. The culture of aquatic animals and plants has developed into a billion dollar industry in the United States. Many states have aquaculture plans and guidelines that are used in projects with commercial harvesters or to encourage and guide private sector led development of aquaculture facilities. Some states actively seek out aquaculture investors by offering low interest loans, grants, and technical assistance. The State of New York does not have a 328 The Working Coast comprehensive aquaculture plan to work with commercial harvesters of guide investors planning to develop aquaculture facilities in the state. With the exception of shellfish culture, minor emphasis has been placed on the actual culture of marine finfish, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. Culture of these species for food, cosmetic, and medicinal purposes could provide revenue for the commercial fishing industry and return revenue to the region and its communities. The public sector should develop a comprehensive aquaculture plan to work with commercial harvesters and to guide private sector led initiatives in aquaculture. Aquaculture should be encouraged provided that the introduction of nonindigenous species, recurrence or introduction of disease, or the displacement of native stocks or viable habitat do not occur. Generally, the aquaculture plan should include: guidelines and regulations regarding the culture of aquatic plants and animals in the marine district; the specific geographic areas in the Sound and the marine district that should be designated exclusively for aquaculture facilities particularly pen-culture and off-bottom culture; and a listing of species conducive to culture. Without a state aquaculture plan, it is difficult for potential investors to assess the state's receptivity towards aquaculture development. Implementation: The preparation of a aquaculture plan by DEC, and possibly DED, would advance this recommendation. The plan would assist prospective investors in aquaculture by providing guidance on siting and developing aquaculture facilities in the state's marine district. Recommendation 84: Support the development of a high speed ferry, operated by the private sector, between Shoreham and New Haven, Connecticut. The congested transportation situation on Long Island significantly adds to the time needed to move goods. For the region to function efficiently as an economic unit, improved transportation linkages are necessary. A number of problems affect the ability of the existing ferry services to facilitate exports and imports for Long Island's businesses and improve passenger service. These problems have been identified as: traffic congestion within the Village of Port Jefferson and low clearance in the City of Bridgeport that precludes large trucks from using ferry service. The Orient Point Ferry is of limited use due to its remote location and an approach road which cannot accommodate significant traffic volume. A third ferry service between Shoreham and New Haven, Connecticut has potential for significant ridership and offers major advantages. The state should continue to pursue establishing a high speed ferry to improve the transportation link between Shoreham and New Haven to help alleviate the congested transportation situation on Long Island, decrease the time needed to move goods and people, and enable the region to more fully function as an economic unit. Implementation: Continued effort by the Governor's New, New York High Speed Ferry Task Force is necessary to encourage establishment of a privately-operated cross Sound ferry service between Shoreham and New Haven. Major tasks that must be achieved to establish the ferry service include obtaining permission from land owners at the proposed ferry terminal sites to construct docks and terminals, and assembling a financial package to enter into contracts to build the high speed vessels. The Working Coast 329 Promoting Efficient Harbor Use Recommendation 85: Work with local governments to initiate and complete harbor management plans. Conflicts between water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses, and conflicts between water-dependent commercial and recreational uses within Long Island Sound's harbors have substantially increased in recent years. Increased conflicts have created competition for space within and on the foreshore, surface waters, and underwater lands of the Sound's harbors. These conflicts degrade the natural and cultural characteristics of harbors and their ability to support appropriate types of uses. These conflicts also limit the ability to take advantage of potential growth opportunities of water-dependent recreation without destroying the ability of other water-dependent uses to exist, or to protect important natural or cultural resources and their values. The Department of State, in its efforts to assist local governments in completing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, should assist local governments in completing harbor management plans. Harbor management plans that address the needs of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses and minimize water use conflicts should be developed for all water bodies in the region, beginning with the Maritime Centers. Harbor management plans will take into account commercial and recreational vessel generated traffic, including traffic generated by existing and, if appropriate, potential ferry services, to ensure that vessel traffic does not pose a public safety hazard. Harbor management plans will also address public access, recreation, natural resource protection, water quality, aesthetic values, common law littoral rights, and the public interest in lands underwater. Implementation: DOS needs to provide increased planning, technical, and financial support through the EPF to local governments to complete their harbor management plans. Local governments need to complete harbor management plans as components of their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Recommendation 86: Long Island Sound coastal policies should express objectives concerning the safe use of coastal waters and the need to minimize conflicts. Concerns for safe use of coastal waters and minimizing conflicts on and within coastal waters should be expressed in policies addressing harbor management and use of public trust waters. The following objectives should be expressed in the revised coastal policies: avoiding increased or additional use of surface waters where an increase in traffic would pose a public safety hazard · limiting uses of surface waters which are inherently incompatible with the character of the waterbody or with other uses that have priority · allowing no intrusions in navigation channels or in navigation channel buffer areas ensuring safe operation of motorized vessels within marinas and anchorage areas 330 The Working Coast Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to reflect the objectives above. DOS will complete management plans for Maritime Centers that contain harbor-specific information and more detailed standards regarding the safe use of coastal waters. The LIS CMP will be amended to include the enforceable policies and standards from the completed management plans. Local governments should reflect the standards for Maritime Centers in LWRPs. Recommendation 87: Ensure that dredging is done to the extent necessary to meet the current and future needs of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses of the Long Island Sound. The very existence, continuation, and promotion of waterborne transportation, commerce, and recreation in Maritime Centers and other, limited areas outside of Maritime Centers are dependent upon channel or basin dredging. Navigation channels and basins need to be maintained in order to support existing and to attract new water-dependent uses which rely on and benefit from sufficient navigation channels and basins. However, large scale dredging projects for new channels and maintenance of existing large, deep channels and basins have waned throughout the region, since there are significantly fewer water-dependent commercial or industrial uses. The need for large deep draft channels and basins is not as great, since many waterfront sites, once characterized by water-dependent industrial uses, are now used principally for marinas, yacht clubs, boat repair, water-enhanced or residential uses. This change in uses has reduced the need for. maintaining large, deep channels and basins and results in the following recommendations: · do not dredge to create new channels or basins outside Maritime Centers · maintain necessary channel and basin depths for water-dependent uses outside Maritime Centers · maintain existing authorized channel and basin depths in Maritime Centers and outside Maritime Centers, except in Port Jefferson, Centerport, Hempstead and Manhasset Harbors · in Port Jefferson Harbor, maintain the public channel and turning basin at existing dredged depths rather than the authorized 40 foot depth, as there is no longer a need for a 40 foot, deep-draft channel and basin in this area · deauthorize and discontinue maintenance dredging for channels and basins in Centerport Harbor and the southern portions of Hempstead and Manhasset Harbors · reduce the need for dredging and its associated impacts and costs, by better controlling upland or upstream sources of silt by increasing the number of silt traps and catch basins, improved maintenance of existing structures, and increased implementation of other nonpoint source best management measures so less sediment reaches the Sound's navigation channels and basins. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to include the dredging objectives described above. DOS should complete management plans for Maritime Centers that contain harbor-specific information about dredging needs and more detailed dredging standards. The LIS CMP will The Working Coast 331 be amended to include the enforceable policies and standards from the completed management plans. Recommendation 88: Revise the coastal policies for Long Island Sound to ensure that clean dredge material is put to beneficial use. Clean dredge material is often removed from the waterfront and not used for purposes that benefit the shoreline. Dredge material should be used for beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, or other useful shoreline enhancement or restoration projects. Clean dredged material should also be used for capping polluted sediments disposed of offshore. Implementation: DOS will revise the state's coastal policies to include the dredging objective described above. DOS should complete management plans for Maritime Centers that contain more specific information about the use of clean dredge spoil for beach nourishment or shoreline restoration. Preliminary determination of beach areas that can be nourished with clean dredge spoil are shown on maps 16.0 to 16.6. The LIS CMP will be amended to include the more detailed policies and standards from the completed management plans. Recommendation 89: Expedite and coordinate dredging projects within Maritime Centers. Dredging and disposal of contaminated material is not well coordinated. This lack of coordination typically results in: the misuse of valuable sand supplies for non-related shoreline projects, excessive delays in completing simple maintenance dredging because suitable spoil sites remain unidentified; and dredging sponsors not being able to take advantage of combining their projects to reduce costs. Improved dredging coordination, for both public and private entities, could take advantage of opportunities to 'resolve problems such as: the lack of clean spoil for beach and dune restoration projects, the lack of suitable material to cap polluted sediments, and excessive costs for testing and monitoring. Costs could be reduced by conducting monitoring and testing for multiple dredging and disposal projects located in close proximity to each other at one time, rather than separately at different times. Costs could also be reduced by making efficient use of dredging equipment by using the equipment to complete multiple dredging projects at one time rather than moving equipment to complete dredging projects scheduled for different times. Coordinated dredging and disposal proj~s could also minimize long- term resource impairments resulting from multiple dredging projects spread out over long periods of time. Reducing the number and long-term severity of multiple event projects would minimize the cumulative and secondary impacts within harbor areas and offshore disposal areas. The clearinghouse would: · ensure that maintenance dredging projects within Maritime Centers are expedited · coordinate dredging and disposal operations to minimize overall dredging costs and environmental impacts at the dredging and disposal sites · ensure that clean dredge material is put to beneficial use such as beach nourishment projects and the capping of polluted sediments 332 The Working Coast · identify regional and sub-regional temporary storage facilities for clean dredged material that are located close to shoreline areas in need of nourishment or restoration · act as a repository for information on dredging projects by coordinating federal and state permit actions and providing information to individual project sponsors thus enabling them to coordinate their projects among themselves Implementation: This recommendation can be advanced through the completion of management plans for Maritime Centers that provide specific information on dredging needs and disposal options. Improved coordination of dredging projects will occur through consurtations with local governments and commercial waterfront property owners during the planning process and during project review phases. On a statewide basis, the state dredging clearinghouse should be more widely utilized to address the above issues. DOS will work with local governments to create harbor improvement districts to support local dredging needs. The Working Coast 333 Chapter 6 PROPOSED POLICIES LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL This dhapter presents 13 proposed coastal policies that will be 'used to guide appropriate development and actions in the Long Island Sound coastal area. The 13 coastal policies are specific to the Long Island Sound coastal region and will substitute for the existing 44 policies of the state's Coastal Management Program. The Long Island Sound coastal policies embody existing state laws and authorities that regarding development or preservation throughout the Sound's coastal area. Taken together, the application of these policies and their associated standards will determine the appropriate balance between economic development and preservation that will permit beneficial use of and prevent adverse effects on the Sound's coastal resources. The Long Island Sound coastal policies will be the basis for consistency determinations made by state and federal reviewers for actions in the Long Island Sound coastal area, and as a guide for development of new LWRPs and revisions to approved LWRPs. The Long Island Sound coastal policy statements are listed below. Each is followed by a policy outline showing construction of the policy. A synopsis of the legal authorities underlying each policy is also presented. POLICY SUMMARY AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS Policy 1 Foster a pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, and minimizes natural resource impacts. Policy Section Outline 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Concentrate development and redevelopment in or adjacent to waterfront communities. Protect stable residential communities. Maintain and enhance the pattern of important natural areas and open space and agricultural lands. Provide for other regional development needs. Enhance the Long Island Sound coastal area through appropriate siting, design, and orientation of development. This policy consolidates current CMP policy 1, revitalize waterfronts; policy 2, facilitate siting of water dependent uses; and policy 5, concentration of development. In addition to consolidation of existing policies and explanations, substantial amounts of new material and specific standards are presented in the new policy. Chapter 6 335 General authority for the policy statement is based on Article 42, §912.1, "To achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland waterway resources while preventing the loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems." The approach articulated by the new coastal policy focuses on providing a means to interpret the balance between development and preservation. Establishing priority uses within the coastal area is founded on Article 42, §912, generally, and specifically on §912.1, "To achieve a balance...that will permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland waterway resources..." The judgement that the beneficial use of these resources is directly related to the degree of dependence of the use on these resources is implicit in this requirement. Additional authority is found in §912.7, "To encourage the location of land development in areas where infrastructure and public services are adequate". Establishing priority uses on waterfront sites in Maritime Centers is founded in Article 42, §912, generally, and specifically on §912. l, "To achieve a balance...that will permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland waterway resources..." Beneficial use of these resources is directly related to the degree of dependence on water and associated derived benefits. Policy 2 Protect Long Island Sound's water-dependent uses and promote suitable use of Maritime Centers. Policy Section Outline 2.! 2.2 2.3 Promote new water-dependent use development in Maritime Centers. Provide Sufficient infrastructure for water-dependent uses. Promote efficient harbor operation in Maritime Centers. This policy is derived from elements of three existing CMP policies: policy 2, facilitate siting water-dependent uses; policy 4, small harbors; and policy 5, concentration of development. General authority for the policy statement is based on Article 42, §912.1, "To achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland resources while preventing the loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems." Specific authority for this policy is based on Article 42, §912.2, "To encourage the development and use of existing ports and small harbors including use and maintenance of viable existing infrastructures, and to reinforce their role as valuable components within the state's transportation and industrial network." Additional authority is found in §912.7, "To encourage the location of land development in areas where infrastructure and public services are adequate". Establishing priority uses on waterfront sites in Maritime Centers is founded in Article 42, §912, generally, and specifically on §912.1, "To...permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland waterway 336 Chapter 6 resources..." Beneficial use of these resources is directly related to the degree of dependence on water and associated derived benefits. Priority assigned to water-dependent uses is stated in the recent changes to Article 42, §911.11 and §915-b which provides a definition for water-dependency and protection from nuisance suits. Policy 3 Promote sustainable use of aquatic resources in Long Island Sound. Policy Section Outline 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Maintain and protect living aquatic resources. Promote commercial and recreational use of the Sound's finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. Maintain and strengthen Long Island Sound's existing commercial fishing fleet and associated facilities. Promote and manage shellfish deputation facilities and shellfish relay operations. Promote and develop aquaculture. This policy is the combination of policies 9 and 10 regarding the recreational and commercial use of fish and wildlife resources. The authority for this policy is contained in Article 42, §912.3, 'To conserve, protect and where appropriate promote commercial and recreational use of fish and wildlife resources...' In addition, this policy draws on the authority contained in ECL Articles 11 and 13 generally, and ECL §17-0301.4. Policy 4 Protect existing agricultural lands in the eastern Suffolk County portion of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Policy Section Outline 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Protect existing agriculture and agricultural lands from conversion to other land uses which would eliminate agricultural production or potential agricultural production. Establish and maintain favorable conditions which support existing or promote new' coastal agricultural production. Minimize adverse impacts on agriculture from unavoidabl~ conversion of agricultural land or agricultural production to other land uses. Preserve scenic and open space values associated with the Sound's agricultural lands. This policy is derived from the existing policy on agricultural lands, the Task Force recommendation concerning the business needs of coastal agriculture, and the recognition of Agricultural Districts Law that viable agribusiness is the best means to preserving agricultural lands. Authority for this policy is contained in Article 42, §912.1, 'To achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal and inland waterway resources...' and §912.8, 'To conserve and protect agricultural lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide for open spaces, clean air sheds and aesthetic value as well as for agricultural use.' Standards also draw on Article 25-AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law, generally, and 'Right to Farm' laws. Chapter 6 337 Policy $ Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. ~' 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Comply with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area statutes and regulations in identified erosion hazard areas. Comply with Floodplain Management statutes and regulations in identified flood hazard areas. Proteqt and maintain natural shoreline features including: beaches, dunes, nearshore zones, shoals, bars, spits, barrier landforms, bluffs, mudflats, barrier flats, wetlands, and all associated vegetation. Expend public funds for management or control of flooding or erosion hazards only in areas of the coast which will result in proportionate public benefit. Minimize losses from flooding and erosion hazards by using management measures. Protect public lands and public trust lands and use of these lands in all erosion or flood control projects. Allow for alteration of the coast which is necessary for operation of water dependent industry or commerce provided that sufficient measures are taken to limit potential loss of property and to protect natural protective features. Limit potential loss of life and structural damage in all development or redevelopment in the comml areas. This policy consists of compliance with CEHA and Floodplain regulations plus standards derived from CEHA to cover as yet unmapped areas. Authority for this policy is contained in Article 42, §912.5, 'To minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion, including proper location of new land development, protection of beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs and other critical coastal and inland waterway features and use of non-structural measures, whenever possible.' Specific authority for standards contained in this policy is found in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act, ECL Article 34 and the Flood Control Act, ECL Article 36. Policy 6 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Long Island Sound coastal area. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Prohibit discharges which would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards and manage activities causing nonpoint sources of pollution. Protect and enhance water quality of streams. Protect water quality when excavating or placing fill in navigable waters. Protect and conserve quality and quantity of potable water. This policy is derived from nine of the existing policies concerning water quality. These policies include: policy 30 pollutant discharge; policy 31, LWRPs and water classifications; policy 32, innovative waste systems; policy 33, best management practices and combined sewer overflows; policy 34, vessel waste discharge; policy 35, dredging and dredge disposal; policy 37, best management practices and nonpoint; policy 38, water supply quality and quantity; and policy 40, major effiuents. These policies were combined into a single policy on water quality based on their underlying purpose to protect water quality, the fact that 338 Chapter 6 some of them simply call for consistency with other policies and on the fact that effective implementing legislation for them was largely overlapping. The authority for implementation under the coastal program can be derived from amendments to Article 42 based on 6217 legislation. Existing authority might be derived from §912.1, '...preventing...permanent adverse changes to ecological systems." In addition, authority is drawn from the Environmental Conservation Law Article 15, Titles 5 and 13, and Article 17, Title 3; the Public Health Law, Article 11; the Navigation Law §33-c.2.Co) and Article 12, Part Two. Language was also drawn from a variety of sources, including the Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters issued under the authority of §6217(g) of the CZMA. Additional authority is expected under amendments to Article 42 to specifically include water quality as an issue of coastal concern. Policy 7 Minimize environmental degradation in the Long Island Sound coastal area from solid waste and hazardous substances. Policy Section Outline 7.l 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Manage solid waste to protect public health and control pollution. Manage hazardous wastes to protect public health and control pollution Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to the environment. Remediate hazardous waste sites. Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products. Manage transportation of solid waste and hazardous substances. Adhere to siting criteria for solid and hazardous waste facilities. This policy covers most of what is included in policies 8, 30, 36, and 39 in terms of hazardous wastes, the discharge of pollutants, the shipment and storage of petroleum and hazardous materials, and the transport, storage and disposal of solid wastes. There is no specific authority for enforcement under Article 42. For that reason, the policy relies on compliance with other state regulations: ECL Article 27 - Collection, Treatment, and Disposal of Refuse and Other Solid Waste; ECL Article 37 - Substances HaT~rdons to the Environment; ECL Article 40 - Hazardous Substances Bulk Storage Act; and Transportation Law §14-f, Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Policy 8 Protect and improve air quality in the Long Island Sound coastal area. Poli~v Section Outline 8.1 8.2 8.3 Control or abate existing, and prevent new air pollution. Limit discharges of atmospheric radioactive material. Capture and recycle chloroflourocarbon compounds. This policy is derived from the three air quality policies; 41, 42 and 43. The is no specific authority for enforcement of these policies under Article 42, therefore, the policy relies on other state laws and regulations for implementation, specifically, ECL Article 19, Title 9 - State Acid Deposition Control Act and ECL Article 37, Title I - Substances Hazardous to the Environment. Chapter 6 339 Policy 9 Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the .-~ Long Island Sound coastal area. Policy Section Outline 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Avoid permanent adverse changes to the Long Island Sound ecosystem. Protect and restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Protect ecologically important living resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Manage Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas to protect natural resources and associated values. This policy is derived from policies 7, 8, and 44. The policy is intended to expand the protection against "loss of hiving marine resources and wildlife" and "permanent adverse changes to ecological systems' called for in Article 42, §912.1 beyond that provided for identified habitats under §912.3. It also incorporates new concepts of integrated management to protect and restore the Sound's ecological systems. The wetlands component of the policy is drawn from policy 44 and provides new standards for mitigation, protection of very high quality wetlands, and provisions against wetland degradation. Additional authority is derived from ECL §11-0535. ECL Article 24, ECL Article 25, ECL Article 15, and ECL §9-1503. The no net loss of wetlands standard is modeled after the EPA/COE Memorandum of Understanding regarding wetland mitigation under Clean Water Act 404 permits. This MOU articulates the avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation structure used in this standard. Other sources for development of the standards include 16 USCA §1536.(a)(2), the New York Natural Heritage Program's Ecological Communities of New York State, and Task Force recommendations. Policy 10 Providefor public access to coastal x~aters, public lands, and public resources and provide recreation opportunities. 10.1. Promote appropriate physical public access and recreation throughout the coastal 10.2. Provide visual access to coastal lands and waters or open space at all sites where physically practical. 10.3. Strengthen public interest in and use of lands and waters held in or formerly held in public trust by the state, New York City, and towns in Nassau and Suffolk counties. 10.4. Provide for access and recreation which is compatible with these natural resources. This policy is derived from the four CMP policies on access and recreation: policy 19 -Public access for recreation; policy 20 - Access to the water; policy 21 - Water-dependent recreation; and, policy 22 - Recreation as a multiple use. In addition, the access component of policy 9 - Use of fish and wildlife, is included in this policy. The policy and standards are largely based on the authority of Article 42, §912.4, 'To encourage and facilitate public access for recreational purposes". The Public Lands Law and the Navigation Law and various court cases provide the background for standards relating to the use of public trust lands and waters. 340 Chapter 6 Policy 11 Preserve the historic resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Policy Section Outline 11.1 Maximize preservation and retention of historic resources. 11.2 Protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project. 11.3 Protect and enhance resources that are significant to the coastal culture of the Long Island Sound. This policy is derived directly from policy 23. Authority for this policy is from Article 42, §912.6, "To encourage the restoration...of...man-made resources." The policy reflects to resources to be protected and the impacts identified in the existing policy. Additional authority for standards includes the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, Article 14, generally and the Education Law §233.4. Standards also draw upon the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Revised 1983). Policy 12 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources in the Long Island Sound coastal area. Policy Section Outline 12.1 Protect and improve visual quality throughout the coastal area. 12.2 Enhance visual quality associated with urban areas and the waterfront communities of Long Island Sound. 12.3 Provide for water-dependent uses and agriculture which add visual interest to the Sound's coast. 12.4 Protect and preserve scenic values associated with public lands, including public.trust lands and waters. 12.5 Protect scenic values associated with natural resources. 12.6 Protect aesthetic values associated with areas of high scenic quality. This policy is derive from policy 24 regarding scenic resources of statewide significance and policy 25 regarding other resources of scenic quality. The policy statement is derived from the Task Force recommendation to strengthen the policy from 'prevent impairment" to 'protect, restore and enhance' scenic resources. The authority for this policy is in Article 42, §912.1, '...preventing...impairment of scenic beauty... ' and §912.6, ' To encourage the restoration and revitalization of natural and man-made resources. ~ Policy 13: Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. Policy Section Outline 13.1 Conserve energy resources. 13.2 Promote alternative energy sources that are self-sustaining. 13.3 Hydroelectric power generation. 13.4 Ensure maximum efficiency and minimum adverse environmental impact when siting major energy generating facilities. 13.5 Minimize adverse impacts from fuel storage facilities. 13.6 Minimize adverse impacts associated with extraction of minerals. Chapter 6 341 Authorities for this policy regarding conservation of energy, alternative energy sources, hydroelectric power and transmission needs are derived from the State Energy Plan. Siting criteria for power generating facilities are based in part on Executive Order Number 118 with respect to coordination of environmental reviews, and on Article 42 of the Executive Law with respect to the need to balance between economic development and preservation (Article 42 §912.1). Standards on fuel storage facilities reflect Article 23 of the Environmental Conservation Law, with the exception of findings on petroleum storage facilities and regional petroleum reserves which are based on Article 42's application to the regional conditions of Long Island Sound. Extraction of minerals are controlled under Article 23 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Findings regarding commercial sand and aggregate operations are based on an application of Article 42 to the regional conditions of Long Island Sound. Subaqueous extraction of sands and aggregates is based on public trust issues and public ownership of the underwater lands. PROPOSED LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM POLICIES Policy 1 Foster a pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, and minimizes natural resource impacts. The coastal region of Long Island Sound can be generally characterized as densely developed. There are, however, significant redevelopment opportunities and undeveloped open spaces, including agricultural lands and areas where natural resource values predominate. There are several waterfront communities that have developed a distinctive character, based upon their historic maritime activities, and serve regional economic functions. The open space areas and the historic waterfront communities represent a balance between economic development and preservation of coastal resources. The open space areas and the historic water:front communities also provide the natural, recreational, commercial, ecological, cultural, and aesthetic resources that define the Long Island Sound coastal region. Public and private sector actions should support the existing patterns of development which provide a beneficial use of the Sound's coastal resources. Development, redevelopment, public investment in infrastructure and facilities, and regulatory decisions should encourage growth in the historic waterfront communities and preserve open space resources. Water- dependent uses should locate in historic waterfront communities in order to support the economic base of the areas, maintain their maritime character, and avoid disturbance of shorelines and waters in open space areas. Development on the shoreline should be sited and designed to take maximum advantage of a waterfront location, including the provision of opportunities for public enjoyment of the Sound and shoreline. 342 Chapter 6 The policy standards are intended to foster the development pattern which provides beneficial use of the Sound's coastal resources. The primary components of the desired development pattern are: concentration of development in developed areas, preservation of open space, direxting water-dependent uses to historic waterfront communities, and siting and design standards to obtain maximum benefit of a coastal location and mitigate environmental impacts. The policy standards are divided into five sections. The four sections define the development pattern to be fostered in the Long Island Sound coastal region. The last section presents general design guidelines to enhance coastal development, measures to reduce the potential for adverse impact on existing development, physical environments, and the economy. Specific standards to minimize adverse cumulative and secondary impacts are also provided. Policy Standards 1.1 Concentrate development and redevelopment in or adjacent to waterfront communities. Expansion of infrastructure improvements and services into previously undeveloped areas is to be avoided where such improvements would promote more intense growth and development to the detriment of the natural resources, agricultural productivity, open space, and this policy. A. Maintain major historic waterfront communities and ensure that new growth, public investment, and other actions support and enhance the coastal character of these communities. The~e are 12 major historic waterfront communities that define the regional waterfront structure of Long Island Sound: · Village of Port Chester · Oyster Bay hamlet · Village of Mamaroneck · Huntington Harbor · City of New Rochelle · Village of Northport · City Island · Village of Port Jefferson · Manorhaven- · Mattituck Inlet Port Washington' · West Harbor, Fishers Island · City of Glen Cove These historic waterfront communities have been the focus for growth and investment, and represent the traditional harbors and centers of water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational activity on the Long Island Sound. Development and redevelopment within these historic community centers should support the maritime heritage of the community. B. Protect the character of waterfront hamlets. Waterfront hamlets are smaller than major historic waterfront communities. Waterfront hamlets are part of or near small business districts that provide services to meet the needs of the imraediate hamlet area. Chapter 6 343 Long Island Sound's waterfront hamlets are: · Roslyn · Sea Cliff · Bayville · Oyster Bay · Cold Spring · Stony Brook · Setauket C. Focus state investment, actions, and assistance to foster new development and redevelopment within identified areas for concentrated development. 1. Areas for Concentrated Development on Long Island Sound are the villages of Port Chester and Manorhaven and the City of Glen Cove. These communities represent an initial selection of Areas for Concentrated Development. Additional Areas for Concentrated Development are likely to be recommended by state agencies, local governments, and the public, and identified by the Department of State using criteria defined in chapter 7. 2. State agencies shall give priority consideration to development activities in these 3. Specific development strategies will be prepared for the Areas of Concentrated Development. D. Where redevelopment of large sites would have regional implications, there shall be advance cooperative planning for these sites to promote regional development goals, whether for open space or economic development. Advance cooperative planning includes the participation, early in the development process, of municipal and state agencies with an interest or role in the development of the site. In the Long Island Sound coastal area, these sites include portions of the City of New Rochelle, the sand and gravel properties in the Town 'of Nor~ Hempstead, the Kings Park Psychiatric Center in the Town of Smithtown, the Shoreham nuclear power plant site in the Town of Brookhaven, and the Jamesport LILCO site in the Town of Riverhead. Other sites may emerge or be created from an assemblage of separate parcels into a single large development site. 1.2 Protect stable residential communities. Stable, nearly fully developed residential communities comprise large areas of the Sound coast and are not expected to undergo major redevelopment. These residential communities exist primarily in Westchester County, New York City, Nassau County, and western Suffolk County in the towns of Huntington, Smithtown, and Brookhaven. The modestly sized residential communities in the towns of Riverhead and $outhold, which are separated by large tracts of open space and agricultural lands, can remain stable if the objective to protect existing open space and agricultural lands is achieved. For the most part, stable residential communities are expected to undergo only gradual change. However, stable residential communities do face certain threats. To minimize impacts from these threats, development in stable residential communities shall be undertaken so as to avoid the following to the maximum extent practical. 344 Chapter 6 A. Impacts from infill development on natural resources Although stable residential communities are not experiencing major changes, the many small-scale development and redevelopment infill projects have significant incremental and cumulative impacts on the natural resources of the Sound. The limited amount of land available for development and attractiveness of coastal locations have led to increased pressure to develop in environmentally sensitive shoreline areas, including coastal hazard areas. Infill development should not result in: deterioration of water quality; loss, fragmentation, and impairment of habitats and wetlands; and alterations to natural protective features and changes to the natural processes of erosion and accretion that lead to increased erosion rates, damage by coastal storms and tidal flooding. B. Impacts from infill developmem on public access Given the highly developed nature of the shoreline in stable residential communities, there are relatively few opportunities for significantly increasing the amount and type of public access and recreation facilities along the Sound shoreline. Existing local waterfrom public access points provide an important element in community character and it is important that they be protected and improved. Infill development should not results in a reduction of informal public access points and the loss of opportunity to provide new public access points that are important to the community. C. Impacts from incompatible uses In stable residential communities, there can be competition among uses for an individual parcel of land. This is most intense on the waterfront where residential and water- dependent and water-enhanced commercial uses are all competing for a limited amount of developable land. The siting of new uses in a stable residential area should be avoided when the use and its size and scale will significantly impair a community's character and sense of place. D. Subdivision of large estates, golf courses, and beach clubs Development of these land uses will generally result an increased density of development in a community and the loss of open space. Most of these areas are currently zoned for residential development, and, if developed, could result in a substantial yield of residential units. These areas are generally in private ownership and serve as a valuable economic use of the land. They also provide significant recreational amenities and important local open space resources. These shape community character and fulfill important natural resource functions such as buffers between development and natural resources. These uses should be maintained. When preservation of these uses is not practical, and development or redevelopment cannot be avoided, development on these sites must be designed to maximize the open space and natural resource values existing prior to redevelopment. Chapter 6 345 1.3 Maintain and enhance the pattern of important natural areas and open space and agricultural lands. The pattern of open space and working agricultural landscapes is also central to the character of the Sound shoreline and its communities. Special consideration should be given to protecting stands with large trees, unique forest cover types and habitats, trees and woodlands that are relatively uncommon, and old fields. To reinforce an appropriate pattern of development within the Long Island Sound coastal area, chapter .7 identifies three Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas where natural resource values predominate. The Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are located at Oyster Bay, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond, and Stony Brook-Setauket. While development exists in these areas and new development can occur, the new development or redevelopment shall be compatible with the predominant natural resource value of the area. When the management plan for the area is completed and incorporated into policy 9. 1.4 Provide for other regional development needs. A. Public uses Public uses that require a shorefront location include waterborne cargo and passenger transportation facilities, utilities, waste water treatment facilities, and other water- dependent public infrastructure. While these uses can adversely affect the community character and natural resources of a coastal location, they are necessary to support the range of human activities in the Long Island Sound coastal area. These facilities should be developed only as necessary and sited where the impacts on coastal resources are minimized. B. Water-enhanced uses Water-enhanced uses are those that offer a significant opportunity for public visual and physical access to and enjoyment of the coast. Such uses include restaurants and hotels that are designed to take advantage of their coastal location. These uses are encouraged everywhere along the Sound coast where their presence is not incompatible with surrounding land uses and where they do not impinge on natural resources, water- dependent uses, or scenic quality. C. Recreational uses Recreational uses, including public, semi-public, and private facilities, are encouraged throughout the Sound comtline, consistent with the capacity of the land and the natural resource base to accommodate recreational uses. D. Development with special siting requirements It is recognized that certain forms of development may and/or should occur at locations which are not within or near historic waterfront communities. Along the Long Island Sound shoreline, these uses and activities include: 346 Chapter 6 1. economic activities which have specific siting requirements or which depend upon proximity to sites or locations where certain natural resources are present 2. development which, by its nature, is enhanced by a non-urbanized setting, e.g. recreational or resort developments 3. development that is designed to be a self-contained activity, e.g. a small college or institute 4. water-dependent uses of regional significance with specific siting requirements that cannot be accommodated in Maritime Centers, e.g. ferry services 5. uses or activities that because of public safety requirements should not be located · near populous areas 1.5 Enhance the Long Island Sound coastal area through appropriate siting, design, and orientation of development. A. Employ the following general design guidelines to ensure a positive relationship between new development or alterations of existing development and the coast and community character: 1. Minimize consumption of waterfront lands and potential adverse impacts on natural resources. 2. Limit shoreline alteration. 3. Permit water surface coverage only to accommodate water-dependent uses and to the minimum extent necessary to exercise littoral rights 4. Use building and site design to orient the use to its coastal location and associated coastal resources. 5. Incorporate recreational activities, public access, open space, or amenities, as appropriate to the use, to enhance the site and the surrounding community, and to increase visual and physical' access to the coast. 6. Use building and site design to attract people to the coast, as appropriate to the use. 7. Ensure that design and siting of uses and structures is a harmonious complement with the surrounding community and landscape. 8. Use native plants, to the greatest extent practical, in landscape design. Where native plants are impractical for the intended purpose, use non-invasive species. B. Use the following guidelines to ensure development and redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Development to make the most beneficial use of a coastal location. 1. Create a distinctive identity by taking advantage of unique man-made and natural characteristics. Redevelopment actions should be of a scale that conforms to the setting. 2. Build upon existing resources, such as local history and important natural and man- made features, to reinforce community identity and add to the sense of place. 3. Make the waterfront a focal point of redevelopment actions. 4. Respond to community and regional needs, the marketplace, and environmental constraints and opportunities. 5. Encourage uses which are capable of substantially contributing to the economic base of the community and region. 6. Recognize the need for and facilitate private development which can help finance public improvements. Chapter 6 347 7. Provide uses, such as residential, commercial, and retail along or near the waterfront. Uses which are dependent on or enhanced by a waterfront location should be fostered. 8. Ensure proper siting of water-dependent and water-enhanced uses and encourage redevelopment of existing public docks and piers for maritime activity. 9. Encourage development in areas currently served by available infrastructure and transportation systems, and coordinate infrastructure and transportation system improvements to target areas selected for high levels of use. 10. Provide diverse land uses which are of interest to the public. 11. In all .public and private actions, protect and improve the positive elements of the built and natural environments. Develop facilities and implement best management practices to restore the water quality of the Sound. 12. Maximize the use of publicly-owned waterfront property for the direct benefit and use of the public. 13. Provide public waterfront access to the Sound in ail major development actions affecting the shoreline. 14. Make public investments that will result in a clean and accessible waterfront. 15. Encourage and facilitate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and develop productive uses for remediated sites. C. Minimize adverse impacts of new development and redevelopment within the Long Island Sound coastal area. To enhance community character and maintain the quality of the natorai and man-made environments of the Long Island Sound coastal area, potential adverse impact on existing development, physical environments, and economic factors must be addressed and mitigated. Standards for minimizing adverse impacts on the physical environment address the need to match development needs with existing site characteristics, to limit the disturbance of land and water, and to foster visual compatibility of the development with surrounding Specific standards on minimizing potential cumulative and secondary adverse impacts are also provided. Cumulative impacts are the result of the incremental or increased impact of repetitive actions or activities when added to other past, present, or future actions or activities, such as from a series of shoreline bulkheads within the same area. Secondary impacts are thoso which are foreseeable, but occur at a later time or at a greater distance from the action, and are likely to be indirectly caused by an action or activity. Minimize potential adverse impacts on existing development. a. Avoid introduction of discordant features which would detract from the community as determined by using comparisons with existing and publicly planned maas and distribution of structures, scale, intensity of use, architectural style, land use pattern, or other indicators of community character. b. Mitigate adverse impacts among existing incompatible uses by avoiding expansion of conflicting uses, promoting mixed-use development approaches which would reduce potential for conflict, mitigating potential conflicts by segregating incompatible uses, and providing buffers, or using other design measures to reduce conflict between incompatible uses. 348 Chapter 6 c. Protect the surrounding community from adverse impacts due to substantial introductions of or increases in odors, noise or traffic. d. Integrate waterfront areas with upland communities by: providing physical linkages between the upland community and the waterfront, matching uses to community needs, particularly as related to demographic characteristics, and limiting exclusion of the waterfront from the surrounding community. e. Prevent displacement or impairment of the operation of water-dependent uses. Minimize potential adverse impacts on the physical environment. a. Match development or action to existing site characteristics by avoiding disturbance of undeveloped areas, using design to make best use of water- oriented site characteristics and within site constraints, designing uses to be consistent with limitations presented by physical site characteristics, and avoiding extensive site modification. b. To prevent destruction or significant impairment of natural resources, schedule and conduct work to minimize adverse environmental impacts, and limit the amount of in-water work. c. Enhance the appearance of the site from in-water and upland vantage points. Minimize potential adverse economic impacts. a. Prevent deterioration of the site and surrounding area by preventing derelict or dilapidated conditions, avoiding detraction from community character, and preventing isolation of community and people from the waterfront. b. Protect and enhance the community's economic base. c. Promote a diverse economic base. Limit the potential for adverse cumulative and secondary impacts. a. For types of development which individually may not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, but when taken together could lead to significant cumulative adverse impacts, evaluate the potential for cumulative adverse impacts according to the following process: '(1) determine the geographic area which may be susceptible to cumulative adverse impacts relative to the type of development proposed and the resources which may be adversely impacted (2) identif~ comparable locations in the geographic area where similar developments and adverse impacts could reasonably be expected to occur (3) use an iterative projection to conceptually extend the development and adverse impacts to all the identified comparable sites (4) characterize the likely major changes in community, environmental or economic attributes in the geographic area that could reasonably result if the development and adverse impacts were to occur at all identified comparable sites (:5) assess the total likely cumulative adverse impact associated with the characterized changes and determine the potential for cumulative impact from the individual proposed development and adverse impact b. For an individual development which is likely to lead to secondary or subsequent types of development, evaluate the potential for adverse cumulative impacts according to the following process: (1) determine the geographic area which may be susceptible to seconda~ or subsequent development and the resources which may be adversely impacted relative to the proposed development Chapter 6 349 (2) list simultaneous or subsequent developments that could reasonably be expected to occur in the geographic area as a consequence of the proposed action (3) assess the scope and nature of likely adverse impacts attributable to each secondary or subsequent development (4) characterize the likely major changes in community, environmental or economic attributes in the geographic area that could reasonably be expected to result if all the listed secondary or subsequent development impacts were to occur (5) assess the total likely cumulative adverse impact associated with the characterized changes and determine the potential for cumulative impact from the individual proposed action Where potential cumulative impacts are likely to lead to destruction or significant impairment of natural resources, significant adverse community affects, or significant negative economic factors, limit the extent of cumulative impact using the following approaches which are listed in order of preference: (1) if design or safeguard approaches are not likely to limit potential cumulative adverse impacts, use an alternative to the proposed development which is not likely to contribute to cumulative adverse impact (2) use design approaches to limit an individual development's potential adverse impact (3) provide safeguards which limit the likelihood of reiteration of similar types of development or limit the extent of likely secondary or subsequent adverse impacts Policy 2 Protect Long Island Sound's water-dependent uses and promote suitable use of Maritime Centers. The intent of this policy is to protect existing water-dependent commercial or industrial uses and to promote suitable use of Maritime Centers as areas of water-dependent use activity. It is also the intent of this policy to enhance the economic viability of water-depeodent uses by ensuring adequate infrastructure for water-dependent uses and efficient operation in Maritime Centers. In 1993, there were nearly 200 water-dependent uses located along the Long Island Sound shore. These uses generate billions of dollars for the regional economy and are vital to the economic health of the region. Long Island Sound's water-dependent commercial, industrial, and institutional uses include: marinas; yacht clubs; boat yards; commercial fishing vessels and support facilities; coastal aquaculture; recreational fishing vessels, including charter and party boats and support facilities; petroleum unloading facilities, including offshore unloading platforms and submarine pipelines; aggregate transshipment facilities; waterborne commerce; commuter and cross-Sound ferries; and marine educational or laboratory facilities. Water- dependent use means an activity which only can be conducted on, in, over, or adjacent to the Long Island Sound, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, direct access to and use of the Sound's waters. The Sound's commercial fishing fleet and a description of actions necessary to maintain and strengthen the fleet are addressed in policy 3. This policy is divided into three sections. The first section identifies and establishes Maritime Centers as locations where new water-dependent uses will be fostered, and presents standards to guide water-dependent use development. Section 2 provides standards for 350 Chapter 6 adequate waterfront infrastructure and environmental quality in Maritime Centers. The final section provides for efficient operation of Maritime Centers. Policy Standards 2.1 Promote new water-dependent use development in Maritime Centers. Maritime Centers are explicitly targeted in this policy as the appropriate areas to foster most new water-dependent use development since. Two-thirds of the Sound's water-dependent uses are located in Maritime Centers. Maritime Centers are the most suitable and appropriate locations in Long Island Sound for expansion of existing, or the development of new, water- dependent uses. Maritime Centers are discrete portions or areas of a harbor or bay that are developed with, and contains concentrations of, water-dependem commercial and/or industrial uses or essential support facilities. The harbor or bay area is a center for water-borne commerce, recreation, or other water-dependent business activity and is an important component of a regional waterborne transportation system. See chapter 7 for a more in-depth description of Maritime Centers. Long Island Sound's Maritime Centers are: Port Chester Mamaroneck Harbor Echo Bay-New Rochelle Harbor City Island-East Shore Bronx Port Washington-Manorhaven Glen Cove Huntington Harbor Northport Harbor Port Jefferson Mattituck Inlet The following standards will guide actions in and outside Maritime Centers. Standards applicable to guide actions in Maritime Centers will apply until state-approved management plans for each Maritime Center are completed. Comprehensive Maritime Center plans will be developed for each harbor and will include: preparation of harbor management plans and supporting regulations; harbor infrastructure improvements, including improvements to support commercial fishing; investment to mitigate environmental damage; revisions to local zoning; and regulatory simplification. When the management plans are complete, activities carried out in conformance with the plan will be presumed compatible with the state's coastal policies. A. Avoid actions which would adversely impact or interfere with existing water-dependent USes. B. The economic viability of water-dependent uses ot~en depends on multiple use of the site where the water-dependent use exista or is proposed. To improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses, consideration should be given to allocating a portion of the site Chapter to a water-enhanced use or mixed-use developments that will generate returns to support water-dependent uses. C. To ensure that water-enhanced uses are supportive of, and complementary to, water- dependent uses and make beneficial use a coastal location, they should be sited and designed to: 1. attract people to or near the waterfront and provide, where feasible, public areas for passive recreation that is oriented to the coast 2. provid, e public views to or from the water 3. minimize consumption of waterfront land 4. not interfere with the operation of water-dependent uses 5. not cause significant adverse impacts to community character and surrounding land and water resources D. Within Maritime Centers: 1. Preference will be given to promoting and facilitating new water-dependent use development in areas which have been previously developed and do not exhibit significant or high natural resource values. 2. Give water-dependent development prec.edence over other development at suitable waterfront sites. 3. Maintain or improve existing infrastructure necessary to support existing or potential water-dependent and water-enhanced uses. E. Outside Maritime Centers: Discourage new water-dependent uses from being sited outside Maritime Centers. Water- dependent uses should be sited outside Maritime Centers only if the use has unique siting requirements that require its location outside Maritime Centers, and all potential significant impacts are mitigated. When new water-dependent uses must be sited outside Maritime Centers, preference will be given to siting new water-dependent uses in: 1. areas which have been previously developed 2, areas that require minimal physical alteration to accommodate development 3. areas that do not exhibit significant or high natural resource values, and 4. areas where the proposed use will not cause significant adverse affects on community character, surrounding land and water uses, or scenic quality F. Standards for Specific Water-Dependent Uses Marinas, Yacht Clubs, and Other Large Boating Facilities Marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards, which represent 75 percent of the working coast uses in the region, respond to the strong demand in the Long Island Sound region for recreational boating and services. A large boating facility means one encompassing 4,000 square feet or greater of surface waters, as measured by the outermost perimeter of the dock, purposefully deaigned to accommodate six (6) or more boats, and serving a non-commercial upland use. Such facilities are recognized and treated as a commercial marina use, since the potential impacts from such a dock facility can be as significant as those from a commercial marina or yacht club. 352 Chapter 6 Criteria to guide marina and yacht club development in the Sound include the following: a. Allow new or expansion of existing marinas in areas with suitable characteristics including: sufficient upland space for parking, storage and support facilities: adequate waterside and landside access; adequate nearshore depth; absence of wetlands, shellfish beds, or fish spawning grounds that could be affected; compatible water quality classifications; minimal need for in-water dredging and maintenance; and appropriate basin morphometry or other means to ensure adequate water circulation. b. Outside Maritime Centers, do not site new marinas or significantly expand existing marinas in Class "SA" waters. c. Marinas incorporating marine services and boat repair are preferred to marinas providing berthing or storage uses only. d. Marinas should not displace or impair the operation of water-dependent transportation, industry, or commerce and should not encroach upon navigation channels or channel buffer areas. e. Incorporate public access to the shore through provisions, such as including access from the upland, boat ramps, and transient boat mooring. f. Limit discharge of sewage by providing pump out facilities as prescribed by the state's Clean Vessel Act plan. Include dump stations unless existing pump out capacity meets foreseeable demand. g. Avoid or minimize adverse impacts on natural resources and existing neighborhoods and communities. Ferry Transportation Ferries are a viable transportation alternative to motor vehicles and rail transportation. Protect existing ferry services and promote new ferry services to increase the transportation efficiency of passengers and cargo in the Sound region. -a. Maintain existing cross-Sound ferry service to Connecticut from Port Jefferson, Orient Point, and Fishers Island. b. Support the development of a new cross-Sound ferry and new commuter ferry services providing transportation to and within the region. If ferries cannot be sited in Maritime Centers or Areas for Concentrated Development, site commuter ferries in areas outside Maritime Centers provided the following are present: (1) public demand for the intended route (2) adequately sheltered terminal site location and ferry waiting area (3) adequate waterside access and dock facilities (4) adeq.at~!y sized terminal and parking area to accommodate the intended volume of passengers during peak use (5) public rest rooms (6) adequate road access to handle the volume of vehicle traffic generated during peak use Petroleum Transshipment and Storage Petroleum importation by tanker and barge is efficient and cost effective compared to other forms of transportation. However, the present importation system in the Sound region presents environmental concerns that can be addressed through the following: a. Protect and, if necessary, allow the expansion of major petroleum unloading and storage facilities at Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Northville; and allow existing, smaller petroleum unloading and storage facilities Chapter 6 353 at Port Chester, Glen Cove, and Manhasset Bay. Allow displacement of these existing smaller facilities by other uses should redevelopment be proposed. Encourage the phase out of onshore unloading and storage facilities in Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor. Major new storage facilities should be located at inland locations away from the waterfront and petroleum should be transported from offshore unloading facilities to the inland storage facilities by pipelines. d. Explore the feasibility and benefits of completing a system of offshore unloading terminals and a pipeline distribution system to transport petroleum to inland locations. Aggregate Transshipment Aggregate importation by barge is cost effective and efficient compared to other forms of transportation and should be maintained through the following: a. Existing aggregate transshipment points in Long Island Sound, particularly for crushed stone, are essential water-dependent uses. Protect existing transshipment points at Port Chester, Hutchinson River, Hempstead Harbor, Glen Cove Creek, Oyster Bay, and Port Jefferson to ensure that crushed stone can be provided to distributors and concrete or asphalt manufacturers at reasonable cost. b. Do not reduce the number of transshipment locations if the reduction would result in a significantly greater transporting distance to reach distributors or concrete/asphalt manufacturers. Maintain at least one transshipment point in Westchester County, Nassau County, and Suffolk County. c. Prohibit new sand and gravel mining operations in the Long Island Sound coastal 2.2 Provide sufficient infrastructure for water-dependent uses. By identifying Maritime Centers as targets for infrastructure investments,government and the private sector will be able to more efficiently plan improvements existing infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, maintenance dredging of navigation channels and anchorage basins, docks and piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, sidewalks and parking lots, rest rooms, pump out stations, and waterfront parks to improve the quality of these areas. This infrastructure, which is often too expensive for many water-dependent businesses to maintain or provide on their own, is necessary to sustain water-dependent uses and improve the quality and attractiveness of the working coast. Public support is necessary to sustain and improve infrastructure in Maritime Centers. A. Harbor Navigation and Dredging Dredging is an essential activity with costs and impacts that require it to be undertaken to meet the current and future needs of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses of the Long Island Sound. The following dredging standards apply only to water- dependent commercial and industrial use. Existing navigation lanes, channels, and basins: a. Protect and maintain existing public and private navigation lanes and channels which provide access to the Sound's harbors. b. Maintain necessary public and private channels and basins at depths consistent with the needs of water-dependent uses. Discontinue or modify navigation 354 Chapter 6 channel or basin maintenance where project depths exceed vessel needs and as follows: (1) Maintain existing authorized channel and basin depths, except in Port Jefferson, Centerport, and the southern portions of Hempstead and Manhasset Harbors. (2) In Port Jefferson Harbor, maintain the public channel and turning basin at existing dredged depths rather than the authorized 40 foot depth. (3) Deauthorize and discontinue maintenance dredging for channels and basins in Centerport Harbor and the southern portions of Hempstead and Manhasset Harbors. 2. New navigation lanes, channels, and basins. a. Allow dredging to create new public or private channels or basins in Maritime Centers that are necessary to support existing or proposed water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. Proposed uses must be approved for dredging to occur. b. Allow dredging to create new public or private channels or basins located outside Maritime Centers only when a water-dependent commercial or industrial use has unique siting requirements which necessitates that the use be located outside of a Maritime Center and is consistent with the state's coastal policies. 3. Clean dredge material must be put to beneficial use for either beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, or required capping. 4. Avoid shore and water surface uses which would impede navigation. 5. Commercial navigation has priority consideration in determining rights to navigable waters where commercial navigation activity exists. 6. Limit in-water and overhead obstructions that impede commercial and recreational navigation. 7. Provide for services and facilities to facilitate commercial and recreational navigation. B. Commercial Shipping 1. Promote and maintain transportation facilities to improve water-dependent transport for cargo and people. 2. Provide for shipment and handling of aggregate and quarry stone. 3. Concentrate petroleum transfer facilities at offshore locations to achieve economic advantages and reduce the potential for adverse impacts on harbor waters. 4. Promote and facilitate passenger shipping: a. Maintain and improve existing passenger ship facilities. b. Provide facilities and appropriate opportunities for cruise line vessels, ferry service, and day use excursions. C. Harbor Infrastructure Maintain existing harbor infrastructure and improve or provide new infrastructure where necessary, for commercial and recreational vessels and water-dependent uses. a. Maintain existing sound infrastructure for continued or potential future use by preventing loss through abandonment and neglect. b. Demolish and remove infrastructure which are likely to present hazards to harbor operations. Chapter 6 355 c. Maintain existing, and where necessary construct new, shoreline stabilization and engineering structures such as piers, wharfs, jetties, and bulkheads. d. Maintain facilities to meet safety requirements associated with vessel operations. e. Maintain and provide for upland structures such as warehouses, off-loading 5;ards, necessary adjacent upland areas, or other storage facilities. f. Maintain and where necessary improve landside infrastructure such as sewer and water lines, sewage treatment facilities, parking areas, and roads for harbor uses. Provide appropriate services for commercial and recreational vessels: a. vessel services, including berthing, tug and pilotage, repairs, information, and fueling services b. cargo services, including warehousing, stevedoring, drayage, freight forwarding, and cargo inspection and documentation D. Environmental Quality Improve the attractiveness and environmental quality of Maritime Centers. 1. Provide amenities such as boat ramps, sidewalks, rest rooms, street trees, and waterfront parks. 2. Implement best management practices to maintain or improve environmental quality. 2.3 Promote efficient harbor operation in Maritime Centers. Management plans for Maritime Centers are necessary to address the needs of water- dependent commercial and industrial uses and to minimize water use conflicts. Conflicts between water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses, and conflicts between water-dependent, commercial and recreational uses within Long Island Sound's harbors have substantially increased in recent years. Increased conflicts have created competition for space on the foreshore, surface waters, and underwater lands of the Sound's harbors. These conflicts degrade the natural and cultural characteristics of harbors and their ability to support a range of uses. These conflicts also limit the ability to take advantage of potential growth opportunities of water-dependent recreation without destroying the ability of other water- dependent uses to exist, or to protect important natural or cultural resources and their values. A. Limit congestion of harbor waters, conflict among uses, and minimize obstructions on the water's surface to reduce potential hazard~ to navigation. B. Prohibit an increase or additional use of surface waters where an increase in traffic would pose a public safety hazard. C. Prohibit surface water uses which are not water-dependent or are inherently incompatible with the character of the waterbody or with proximate water-dependent uses. D. Prohibit uses, associated structures or objects from intruding or encroaching upon navigation channels. E. Ensure safe operation of motorized vessels within harbors, marinas, and anchorage areas by meeting the standards above and the preparation of management plans for Maritime Centers. 356 Chapter 6 Policy 3 Promote sustainable use of living aquatic resources in Long Island Sound. The social and economic well-being of the people of Long Island has long been dependent on the living aquatic resources of the Sound. The preservation, enhancement, protection, and development of commercial and recreational uses of the Sound's resources is critical to the economy of the region and the state. These resources are of regional, statewide, or national significance for their value as high protein food sources. In addition, their commercial application in the development of value added food stuffs, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and oils is economically significant. These same resources provide recreational harvest opportunities. Long Island Sound's living aquatic resources of value to both the commercial and recreational fishing industries include, but are not limited to: shellfish, such as surf clams, hard clams, soft clams, oysters, mussels, and conch; finfish, such as fluke (summer flounder), winter flounder, bluefish, striped bass, squid, blackfish, porgy, menhaden, etc; crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs; and marine worms. Marine worms are harvested for use as bait. Aquatic plants, mainly algal, are of some importance. In order to foster economic growth in the region and for the state, to provide equitable resource use opportunities, and to ensure that management regimes provide for the sustainable use of the resource, a delicate balance must be struck among the state, the users of the resource, and the living aquatic resources themselves. Measures to promote the sustainable use of living marine resources should include: the initiation, continuation, or expansion of resource assessments or surveys and collection of harvesting data to support the implementation of appropriate living marine resource management measures; improved spawner stock protection efforts, such as the selective closure of harvest grounds and establishing maximum legal size limits for harvesting shellfish to protect the most productive stocks; better nonpoint source pollution controls to improve water quality; and preventing and reducing use conflicts between commercial harvesting and other uses. This policy is presented in five sections. The first provides standards to ensure sustainable · use of living aquatic resources and protect indigenous species. Section 2 recognizes the importance of commercial and recreational use of fishery stocks, and calls for equitable allocation of resources. Section 3 focuses on providing adequate infrastructure and support facilities for commercial harvesters. Management of shellfish resources and deputation and relay operations is treated in section 4. The last section addresses the potential for aquaculture development in the state. Policy Stlmdards 3.1 Maintain and protect living aquatic resources. A. Promote commercial and recreational use of living aquatic resources provided that: 1. sustainable use of the aquatic resource would result 2. the use would not interfere with population restoration efforts, and 3. recreational allocation of living aquatic resources would not adversely impact commercial resource allocations Chapter 6 357 B. Protect native stocks and restore sustainable populations of indigenous fish and wildlife species and other aquatic living resources. 1. Favor protection of spawning grounds, habitats, and water quality to preserve Long Island Sound's aquatic resources, particularly shellfish. 2. Do not undertake artificial stocking that would result in loss of the genetic integrity of recognizable native populations. C. Prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species into natural environments unless specifically done as part of an approved pest control program. D. Promote development of artificial reefs to improve aquatic resources habitat and expand nearshore fishing opportunities in the following locations in Long Island Sound: off Matinecock Poim in the Town of Oyster Bay, Eatons Neck in the Town of Huntington, off Mount Sinai in the Town of Brookhaven, and off Mauituck Inlet in the Town of Southold. Maintain the existing reef in Smithtown Bay in the Town of Smithtown. 3.2 Promote commercial and recreational use of the Sound's finfish, shellflsh, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. The need to promote commercial and recreational use of finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, and aquatic plants is addressed by this policy elemem. Specific factors that must be addressed regarding management of the resource for commercial and recreational use include: sustainable yield requirements, population restoration efforts, and potential adverse effects of recreational allocation on commercial fisheries. Promote commercial fish use by maintaining and creating markets and preserving the quality of the product. Disruption of commercial fishery production has a critical impact on the people of the region and the state, and shall be avoided. A. In decisions relating to allocation and use of living aquatic resources: 1. Include consideration of the socio-economic impacts on all user groups. 2. Factor socio-economic impacts of resource allocation on coastal communities and their commercial fishery activities. 3. Protect stocks to ensure sustainable yield based on best scientific information. 4. Use information developed in support of fishery management plans and other resource management plans to guide resource allocation and stock management. 5. Use state-specific information to modify federal fishery management plans to suit specific state and regional fishing management needs. B. Promote commercial harvest of marketable species to maintain viable consumer markets. 1. Restrict commercial harvest when the sanitary condition of the stock would cause injury to the public health or reduction of sustainable yield would occur. 2. In determining stock allocations, ensure equitable distribution. C. Promote recreational use of living aquatic resources. D. Develop support services and commercial enterprises necessary to maintain domestic and international markets for the Sound's fighery and marketable marine products. 358 Chapter 6 E. Maintain water quality and purity of fishery and marketable marine resources to protect public health and protect the flavor, color, odor, and quality of commercial foodfish for the purpose of sale. F. Continue and increase state efforts with the private sector to locate and develop lucrative domestic and foreign markets for commercial fishery products. Focus product and marketing assistance on underutilized species. 3.3 Maintain and strengthen Long Island Sound's existing commercial fishing fleet · and associated facilities. The commercial harvesting of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans in Long Island Sound has been and continues to be an important economic activity. For over 300 years, the commercial fishing industry has supplied seafood products to the region, the state, the nation, and newly expanding global markets. The industry's ability to adapt to increasing social, economic, and environmental pressures has diminished. Support services and facilities that once served the fleet have largely disappeared. Those that remain are facing increasing competition from other uses of coastal lands and waters, most notably residential, marine recreational, and non-water-dependent commercial development. For example,-over the last two decades, many harbors that once supported the commercial harvest of the Sound's fishery resources have become recreational boating centers, displacing commercial fishing operators. Coupled with diminishing fishery resources, the inadequacy of infrastructure and support facilities has become a significant impediment to the economic viability of the state's commercial fishing industry. Because the commercial fishing industry is both historically and economically significant in the state, it is critical to maintain the existing commercial harvesting fleet and adequate levels of support facilities and infrastructure to prevent the irreversible loss of this important industry. Long Island Sound supports a commercial fishing fleet composed of offshore and nearshore harvesters. Offshore harvesters generally use large vessels: draggers, trawlers, and lobster boats. Offshore harvester use specific harbors for support services, loading, unloading, docking, and mooring. Nearshore harvesters use smaller vessels that can be trailered and launched from a variety of sites along the Sound's coast. Nearshore harvesters, most often called Mbaymen," generally work the inshore harbors and bay areas. Loading, unloading, mooring, docking, and trailering their vessels usually takes place where the vessels are launched. Measures needed to maintain and strengthen the Sound's existing commercial fishing industry include: protection of existing harvesting and support facilities from displacement and interference; provision of infrastructure including docks, berths, loading and unioadiag space, gear storage, fuel and utilities access, and affordable work force housing; and identification of domestic and international markets with direct market assistance to ensure the economic stability of the industry. Chapter 6 359 A. Protect and strengthen existing commercial fishing harvest operations and facilities. 1. Improve existing commercial fishing operations and facilities in Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Mattituck Harbor which are Maritime Centers and encourage and allow new commercial fishing support facilities or expansions to occur in these areas to support the existing commercial fishing fleet. 2. Protect existing commercial fishing operations and facilities in Oyster Bay, Setauket and Mount Sinai, but do not encourage major new commercial fishing facilities or major expansions to occur since these harbors are not intensively developed and are highly, valued for their natural resource and habitat attributes. 3. Protect and maintain the nearshore harvest throughout the Sound region by providing access, berthing, and off-loading facilities suitable for nearshore operators. B. Maintain existing commercial fishing infrastructure and the development of new commercial fishing infrastructure by the public and private sectors to better support the existing commercial fishing fleet. Maintain and develop adequate dock space, gear storage space and off loading facilities; commercially priced fuel and service yards; adequate ice and refrigeration; sufficient processors to receive fish; adequate road access to commercial fishing ports; and affordable housing for commercial fishery industry personnel. Chapter 5 identifies harbor-specific improvements and support facilities needed to maintain and strengthen the existing fishing industry at optimal levels. These specific actions need to be implemented. In addition, the following are necessary: I. appropriately scaled baymen's docks in suitable locations near areas of significant harvest activity 2. commercial fishing support facilities, such as adequate docks, off-loading areas, and gear storage space in western Long Island Sound where no significant facilities exist 3. fish processing facilities since value-added product can return higher economic return to the fish and seafood industry and the Sound region C. Protect commercial fishing support facilities from interference or displacement by competing land and water uses. 3.4 Promote and manage shellfish depuration facilities and shellfish relay operations. The cleansing of shellfish from uncertified waters in depuration facilities, and the relaying of shellfish from uncertified to certified areas for cleansing and eventual harvest provide a means of marketing a valuable resource that would remain otherwise unused. The relaying of shellfish from both certified and uncertified areas is also a means of providing spawner stock enhancement, or grow-out of undersized shellfish for eventual harvest. The harvesting of shellfish for depuration and for relays should be designed to: protect viable populations of spawning stock in initial harvest areas; involve harvesters and facility operators in deputation and relay operations; and limit disruptions of harvest areas and the reduction of viable shellfish stock from large scale shellfish dredging operations, especially where traditional hand harvesting is practicable. 360 Chapter 6 A. Allow for harvest of shellfish from uncerfified waters, provided that depuration and cleansing protocols are adhered to for protection of public health and sufficient shellfish spawn stock is allowed to remain in the harvested area in order to produce sustainable yields. B. Limit environmental disturbance of the harvest area. 1. Limit environmental disturbance due to the scale or method of shellfish harvesting operations. 2.- Protect a significant amount of the shellfish stock in areas where a principal recognized habitat value is based on the shellfish population. 3. Retain sufficient shellfish populations to provide benefits associated with bio-filtration of the harvest area. C. Promote the harvesting of stock for depuration, and the harvesting of both relayed stock and stock for relays, among nearshore harvesters. 3.5 Promote and develop aquaculture. With the exception of shellfish culture, minor emphasis has been placed on the actual culture of marine finfish and aquatic plants. Culture of these species for food, cosmetic, and medicinal purposes could provide revenue for the commercial fishing industry and return revenue to the Sound region and its communities. The natural characteristics of Long Island Sound, its harbors, and bays are ideally suited for aquaculture facilities. Aquaculture is a desired water-dependent use in Long Island Sound and could augment existing natural stocks, as well as provide a means of mitigating the loss of natural stocks due to pollution, loss of habitat, or other factors. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities to advance aquaculture in Long Island Sound. There are a variety of constraints, including restrictive local land use regulations, little available space for land-based aquaculture and support facilities, and a lack of public and private sector interest, initiatives, or incentives. Aquaculture should be encouraged provided that displacement of native stocks or viable habitat does not occur. A. Develop state guidelines that support and facilitate private sector aquaculture. B. Develop and maintain holding facilities, in-water grow-out space, and shorefront nurseries. C. Promote and facilitate private aquaculture, provided that displacement of native stocks or viable habitat does not occur. D. Provide leases of state-owned underwater lands for aquaculture only in areas which are not already active shellfish producing areas or which are not commonly used by commercial or recreational harvesters. Chapter 6 361 Policy 4 Protect existing agricultural lands in the eastern Suffolk County portion of Long Island Sound's coastal area. The intent of this policy is to conserve and protect agricultural land in the Suffolk County region of the Sound's coastal area by preventing the conversion of farmland to other uses, and protecting existing and potential agricultural production. Suffolk's agricultural acreage has been sharply reduced over a relatively short time period. Over the past half century there has been a 72 percent reduction in agricultural acreage (119,016 acres in 1940 to 34,000 acres in 1992). This loss has occurred primarily due to intense residential development gressure which has rapidly transformed Suffolk's landscape from one dominated by agrarian uses and activities to one dominated by single family residences. Protecting the remaining agricultural land in Suffolk County is necessary to ensure preservation of Suffolk's agricultural economy, 300 year farming heritage, open space, and scenic quality. Suffolk County's agricultural land is among the most productive in the state. Protecting Suffolk County's agricultural lands is critical for four major reasons: Suffolk County soils are the richest and most productive soils in the state. If these agricultural lands are left unprotected development pressures, particularly residential, are expected to continue to consume and encroach upon agricultural lands impairing the viability of agriculture to an irreversible level_. The county's agricultural products are diverse and unmatched by any other of the state's regions. The insulating coastal climate, in combination with Suffolk County's extended growing season, fertile soils, and moderately sloping topography, provide ideal growing conditions for tree and shrub nurseries, fruits, vegetables, and potatoes, as well as the emerging agricultural uses of sod farms, vineyards, and horse farms. Suffolk's agricultural economy is highly productive, leading all other counties in the state in wholesale value of agricultural products sold, and is a major part of region's economy. The value of Suffolk County's coastal influenced agriculture also provides scenic and open space values that contribute to and defines much of the special regional character and sense of place that attracts visitors and vacationers to eastern Long Island. These scenic and open space qualities of agricultural lands provide relief from the congestion and dense development that characterize much of Long Island and the Sound coast. This policy contains four sections. The first section presents a definition of agricultural lands and contains standards to address conversion of agricultural lands and interference in agricultural operations. Section 2 directs that conditions that support agriculture be maintained and enhanced. Management of the impacts of unavoidable conversion of agricultural land is provided for by the standards in section 3. The last section recognizes the scenic and open space value of agricultural land and operations and provides for their protection within the framework of efficient farm operation. 362 Chapter 6 Policy Standards 4.1 Protect existing agriculture and agricultural lands from conversion to other land uses which would eliminate agricultural production or potential agricultural production. For the purposes of this policy, agricultural lands are defined as follows: Lands included in agricultural districts as created under Article 25 - AA of the Agricultural and Markets Law; lands comprised of soils classified in soil groups 1,2,3, or 4 according to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Land Classification System; or lands used in agricultural production, as defined in Article 25-AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Elimination of agricultural production due to conversion to other land uses, primarily residential, is a major threat to agricultural lands in Suffolk County. In addition to the direct conversion of agricultural land, indirect threats contribute to the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. Indirect threats include: incompatibility of new development with existing farming, actions that divide active farmland, prohibitions against sound farm practices which are potentially incompatible with non-farm uses, and loss of prime soil by contamination or erosion. A. Avoid conversion of agricultural lands used or with the potential to be used in agricultural production to non-agricultural uses. The following order of priority presents the importance of existing or potential use of agricultural lands: 1. coastal-related agriculture, particularly vineyard, vegetables, fruits, sod farms, and .nursery and greenhouse products 2. other lands actively used in agricultural production 3. agricultural lands not actively used in agricultural production B. Prevent encroachment of commercial, industrial, institutional, or residential development on agricultural lands. C. Protect existing agricultural use and production from adverse impacts due to: 1. public infrastructure and facility development including: a. unnecessary encroachment of public projects into agricultural lands b. introduction of infrastructure or facilities such as public roads, water or sewer facilities into agricultural lands c. dividing active farms with obstacles, such as highway construction and maintenance right-of-ways 2. creation of other conditions which are likely to lead to conversion of agricultural lands, such as loss of necessary support services 3. environmental changes which are likely to reduce agricultural productivity or quality, including, but not limited to, groundwater quantity and quality Chapter 6 363 D. New development located adjacent or in proximity to agricultural land or uses should provide sufficient buffer between agricultural and non-agricultural lands to protect agricultural uses from interference from non-agricultural uses, and protect non- agricultural lands from potentially offensive agricultural practices. E. Conversion of agricultural lands for public uses may be allowed provided that no other site is available or suitable for the intended public purpose and loss of agricultural lands and production is minimized. 4.2 Establish and maintain favorable conditions which support existing or promote new coastal agricultural production. Loss of agricultural lands is often exacerbated by conditions that reduce the viability of agriculture such as high costs related to land, labor, and utilities. Mixed uses that would result in retention of the agricultural use, such as incorporating limited residential development or offering recreational uses on agricultural lands, is considered a valid mechanism of supporting agricultural production. Avoidance of activities which would alter market conditions is also a consideration. A. Promote new and maintain existing local support services and commercial enterprises necessary to support agricultural operations. B. Provide economic support of existing agriculture by allowing mixed uses which would assist in retention of the agricultural use. C. Promote activities and market conditions that would likely prevent conversion of farmlands to other land uses. 1. Avoid activities which would likely result in real estate market conditions that would be unfavorable to continued agricultural use. 2. Promote activities which protect and expand agricultural commodity markets. 3. Promote production and marketing of vineyard products. 4.3 Minimize adverse impacts on agriculture from unavoidable conversion of agricultural land or agricultural production to other land uses. Minimizing the adverse impacts on agriculture from the unavoidable conversion of agricultural lands to other land uses is essential, given the strength of the market forces that encourage the conversion of agricultural lands. When unavoidable conversion of agricultural land occurs the amount of affected land must be minimized. Methods to retain agricultural opportunities within new development include: keeping fields in production through lease arrangements and preserving as much agricultural land and open space as possible through site design. A. Minimize encroachment of commercial, industrial, institutional, or residential development of agricultural lands. B. Retain or incorporate opportunities for continuing agricultural use. 364 Chapter 6 C. Site and arrange development to maximize protection of the highest quality agricultural land in large contiguous tracts for efficient farming. 4.4 Preserve scenic and open space values associated with the Sound's agricultural lands. Scenic and open space values associated with agricultural lands should be protected. Farming, as an element of landscape, is a particularly important contribution to the special character of eastern Long Island and the coastal area of the Sound. Open space from agricultural lands provides important relief from the densely developed landscapes that dominate many areas of the Sound coast and Long Island. It must be recognized that visual and open space qualities are reliant on an active and viable agricultural industry that allows farmers the flexibility to farm in an economically viable fashion, incorporating modern techniques and farm operation, and resultant changes in farm structures. Development shall be sited and arranged to maximize protection of agricultural land in large contiguous tracts to protect associated scenic and open space values. Policy 5 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Within the Long Island Sound coastal area, there are presently more than 8,200 buildings and other structures located in special flood ba:'ard areas, and over 1,200 buildings and other structures seaward of the present coastal erosion hazard area boundary. In response to existing or perceived erosion and flood hazards, many landowners have constructed erosion control structures. Approximately 50 percent of the Sound shoreline has been armored with erosion control structures, and the trend is continuing. In Suffolk County, for example, only 8.96 miles of the 132.5 miles of the Sound shoreline was engineered with riprap, bulkheads, or seawalls in 1969. Today, 43.7 miles of the county's shoreline are hardened. There are many erosion control structures located within the Long Island Sound coastal area that do not provide erosion protection, but are used for other reasons. Erosion control structures often contribute to erosion both on and off the site due to poor design and siting and lack of downdrift remediation. The cumulative impact of these structures is potentially large. Increased erosion, aesthetic impairments, loss of public recreational resources, loss of habitats, and water quality degradation can result from hardening the shoreline. Before a permit is granted to allow construction of hard erosion control structures, the purpose, function, impact, and alternatives to the project need to be carefully evaluated. Although the Long Island Sound shoreline has been heavily fortified, there are significant stretches of the coast that remain in a natural state. The natural shoreline has an inherent natural, social, and economic value that should be respected to ensure continuing benefits to the state and the region. Consequently, those portions of the Sound shoreline that are not fortified should generally remain in a natural condition to respond to coastal processes. Where feasible and appropriate, portions of the shoreline that have been hardened should be returned to a natural condition. Chapter 6 365 Development and redevelopment in hazard areas needs to be managed to reduce exposure to coastal hazards. Hardening of the shoreline is to be avoided except when alternative means, such as soft engineering alternatives, beach nourishment, revegetation, offshore bar building, or inlet sand bypassing, are impractical to protect principal structures or extensive public investment (land, infrastructure, facilities). Areas of extensive public investment include City Island and the Throgs Neck in the Bronx, the Cross Island Parkway section of Queens, Bayville, the Asharoken tombolo, Sunken Meadow State Park, portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development, and the ten Maritime Centers. Barrier landforms that protect significant public investment or natural resources should be maintained..Soft structural protection methods are to be used to conform with the natural coastal processes. Barrier beach landforms should be maintained by using clean, compatible dredge material when feasible, for beach nourishment, offshore bar building, or marsh creation projects. In suitable locations and where appropriate, interpretive materials could be considered to enhance the public's understanding of natural coastal processes. This policy seeks to protect life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion hazards throughout the Long Island Sound coastal area. The policy reflects state flooding and erosion regulations and provides measures for reduction of hazards and protection of resources. Policy standards are divided into eight sections. The first two sections reflect state flooding and erosion regulations. Section 3 presents standards to prOtect natural shoreline features. Section 4 establishes conditions for expenditure of public funds for management of flood and erosion hazards based on public benefit considerations. Section 5 presents measures for minimizing losses from flooding and erosion arranged in order of priority, ranging from avoidance to hard structural approaches. The role of vegetation in managing erosion is highlighted throughout this section. This section also provides specific standards for protecting natural protective features. Section 6 addresses protection of public lands or public trust lands. Measures for water-dependent industrial and commercial uses are provided in section 7. Section 8 provides standards to address development and redevelopment through emergency planning and construction standards. Policy Standards 5.1 Comply with the Coastal Erosion 'Hazard Area statutes and regulations in identified erosion ba,s~rd areas. 5.2 Comply with Floodplain Management statutes and regulations in identified fiood hazard areas. 5.3 Protect and maintain natural shoreline features, including: beaches, dunes, nearshore zones, shoals, bars, spits, barrier landforms, bluffs, mudflats, barrier fiats, wetlands, and ail associated vegetation. 366 Chapter 6 A. Protect or restore flooding and erosion protective capacities of natural shoreline features by: 1. not altering or interfering with natural shorelines 2. restoring the condition of impaired natural shoreline features, according to the following considerations: a. restore the natural shoreline wherever practical b. the shoreline would not be adversely affected by nearby erosion control structures c. the erosion control structure is not necessary for flood or erosion control purposes d. feasible alternatives to the erosion control structure exist 3. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 4. providing for natural rates of supply and movement of unconsolidated materials and for water and wind transport 5. managing uses to limit or reverse damage which has diminished the protective capacities of the natural shoreline B. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes. 1. Limit intrusion of projects into coastal waters. 2. Limited interference with coastal processes may be allowed where the principal purpose of the structure is necessary: a. to simulate natural processes where existing structures have altered the coast b. to provide other necessary public benefits in association with flooding and erosion protection c. to provide for the efficient operation of water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers and water-dependent uses outside of Maritime Centers that have special siting requirements d. adequate mitigation is providi~d and maintained to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, and, if undertaken by a private property owner does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs 5.4 Expend public funds for management or control of flooding or erosion hazards only in areas of the coast which will result in proportionate public benefit. In making this determination priority shall be given to actions which protect public health and safety, mitigate past flooding and erosion problems, protect areas of intensive development, and protect substantial public investment (land, infrastructure, facilities). A. Expenditure of public funds for flooding or erosion control projects is limited to those circumstances where public benefits clearly exceed public costs and is prohibited for the exclusive purpose of flooding or erosion protection for private development. B. Factors which may be included in the determination of public benefit attributable to the proposed flood or erosion control measure are: 1. economic benefits derived from protection of existing public infrastructure and protection of water-dependent commerce 2. protection of significant natural resources or Chapter 6 367 3. protection of public recreation and access facilities open to all the public In the Long Island Sound coastal area, areas of extensive public investment where public expenditure may be warranted are: City Island and the Throgs Neck in the Bronx, the Cross Island Parkway section of Queens, Bayville, the Asharoken tombolo, Sunken Meadow State Park, portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development, and the Maritime Centers of Port Chester, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle-Echo Bay, City Island, Port Washington-Manorhaven, Glen Cove, Humington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Mattituck Inlet. 5.5 Minimize losses from flooding and erosion hazards by using the following management measures which are presented in order of priority: A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion ha?urals. 1. Avoid developing or redeveloping new structures and uses in areas which are likely to be exposed to hazards unless: a. the structure or use functionally requires a location on the coast or in coastal waters b. the new development would be located in an area of substantial public investment c. the new structure or use is necessary for shoreline development which: (1) reinforces the role of Maritime Centers in concentrating water-dependent uses, and (2) would not result in impairment of natural resources 2. Locate new structures which are not functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters, are not in areas of substantial public investment, or do not reinforce the role of a Maritime Center aa far away from flooding and erosion hazards as possible: a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas (nearshore, beaches, bluffs, primary dunes and wetlands as der'reed under 6 NYCRR Part 505), except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. b. Locate new development away from coastal hazards associated with inlet areas. c. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from natural protective feature areas. d. Provide sufficient lot deptil to allow relocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. 3. Provide public infrastructure in or near identified high velocity flood zones or erosion hazard areas only if the infrastructure: a. will not promote new development or expansion of existing development in identified high velocity flood zones or erosion buTurd areas b. is not located in a Coastal Barrier Resource Area, except as provided in the Coastal Barrier Resource System Act c. is designed in a manner which will not impair protective capacities of natural protective features d. is designed to avoid or withstand damage from flooding and erosion 4. Where practicable, moving existing structures and development which are exposed to hazards away from the hazard is preferred over maintaining structures and 368 Chapter 6 development at risk. Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters b. water dependent uses which, by the nature of the use, cannot avoid exposure to hazards c. in areas with extensive public infrastructure or major public facilities. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capacities of natural protective features at every opportunity. Use vegetative measures alone to control erosion in areas where the potential success rate for vegetative methods is high. C. Enhance existing natural protective features and use non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing erosion. 1. Natural protective features include: beaches, dunes, nearshore zones, shoals, bars, spits, barrier landforms, bluffs, mudflats, wetlands, and all associated vegetation. 2. Enhance protective beaches by using fill, artificial nourishment, dredge disposal, or by restoring coastal processes according to the following standards: a. Use only clean sand or gravel with a grain size equivalent to or slightly larger than the native material at the project site. b. Design criteria for protective beaches should not exceed the level necessary to achieve protection from a 30 year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefit. c. Provide for sand by-passing at engineered inlets or other shore protection structures to maintain coastal processes and protective beaches. 3. Protect and enhance existing dunes or create .new dunes using fill, artificial nourishment, or entrapment of windborne sand. a. Use only clean sand with a grain size equivalent or slightly larger than native dune material. b. Design criteria for created dunes should not exceed the overtopping height. defined by the 30 year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefit. c. Enhance existing or created dunes using snow fencing and dune vegetation. d. Construct and provide for use of walkovers to prevent pedestrian damage to existing and enhanced dunes. 4. Increase protective capacity of natural protective features using practical vegetative measures in association with all other enhancement efforts. D. Use hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where: 1. Avoidance of the hazard is not practicable because a structure is: functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters; located in an area of extensive public investment; or reinforces the role of Maritime Centers. 2. Vegetative approaches to controlling erosion are not practical. 3. Enhancement of natural protective features would not prove practical in providing erosion protection. 4. Construction of a hard structure is the only practical design consideration and is essential to protecting the principal use. 5. The proposed hard structural erosion protection measures: Chapter 6 369 a. include sea level rise calculations in siting and design of all public infrastructure and projects having more than a thirty year design life b. are limited to the minimum scale necessary c. are based on sound engineering practices Practical vegetative methods have been included in the design and implementation of the hard structure. The hard structure would not result in a loss of public access across public trust lands. Adequate mitigation is provided and maintained to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, and, if undertaken by a private property owner does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs. 5.6 Protect public lands and public trust lands and use of these lands in all erosion or flood control projects. A. Retain ownership of public trust lands which have become upland areas due to fill or accretion resulting from erosion control projects. B. Protect shorelands, including public trust lands or the use of public trust lands, from losses or likely losses which can be reasonably attributed to or anticipated from erosion protection structures. C. Provide and maintain adequate mitigation of the impacts of the project to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or to natural coastal processes and natural resources. 5.7 Allow for alteration of the mast' which is necessary for operation of water- dependent industry or commerce provided that sufficient measures are taken to limit potential loss of property and to protect natural protective features. A. Except in Maritime Centers, site water-dependent uses in erosion and flood hazard areas only if the use could not practically be located outside the hazard area. B. Maintain navigation channels in a manner which minimizes erosion: 1. Design channel construction and maintenance to protect and enhance natural protective features and prevent destabilization of adjacent areas by: a. using dredging setbacks and slopes from established channel edges b. locating channels away from erodible features c. preventing adverse alteration of basin hydrology d. including by-passing methods to maintain navigability and reduce frequency of dredging 2. Use dredged material as beach nourishment whenever the grain size of the dredged material is the same size or slightly larger than the grain size of the potential recipient beach. 370 Chapter 6 C. Maintain stabilized inlets to minimize erosion of adjacent lands at the following locations: Glen Cove Creek, LILCO-Asharoken, Port Jefferson, Mount Sinai, the Shoreham power facility, Mattituck Inlet, and Silver Eel Cove. 1. Include sand bypassing at all engineered or stabilized inlets which interrupt littoral processes. 2. Manage flood and ebb tidal deltas to simulate natural processes. 3. Avoid extending jetties when it will increase disruption of coastal processes. 5.8 - Limit potential loss of life and structural damage in all development or redevelopment in the coastal areas. A..Demonstrate compliance or coordination with any applicable emergency preparedness plan ~n all new development or redevelopment. B. Design buildings to withstand exposure to coastal storms: 1. Limit structural damage by using construction standards designed to withstand erosion, wind and flooding. 2. Minimize additional hazards caused by storm-driven debris resulting from damage to buildings and other structures by limiting the amount of break-away structures including decks, walkways and walls below the 100-year flood level. Policy 6 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Long Island Sound coastal area. The quality of surface and groundwaters and the supply of potable water are critical issues in the Long Island Sound coastal area, and both issues must be addressed to assure the continuing quality of life and prosperity of the region. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan developed by the Long Island Sound Study (1994) clearly summarizes the major surface water quality impairments in the region. These impairments reflect the intensity of upland and water uses in the Sound coastal area, and result from both point and nonpoint sources. Consequences of water quality impairments include hypoxia--a major problem in the western portions of the coastal area--reduced availability of certified, marketable shellfish and crustaceans; increased closure days for beaches; and reduced enjoyment of the Sound shoreline. Due to the geologic and soils characteristics of the Sound coastal region, surface water pollution can readily contaminate groundwater resources. The sandy, highly porous soils of Long Island allow nutrients and other pollutants to pass with little filtration into aquifers. Since Long Island is served by a sole-source aquifer, maintaining an adequate and potable supply of water is critical to the region. As a result, activities that introduce pollutants to surface waters must be controlled. In addition, nutrient input from groundwater flow into embayments is in some cases a significant factor in water quality impairments. For these reasons, land use, even in upland areas, can have permanent adverse effects on groundwater in this region. Chapter 6 371 Water quality protection and improvement in the region must be accomplished by the combination of adequately managing new sources of pollution and remediating those sources already existing. In some areas with existing water quality impairments, more aggressive remediation measures will be needed for the region as a whole. The purpose of this policy is to protect the quality and quantity of water in the Long Island Sound area. Quality considerations include both point and nonpoint pollution management. The primary quantity consideration is the maintenance of an adequate supply of potable waters in the region. Four sections presem the standards for this policy. The first section deals with both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. These standards reflect state regulations for point source discharge, treatment of sanitary and industrial wastes, and discharges into navigable waters. The nonpoint pollution controls reflect both existing regulations and the incorporation of provisions mandated through the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. Approaches for managing nonpoint source pollution are also included. Section 2 summarizes existing regulations for protection of stream water quality classifications. Section 3 specifically addresses excavation and fill and their effects on water quality. The last section addresses protection of potable water supplies from contamination, salt water intrusion, and depletion. Policy Standards 6.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges which would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards and manage activities causing nonpoint pollution. A. Limit point sources of pollution to protect and enhance water quality according to applicable water quality classification. 1. Nitrogen loadings from point sources should not exceed that occurring in 1990. 2. Reduce nitrogen discharges sufficient to achieve the scedule for meeting the dissolved oxygen standards set forth in the LISS Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. B. Ensure effective treatment of sanitary sewage and industrial discharges by: 1. maintaining efficient operation of sewage and industrial treatment facilities 2. providing, at a minimum, effective secondary treatment of sanitary sewage 3. modifying existing sewage treatment facilities to provide improved nitrogen removal capacity 4. incorporating treatment beyond secondary, particularly that focusing on nitrogen removal, as part of new wastewater treatment plant design 5. reducing demand on treatment facilities: a. reduce infiltration of excess water in collection and transport systems b. eliminate unauthorized collection system hookups c. pretreat industrial wastes d. limit discharge volumes and pollutant loadings e. install Iow-flow water conservation fixtures in: (1) all new development, and 372 Chapter 6 (2) when replacing fixtures in existing development reducing or eliminating combined sewer overflows providing and managing on-site disposal systems: a. use on-site disposal systems only when impractical to connect with public sewer systems b. provide, based on water table elevation, soil porosity, system design, and other relevant factors, for treatment and separation of effluents from groundwater and surface water adequate to protect against contamination from pathogens and nutrients, and nutrient loading to groundwater which will cumulatively result in excessive nutrient loadings into surface watersavoid use of garbage disposals to reduce unnecessary organic loading to on-site systems c. encourage evaluation and implementation of beneficial alternative or innovative on-site sanitary waste systems d. where appropriate to reduce nutrient input to groundwater and thence to surface waters with high nutrient levels, encourage retrofitting to reduce nitrogen loadings C. Prevent point source discharges into navigable waters and manage or avoid land uses which impact or may impact coastal waters which would: 1. exceed applicable effluent limitations and standards 2. cause or contribute to contravention of effluent and classification and use standards 3. materially adversely affect receiving water quality 4. violate a vessel no-discharge zone ambient water quality D. Reduce the loadings of toxic materials into Sound waters by: 1. including limits on toxic metals as part of waste water treatment plant (WWTP) effluent permits, and 2. remediating existing contaminated sediment problems as determined appropriate by the procedure to be developed under the Long Island Sound Study Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. E. Prohibit all direct or indirect discharge of refuse or litter into waters of the state or upon public lands contiguous to and within 100 feet of waters of the state. F. Minimize nonpoint pollution of coastal waters using the following approaches which are presented in order of priority. Avoid nonpoint pollution by limiting nonpoint sources. a. Reduce or eliminate introduction of materials which may contribute to nonpoint pollution. b. Avoid land or water activities which would increase off-site transport of pollutants. c. Control and manage stormwater runoff to minimize transport of pollutants. d. Retain or establish native vegetation, or judiciously select nonnative vegetation that will not overtake native vegetation, to maintain or provide: (1) soil stabilization, and (2) filtering capacity in riparian and littoral zones Chapter 6 373 e. Preserve natural hydrologic conditions. (1) Maintain surface water flow characteristics such that the amount of runoff from the site does not exceed pre-development levels. (2) Retain natural watercourses and drainage systems where present. (3) Where natural drainage systems are absent or incapable of handling runoff demands: (a) develop open vegetated drainage systems as the preferred management measure (b) design open vegetated drainage systems to include long and indirect flow paths and to decrease pea~ runoff flows (c) use closed drainage systems only where site constraints and stormwater flow demands m~e open water systems infeasible 2. Reduce pollutant loads to recipient waters by managing unavoidable nonpoint sources. a. Intercept or infiltrate runoff prior to delivery to recipient waters. b. Use appropriate management practices to reduce pollutant loads as determined by site characteristics, design standards, operational conditions, and maintenance programs. 3. Manage nonpoint pollution using all appropriate nonpoint source management practices or combination of management practices necessary to attain the greatest degree of economically achievable pollutant reduction. G. Manage nonpoint pollution from specific land use activities according to the priorities of (F), above, using specific management measures of the Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (U.S. EPA, 840-B-92- 002). The following summarizes management measures to be applied to specific land use categories in the Long Island Sound coastal area to reduce nonpoint source pollution: 1. Agriculture Manage and reduce sedimentation and erosion to the extent practical, in order to minimize associated water quality problems such as nutrient enrichment, filling in of channels, and alterations to habitats such as bottom substrates. a. Manage nutrient loadings by applying nutrients only in amounts needed for crop growth, avoiding nutrient applications which will result in nutrient loadings to waters of the Sound or its tributaries.. b. Limit contamination from pesticides to the extent possible by applying pesticides only when economically appropriate and in a safe manner. c. Manage irrigation and chemigation to avoid contamination of return flows with fertilizers, pesticides or their residues, or accumulated salts; and to prevent contamination of source waters by avoiding backflow of waters used in chemigation. 2. Urban a. For new development, manage total suspended solids to remain at predevelopment loadings. b. For site development, limit activities that increase erosion or the amount or velocity of stormwater runoff. c. For construction sites, reduce erosion and retain sedimentation on site, and limit and control use of chemicals and nutrients. d. For new on-site sewage disposal systems, ensure that siting, design, maintenance, and operation prevent discharge of pollutants. 374 Chapter 6 e. For planning, siting, and design of roads and highways, manage erosion and sediment loss, and limit disturbance of land and vegetation. f. For bridges, site, design, and maintain structures to protect ecosystems and areas that provide water quality benefits. g. For roads, highways, and bridges, develop and implement pollution prevention procedures to minimize to the extent practical the runoff of contaminants to coastal waters. Marinas Site, design, and operate marinas to reduce pollutant loadings, protect aquatic resources and habitat, provide for vessel pumpout, coritrol potential discharge of hazardous substances, and manage solid waste. Do not site marinas in SA waters. I-Iydromodifications a. Design and develop channelization and channel modification projects to maintain the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters, reduce undesirable impacts, and, where possible improve the physcial and chemical characteristics of surface waters in channels. b. Minimize impacts of channelization and channel modification on instream and riparian habitat, and identify opportunities to restore habitat. c. Use vegetative means where possible to protect streambanks and shorelinesfrom erosion. 6.2 Protect and enhance water quality of streams. Minimize disturbance of streams including their bed and banks. Prevent erosion of soil, increased turbidity, irregular variation in velocity, temperature and level of water. Prevent losses of fish and aquatic wildlife and the destruction of their natural habitat. Minimize danger of flood or pollution. 6.3 Protect water quality when excavating or placing fill in navigable waters or, in marshes, estuaries, tidal marshes, and wetlands that are adjacent to and contiguous at any point to navigable waters. Parameters to be evaluated in protection of water quality during excavation or placement of fill include physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse, and suspended solids). Limit potential adverse impacts on aquatic life due to water quality effects during excavation or placement of fill using avoidance and minimization methods including reduction in scope of work and appropriate scheduling. In all instances, fill must be comprised of clean materials which will not lead to measurable adverse impacts as determined by an evaluation of the above factors. 6.4 Protect and conserve quality and quantity of potable water. A. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting land use practices which are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies. Chapter 6 375 B. Prevent depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use, and allowing for recharge of potable aquifers. Policy 7 Minimize environmental degradation in the Long Island Sound coastal area from solid waste and h~rdous substances. The long history of development has left a legacy of environmental degradation in some portions of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Disposal of solid waste is a major regional issue. Many existing municipal and private landfills are at or above capacity, and some are producing leachates which degrade both surface and groundwater sources. Hazardous substances, ranging from improperly disposed motor oils to significant industrial waste dumps, pose immediate problems and can preclude or delay appropriate reuse of coastal lands. Smaller and more incremental solid waste problems arise from littering. The intent of this policy is to protect people from sources of contamination and to protect Long Island Sound's coastal resources from degradation through proper control and management of wastes and hazardous materials. In addition, this policy is intended to place a priority on the remediation and reclamation of hazardous waste sites in and around the City of Glen Cove Area for Concentrated Development. Attention is also required to identify and address sources of soil and water contamination resulting from landfill and hazardous waste sites in the Long Island Sound region. Standards are divided into four major categories according to the type of material addressed: solid waste, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants and hazardous substances, and petroleum products. Two additional sections of standards address transportation of solid and hazardous wastes and siting requirements for solid and hazardous waste facilities. Section ! establishes requirements fol' the handling, management, and transportation of solid waste. It also includes the state's management priorities for the reduction, reuse, recovery and disposal of solid wastes. Section 2 deals with the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and includes standards for minimizing potential exposures through appropriate management. Section 3 addresses degradation of the environment resulting from discharges of toxic substances. Regional priorities for hazardous waste remediation are presented in section 4. Section 5 addresses storage and transportation of petroleum products and protocols for spill cleanup. Section 6 deals with transportation of solid and hazardous substances. Siting criteria for solid and hazardous waste facilities are presented in section 7. PoLicy Standards 7.1 Manage solid waste to protect public health and control pollution. A. Solid wastes are those materials defined under ECL §27-0701 and 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2. B. Plan for proper and effective solid waste disposal prior to undertaking activities generating solid wastes. 376 Chapter 6 C. Manage solid waste in accordance with the following solid waste management priorities: 1. Reduce the amount of solid waste generated. 2. Reuse material for the purpose for which it was originally intended or recycle material that cannot be reused. 3. Use environmentally acceptable methods to generate energy from combustible solid waste that can not be economically and technically reused or recycled. 4. Use land burial or other approved methods to dispose of solid waste that is not being reused, recycled or from which energy is not being recovered. D. Create and support a market for maximum resource recovery by using materials and products manufactured with recovered materials, and recovering materials as a source of supply for manufacturing materials and products. E. Prevent the discharge of solid wastes into the environment by using proper handling, management and transportation practices. F. Operate solid waste management facilities to prevent or reduce water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, obnoxious odors, litter, pest infestation, and other conditions harmful to the public health. 7.2 Manage hazardous wastes to protect public health and control pollution. A. Hazardous wastes are those materials defined under ECL §27-0901 and 6 NYCRR Part 371. B. Manage hazardous waste in accordance with the following priorities: 1. Eliminate or reduce generation or; hazardous wastes to the maximum extent practical. 2. Recover, reuse, or recycle remaining hazardous wastes to the maximum extent practical. 3. Use detoxification, treatment or destruction technologies to dispose of hazardous wastes which cannot be reduced, recovered, reused, or recycled. 4. Phase out land disposal of industrial hazardous wastes. C. Ensure the maximum safety of the public from hazards associated with hazardous wastes through the proper management and handling of industrial bnTardous waste treatment, storage and disposal. D. Provide for remediation of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. 7.3 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to the environment. A. Substances hazardous to the environment are defined under ECL §37-0101. Toxic pollutants are defined under ECL §17-0105. B. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment which would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources. Chapter 6 377 C. Prevent environmental degradation due to persistent pollutants: 1. Limit discharges of bioaccumulative substances. 2. Avoid resuspension and re-entry of bioaccumulative substances into the food chain from existing environmental sources. D. Prevent and control environmental pollution due to release of radioactive materials as defined under 6 NYCRR Part 380. E. Reduce the toxicity of packaging materials without impeding or. discouraging the expanded use of post-consumer materials in the production of packaging and its components. F. Protect health, property, fish and wildlife from inappropriate use of pesticides. 1. Pesticides are those substances defined under ECL §33-0101 and 6 NYCRR Part 325. 2. Limit use of pesticides to effectively target actual pest populations as indicated through integrated pest management methods. 3. Prevent direct or indirect entry of pesticides into waterways. 4. Minimize exposure of people, fish, and wildlife to pesticides. G. Report, respond to, and take action to correct all unregulated releases of substances hazardous to the environment. 7.4 Remediate hazardous waste sites. A. Elevate the priority of the City of Glen Cove Area for Concentrated Development for remediation of substances hazardous to the environment to permit redevelopment of the site in a timely manner. B. Design the level of remediation to meet the public health requirements of the proposed reuse of the site. 7.5 Prevent and remediate discharge of petroleum products. A. Minimize adverse impacts from potential oil spills by appropriate siting of petroleUm off- loading facilities. B. Develop and implement an adequate plan for prevention and control of petroleum discharges at all major facilities. C. Prevent discharges of petroleum products by following methods approved for handling and storage of petroleum products and using approved design and maintenance principles for storage facilities. 378 Chapter 6 D. Clean up and remove any petroleum discharge. 1. Give first priority to minimizing environmental damage: a. Respond quickly to contain petroleum spills. b. Contain discharges immediately after discovery in accordance with the guidelines contained in the New York State Water Quality Accident Contingency Plan and Handbook. 2. Recover and recycle petroleum discharges principally using mechanical means. 3. Use clean up and removal procedures specified in the New York State Water Quality · Accident Contingency Plan and Handbook. 7.6 Transport solid waste and hazardous substances using routes and methods which protect the safety, well-being, and general welfare of the public and the environmental resources of the state; and protects continued use of all transportation corridors and highways and transportation facilities. 7.7 Site solid and hazardous waste fadliti~s in a manner which precludes the potential degradation of coastal resources. A. Solid and hazardous waste facilities should not be located within the coastal area unless there is a demonstrated need for waterborne transport of waste materials and substances. B. Preclude impairment of coastal resources from solid and hazardous waste facilities by siting these facilities so that they are not located in or would not adversely affect: I. agricultural lands 2. natural protective feature areas 3. surface waters, primary water supply, or principa~l aquifers 4. designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats 5. habitats critical to vulnerable fish and wildlife species, vulnerable plant species, and rare ecological communities, and 6. wetlands Policy 8 Protect and improve air quality in the Long Island Sound coastal area. This policy provides for protection of the Long Island Sound coastal area from air pollution generated within the coastal area or adversely affecting coastal air quality. The three sections of this policy are divided to reflect the organization of state statutes. The first section addresses point and nonpoint sources of air pollution, stationary sources, mobile sources, and sources of acid rain precursors. Section 2 deals directly with atmospheric discharges of radioactive material and the third section addresses chloroflourocarbons. Policy Standards 8.1 Control or abate existing, and prevent new air pollution. A. Limit pollution resulting from new or existing stationary air contamination sources, consistent with: Chapter 6 379 1. attainment or maintenance of any applicable ambient air quality standard 2. applicable New Source Performance Standards 3. applicable control strategy of the State Implementation Plan, and 4. applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements B. Recycle or salvage air contaminants using best available air cleaning technologies. C. Limit pollution resulting from vehicular or vessel movement or operation, including actions which directly or indirectly change transportation uses or operation, consistent with attainment or maintenance of applicable ambient air quality standards, and applicable portions of any control strategy of the State Implementation Plan. D. Restrict emissions of air contaminants to the outdoor atmosphere which are potentially injurious to human, plant or animal life or property, or unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. E. Limit new facility or stationary source emissions of acid deposition precursors consistent with achieving final control target levels for wet sulfur deposition in sensitive receptor areas, and meeting New Source Performance Standards for the emissions of oxides of nitrogen. 8.2 Limit discharges of atmospheric radioactive material to a level that is as Iow as practicable. 8.3 Capture and recycle chloroflourocarbon compounds during service and repair of air-conditioning and refrigeration units to the greatest extent possible. Policy 9 Protect and restore the quality'and Junction of ecological systems within the Long Island Sound coastal ar~a. The Long Island Sound ecosystem consists of physical (non-living) and biological (living) components and their interactions. Its physical components include open waters, embayments, and tributaries, as well as coastal lowlands, headlands, bluffs, adjacent upland areas and small offshore islands. These physical features continue to develop and change through the action of tides and offshore currents, and through weathering by precipitation and surface runoff. The biological components include the wealth of plants and animals in and around the Sound. The Sound ecosystem can be viewed as seven (7) discrete geographic areas, or complexes, together covering the entire Long Island Sound coastal area. Each complex is an ecological system with common physical and biological components. The seven ecological complexes of the Long Island Sound are: The Narrows Complex, including Westchester County, New York City and the western bays of Nassau County The Harbors Complex, including the eastern bays of Nassau County and the western bays of Suffolk County The Nissequogue River Complex 380 Chapter 6 The Central Bays Complex of Suffolk County The Eastern Bluffs Complex of Suffolk County The Deep, Open Water Complex of Plum Gut and the Race The Fishers Island Complex Development in the Long Island Sound coastal area has modified the physical characteristics of shoreline and upland areas, removed food sources and cover, introduced exotic species, degraded the waters of the Sound, and otherwise adversely altered ecological complexes. Some .alterations to the Sound's ecological complexes are the result of one-time activities such as large-scale ditching, draining, and filling of wetlands. Other more subtle activities, such as removal and changes in native vegetation, have chronic or long-term effects on ecological complexes that often go unnoticed umil their cumulative effects are evident. Adverse changes to ecological complexes of Long Island Sound ecosystem can be expected to result from impairments to elements within an ecological complex. The elements within a complex include the plants, animals and natural ecological communities which make up that complex. The following categorizes impairments within the Sound's ecological complexes: Physical loss: Immediate physical loss of elements within ecological complexes is the most obvious impact and also may be referred to as a primary impact. Degradation: Degradation of elements within ecological complexes does not refer to the outright physical loss of these elements, but rather to a negative change in the quality of these elements, caused by actions within or adjacent to a complex. This degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than with a physical loss and also may be referred to as a secondary impact. Functional loss: Functional loss results not from major physical changes or even from changes in the basic quality of elements within in a complex, but rather from inappropriate uses (homes, marinas, various recreational uses) that are disruptive to certain species of animals and plants and cause a change or shift in their activities. Certain resources, because of their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the of the Sound ecosystem have been identified by the state for protection. These resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. Adverse changes to these resources affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound as an ecosystem. Adverse changes to more common natural resources such as forests, although often overlooked, collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. To prevent permanent adverse changes to the Long Island Sound ecosystem and its ecological complexes, protection must be directed at both specific designated resources and common natural resources. Protection of more common resources will be concentrated on avoidance of adverse impacts to the Long Island Sound ecosystem through general design standards and guidelines to improve the Sound's natural and developed landscapes. Protection of specific designated natural resources will focus on avoiding adverse impacts, and where appropriate restoring regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands, designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and, vulnerable plants and animals and rare Chapter 6 381 ecological communities. Added protection of areas with concentrations of high resource _ values will be provided through management of Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Policy Standards 9.1 Avoid permanent adverse changes to the Long Island Sound ecosystem in development or redevelopment within the coastal area of the Sound. The Long Island Sound ecosystem is dependent upon the overall ecological quality of its natural resou.rces. Comprehensive resource management is necessary for the protection of ecological complexes. A substantial amount of adverse change to the Long Island Sound ecosystem has been due to small, incremental impacts which cumulatively have lead to an overall loss of ecological value. As an example, over 50 percent of forest cover present on Long Island during colonial times has been lost, resulting in adverse effects on indigenous forest species and water quality. Preserving the remaining forest canopy is important for protection of the Sound ecosystem, including protection of nesting for resident birds, preservation of corridors for migratory birds, and prevention of increased nonpoint pollution. Ecological complexes define the geographic areas necessary for the thorough evaluation of large-scale project impacts, cumulative impacts of minor projects, public plans of regional significance, strategies for reducing the adverse effects of existing development, and standards and guidelines for new development designed to avoid or minimize adverse cumulative effects. Where it can be determined that significant impairment of a designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, regulated tidal or freshwater wetlands, or ecologically important living resources is likely to occur, evaluation of impacts relative to the complex is not necessary. It is presumed that significant adverse impacts to any of these specific natural resources will result in permanent adverse changes to ecological complexes. These standards present specific measures to ensure protection of natural resource values in all activities in the Sound, particularly those that are likely to have potential cumulative adverse effects. A. Limit adverse impacts from individual activities which could lead to cumulative adverse impacts on the Sound ecosystem and its ecological complexes, according to the process de, scribed in policy 1, section 5. B. Maintain the values of natural ecological communities important to the Long Island Sound ecosystem. 1. Ecological communities important for vegetative cover in the Long Island Sound ecosystem include chestnut oak forests, maritime beech forest, successional red cedar woodlands, oak-tulip tree forests, and successional old field. 2. Ecological communities important for their role in supporting common yet significant plant and animal species include rocky intertidal shore, maritime beech forests and, offshore islands. 3. Remnants of natural ecological communities (species of plants and animals indigenous to the Long Island Sound coastal area) are considered important. Additional losses of these remnants, such as chestnut oak maritime red cedar and, prickly pear cactus diminish the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. 382 Chapter 6 C. Avoid impairment of natural ecological processes within the Long Island Sound ecosystem. Natural ecological processes that are important to the productivity of the Long Island Sound ecosystem include watershed and groundwater hydrology, shore sediment budgets and nutrient cycles, especially nitrogen. Activities within the coastal boundary which may cause or cumulatively contribute to permanent adverse changes to natural ecological processes are to be avoided. D. Reduce adverse effects of existing development on surrounding ecological complexes. Wherever development offers an opportunity for reducing adverse impacts to ecological complexes, and where such is practical and reasonable, measures should be taken to reduce adverse effects. Examples of measures to reduce cumulative effects of existing development are the addition of vegetative swales and the maintaining and improving streambank stability through vegetative means. E. Mitigate impacts of new development on ecological complexes. New development will be designed to minimize adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, to ecological complexes. Wherever avoidance of adverse impacts to ecological complexes is not possible, all appropriate measures are to be taken to minimize such impacts. Mitigation will be designed to offset adverse impacts, which remain after all appropriate measures to reduce impacts have been considered. F. Require the retention and use of native plants on projects to the extent feasible. Design and carry out public development and redevelopment to minimize loss or disturbance of native plants to the extent practical. Design and carry out development and redevelopment to maximize the use of suitable naive plants according to the following listed in priority order: a. Use exclusively native plants suited to a project's location and conditions wherever practical. b. Use a high ratio of native plants to ornamental plants, where the exclusive use of naive plants is not practical, provided that invasive species are not used. c. Use normative plants for erosion control and filtration provided that plants used are not invasive species and it is not feasible to use naive species to perform the same functions. 9.2 Protect and restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Long Island Sound's Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, identified by the Department of t~nvironmental Conservation as critical to the maintenance or re-establishment of species of fish and wildlife in the coastal area and designated by the Secretary of State must be protected for the habitat values they provide and to avoid permanent adverse changes to ecological systems. The standards for this section must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and state laws. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or Chapter 6 383 outside the designated area. Examples of generic activities which could destroy or significantly impair habitat values are provided within the impact assessment section of the narrative for each designated habitat. A. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are those areas which exhibit to a substantial degree one or more of the following characteristics: the habitat is essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population the habitat supports a species which is either endangered, threatened or of special concern as those terms are defined at 6 NYCRR Part 182 the habitat supports fish or wildlife populations having significant commercial, recreational or educational value, or the habitat is of a type which is not commonly found in the State or a coastal region of the state, and are difficult, or even impossible, to replace in kind B. The designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Long Island Sound coastal area are: Playland Lake and Manursing Island Flats, Marshlands Conservancy, Premium River- Pine Brook Wetlands, Huckleberry Island, Pelham Bay Park Wetlands, Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, and Hempstead Harbor, Alley Pond Park, Udalls Cove, Prospect Point, Mill Neck Creek Wetlands, Oyster Bay Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd Harbor, Huntington Bay, Northport Bay, Lloyd Point, Sand City, Eatons Neck Point, Crab Meadow, Nissequogue River SCFWH, Nissequogue Inlet Beaches, Stony Brook Harbor- West Meadow, Flax Pond, Conscience Bay-Little Bay-Setauket Harbot7, Port Jefferson Beaches, Port Jefferson Harbor, Mount Sinai Harbor, Wading River Marsh, Mattituck Inlet Wetland, Orient Harbor, Long Beach Bay, Plum Gut, The Race, Fishers Island Beaches, Hungry Point Islands. Designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are described in individual Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat narratives and outlined on boundary maps prepared by the Depa~.ment of State. C. Protect Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat values from land or water uses or development which would: destroy habitat values associated with the designated habitat through: a. direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution, or b. indirect effects of actions, which would result in a loss of habitat use significantly impair the viability of the designated habitat beyond the tolerance range of important fish or wildlife species which rely on the habitat values found within the designated area through: a. degradation of existing habitat elements b. change in environmental conditions c. functional loss of habitat values or d. adverse alteration of physical, biological, or chemical characteristics. 384 Chapter 6 D. Avoid destruction or significant impairment of habitat values by minimizing potential impacts of land use or development through appropriate mitigation. Use mitigation measures which are likely to result in the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Mitigation includes: 1. avoidance of potential adverse impacts, including: a. avoiding ecologically sensitive areas b. scheduling activities to avoid vulnerable periods in life cycles or, the creation of unfavorable environmental conditions · c. preventing fragmentation of intact habitat areas 2. minimization of unavoidable potential adverse impacts, including: a. reducing scale or intensity of use or development b. designing projects to result in the least amount of potential adverse impact c. choosing alternative actions or methods that would lessen potential impact 3. development and implementation of specific measures designed to protect habitat values from impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized to prevent habitat destruction or significant habitat impairment 4. implementation of specific protective measures included in the narratives for each designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area Wherever practical, restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats so as to ensure their continued existence as natural, self-regulating systems by: 1. reconstructing lost physical conditions to maximize habitat values 2. adjusting adversely altered chemical characteristics to emulate natural conditions, and 3. manipulating biological characteristics to emulate natural conditions through re- introduction of native flora and fauna Section 9.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Wetlands within the Long Island Sound coastal area are critical natural resources that provide benefits including: open space, habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality benefits, flooding and erosion control, scenic value, and opportunities for environmental education. Long Island Sound's wetlands must be protected to maintain these benefits and to prevent permanent adverse changes to ecological systems. Many acres of wetlands in the Long Island Sound coastal area have been lost or impaired by physical loss, degradation, or functional loss. These losses and impairments cumulatively impact the Long Island Sound ecosystem. Approximately 65~75 percent of the Sound's total vegetated tidal wetlands have been lost or destroyed over the past century. Historical losses and alterations of wetlands in many locations in the Long Island eoestal area present numerous opportunities for restoration. Protecting and improving the remaining tidal and freshwater wetlands and restoring lost or impaired wetlands are the most appropriate ways to achieve the increase in quality and quantity of wetlands needed to offset adverse effects of historic losses and alterations on ecological complexes. Long Island Sound's wetlands are dependent upon the condition of natural ecological communities which interact with and provide buffer for these wetlands. Vast acreage of natural lands which previously provided a buffer for wetlands have been adversely altered. Chapter 6 385 To ensure a long term increase in the quantity and quality of wetlands, protecting and improving the Sound's wetlands through action within wetlands must be coupled with maintenance and enhancement of existing lands which provide buffers to wetlands and establishment of additional buffers at appropriate locations. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the state's wetland laws. l. Comply with regulatory requirements of the Stream Protection Act for the excavation or placement of fill in all wetlands that are adjacent to and contiguous at any point to any. of the navigable waters of the state, and that are inundated at mean high-water level or tide. 2. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped freshwater wetlands. 3. Comply with the regulatory requirements of the Tidal Wetlands Act for the protection of mapped tidal wetlands including coastal fresh marsh; intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; high marsh or salt meadow; littoral zones and formerly connected tidal wetlands. B. Prevent the net loss of vegetated wetlands according to the following measures. Use the measure resulting in the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Avoid placement of fill in or excavation of vegetated wetlands: a. Choose alternative sites which would not result in adverse impacts on wetlands. b. Reduce scale or intensity of development to avoid excavation or fill. c. Choose design alternatives which would avoid excavation or fill. Minimize adverse impacts resulting from unavoidable fill, excavation, or other activities by: a. reduging scale or intensity of use in order to limit incursion into wetland areas, and b. designing projects to result'in the least degree of adverse wetland impacts. Provide compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts which may result from unavoidable fill, excavation or other activities remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been accomplished. a. Restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands according to the following priorities: (1) restore former wetlands or create new tidal wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site (2) where restoration of former wetlands in areas adjacent or contiguous to the site is not appropriate or practicable, restore former wetlands in close physical proximity and in the same watershed to the extent possible (3) where restoration of former tidal wetlands is not appropriate or practicable, create new tidal wetlands in suitable locations as determined by sediment, exposure, shoreline characteristics, and water regime; include consideration of loss of resource values which may exist at the mitigation site b. Creation of new non-tidal freshwater wetlands is not suitable for compensatory mitigation for loss of natural wetland. c. Where wetlands are restored or ;~dal wetlands created: (1) Provide equivalent or greater area of mitigation wetland. The actual area of wetland provided depends on the following factors: characteristics of the mitigation site, proposed wetland creation or restoration methods and 386 Chapter 6 designs, and quality of the wetland restored or created relative to the wetland lost. (2) Provide equivalent or greater value to that of the wetland area filled, as defined by class of freshwater wetland, as ranked in 6 NYCRR Par'~ 664 or, tidal wetland zones, as described in 6 NYCRR Part 661. (3) A lesser area of mitigation wetland may be allowed in cases where the mitigation wetland and its benefits would clearly be a greater value than the wetland lost. (4) Guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation: (a) Carry out mitigation in accord with a compensatory plan which details wetland creation or restoration measures. Base compensatory plans on establishment of a natural, self-regulating wetland. (b) Monitor and report on progress of the wetland mitigation according to a prescribed plan. Wetland mitigation is considered successful if functional attributes of the wetland have been reached and maintained, including a plant density of at least 85% of the design density. (c) Provide a suitable performance bond or other surety instrument guaranteed to an appropriate agency or organization to assure successful completion of the mitigation. d. When a series of small, unavoidable wetland losses requires mitigation, combine mitigation projects to create larger contiguous wetland areas rather than pursuing discreet, separate efforts. C. Protect wetland functions and associated benefits regardless of the availability of compensatory mitigation. 1. Do not fill or dredge vegetated wetland areas of very high quality. Very high quality vegetated wetlands are those which: a. support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals b. have not been subjected to significant impairment, or c. are pan of a natural resource management area including Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas, refuges, sanctuaries, reserves or areas designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats based on wetland values 2. Do not fill or dredge vegetated wetland areas when the wetland loss would result in significant impairment of the remaining wetland area. 3. Retain functions and benetits associated with vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands. D. Provide buffers between wetlands and adjacent or nearby uses and activities in order to ensure protection of the wetland's character, quality, values and functions. Include the following factors in determining the appropriate buffer characteristics: 1. Avoid potential adverse effects associated with the use. Uses such as those involving hazardous materials, on-site sewage disposal, or mineral extraction have high potential for adverse effects and may require substantial buffer. 2. Consider the nature and importance of the wetland and its benefits along with the fragility and vulnerability of the wetland and its benefits. Very high quality wetlands may require substantial buffers in order to avoid adverse effects from adjacent or nearby uses. 3. Consider the direction and flow of surface water between a use and adjacent or nearby wetland. Buffer widths may be reduced in areas where drainage patterns do Chapter 6 387 not lead directly to the wetland and where adverse affects on the wetland, other than those due to runoff, are not likely. Evaluate the filtration efficiency of surface runoff as determined by vegetative cover type, soil characteristics, and slope of land. Provide high filtration efficiency. Where site constraints do not allow sufficient buffer width, use other management measures or design alternatives to protect wetlands from adverse effects. E. Maintain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided: 1. Maintain buffers to achieve a high filtration efficiency of surface runoff. 2. Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas. 3. Maintain existing indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. 9.4 Protect ecologically important living resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. The Long Island Sound coastal area hosts a rich array of ecologically important living resources. Long Island Sound coastal area's ecologically important living resources are, vulnerable fish and wildlife species, vulnerable plant species, and rare ecological communities. Certain activities within the Sound's coastal area have resulted in impairments to ecologically important resources, causing permanent adverse changes to the Sound's ecological complexes. Additional impairments to these resources would result in further adverse changes to the Sound's ecological complexes. Protection of ecologically important living resources may include alteration of a proposed activity or other measures to avoid adverse impacts on the potentially affected species. This section establishes standards for the identification and protection of vulnerable fish and wildlife species based on the state's endangered animal species lists, and for vulnerable plant species based on the endangered plant species lists. It also provides standards for protection of rare ecological communities as defined under the Natural Heritage Program's community types. A. Protect vulnerable fish and wildlife species. 1. Vulnerable fish and wildlife species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Pa~ 182.5 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Special Concern Species. 2. Field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions which meet their habitat requirements. 3. Protect habitat of listed species during all stages of their life cycles through appropriate design and development of land and water use projects that will be compatible with protection of the identified species. B. Protect vulnerable plant species. 1. Vulnerable species are those listed in regulation 6 NYCRR Part 193.3 as Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Exploitably Vulnerable Species and Rare Species. 2. Field survey proposed development sites, at the appropriate times, for the presence of listed species or conditions which meet their habitat requirements. 388 Chapter 6 Protect habitat identified by the occurrence of a listed species during all stages of their life cycles through appropriate design and development of land and water use projects that will be compatible with protection of the identified species. C. Protect rare ecological communities. l. Rare ecological communities to be protected include: a. those which qualify for a Heritage State Rank of S1 or S2; and b. those which qualify for both a Heritage State Rank of S3, S4 or S5; and, an Element Occurrence Rank of A. (See chapter 3 for an explanation of Heritage State Ranks) 2. Review existing species records and field survey sites potentially affected by proposed development for the presence of rare ecological communities. 3. Protect rare ecological communities through appropriate design and development of land and water uses that will integrate or be compatible with the identified ecological community. 4. The open space requirements of a project should be determined using the most up-to- date information available on the structure and the function of rare ecological communities. 9.5 Manage Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas to protect natural resources and associated values. Additional management and protection is needed to supplement broad and specific resource protection in areas where high resource concentrations occur. Within each of Long Island Sound's ecological complexes lie coastal areas that host outstanding concentrations or examples of natural ecological communities. In many cases, the natural resources of these areas have attracted human use from prehistoric times. Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are defined geographic areas within the Long Island Sound coastal boundary and generally are composed of a variety of smaller, natural ecological communities that together form a landscape of environmental, social, and economic value to the people of New York. To qualify to be an ONCA an area must meet the following three criteria, which are explained in detail in chapter 7: Criterion 1: The area contains significant natural resources Criterion 2: The resources are at risk Criterion 3: Additional management measures are needed to preserve or improve the significant resources, or sustain their use Three areas that have qualified as ONCAs of the Long Island Sound are: Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Natural Coastal Area Areas which exhibit characteristics that may make them suitable candidates for consideration as Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are listed and discussed in chapter 7. Chapter 6 389 The Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas define primary areas of concern within which management efforts will be concentrated to protect and enhance the individual resources and larger natural landscapes of Long Island Sound. Protection and restoration of natural resources is the principal objective of the state within Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. Further development in ONCAs, because of the role each ONCA plays in the overall quality and functioning of ecological complexes, may adversely affect the complex in which each is located. By protecting resources which are integral to ecological complexes, management of ONCAs will significantly contribute toward prevention of permanent adverse changes to ecological complexes and the Sound ecosystem as a whole. A. Protect na~ral resources within ONCAs as follows: l. Avoid all actions which have the potential to destroy, impair, or reduce the ecological or geological values of natural resources which comprise ONCAs. 2. Discourage additional development that is incompatible with the objectives for an ONCA (See chapter 7), or an approved ONCA management plan. B. Protect existing and restore former natural resources within ONCAs through public initiatives as follows: 1. Focus allocation of funds for natural resource protection and restoration to those resources located within ONCAs. 2. Develop a management plan for each ONCA, integrating protection initiatives and regulatory programs. C. Protect and enhance activities associated with sustainable human use or appreciation of natural resources within an ONCA. Policy 10 Provide for public access to coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area, and provide recreation opportunities. In spite of the Long Island Sound shoreline being one of the most densely populated coastal regions along the eastern seaboard, the general public is limited in its ability to gain physical and visual access to the beautiful expanses of coastal lands and waters. There are few facilities open to the general public that offer a diversity of major recreational opportunities. Local access and recreation facilities exclude nonresidents. Furthermore, the nature of existing and new development makes the provision of additional coastal access and diverse recreation facilities more difficult. Development as well often blocks visual access to the waters and shores of the Sound. Opportunities of the public to use and enjoy public trust lands is increasingly being thwarted by development that physically limits the ability to reach these lands. Often associated with development are such structures as long docks and bulkheads which obstruct movement along public trust lands and impede public use of surrounding public waters for navigation and other purposes. For purposes of this policy, the public consists of all persons, regardless of whether they have a property ownership interest in adjacent upland real property. 390 Chapter 6 While opportunities for adding more large-scale visual and physical public access and recreation facilities along the Sound coastline should continue to be sought, the provision of additional public access and recreational opportunities may also be achieved by: expansion, enhancement, rehabilitation, and improved utilization and maintenance of existing public access and recreation facilities acceptance of state and federal park funds by municipalities which would require opening parks to nonresMents linkage of existing public access and recreational facilities through greenway trails development of publicly owned non-park lands for public access and recreational purposes revitalization, reclaiming and/or development of street end access acquisition and development of private clubs along the shoreline for public use if they become available development of additional fishing piers, fishing access sites, and boat launch ramps provision for public access and recreation facilities in development or redevelopment projects along the shoreline conditions attached to permits for new or reconstructed docks, jetties, groins, or other shoreline or in-water structures that would assure free passage along public trust lands and unobstructed access to and recreational use of public trust lands or waters expansion of perpendicular accessways across publicly owned land to public trust lands, and reasserdon of public trust rights on public trust lands that are used in a manner incompatible with the public trust doctrine Given the existing conditions affecting public access and recreation within the Sound's coastal area, the purpose of this policy is twofold: to ensure that existing visual and physical access and recreation facilities for the general public are maintained; and that additional or enhanced access and recreation are provided. Standards under this policy are designed to: Protect existing public access and recreation facilities from deterioration, development, redevelopment, or any other threats to the integrity of the facility. Provide additional public access and recreation at existing public facilities and lands, at newly acquired public lands and facilities by removal of obstructions to navigation and lateral access along the shore, and in conjunction with major public or certain private coastal development or redevelopment. Protect existing visual access from public sites due to the effects of development or redevelopment, or any other threats to the visual integrity of the site or corridor. Chapter 6 391 Provide additional visual access from public lands and facilities, and in conjunction with new public or private coastal development or redevelopment. The policy is divided into four sections. The first section establishes the importance of public access to coastal lands and waters, and provides for the protection of existing access and recreation facilities and expansion of opportunities. Section 2 addresses visual access and contains standards to protect existing visual access and to provide additional opportunities. Section 3 deals with the public trust doctrine as a critical component of ensuring public access to coastal resources. Standards to clarify and reinforce public trust rights are contained in this section. Section 4 provides standards to prevent the despoliation of natural areas when public access is developed. PoLicy Standards 10.1. Promote appropriate physical public access and recreation throughout the coastal area. A. Provide convenient, well-defined physical public access to and along the coast for water- related recreation. Protect and maintain existing public acc_ess and water-related recreation facilities. a. Prevent physical deterioration due to lack of maintenance or overuse. b. Prevent on-site or adjacent development, redevelopment, erosion control projects, public or private marinas and docks, or any other project or activity from directly or indirectly impairing physical public access and recreation or adversely affecting its quality. c. Protect and maintain established access and recreation facilities except where access and recreation facilities result in hazardous cgnditions, or the loss or impairment of associated natural resources. d. Protect and maintain the infrastructure supporting public access and recreational facilities. Provide additional physical public access and recreation facilities throughout the coastal area at new sites, by improvements to existing siva, through access to and along public trust lands and waters, and by development of a coastal network of greenways and blueways (water trails for hand-launched boats). Provide a level of public access and type of recreational use which takes into account the following factors: a. proximity to population centers b. public demand for access and recreational use c. type and sensitivity of any affected natural, historic, archaeological, visual, and other cultural resources . d. purposes and operational characteristics of the proposed uses or activities e. purpose of public institutions or uses that may exist on the site f. the physical characteristics and capabilities of the site g. ease of public transport, private vehicular, and pedestrian access to the site h. the needs of special groups such as the elderly and persons with disabilities i. the characteristics of surrounding land uses and the effects of these uses on the access and recreational use as well as the effects of additional access and recreation on these uses j. public safety 392 Chapter 6 B. Provide new .public access and recreation facilities at locations on non-park public waterfront lands and streets terminating at the shoreline, in addition to creating appropriate opportunities on public trust lands. C. Provide public access and recreation facilities, where appropriate, in areas under redevelopment where past industrial uses have left deteriorated, unattractive, and underutilized sites. D. Provide greenways and blueways to link public waterfront access points, the foreshore, nearshore surface waters, and public parks and open spaces. E. Restrict public access and recreation only where incompatible with public safety and natural resources. F. Provide physical public access to, and water-related recreation facilities on, coastal lands and waters in major new, or significant changes to existing, industrial, commercial, residential, and other types of private development or activities on the waterfront, which because of their scale, nature or location are likely to affect the public's use and enjoyment of public coastal lands and waters. Encourage and provide incentives for other development to provide access and recreation facilities. G. Provide physical public access to, and water-related recreation facilities on, coastal lands and waters in new, or significant changes to existing, public projects and activities on the waterfront involving public lands, funding, or development. H. Provide access and recreation facilities to all members of the pt~blic whenever access or recreation is directly or indirectly supported through federal or state projects or funding. I. Maximize the amount of contiguous useable open space areas in new development or redevelopment. J. To assure access and recreation opportunities now and in the future, an adequate public interest in publicly-owned lands immediately adjacent to the shore should be retained in any transfer of public interest. 10.2. Provide public visual access, to coastal lands and waters or open space at all sites where physically practical. A. Maintain and protect existing visual access. 1. Minimize blockage or diminishment of visual access to the Sound, its embayments, landscapes, natural areas, historic villages, or working waterfronts by new development, redevelopment, or other uses or activities due to their scale, design, location or type of use or activity. 2. Protect view corridors provided by sweets and other public areas leading to the coast. Chapter 6 393 B. Provide additional visual access to coastal lands and waters at new sites and by improvements to existing sites. 1. Provide for view corridors to the coast where new structures would block views of the coast from inland public vantage points. 2. Provide for new or enhanced visual access to coastal lands and waters in proposals for new. or significant changes to existing, industrial, commercial, residential, or other types of public and private development or activities on the waterfront, which because of their scale, nature or location are likely to affect the public's visual access to coastal lands and waters. Guidelines to provide for such increased visual access include the following: a. Use structural design and building siting techniques to enhance visual access and minimize obstruction of views. b. Provide physical public access to vantage points on the site where development of the site unavoidably blocks visual access from inland public vantage points. c. Visual access requirements may be reduced where site conditions including desirable vegetation or natural protective features block potential views. d. In the provision of visual access to the water and associated activities, reduced visual access to an industrial or commercial site is allowed through vegetative or structural screening if the resulting overall visual quality is improved. e. Include interpretive access when appropriate to highlight the coastal nature of industrial, commercial, or business uses which are water-dependent. 3. Provide pulloffs along public roads at appropriate locations to enhance opportunities for visual access to coastal lands and waters. 4. Provide interpretative exhibits at appropriate locations for visual access to enhance public understanding and enjoyment of views of coastal lands and waters. 10.3. Strengthen public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the state, New York City, and towns in Nassau and Suffolk counties. A. Resume and re-establish public trust interests in existing grants which are no longer being exercised according to terms of the grant or where the use is not in conformity with the public trust doctrine. B. Limit leases or easements of underwater public trust lands to industrial, commercial, or business uses which are water-dependent. C. Provide grants, leases, or easements of formerly underwater lands only if the grant, lease, or easement would support water-dependent uses, or the grant is necessary for a marketable title of an upland parcel of land and the land granted has no potential for provision of public access to the coast. D. Limit grants of underwater lands to exceptional circumstances and to only those conveyances which serve a public purpose and will not impair the public interest in the lands and waters remaining, based upon an examination of the following factors: 1. environmental impact 2. values for natural resource management, public recreation, and commerce 3. size, character, and effects of the grant in relation to neighboring uses 394 Chapter 6 4. potential for interference with navigation, public uses of waterway, and riparian/littoral rights 5. effect of the grant on the natural resource interests of the state in the lands; 6. water dependent nature of use 7. adverse economic impact on existing commercial enterprises, and 8. consistency with the public interest for purposes of navigation and commerce, fishing, bathing, and access to navigable waters and the need of the owners of private property to safeguard their property E. Base approvals for construction of in-water structures and activlties over or in public trust lands on adequate information with regard to ownership. Require applicants for permits and authorization for work below mean high water or on lands which may have been formerly underwater to demonstrate that they are the littoral owner and/or have littoral rights, and are legally using any public trust lands. F. Consider the cumulative impact on the region's coastal resources in the review of development proposals in conjunction with grants, easements, and leases of public trust lands. G. Provide public access along public trust lands above Iow water. 1. Provide flee and substantially unobstructed passage along public trust shorelands. 2. Interference with passage along the shoreline is limited to the extent necessary to gain access from the upland to the water. 3. Provide passage around unreasonable interferences on public trust lands through adjacent upland easements or other mitigation. 4. Require that all publicly-owned land suitable for perpendicular access to trust lands provide access ways. H. Provide access to and reasonable recreational use of navigable waters and public trust lands under water. 1. Provide for free and unobstructed public use for navigation and recreation of all navigable waters below high tide. 2. Obstruction of public use, including navigation, in navigable waters may be allowed: a. for water-dependent uses involving navigation and commerce which require structures of activities in water as pan of the use b. for commercial recreational boating facilities, provided that the loss of navigable waters and use of underwater lands is offset by sufficient public benefits c. in order to gain reasonable access to navigable waters from riparian lands Obstruction of navigable waters and underwater lands is limited: a. to the extent that it interferes with commercial navigation. The right of commercial navigation is superior to all other uses on navigable waters and may not be obstructed. b. to the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters. The minimum is determined by evaluating the following factors: (1) the extent of the use's dependence on access to navigable waters (2) the range of tidal water level fluctuation (3) the size and nature of the body of water Chapter 6 395 (4) the nature of public use of the adjacent waters (5) the traditional means of access used by surrounding similar uses c. by the extent and characteristics of the developable adjacent upland area and its ability to support in-water development for the water-dependent use, and d. by the potential adverse effects on natural resources and their uses 4. Require piers, docking facilities, and catwalks to be minimal in length and only obstruct public trust lands to the minimum extent necessary to achieve access to navigable waters. 5. Consider alternatives to the construction of excessively long piers, including the use of dinghies to reach moored boats, but generally not dredging to accommodate deeper draft boats. 6. Structures extending beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters impair public trust interests and open space values associated with the water's surface. a. Structures may extend beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters when necessary for practical and convenient operation of water-dependent industry or commerce, and provided that obstruction of commercial navigation does not result. b. Structures may extend beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters for commercial recreational boating facilities provided that the loss of navigable waters and use of underwater lands is offset by sufficient public benefit, and provided that obstruction of commercial navigation does not result. c. Structures may extend beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters when the principal purpose of the structure is necessary: (1) to provide public-access for recreational uses (2) for improvements for navigation (3) for protection from coastal hazards, or (4) . for bridges 7. Provide for the safe public use of navigable waters and public trust lands under water. a. Minimize obstruction of the water's surface to reduce potential hazards to navigation. b. Avoid additional use of the water surface where the resulting increase in traffic and congestion is likely to jeopardize public safety. c. Limit uses of the water surface which are inherently incompatible with the character of the waterbody or wi.th other uses that have priority. d. Provide for safe operation of motorized vessels within marinas and anchorage e. Restrict public access only where incompatible with public safety or public purposes. 10.4. Where the coast includes wetlands, high quality water, significant fish and wildlife habitat, natural protective features or other natural resources, provide for access and recreation which is compatible with these natural resources. A. Provide the appropriate type of access and associated recreational activity that will avoid potential adverse environmental impacts while serving the widest possible public. Factors to address in determining the potential for adverse environmental effects are as follows. 1. Intensity of the associated recreational, scientific or educational activity, 396 Chapter 6 2. Level of likely disturbance associated with the proposed activity. The following types of access or associated activities are listed in decreasing order of potential for disturbance: a. motorized activities b. active, non-motorized activities, including water-depandent and water related uses c. passive activities d. avoidance of the area 3. Sensitivity of the natural resources involved and the extent of the ecological benefits associated with avoidance of the area. Limit public access and recreational activities where uncontrolled public use would lead to impairment of natural resources. 1. Establish appropriate seasonal limitations on access and recreation in order to minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife species. 2. Provide stewardship which is capable of controlling anticipated adverse impacts before providing public access. 3. Physically limit or avoid provision of public access to natural resource areas whose principal values are based on the lack of human disturbance. 4. Provide educational, interpretive, research and passive uses of natural resources through appropriate design and control of public access and recreation. Provide public access for fish and wildlife resource related activities, including fishing and hunting, provided that the level of access would not result in a loss of resources necessary to continue supporting these uses. D. Provide visual access to open space areas associated with natural resources. E. Provide access using methods and stnictures which maintain and protect open space areas associated with natural resources. Open space values associated with wetlands and other natural resources are visually and physically impaired by structures extending through these open space areas. The extent of impairment is based on: 1. the value of the open space as indicated by unfragmented size or mass of the wetland or other natural resources, distance to navigable water, and wetland value, and 2. the size, length and design of proposed structures Policy 11 Preserve the historic resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area Archaeological sites and historic structures are tangible links to the past development of a community - both its cultural and economic life - and connect current residents and visitors to past generations and events that shaped the Sound's heritage. The Native American sites, Colonial era farmsteads and outbuildings, 19th century commercial districts, fishing villages, lighthouses, shipwrecks, and Gilded Age mansions are important components in defining the distinctive identity of a community -- its 'sense of place.' In a broader sense, these resources, taken together, shape the coastal culture of the Long Island Sound region. This coastal culture celebrates the ties to the Sound as a source of sustenance, of commerce, of recreation, and of inspiration. Chapter 6 397 Although large numbers of prehistoric and historic sites have been lost as a result of urban grovnh, the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation has determined that the Long Island Sound coastal region contains numerous archaeological sites in all prehistoric stages and many intact historic resources and structures. These resources remain threatened by development and individual actions. For the Long Island Sound coast, areas of archaeological sensitivity and resources listed on the state or national registers of historic places are noted in chapter 2 and in appendix 1. The historic resources of the Long Island Sound region include governmentally-designated historic resources and maritime elements which contribute to the distinctively coastal culture, such as lighthouses, shipwrecks, and historic waterfront communities. The intent of this policy is to preserve the historic and archaeological resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. Concern extends not only to the specific site or resource but with the area adjacent to and around specific sites or resources. The quality of adjacent areas is often critical to maintaining the quality and value of the resource. Consistency with this policy must include active efforts, when appropriate, to restore or revitalize. While the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is concerned with all such resources within the coastal area, it will actively promote the preservation of historic, archaeological, and cultural resources that have a coastal relationship. This policy is divided into three sections. The first section addresses protection of historic resources and presents standards to prevent or minimize loss of these resources. Section 2 provides standards to protect archeological resources. The final section deals with resources that are of importance to the cultural heritage of the Sound--lighthouses and shipwrecks. Standards for their maintenance and protection are provided. Policy Standards 11.1 Maximize preservation and retention of historic resources. Historic resources in the Long Island Sound coastal area are comprised of governmentally- owned or designated resources and the overall coastal culture of the region. A. Designated historic resources are those structures, landscapes, districts, areas or sites, or underwater structures or artifacts which are listed or designated as follows: · any historic resourc~ in a federal or state park established, solely or in part, in order to protec~ and preserve the resource · any resource on, nominated to be on, or determined eligible to be on the National or State Register of Historic Places · any cultural resource managed by the State Nature and Historic Preserve Trust or the State Natural Heritage Trust · any archaeological resource which is on the inventories of archaeological sites maintained by the State Department of Education or the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation · any resource which is a significant component of an Urban Cultural Park · any locally-designated historic or archaeological resources protected by a local law or ordinance 398 Chapter 6 B. Identify those elements important in defining the character and value of a historic resource. 1. Use designation information, available documentation, and original research to identify important character-defining elements of the historic resource in terms of its: a. time, place and use b. materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships c. set~ing within its physical surroundings and the community d. association with historic events, people or groups 2.. Determine the value of the historic resource as indicated by: a. its membership within a group of related resources which would be adversely impact~i by the loss of any one of the group of resources b. the rarity of the resource in the quality of its historic elements or in the significance of its example, or c. the significance of events, people, or groups associated with the resource. C. Preserve and retain the historic character-defining elements of the resource. Use the following standards to achieve the least degree of intervention. Protect and maintain historic materials and features according to the following approach: a. Evaluate the physical condition of important materials and features. b. Stabilize materials and features to prevent further deterioration. c. Protect important materials and features from inadvertent or deliberate removal or damage. d. Ensure the protection of historic elements through a program of non-intrusive maintenance of important materials and features. Repair historic materials and features according to .recognized preservation methods when their physical condition warrants. When a historic feature is missing or the level of deterioration or damage precludes maintenance or repair: a. Limit the replacement of extensively deteriorated features or missing parts to the minimum degree necessary to maintain the historic character of the resource. b. Maintain historic character where a deteriorated or damaged feature is replaced in its entirety. In replacing features, the historic character of the resource can be best maintained by replacing parts with the same kind of material. Substitute materials may be suitable if replacement in kind is not technically or economically feasible and the form, design and material convey the visual appearance of the remaining parts of the feature. c. Where it is desirable to re-establish a missing feature, ensure that the new feature is consistent with the historic elements of the resource. If adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, use available documentation to design and construct a new feature. If adequate documentation does not exist design and construct a new feature that is compatible with the remaining features of the resource. The new design should be based on research, pictorial and other evidence so that a true historical appearance is created. Chapter 6 399 D. Provide for efficient, compatible use of the historic resource. Foster uses th? maximize retention of the historic character of the resource: a. Maximum retention of historic character is best achieved by using the resource as it was historically used. b. If the resource cannot be used as it was historically used, give the resource a use that maximizes retention of character-defining materials and features. Minimize alterations to the resource to preserve and retain its historic character: a. Minimize potential negative impacts on the resource's historic character due to necessary updates in systems to meet health and safety code requirements or to conserve energy. b. Make alterations to the resource only as needed to ensure its continued use and provided that adverse impact on the resource is minimized. Alterations should not obscure, destroy or radically change character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes in order to minimize adverse impact on the resource. Alterations may include selective removal of features that are not historic elements of the resource and its setting and that detract from the overall historic character of the resource. c. Construct new additions only after it is determined that an exterior addition is the only viable means of assuring continued use of the resource. d. In constructing new additions, use appropriate design and construction to minimize adverse impact on the re, source's historic character. Adverse impact can minimized in new additions by: clearly differentiating from historic materials and features; using design compatible with the historic materials, forms and details, size, scale and proportion, and massing of the resource to protect the integrity of the resource and its setting. In addition, new additions should be designed such that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic resource and its setting would not be impaired. E. Minimize diminution or loss of historic resources or the historic character of the resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area. 1. Preserve the historic resource through relocation when: a. the resource is imperiled: (1) directly by a proposad activity which has no viable alternative which would not result in adverse effects on the resource, or (2) indirectly by surrounding conditions which are likely to result in degradation or inadequate maintenance of the resource b. the resource cannot be adapted for use on the existing site which would result in preservation of the resource c. a suitable site for relocation is available, and d. it is technically and economically feasible to move the resource 2. Allow for demolition of the resource only when: a. the resource has been officially certified as being imminently dangerous to life or public health b. the resource cannot be adapted for any use on the existing site or on any new site, or c. it is not feasible to protect the resource through relocation 3. Document in detail the character-defining elements of the historic resource in its original context prior to relocation or demolition of the resource. 400 Chapter 6 F. Avoid potential adverse impacts on historic resources from adjacent or nearby uses or activities. 1. Undertake activities appropriate to the historic character of the affected resource. 2. Design development to a size, scale and proportions, massing, spaces, and spatial relationships compatible to the historic resource, surrounding resources, and the neighborhood. 3. Design development using materials, features, forms, details, textures, and colors compatible with similar features of the historic resource. G. Limit adverse cumulative impacts on historic resources. 1. Determine and minimize the potential adverse cumulative impact on a historic resource which is a member of a group of related resources that may be adversely impacted by the loss or diminution of any one of the members of the group. 2. Determine and minimize the potential cumulative impacts of a series of otherwise minor interventions on a historic resource. 3. Determine and minimize potential cumulative impacts from development adjacent to the historic resource. 11.2 Protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. A. Conduct a cultural resource investigation when an action is proposed on an archaeological site, fossil bed, or in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the New York State Site Inventory. Conduct a site survey to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources in the project's potential impact area. If cultural resources are discovered as a result of the initial survey, conduct a detailed evaluation of the cultural resource to provide adequate data to allow a determination of the resource's eligibility to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. B. If impacts are anticipated to a resource included or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, minimize potential adverse impacts by: 1. redesigning the project 2. reducing direct impacts on the resource, and 3. recovering data prior to construction C. Do not appropriate, disturb, or adversely effect any object of archaeological or paleontological interest situated on or under lands owned by the State of New York. 11.3 Protect and enhance resources that are significant to the coastal cultoce of the Long Island Sound. A. Protect historic shipwrecks. An historic shipwreck is defined as a wreck situated on or under lands owned by the state, in which the state holds title pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987 Chapter 6 4131 or wrecks which, by reason of their antiquity, historic, architecture, archaeology or cultural value, have state or national importance and are eligible for inclusion on the State Register of Historic Places. Off the shoreline of the Long Island Sound coastal area, there are numerous shipwrecks ranging from colonial era vessels to modern-day wrecks. While the location of several of these ships is well documented~ more research remains to be done to identify and protect these historic and recreational resources as significant components of the coastal culture of Long Island Sound. 1. Provide for the long-term protection of shipwrecks listed or eligible to be listed in the State Register of Historic Places through the least degree of intervention. The least degree of intervention can be achieved by preserving historic shipwreck sites in place, or when preservation is not feasible, record and recover shipwrecks or their artifacts. 2. Manage historic shipwrecks to provide for public appreciation, use and benefit. The nature of public use and benefits associated with shipwrecks is very diverse. Sport divers should have reasonable access to explore shipwrecks. Additional public appreciation and enjoyment of shipwrecks can be achieved through interpretive access which describes the history and value of the resource. Archaeological research on shipwrecks is particularly important as a benefit where research can be reasonably expected to yield information important to understanding the past. 3. Prevent disturbance to historic shipwrecks and unauthorized collection of shipwreck artifacts and associated direct or cumulative impacts. In addition to their value as historic, recreational, and cultural resources, many shipwreck sites also have natural resource values which may be sensitive to disturbance. B. Preserve and enhance historic lighthouses and other navigational structures. Historic lighthouses and other navigation aids are significant to the coastal culture of the region. These structures include, but are not limited to lighthouses at Huntington Harbor, Eatons Neck, Old Field, Plum Point-Orient Point, Gull Island, and Hay Harbor. Provide for the long-term protection of historic lighthouses and navigation aids listed or eligible to be listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places through the least degree of alteration to its historic elements. Protect historic lighthouses from erosion hazards. a. Use non-structural methods such as beach nourishment as the first choice in providing protection from erosion hazards b. Relocate historic lighthouses which are imperiled by erosion hazards that cannot be managed by non-structural methods. Imperiled lighthouses should be relocated to adjacent sites whenever feasible as determined by economics and engineering constraints. In relocating a lighthouse, particular attention should be given to preserving the original context and function of the lighthouse. In addition, any decision to relocate a lighthouse should provide for a sufficient period of protection to warrant the expenditure of funds for relocation. c. Use of hard structural methods to preserve historic lighthouses is limited. In order to justify using hard structures: the lighthouse must clearly be imperiled by erosion hazards; relocation is not feasible based on economic or engineering constraints; and, non-structural approaches would not provide sufficient protection. Finally, hard structures must not adversely affect coastal processes. 402 Chapter 6 C. Protect and interpret the character of waterfront communities. Historic waterfront communities are significant to the coastal culture of the state. In the Long Island Sound coastal area, there are 12 major waterfront communities that are significant to the coastal culture of the region. These communities, noted in policy 1, were once fishing and shipbuilding centers and the focus of cultural activity in the region. Today, these communities remain an important part of the character of the region, although their traditional economic focus, in some instances, has changed through the years. In addition, there are smaller villages and hamlets whose distinctive character should be protected. These smaller communities include places such as Roslyn, Cold Spring Harbor, and Stony Brook. 1. Preserve traditional uses which define the maritime character of the area. 2. Preserve maritime character by maintaining appropriate scales, intensity of use and architectural style. 3. Provide interpretive materials in appropriate settings to augment the public's understanding and appreciation of the Sound's maritime heritage. 4. Enhance and promote harbor views and visual quality. 5. Promote public access provided that public activities do not unreasonably interfere with water-dependent uses and the protection of public safety. Policy 12 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout Long Island Sound. Scenic resources are a major component of the character of the Long Island Sound region and its communities, and the primary basis for public appreciation of the Sound's landscape. The Sound coastal region includes many differing coastal landforms, varied types of shoreline vegetation, a changing land and water interface, well-defined harbors, and historic villages. These features contribute to the generally high visual quality of the region, underscoring the need to protect existing scenic resources throughout the region. Some areas need particular emphasis on improving visual quality in order to support the community character of the Sound. In addition to the many highly scenic natural resources found throughout the Sound, the variety of cultural elements in the landscape and the interplay of the built and natural environments is of particular importance to the visual identity of the Sound. The intent of this policy is to protect and enhance visual quality and protect recognized scenic resources of the Sound's coastal area. Standards are presented in six sections. The first section presents standards for general protection of visual quality to be applied throughout the coastal area. Section 2 addresses consideration of visual quality in urban and developed settings. Section 3 presents visual quality standards that apply to water-dependent uses and agriculture. Section 4 addresses visual quality as related to public lands and waters. Section 5 addresses consideration of visual character of natural resources. The last section def'mes areas of high scenic quality, specifies criteria for designation of Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, and provides measures for the protection of scenic elements. Chapter 6 403 Policy Standards 12.1 Protect and improve visual quality throughout the coastal area. A. Minimize introduction of landscape elements which would be discordant with existing scenic elements. B. Restore deteriorated and remove degrading elements. C. Screen elements which detract from visual quality, D. Incorporate sound, existing structures into development whenever adverse visual impacts of using existing structures would be less than building new or additional structures. E. Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral scenic qualities. F. Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to existing acenic elements. (3. Preserve existing vegetation and establish new vegetation to enhance scenic quality: 1. Preserve existing vegetation which contributes to the scenic quality of the landscape. 2. Allow for selective clearing of vegetation to provide public views without impairing values associated with the affected vegetation. 3. Restore historic or important designed landscapes to preserve intended or designed aesthetic values. 4. Restore or add vegetative cover that presents a natural appearance ba~ed on but not limited to species selected, planting plans, landscape patterns, and coloration. H. Group or orient structures to preserve open space and provide visual organization. I. Develop and implement appropriate standards for specific landscape types which are based on compatibility with the scenic elements defining the character of the area. 12.2 Enhance the visual quality associated with urban areas and the historic waterfront communities of Long Island Sound. The visual quality of developed sections of the coaat is a particularly important component in the community character of the Sound as best exemplified in the 12 historic waterfront communities identified in this plan. In addition to these 12 communities, it is important to protect and enhance the visual quality of the urban areas in the western portion of Long Island Sound. A. Provide for height and massing of structures which is concordant with community character. B. Provide for visual interest in streetfront facades and waterfront public accessways. C. Include landscaping and sweet trees consistent with an urban setting. 404 Chapter 6 D. Provide visual access to areas of high visual quality including community waterfronts and panoramas of the Sound and its embayments. E. Limit structures over water except as necessary for water-dependent uses, public or transportation infrastructure, public access projects or gaining reasonable access to water. F. Screen unattractive elements from public view. G. Provide visual relief from large areas of pavement, housing, or other continuous development, by providing perimeter and interior landscaping to interrupt expanses of development. 12.3 Provide for water-dependent uses and agriculture which add visual interest to the Sound's coast. Water-dependent uses and agriculture often include activities, infrastructure, and changes to the landscape which add visual interest. Some of these uses contribute ephemeral landscape qualities, such as the movement of a ship across the water's surface. Other uses include elements that may not in themselves be considered scenic, yet contribute interest to the landscape, such as off-loading fish at a waterfront dock. This section specifically provides for preserving the visual value of these and other working uses of the coast. A. Protect and specifically provide for activities associated with commerce, industry and agriculture which add visual interest to the Sound's coast including: 1. transportation infrastructure and por~ operations 2. commercial shipping as transitory scenic elements 3. commercial fishing operations, particularly as an integral contributor to working waterfronts 4. aesthetic values associated with agricultural uses consistent with sound agricultural practices B. Preserve and protect major projects which are recognized advancements or achievements in architecture or engineering that contribute to scenic quality. C. Provide visual access to visually interesting elements of water-dependent uses. D. Allow screening of unattractive aspects of water dependent uses if the screening would not result in a loss of important visual access. 12.4 Protect and preserve scenic values associated with public lands, including public trust lands and waters. Visual quality of public lands takes on particular importance in Long Island Sound where opportunities for public access are limited. This section of policy is directed at ensuring that the experience provided by public lands is maximized by providing high visual quality. This section applies to upland public holdings (not limited to parklands), public trust lands along the coast, and the entire water surface. Chapter 6 405 A. Preserve scenic quality of these public resources. B. Provide opportunities for public appreciation of public scenic resources. C. Design and orient structures to provide views to and from the coast. D. Limit water surface coverage or intrusion to the amount necessary for water-dependent uses or to achieve public access benefits. E. Limit visual alteration of shoreline elements which contribute to scenic quality. 12.5 Protect scenic values associated with natural resources. Wetlands, concentrations of fish and wildlife, important open space including upland areas and the expanse of the Sound's water surface and embayments, and shorelines in natural conditions all contribute to the overall scenic quality of Long Island Sound. A. Design new development to complement the scenic character of natural resources. B. Site new development which would not complement the scenic character of natural resources in inconspicuous locations. C. Minimize and screen discordant elements which cannot be inconspicuously located. D. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. E. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including those caused by the following: 1. introduction of intrusive artificial light sources 2. fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas 3. introduction of discordant intrusive elements 4. changes to the continuity and configuration of natural shorelines and associated vegetation 12.6 Protect aesthetic values associated with areas of high scenic quality. Areas of high scenic quality include: designated Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance; designated areas under Article 49 of ECL, designated scenic rivers, and other governmentally-recognized scenic resource areas. A. The Nissequogue River is designated as an area of high scenic quality as a Scenic and Recreational River. The Nissequogue Scenic and Recreational River is regulated under development standards found under 6 NYCRR 666 which apply to the designated river corridor. These standards are to be used to meet the requirements of this policy. B. Scenic areas of statewide significance are those areas which the Secretary, upon consideration of the following factors, determines to be of statewide aesthetic significance to the coastal area because the area exhibits, alone or in combination, the following characteristics: 406 Chapter 6 1. unusual variety of major components 2. unusual unity of major components 3. striking contrast between lines, forms, textures, and colors 4. an area generally free of discordant features which due to siting, form, scale, or materials, visually interrupt the overall scenic quality of the resource 5. unique in the region or the State's coastal area 6. visually and physically accessible to the general public, or 7. widely recognized by the general public for its visual quality C. Identify, retain, and preserve scenic components which are important in defining high scenic quality. 1. Within designated Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, use the description of contributing scenic components to identify landscape elements to be retained and preserved. 2. Preserve scenic components using specific measures included in narratives developed for each designated scenic area of statewide significance. 3. Within other areas of high scenic quality, use documentation developed in support of applicable designations to identify scenic landscape elements to be retained and pr~rved. D. Prevent impairment of scenic components that contribute to high scenic quality: 1. Minimize potential adverse visual impacts from land use or development due to inappropriate siting, form, scale or materials. 2. Prevent adverse modification of vegetation, structures or other scenic components. 3. Design development to complement the scenic character of the identified area of high scenic quality. 4. Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic scenic components which contribute to ephemeral scenic qualities. 5. Manage areas of high scenic quality to retain aesthetic values. £. Screen discordant elements which cannot be avoided and wouM impair scenic quality. Policy 13 Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. Major power generating facilities located in the Long Island Sound coastal area that provide power to the region include: the Glenwood Power Station in Hempstead Harbor, which utilizes oil-powered steam turbines; the Northport Power station in Northport Bay, which utilizes oil-powered steam turbines; the Port Jefferson Power Station in Port Jefferson Harbor, which utilizes oil-powered steam turbines; and the Shoreham facility, which includes gas turbines and is the site of the former nuclear facility. The Sound region faces energy problems more serious than those of the rest of the state. Long Island faces recurring price hikes and the danger of energy shortages. The Sound region is overly dependent on imported oil for electric generation and home heating. Natural gas is unobtainable to a large portion of the region. Strong reliance on motor vehicle transportation has also resulted in an over dependence on imported gasoline. The decommissioning of the Shoreham nuclear power plant has resulted in the highest electricity prices in the continental United States. Chapter 6 407 In dealing with the Sound's energy problems, the first order of preference is the conservation of energy. Energy efficiency in transportation and site design, capture of waste heat, and efficiency in energy generation are the best means for reducing energy demands. Reduced demand for energy reduces the need for construction of new facilities that have potentially adverse impacts on coastal resources. For similar reasons, greater use should be made of sustainable energy resources, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. While solar and wind power may make marginal contributions to the Sound's energy needs, the most substantial source of sustainable energy potentially available to the Sound is hydroelectricity. Although the Sound offers few opportunities for the development of local hydroelectric generation facilities, the extension of power transmission lines to the Sound for importation of electricity is possible to help meet the region's energy needs. In addition to the impacts of construction of new energy generating facilities, the potential impacts of oil and gas extraction and storage, and mineral and extraction must be considered. In particular are the potential adverse impacts of mining activities on sole-source aquifers, which are a major source of drinking water for the Sound. This policy is divided into six sections. The first calls for conservation of energy resources. Section 13.2 addresses alternaative energy sources. Hydroelectric power is addressed in section 13.3. Section 13.4 provides standards to ensure maximum efficency and minimum environmental impacts when siting energy facilities. Section 13.5 presents standards to minimize the impact of large fuel storage facilities. The last section addresses mineral extraction. 13.1 Conserve energy resources. A. Promote energy efficient modes of transportation. 1. Promote and maintain rail freight facilities. 2. Promote and maintain facilities to support the link between harbor and rail freight. 3. Promote and maintain facilities for waterborne cargo and passenger transportation. 4. Integrate access to mass transit facilities and, where feasible, provide secure bicycle parking and safe bicycle lanes in new development projects. B. Plan and construct sites using energy efficient design. Energy efficient design includes consideration for solar utilization, protection from wind, and landscaping for thermal control. C. Capture waste heat from industrial processes for heating and electric generation. D. Promote greater energy generating efficiency through design upgrades of existing facilities. 13.2 Promote alternative energy sources that are self-sustaining, including solar and wind powered energy' generation. A. Avoid interference with coastal resources and processes, including interference with migratory birds, from wind farm developments. 408 Chapter 6 B. There are no existing hydroelectric power generation facilities in the Sound. There are no sites in the Sound where the benefits of developing hydroelectric generating facilities are not outweighed by the economic costs and the potential adverse impacts on natural resources. 13.3 Ensure maximum efficiency and minimum adverse environmental impact when siting major energy generating facilities. A. Major energy generating facilities may be sited in a coastal location where a clear public benefit is demonstrated by the following factors: 1. There is a demonstrated need for the facility. 2. The facility will satisfy additional electric capacity needs or electric system needs, 3. alternative available methods of power generation and alternative sources of energy cannot reasonably meet the public need. 4. Upgrades of existing facilities cannot reasonably meet the public need. 5. The facility incorporates feasible public recreational uses. B. Achieve maximum transmission efficiency by siting major energy generating facilities close to load centers. C. Preclude the potential degradation of coastal resources by siting and constructing new electric energy generating and transmission facilities so that they would not adversely effect: 1. commercial navigation 2. commercial and recreational fishing 3. agricultural lands 4. designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats 5. habitats critical to vulnerable fish and wildlife species, vulnerable plant species, and rare ecological communities 6. wetlands 7. historic resources, and 8. scenic resources 13.4 Minimize adverse impacts from fuel storage facilities. A. Regional petroleum reserves designed to serve the emergency energy needs of major regions of the nation are presumed to be non-water-dependent uses that are inappropriate with a coastal location. B. Prohibit the production, storage or retention of petroleum products in earthen reservoirs. C. Liquified Natural Gas facilities are incompatible with areas where failure of the facility could adversely affect the safety of persons or offsite property related to present or reasonably foreseeable activities. Factors which are to be used in determining the appropriateness of a location for Liquified Natural Gas facilities include: 1. the density of population in neighboring areas 2. the density of population of areas neighboring the delivery route Chapter 6 409 3. the risk of accident during transportation 4. the maximum distance that a liquified natural or petroleum gas vapor cloud is projected to expand and pose a threat to the public 5. the flammability or explosiveness of a cloud formed by vaporizing liquified natural or petroleum gas 6. lO0-year flood zones 7. areas with soils that cannot support static and dynamic loading without excessive lateral or vertical movement $. areas exposed to severe wave and wind forces 9. the geologic stability of the site 10. the need for the facility 11. the potential environmental impacts 12. reasonable alternative locations for the proposed facility D. Protect natural resources by siting petroleum unloading and storage facilities outside of areas of the coast not suited to this use. 1. Site new, major petroleum storage facilities away from the waterfront. 2. Promote the completion of offshore unloading terminals and pipeline distribution systems to transport petroleum to inland storage facilities. 3. Protect and, if necessary, expand existing major petroleum unloading and storage facilities. 4. Phase out small-scale storage facilities which are: a. served by onshore unloading facilities b. not part of a pipeline transfer system, and c. located in a harbor area that exhibits outstanding natural resource values :5. Comply with an approved oil spill contingency plan. 13.5 Minimize adverse impacts associated with extraction of minerals. Minerals that are particularly impor~nt in Long Island Sound include soils, sand and aggregates. This section presents standards that identifies commercial mining of sands and aggregates in the coastal area as an inappropriate use. In addition to commercial mining operations, many developments that remove substantial quantities of soil such as commercial wpsoil sales and some residential developments are subject to mining reclamation standards presented here. Finally, extraction of underwater sands and gravels from the Sound is limited to coastal applications of navigation and erosion control. A. Commercial mining of sand and aggregates are generally presumed to be inappropriate uses in the coastal area. Commercial mining is limited according to potential: 1. loss of coastal lands for higher priority uses 2. alteration of coastal geological landforrns 3. impact on designated sole-source aquifers 4. adverse impact on natural resources 5. degradation of visual quality 410 Chapter 6 B. Removal of soils and overburden requires appropriate site preparation and subsequent site reclamation in accordance with an approved plan for the suitable use of affected lands, including: drainage and water control to reduce soil erosion proposed future use of the affected lands, and specific activities, including: a. revegetation b. disposal of refuse or spoil c. drainage and water control features d. grading and slope treatment e. proposals for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the environment C. Subaqueous extraction of sand and gravel is limited to activities necessary for navigation or erosion control. Chapter6 411 Chapter 7 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recognized that wise land use planning, environmental resource management, and targeted public investments can foster the growth of a wide range of economic activities at appropriate locations, while at the same time protecting and restoring sensitive areas. Without careful planning, the finite resources of the Long Island Sound coast cannot continue to absorb additional development and still meet the needs of future generations for open space, clean beaches and water, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands. The designation of Maritime Centers, Areas for Concentrated Development, and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas is a primary means of ensuring a balanced and wise use of coastal resources and a more efficient use of limited local, state, and federal dollars. Maritime Centers are designed to focus on the needs of the working coast and set priorities for state investment in the comtal area to ensure the effective and efficient operation of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. State investments in Maritime Centers, combined with various incentives and regulatory streamlining, will encourage the development of new working corot uses within, rather than outside, Maritime Centers. The dispersed development of new working coast uses outside Maritime Centers would be likely to have more significant adverse impacts on the environment and established residential communities than will the concentration of working coast uses in Maritime Centers. Areas for Concentrated Development are designated to set priorities for state investment in the coastal area for public and private development projects to restore and revitalize waterfronts or areas near the waterfront that have been previously developed and are now underutilized or in a deteriorated condition. Establishing investment priorities will encourage the consolidation of major new growth in existing centers to minimize urban sprawl, protect unspoiled areas, and provide new public amenities. Within Outstanding Natural Comtal Areas, priorities will be set for state agency efforts to protect, enhance, and restore areas that contain significant coastal resources that are most sensitive to development. Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are not meant to duplicate existing resource designations, but to identify areas that should be granted priority protection. This chapter identifies and describes Maritime Centers, Areas For Concentrated Development, and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas in the Long Island Sound region. The areas that are identified are considered a starting point and are not meant to constitute a comprehensive list. Additional areas are likely to be recommended by local and state agencies. A nomination process will be established for consideration of additional area designations. Special Management Areas 413 MARITIME CENTERS Working coast uses and businesses share a common trait--they require a location on the shoreline to function or they depend on harvesting living or mineral resources in coastal waters. For the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, the working coast is described as locations where: individual public or private marinas, yacht clubs, and boat yards exist; concentrations of commercial or recreational fishing vessels exist; petroleum products, aggregates, or other waterborne commerce are imported or exported; or ferries arrive or depart from the shore. Dredging is an important activity that occurs in channels and basins throughout the Sound to ensure safe navigation and anchorage in Maritime Centers. The locations of these uses are shown on map 17.0. Maintaining and strengthening the working coast is critical. Chapter 5, The Working Coast, established that the working coast is vital to the economic health of the region, generating billions of dollars for the regional economy. The economic contribution of the working coast could be improved, if the problems encountered by water-dependent businesses that significantly impair their ability to function were beret understood and addressed by state and local agencies. Ensuring the Future of the Working Waterfront There are approximately 200 working coast uses located along the Long Island Sound shoreline. Nearly two-thirds of these uses and activities are clustered in sheltered bays and harbors that have historically been developed with water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. These sheltered bays and harbors, or Maritime Centers, are essential for waterborne commerce, recreation, and the state's transportation system. Major challenges facing all water-dependent uses to varying degrees include: competition for space on the waterfront and the water, inadequate or deteriorated coastal infrastructure, impacts of regulation and taxation, degradation of coastal resources, lack of public awareness of working coast uses and businesses, and changing markets and business climate. The designation of Maritime Centers is a means to address these problems and to advance several of the key recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources for water-dependent businesses. Specifically, Maritime Centers can be used to achieve the following important objectives in the Long Island Sound region. P. EGIONAL GROWz'It MANAGEMENT Maritime Centers, which are concentrated in ten discrete harbor areas, comprise less than 5 percent of the 304 miles length of New York's Long Island Sound shoreline. Maritime Centers will foster effective regional growth management in the Long Island Sound region by directing the growth of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to commercially developed harbors, while ensuring the protection of natural resources and residential communities. Siting new water-dependent uses, in areas already developed with commercial uses will ensure a degree of compatibility with existing harbor uses. It will also ensure the long-term strength of water-dapendent uses as well as the long-term preservation of the economic, natural, and maritime values of the Sound region. Water-dependent commercial 414 Special Management Areas MAP 17.0 Proposed IViaritime Centers CONNECTICUT NYC NASSAU SUFFOLK Legend Port Cheerer Mamaroneck Harbor New Rochelle Harbor and Echo Bay City Island ! Port Washington Glen Cove Huntington Harbor Northport He~bor Port Jefferson Mattituck Inlet and industrial uses will be discouraged from siting outside Maritime Centers. These uses should locate outside of Maritime Centers only if the use has unique siting requirements that cannot be met adequately in a Maritime Center and all potential significant impacts are mitigated. PROTECT AND PROMOTE WATER-DEPENDENT USES Maritime Centers will reinforce the Sound's maritime heritage. Maritime Centers will ensure the effective and efficient operation of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. Maritime Centers can protect existing water-dependent uses, associated land-based support facilities, and underutilized commercial waterfront land suitable to accommodate future growth of water-dependent uses. This can be achieved primarily through state and local policies and local zoning that reduce competition for commercial waterfront land from non- water-dependent uses. A priority in each Maritime Center will be developing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs that give preference to water-dependent commemial and industrial uses to minimize competition with non-water-dependent uses. Designating commercially developed harbors as Maritime Centers does not imply that there is an abundance of undeveloped waterfront properties available for the growth of new water- dependent uses. Rather, in many harbors, there are only significant opportunities for redevelopment of underutilized waterfront properties that are currently developed but contain vacant or deteriorated structures; partially developed, but additional development potential exists; or developed with an inappropriate or nonconforming use and could be redeveloped with a waterfront commercial use. Preference should be given to promoting and facilitating the development of new water-dependent uses on underutilized waterfront properties in Maritime Centers. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECO~IOM1C ASSISTANCE By targeting and directing the growth of water-dependent commemial and industrial uses in Maritime Centers, public investment in waterfront infrastructure will be more fully used. By identifying Maritime Centers as targets for state investment assistance, government will be able to better plan improvements for inadequate or deteriorated coastal infrastructure, such as navigation channels, piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, water and sewer lines, and pump out stations. This infrastructure, which is often too expensive for many water-dependent businesses to maintain or provide, is necessary to sustain water-dependent uses and improve the quality and attractiveness of the working coast. Establishing Maritime Centers will also better enable the public sector to target existing economic assistance programs to strengthen the region's waterfront economy. Channeling water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers will ensure that full use is made of public sector infrastructure investments.. IMPROVED BUSINESS CLIMATE By establishing Maritime Centers as areas where state and local governments desire commercial water-dependent uses and activities, the regulatory .process can become more predictable and less onerous. Increased predictability in governmental decision-making will allow the privato sector to invest in projects and developn~nts with greater confidence. The regulatory process will become less reactive and more proactive, since Maritime Centers will representNto regulators, investom, and the public--areas that are suitable and appropriate for working coast uses. 416 Special Management Areas PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES By encouraging the growth of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses in Maritime Centers, the quality and value of natural resources outside of Maritime Centers, approximately 95 percent of the Sound coast, will be better protected from physical disturbances and the introduction of various pollutants associatbxi with commercial or industrial shoreline activity. Adverse effects, including secondary and cumulative impacts, associated with intensive vessel activity and commercial shoreline development, such as impairments to wetlands, wildlife habitats, shellfish, water quality, and other natural resources, will be avoided. Dredging to create or maintain channels for large vessels will not be necessary, except in very limited and specific circumstances where water-dependent uses have specific siting needs. The volume of dredged material in the region and the attendant disposal problems will be reduced. Existing and proposed uses in Maritime Centers will be required to comply with applicable natural resource, land use, and water use regulations to maintain or improve environmental quality in Maritime Centers. To ensure that environmentally responsible growth and redevelopment occurs in Maritime Centers, environmental standards will be as rigorous and thorough as they would be for projects outside Maritime Centers. It is recognized that environmental and economic objectives are mutually supportive, not mutually exclusive, since a high quality environment supports and enhances economic growth and development. However, based on specific, state-approved management plans for Maritime Centers, the review process may be shortened for water-dependent uses and activities that are consistent with the Maritime Center plan, since there will be the presumption that the use is compatible with the harbor location. Definition and Criteria for Designation of Maritime Centers The state's purposes in designating Maritime Centers are to protect existing water-dependent uses, foster the development of new water-dependent uses in appropriate locations where growth opportunities exist, protect and ensure the wise use of underutilized commercial waterfront land that is suitable for water-dependent uses, and ensure the efficient and effective operation of water-dependent uses. Water-dependent uses have unique siting requirements, including adequate upland and in-water infrastructure, water and land side access, and adequate hydrologic conditions. It is important to protect developed and underutilized waterfront commercial property suitable for water-dependent uses, since there are so few waterfront sites that meet these requirements in the Sound region. Maritime Centers are defined as: A discrete portion or area of a harbor or bay that is developed with, and contains concentrations of, water-dependent commercial and industrial uses or essential support facilities. The harbor or bay area is a center for water-borne commerce, recreation, or other water-dependent business activity and is an important component of the regional transportation system. These areas are the most suitable and appropriate locations on the Sound coast for expansions of existing, or the development of new, water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. The following criteria are used to identify Maritime Centers: · concentration of large and intensive water-dependent commercial or industrial uses Special Management Areas 417 · sheltered locations and suitable hydrologic conditions, such aa sufficient water depth and good flushing · sufficient water depths, navigation channels, anchorage and turning basins, piers and docks, and land-baaed infrastructure essential for the operation of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses exists or can be provided mo.re eaail~/an,d at l.ess cost · the physical conditions, necessary to meet the unique siting ana operational reqmrements of most water-dependent commercial and industrial uses that ensures the efficient and effective operation of water-dependent uses · close proximity to central business districts where commercial uses can be located that are inappropriate for siting on the waterfront, but are complementary or supportive of water-dependent uses · absence of high value natural resources, such aa beaches, dunes, or bluffs; wetlands; shellfish beds, bird habitat or other fish and wildlife habitat; or exceptional surface water quality. Long Island Sound's Maritime Centers Ten Maritime Centers have been identified along the Sound coast. Summary descriptions, which include management objectives and a description of project and procedural actions to achieve the objectives, are provided for the Maritime Centers of Mamaroneck Harbor, Huntington Harbor, and Mattituck Inlet. These descriptions have been prepared baaed on consultations with officials from municipalities where the Maritime Centers are located. Abbreviated descriptions are provided for the Maritime Centers of Port Chester Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor and F_,cho Bay, City Island and Hast Bronx Shore, Port Washington, Glen Cove Creek, Northport Harbor, and Port Jefferson Harbor. Full-length summary descriptions will also be prepared for these Maritime Centers after consultations with local government officials and will be included in the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. MAMARONECK HARBOR Mamaroneek Harbor is located on the north shore of the western portion of Long Island Sound in the Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester County. It is one of the most crowded and intensely used harbors on Long Island Sound. The harbor is located in the middle of one. of the largest cruising and sailing areas on the northeast coast of the United States. The harbor is comprised of a northern inner and southern outer harbor area. The outer harbor is a fairly wide emhayment along Long Island Sound, surrounded primarily by residential development and private yacht and beach clubs. The inner harbor area narrows and splits into two branches that lead into two anchorage basins on the east and west sides of a wide peninsula. A federal navigation channel extends from Long Island Sound along the length of the western half of the harbor, becoming two separate channels that lead into the upper reaches of the east and west basins. Both baains are dredged anchorage areas abutting water-dependent commercial, industrial, and public recreational uses. Most of the inner harbor is crowded with vessels on moorings or in slips. Docks are prevalent throughout the harbor, particularly in the inner harbor. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses are concentrated in the east and west basins of the harbor. The village has established three water-dependent use zoning districts centered in areas around the east and west basins and the east side of the harbor. The harbor area is an integral part of the Village of Mamaroneck's central business district. The downtown 418 Special Management Areas portion of the central business district contains many retail stores and restaurants and is easily accessible by foot from the harbor. Water Dependent Uses Mamaroneck Harbor provides a full range of support facilities and services for permanent, seasonal, and transient recreational boating. A wide range of water-dependent uses exist throughout the harbor, including public and private bathing beaches, marinas, yacht clubs, boat yards, boat ramps, mooring areas, recreational fishing, occasional commercial shellfishing, and support services, such as docks, vessel waste pumpout and fueling facilities, and marine retail sales. Water-dependent uses throughout the harbor provide several hundred jobs. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses and related activities contributed an estimated $18,000,000.00 to the local economy in 1986. Regionally important marine wholesalers are located nearby in New Rochelle. Marinas, Yacht Clubs, Boat Yards, and Support Services Marinas and yacht clubs. One municipal marina and boat ramp owned by the Village of Mamaroneck, a commercial marina open to the general public, three commercial marinas that also provide some boat yard services, and four yacht clubs are located in the harbor. The village harbormaster and the local Coast Guard Auxiliary maintain offices at the municipal marina in the west basin. Most of the marinas and yacht clubs utilize the harbor for vessel mooring. Boat yards. There are three boat yards in the harbor. One of these boat yards is the only fully operational boat yard in the New York portion of Long Island Sound capable of constructing, servicing, and repairing very large luxury recreational and commercial vessels up to 150 feet in length. Many of the boat yards rent or lease vessel slip space and moorings in the harbor. Support services. The harbor area contains twenty marine retail support services, including a bait and boat fishing station and mooring contractors. Commercial Vessel Docking and Mooring Commercial vessels used by marine contractors, such as work boats and barges, are docked at various marinas and boat yards in the east and west basins. The majority of these vessels are docked in the west basin. One barge is kept at a large private dock adjacent to a residential area on the east shore of the east basin. Some commercial vessels, such as small harbor tugs and mooring barges, are occasionally moored in the east basin. Commercial vessels also are moored in the east basin near Derecktor's shipyard when they are being serviced at or used by the shipyard. One lobster boat docks at a private commercial facility on the west side of the west basin. Commercial Shellfishing Although the entire harbor is uncertified for shellflshing, it does support a commercial hard clam shellfishery. Hard clams are commercially harvested during state-approved transplants to certified areas outside of the harbor, where they are cleansed, reharvested, and marketed, or kept in field plots for use as spawner stock. Special Management Areas 419 Recreation Boating and navigation. Unlike many Long Island Sound harbors, nonresident anchoring · or mooring is not prohibited in the harbor, even though mooring or slip space is at a premium throughout the harbor. The village encourages the use of the harbor by transient vessels and supplies free short-term docking at a village dock in the east basin near the central business district for transient boaters, who need supplies or visit restaurants and shop in and near the central business district. There is a high demand for public transient vessel docking. During the height of the boating season, the harbor is one of the most crowded and intensely used recreational boating harbors in the Long Island Sound region in New York. Approximately 1,700 vessels on moorings or in slips use the harbor. The inner harbor is filled to capacity with moored vessels, resulting in high demand for moorings and slips. During the height of the boating season, some moored vessels directly abut and occasionally lie within the lines of the harbor's main channels. Some space exists in the outer harbor for additional moorings. Docks are prevalent throughout the harbor. Most are concentrated in the inner harbor and its east and west basins. Some docks and docked vessels occasionally lie within the lines of and directly abut the east and west basin channels and anchorage areas. There is very little room for navigation in both the west and east basins, except within the west basin channel itself or informal fairways adjacent to the east basin channel and anchorage area. The harbor's main channel, basin channels, and anchorage basins generally have sufficient depths to support existing vessel traffic and water-dependent uses. However, northern portions of the east basin and its channel are filled with fine sediment from upland runoff. Most sedimentation occurs in the east basin and channel adjacent to Route 1. Although sedimentation is a problem throughout the harbor, the problem is greatest where it interferes with navigation channels and basins adjacent to water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. l~shlng. Recreational fishing is conducted from shore, docks, and boats throughout the harbor. Most shore-based fishing is from Harbor Island Park. Many of the vessels moored, in slips, or launched from ramps in the harbor are used for recreational fishing in Long Island Sound. A few party and charter boats kept in the harbor provide recreational fishing and sport diving cruises throughout Long Island Sound. Swimming, bathing, and diving. A village bathing beach is located at the south end of the Harbor Island Park peninsula. An in-water boom has been installed around the bathing area to prevent pollutants and debris from the harbor from entering the bathing area after storm events and sewage treatment plant overflows or malfunctions. A number of yacht and beach clubs provide bathing areas within the harbor. For public safety purposes, the village regulates SCUBA diving within the harbor. Diving is prohibited throughout the harbor except by special permission from the village. PublicAccess The harbor's shoreline is highly developed, physically blocking access to much of the harbor from shore. Physical access to the harbor from land is provided at Harbor Island.Park, a 44 acre municipal park between the harbor's east and west basins. The park contains playing 420 Special Management Areas fields, a municipal marina and transient dock and boat launch facilities, a vessel waste pumpout facility, offices for the I-Iarbormaster and Coast Guard Auxiliary, a village bathing beach, restroom facilities, picnic areas, a fishing pier, and extensive parking areas. Approximately 66 conveyances of State-owned underwater or formerly underwater filled lands have been made throughout the harbor in the form of grants, leases, or easements. Of these conveyances, 230 acres were grants and 13 acres were leases or easements from the state. Natural Resources Wetlands and Habitat~ Productive vegetated tidal wetlands fringe portions of the harbor. Most vegetated wetlands are on the east side of the harbor in and near Ouion Creek and Otter Creek, both of which are small tidal tributaries designated as critical environmental areas. Guion Creek, a tributary to the harbor's east basin, has been dredged from its confluence with the east basin up to South Bay Avenue by the Corps of Engineers as part of the harbor's anchorage basin. Above South Bay Avenue, the creek contains extensive vegetated tidal wetlands. Some vegetated wetlands fringe Giuon Creek below South Bay Avenue. A few pockets of vegetated wetlands are scattered throughout other areas of the harbor. The outer harbor is a fairly productive hard clam shellflshery. W ter The water quality classification for the harbor is SB, and its highest assigned use standard is primary contact recreation, such as swimming. It ofien fails to meet the SB water quality and use standards. Urban runoff from heavy rainfalls often results in bathing beach closures. The Westchester County sewage treatment plant currently discharges an average of approximately 18 million gallons of treated waste per day into Long Island Sound. The plant was recently modified to provide secondary waste treatment and to move the discharge line from the harbor into Long Island Sound. The plant's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit authorizes the discharge of 20.6 million gallons per day of treated sewage. The plant usually operates within the limits of its permit. Groundwater infiltration and illegal hookups to the plant's sewer lines have been identified as a problem contributing to sewer plant overloading. The draft Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan has identified the need for dentrificatinn modifications to the plant to reduce nitrogen loadings to Long Island Sound. Municipal stormwater lines discharge directly into the harbor. The stormwater lines are not connected with municipal sewer lines. Stormwater runoff from roadways is not treated prior to its discharge in the harbor. The stormwater lines convey significant quantities of floatable debris, such as street trash, to the harbor, as well as tons of leaves that are swept into residential streets during the fall. Siltation and sedimentation occurs throughout the harbor. Much of the sediment entering the harbor is comprised of fine grained, polluted material from roadways and other upland nonpoint sources. Polluted sediments from the bottom of the harbor are also resuspended in the water column by vessel traffic and settle out in nearshore areas. SPec~lManagementArea~ 421 There are three vessel waste pumpout facilities in the harbor: on the west shore of the east basin adjacent to the municipal transient vessel dock, at a commercial facility in the west basin, and at Derecktor's boat yard in the east basin. All three facilities are connected to the municipal sewer system. The village has applied for a Clean Vessel Act grant to install a fourth facility at the municipal marina in the west basin. Infrastructure Roadways, Parking, and Navigation Channels The harbor, including its water-dependent uses and transportation network of navigation channels and basins, is an integral part of the village's central business district. Activities in the harbor and activities in the central business district are supportive of each other. The central business district is within walking distance of the harbor and contains a number of restaurants and other retail businesses. There is sufficient roadway and navigation infrastructure to support water-dependent uses in and around the harbor. The harbor is bounded on the north by the Old Boston Post Road (Route 1). Harbor Island Park, which separates the harbor's east and west basins, provides sufficient parking for recreational uses in the park. Public on-street and off-street metered parking exists throughout the area adjacent to the harbor in the central business district. Most residential streets are separated from the harbor by residential development. Bulkkeads and R~talning Walls Most of the east and west basins are surrounded by bulkheads or stone retaining walls. Many of these structures, particularly those built and maintained by the village, are in various states of disrepair. Summary of Issues and Problems The issues and problems confronting Mamaroneck Harbor as a maritime center are summarized below and illustrated on map 18.0 Development Constraints The harbor and its adjacent area are already fully developed. Water-dependent uses fully occupy space in areas zoned for water-dependent uses. The remainder of the areas surrounding the harbor are fully developed with residences and public parkland. There are very few opportunities for new water-dependent uses in new locations. There may be potential for some limited development in areas currently zoned for water-dependent uses or within certain portions of Harbor Island Park. Space within the harbor is almost fully occupied by vessels on moorings or in slips, docks, and floats, although there is some limited space available for minor dock expansions or reconfigurations. There is space within the outer harbor for additional vessel moorings, but this area is distant from the inner harbor, support facilities, services, and the central business district. However, transport to and from moored vessels in the outer harbor could be provided by a private water taxi service. Given the limited amount of available space adjacent to the harbor area for new water- dependent uses and the importance of water-dependent uses to the economic viability and character of the harbor and the village's central business district, any development or redevelopment efforts in these areas should be directed toward water-dependent uses or uses that support water-dependent uses. 422 Special Management Areas MAMARONECK Mamaroneck Harbor Maritime Center Sewage Treatment Plant Nonpoint Source Pollution New Vessel Waste Pumpout/Dump Station Wetland Rehabilitation Transient Dock Improvements Public Bathing Beach Marine Recreation (Clubs) General Marine Commercial (water-dependent uses only) Central Marine Commercial (water-dependent and limited non-water-dependent uses) MAP 1 8.0 MAMARONKCK HARBOR, N.Y. The county 'sewage treatment plant does not denitrify wastes. Additional wastes would increase nitrogen loadings to the harbor and Long Island Sound. The draft Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan has recommended dentrification modifications to the plant. Denitrifiation modifications would decrease the volume of waste treated by the plant and may require a physical expansion of the plant. Physical expansion of the plant would encroach upon public open space and recreational areas in Harbor Island Park. Commercial and Industrial Water-Dependent Uses Public and private maintenance dredging and dredge spoil disposal and the ability of existing water-dependent commercial and industrial uses to expand or reconfigure in-water structures in response to changing demands for different dock configurations are two of the most significant issues affecting water-dependent commercial and industrial uses in the harbor. The manner in which water-dependent uses are assessed for tax purposes is also a major issue. Boat yards and marinas are dependent upon sufficient depths in approach channels and basins to support navigation to and from the facilities and for in-water uses and structures. These publicly and privately dredged channels and basins require occasional maintenance dredging. Most dredged material in channels and basins in the harbor consists of fine grained, contaminated sediments that originate from upland sources. State and federal regulatory agencies require material testing and monitoring prior to disposal of contaminat~l sediments. Projects that are not conducted by the Corps of Engineers require capping of this material with clean sediment when disposed offshore. Finding clean capping material, developing affordable testing programs, and developing appropriate and affordable spoil disposal sites for this material is extremely difficult. Public and private dredging and spoil disposal activities are not coordinated among water- dependent uses within the harbor or among private and public entities. The multiple dredging projects that result exacerbate cumulative water quality and resource impairments in the harbor and around spoil disposal sites. The lack of coordination also results in an extremely expensive, time consuming, and onerous regulatory scenario that hampers routine maintenance dredging. Although some marinas and boat yards occupy upland areas and use this space for vessel storage and maintenance activities, few of the facilities have sufficient upland space to expand. Most expansions are in-water, consisting of new docks and floats, or rearrangements of these in-water structures. In-water structures are an integral component of all marinas and boat yards in Mamaroneck Harbor. Facilities must often move, relocate, reconfigure, or expand in-water structures in response to changing market demands. There is a need to allow marinas and boat yards to reconfigure and expand in the harbor adjacent to their upland sites; however, given the lack of space in appropriate locations in the harbor, space within the harbor needs to be allocated consistent with the size and use of adjacent The Village of Mamaroneck's zoning prohibits non-water-dependent uses in the General Marine-Commercial (MC-l) district; allows non-water-dependent uses at street grade adjacent to Route 1 and prohibits non-water-dependent uses below street grade adjacent to the harbor in the Central Marine-Commercial (MC-2) district; and prohibits all uses except membership clubs, such as beach, golf, country, and yacht clubs, and certain accessory uses in the Marine 424 Special Management Areas Recreation (IVlR) district. All three of these districts comprise the village's Marine Zone, which was developed to maintain and protect important water-dependent uses. However, boat yards and marinas in the Marine Zone are assessed for tax purposes at rates for higher value uses, which are prohibited in the Marine Zone. This inequity is an unfair tax burden that needs to be resolved in order to improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses. Navigation and Docking The inner harbor is crowded with moored vessels. Many docks and other structures project into the harbor, and navigation channels are narrow. There are no designated safety buffers between channels and moored vessels, bathing beaches, docks, or other structures. The last dredging projects in the harbor conducted by the Corps of Engineers were the entrance channel in 1965, the west basin in 1981 and its channel in 1966, the east basin channel in 1965, and the east basin in 1966. These channels and basins, which are part of the harbor's and the state's transportation network, need to be maintained at sufficient depths. Basins adjacent to marinas, boat yards and yacht clubs also need to be maintained. There is a high demand for additional transient docking in the east basin near the entrance to Harbor Island Park, adjacent to the village's central business district. Although there are many public and private docks and floats throughout the harbor and the village has installed a transient dock in the east basin near Route 1, the demand for transient docking remains high. Public Access and Underwater Lands Public access from the shore to the harbor is generally limited to Harbor Island Park. Access to the harbor from the east shore is very limited, because the shoreline is fully developed with residences and private yacht clubs. The State has issued approximately 66 conveyances of public rights, title, and interests in underwater lands to various upland property owners. Many of these conveyances have limited or extinguished public trust rights and interests to portions of the harbor, resulting in a significant loss of public access to and public trust rights and interests in significant portions of the harbor. In some instances, recipients of these conveyances have prohibited public use of these lands for anchoring, mooring, or othar uses. Although an underwater lands study in the harbor has been conducted that identified these conveyances, there are unresolved issues that need to be addressed, such as: the extent to which public trust rights and interests in these lands have been limited or extinguished; the extent of those rights remaining; the rights of the adjacent upland owners and those who were the recipients of the conveyances; what conditions, if any, were included in these conveyances; and whether or not the conveyances remain valid. There may be several opportunities to expand public access to and use of these lands where conveyances are no longer valid, or where public trust rights and interests remain. Water 1~ and Habitats Urban runoff upstream of the harbor---both within and outside of the village, as well as adjacent to the harbor---and concentrations of vessels and marinas are the largest contributors to water quality impairments. Suspended sediments in the water column adversely affect the harbor's water quality and vegetated and unvegetated wetlands. The harbor's sediments contain concentrations of pollutants, including heavy metals, primarily from roadway runoff, Special Management Area~ 425 marine related activities at marinas, boat yards and yacht clubs, and vessels. Floatable debris, such as street litter, enters the harbor from the stormwater system. Tons of leaves swept into streets each year also enter the harbor through the stormwater system and settle out in the east basin, resulting in organic loadings to the harbor and navigation impairments in the east basin and channel. There is an opportunity to provide partial treatment of runoff draining from Harbor Island Park through and over the stone retaining wall in the west basin. Sedimentation in the west basin channel could be mitigated by establishing vegetated wetland buffers in the intertidal area between the basin channel and the retaining wall on the east side of the basin. This opportunity also exists in the intertidal area between the retaining wall on the east side of Harbor Island Park and the east basin channel. Vegetated wetlands could also be established on the east shore of the east basin to reduce sedimentation in the harbor from upland runoff. The draft Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, the preliminary vessel waste pumpout plan in the state's Clean Vessel Act grant application, and the draft Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan have all identified the need to designate the harbor a vessel waste no-discharge zone. The village has prepared material for a state petition for a determination by the EPA Administrator that there are sufficient vessel waste facilities in the harbor to support state designation of the harbor as a vessel waste no- discharge zone. Recreation Harbor Island Park and the harbor provide significant water-dependent and non-water- dependent recreation, including: swimming areas, marinas and mooring areas for recreational boating, and fishing; nature observation and other passive water-related recreation such as walking; and non-water-dependent recreational uses, such as playing fields for field sports. There is a high demand for additional transient docks for recreational boating. Swimming is a significant water-dependent recreational use in the harbor; however, stormwater runoff after heavy rainfalls often results in bathing beach closures at the municipal bathing beach and at private yacht and beach clubs. This is a major impairment to the harbor's assigned water quality use classification. Access to the harbor for passive recreational uses at locations other than Harbor Island Park is physically restricted by existing development patterns, but could be improved at street ends or other areas, where public rights of way from upland are:ia could be established. Public access to and use of the harbor is limited in some instances by state grants, easements or leases to adjacent landowners. The extent to which these conveyances impair public access to and use of underwater lands is not known. Some of these conveyances may no longer be valid. Where they are no longer valid, or where it can be determined that public trust rights and interests remain, there may be opportunities to increase public access to and use of the harbor. Infrastru~ure and Development Constraints All of the upland adjacent to the harbor is currently utilized, and most of the nearshore area within the harbor is developed with or used by docks, vessel moorings, swimming areas, navigation channels, or other uses. There is no available space for new upland or in-water development. The only substantial open space within the harbor area is within the outer harbor and within Harbor Island Park. ~.26 Special Management Area~ Many of the wood bulkheads and stone retaining wails in the east and west basins are in disrepair, resulting in sedimentation in the harbor, slumping of adjacent upland, public safety hazards, and unattractive views. These structures need to be repaired or replaced. Given these constraints and the lack of opportunities for new uses, there is a need to maintain the economic viability of water-dependent uses and recreation in the harbor area. It is necessary to improve conditions in the harbor to support water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. In order to improve conditions in the harbor, existing water-dependent commercial, indnstriai, and recreational uses must operate in a clean and efficient manner. Redevelopment Potential Although limited, there are opportunities for the development of new water-dependent uses. Private beach and yacht clubs currently exist in areas zoned MR (Marine Recreation). The existing MR zoning limits ail uses in the district to nonprofit membership clubs, such as beach and yacht clubs, and certain accessory uses. The MR zoning could be amended to allow water-dependent commercial uses in the MR district. Summary of Overall Objectives Protect and maintain existing water-dependent uses in their present locations, and improve conditions so that they can operate cleanly and more efficiently. Where water- dependent uses are pr.nc,pa, uses, ailow limited non-water-dependent uses that support the water-dependent uses. Allow private nonprofit uses to change to water-dependent commercial uses. o 2. Maintain the harbor's existing navigation channels and basins at adequate depths to support water-dependent uses. 3. Prevent impairments to navigation where necessary by relocating, reconfiguring, and limiting in-water structures to well defined perimeters to prevent further overcrowding and prevent impairments to navigation. Prevent in-water structures or the anchoring or mooring of vessels or floats in channels, bathing areas, or other inappropriate areas. 4. Reduce use conflicts and provide safety buffers between bathing areas and between structures or moored vessels and channels or fairways. 5. Provide necessary infrastructure improvements to sustain existing development, improve water quality, and maintain navigation in the harbor (such as sewage treatment plant modifications, stormwater runoff control, vessel waste pumpout facilities; navigation channel and basin dredging and bulkhead maintenance). Coordinate and facilitate public and private maintenance dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities. Maintain and where appropriate increase public access to public lands and waters. Prevent the loss of open space and recreational opportunities. Maintain and improve Harbor Island Park's for public access and recreational activities. Increase public access to the harbor from land, and improve access from the harbor to the central business district. Special Management Area~ 427 8. Maintain the harbor's SB water quality classification and improve water quality to .~ support primary contact recreation. Actions Needed A harbor management plan is being developed as a component of the Village of Mamaroneck's approved LWRP. The harbor management plan is being designed to achieve the preceding objectives and will include priority actions, such as the following projects and procedural recommendations: Projects 1. Navigation - (also see procedural item #4, Water Quality) Develop a'coordinated, public and private dredging, dredged material testing and monitoring, and dredged material disposal plan for the harbor that includes appropriate offshore and, where feasible, upland dredged material disposal sites. Dredge the existing federal navigation channels and basins and dispose of dredged material in a manner consistent with the dredging plan (also see Procedural item #1, Regulatory Simplification). (Objectives 1,2,4,5,6,7) 2. Water Quality - Provide denitrifieation modifications to the Westchester County sewage treatment plant (also see Infrastructure project//5). Retrofit the existing stormwater system to treat roadway runoff. Provide drainage improvements to treat runoff from Harbor Island Park. F. stablish vegetated wetlands on the north side of the west basin, the east side of Harbor Island Park, and south of Guion Creek. Maintain buffers around G-uion and Otter Creeks and along the east shore of harbor. Initiate street sweeping and maintain catch basins. Develop an intermunicipal approach to address stormwater runoff originating from upstream municipalities. Provide additional vessel waste pumpout and dump station using Clean Vessel Act funds. (Objectives 5,'/,8) 3. Recreation - Maintain and repair Harbor Island Park's roadway and parking areas; repair bulkheads and retaining walls; repair and maintain public restrooms and vessel waste facilities, and provide additional vessel waste facilities; and provide additional short-term public docking facilities in the east basin. Designate seaward limits of bathing areas, open space, and safety buffers between bathing areas, channels, fairways, and in-water structures. Provide access from street ends to the harbor. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,7,8) 4. Infrastructure - Reconstruct and repair deteriorated public bulkheads and retaining walls. Maintain navigation channels and basins at suitable depths. Provide sewage treatment plant denitrifieation modifications. Retrofit the storm water drainage system to treat runoff prior to discharge in the harbor. Provide additional public docking facilities. (Objectives 1,2,5,7,8) 5. Public Access - Review grants, leases or easements in and to underwater and formerly underwater lands to determine where conditions of the grants, leases or easements have and have not been met. Where the grants, leases or easements are no longer valid, or where conditions have not been met, reassert public rights and interests to those lands for public use, where appropriate, and remove or mitigate obstructions, where appropriate. Provide access to the harbor from street ends and as part of storm water drainage retrofits, where possible and appropriate. Designate public anchoring and 428 Special Management Areas mooring areas and provide additional public docks for transient vessels. (Objectives 3,4,7) Procedural Regulatory Simplification - Simplify the state and local regulatory process for public and private actions that are consistent with the harbor management plan. Simplify regulatory activities affecting dredging by incorporating the dredging plan identified in Project #1 into agency decision-making. Establish seaward perimeters of areas where in-water structures may be placed, moved or modified, and simplify the regulatory process for placing, modifying or moving in-water structures in these areas. (Objectives 1,2,5,6) Water-Dependent Uses - Maintain the Marine Commercial and Marine Recreation zoning districts to insure that commercial water-dependent uses are not displaced by non-water-dependent uses. Amend the zoning text, where appropriate, to allow limited water-enhanced or non-water-dependent uses that support water-dependent uses. Amend the zoning text to allow water-dependent commercial uses in the Marine Recreation district. Establish seaward perimeter boundaries adjacent to Marine Commercial and Marine Recreation zones (also see Procedural item # 5, In-Water Structures and Procedural item #1, Regulatory Simplification). Within these perimeters, allow modifications to docks, floats, pilings, and other in-water structures and allow maintenance dredging consistent with the coordinated dredging plan in Project and Procedural items #1 without requiring new regulatory permits for minor modifications. Designate offshore limits for public bathing areas. Designate open space and safety buffer areas between bathing areas, chan0els, fairways, mooring areas, and in-water structures. (Objective 1,2,3,5,6,7) Navigation, Anchoring, and Mooring - (also see procedural item g5, In-Water Structures) Designate specific areas for: in-water structures; long and short-term vessel mooring; channels, fairways and open space; safety buffer zones adjacent to channels, mooring areas, bathing areas and in-water structures. Allocate in-water space for mooring areas, in-water structures, and vessel basins consistent with the use of the adjacent upland. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,7) Water Quality - Maintain and harbor's SB water quality classification and use standard for. primary contact recreation. Require pretreatment of runoff through existing regulatory programs. Adopt sediment and erosion control standards for existing and new development. Prohibit the dumping or placement of material such as lawn sweepings and leaves onto public streets. Coordinate public and private dredging and dredged material disposal consistent with the plan identified in Project item #1, Navigation. (Objectives 1,2,5,6,7,8) In-Water Structures - Establish a seaward bulkhead line for the entire harbor within which filling or bulkheading is allowed, and prohibit filling or bulkheading seaward of this line. Establish a seaward harbor line within which in-water structures are allowed, and beyond which in-water structures are prohibited. Establish in-water perimeter limits within the bulkhead and harbor lines consistent with adjacent upland zoning and uses, and allow minor modifications to in-water structures within these perimeter areas. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,7) Special Management Areas 429 o Harbor Improvement District - Establish a harbor improvement district to provide a funding mechanism for public projects and physical improvements in and adjacent to the harbor, such as: water quality improvement projects; studies; construction and maintenance of parking lots, bulkheads, boat ramp, docks, vessel waste pumpout facilities; public mooring and anchorage facilities; land acquisition; dredging and dredged material disposal; and harbor management activities, facilities and equipment. (Objectives 1,2,5,6,7,8) Tax Assessments * In areas zoned MC-1 (General Marine - Commercial), assess water- dependent uses for their value as water-dependent uses, rather than assessing them as non-water-dependent uses. In areas zoned MC-2 (Central Marine - Commercial), where non-water-dependent uses on the same lots as water-dependent uses support water- dependent uses as a principal use, assess the principal water-dependent uses for their value as water-dependent uses and assess the non-water-dependent uses that support water-dependent uses proportionately. In areas zoned MR (Marine Recreation), assess the value of the property for water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses proportionately. (Objectives 1,7) HUNTINGTON HARBOR Huntington Harbor is one of the mo~t important and intensely used recreational boating harbors on Long Island Sound in New York. The harbor is approximately 340 acres in size and is one of four harbors within the Hunfington/Northport Bay complex, the largest harbor and bay complex on Long Island's north shore. Almost all of the harbor, except for the extreme northwest portion within the municipal limits of the Village of Lloyd Harbor, is within the Town of Huntington. The upland on the harbor's northeastern shore is within the Village of Huntington Bay. Residential development surrounds most of the northern portion of the harbor, with interspersed recreational and commercial water-dependent uses. The upland surrounding the southern half of the harbor is where the greatest concentration of commercial and recreational water-dependent and water-enhanced uses is located. The intensely used southern half of the harbor and its upland area is near and is an integral part of the Town of Huntington's central business district, and the extreme southern portions are zoned a C-9 Harbor Use District. The northern half of the harbor supports extensive high value vegetated and unvegetated tidal wetlands and a major commercial shellfishery. The harbor's large watershed js fully developed with a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial uses. During the boating season most of the harbor is occupied by vessels on moorings and in slips. A federal navigation channel runs the entire length of the harbor from Huntington Bay to the extreme southern end of the harbor. Water Dependent Uses The range of water-dependent uses throughout the harbor includes a bathing beach, marinas, yacht clubs, boat yards, a public boat ramp, commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing, mooring areas, party and charter boats, and support services, such as docks, vessel waste pumpout facilities, fueling, marine sales, and marine insurance brokers. A few docks in the harbor are used by the commercial fishing and marine construction industry. 4.30 Special Management Areas Marinas, Yacht Clubs, and Support Services There are seven commercial marinas, twO town-owned marinas and a boat ramp, four yacht clubs, and support services, such as boat storage and repair and marine sales and brokerages in the harbor. Some of the marinas provide dockage for small harbor tugs and commercial fishing and marine construction vessels (see commercial vessel docking). Commercial Fishing and Shellfishing The northern portion of the harbor supports an extremely productive commercial shellflshery. In the past four years, approximately 16,000 bushels of shellfish, primarily hard clams, have been harvested during conditional openings or relayed from this area to others, with a retail value in excess of $1,000,000.00. The offshore commercial fishing industry within the harbor, consisting of several vessels, centers almost exclusively on lobsters, although some trawlers and draggers also operate out of the harbor. Commercial Vessel Docking and Mooring Several marinas and private docks provide limited dockage for commercial vessels, such as small harbor tugs, vessels used in marine construction, trawlers and draggers, and several lobster boats. Most are located on the west shore along West Shore Road, although some are on the east side of the harbor, and one private dock used by commercial fishing vessels is located in the extreme northeast section of the harbor. Approximately 80 bay boats used to harvest inshore sbellfisheries moor on the west side of the harbor along West Shore Road. Many other bay boats moor, use slips, or dock throughout the remainder of the harbor. Recreation Boating. The harbor is one of the most intensely used recreational boating harbors on the Sound and is a desired stopover for transient recreational vessels travelling throughout the northeast coast. Approximately 655 vessels are on moorings, and approximately 1,100 vessels are in slips at marinas and yacht clubs. The highest concentrations of vessels are in the southern half of the harbor and along much of the length of the harbor's west shore to the municipal boundary of the town and the Village of Lloyd Harbor. Two town-owned marinas are located in the southern portion of the harbor, one adjacent to a small town-owned passive recreation park, and the other adjacent to a town-owned boat ramp and small parking Swimming attd Bathing. Informal, unsupervised swimming takes place throughout the harbor, except in the extreme southern portions. Several civic associations lease land from the town between West Shore Road and the harbor. The associations restrict the use of these areas to association members. Public restrooms are not provided, therefore, the County Department of Health does not allow them to be used as formal swimming and bathing areas. Gold Star Battalion Beach, a well used town bathing beach, is the only public bathing beach in the harbor, located in the northwest portion of the harbor. The beach has occasionally been closed to swimming, as a result of short-term water quality impairments from runoff al~er heavy rainfalls and occasional sewage treatment plant malfunctions. The offshore limit of the swimming area is constrained by moored vessels that are too close to the bathing area, and the floats that define the swinuning area occasionally rest on the intertidal area during low tide, limiting opportunities for swimming and bathing. In order to reduce water quality Special Management Areas 431 impairments which impair primary contact recreation within the bathing area, a 'Gunderboom" is installed around the bathing area during the summer. ~" Infrastructure The harbor's watershed is extensively developed. The harbor is supported by extensive roadway infrastructure. Roadways are immediately adjacent to and surround the southern portion of the harbor. Although public and private parking is provided around the harbor, it is inadequate for many water-dependent uses in the southern portions of the harbor because of existing development. The federal navigation channel and basin is sufficient for ail uses within the harbur. Severai public and private bulkheads in the southern portion of the harbor are in disrepair. The town-owned and -operated sewage treatment plant has a design capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day of sewage, and currently treats approximately 1.9 to 2.0 million gallons per day. The plant can treat up to 5.5 million gallons for brief periods of up to six or seven hours. The plant does not provide denitrification. Natural Resources Wetlands and Shellfish Vegetated tidal wetlands exist along the shore throughout the northern portions of the harbor and fringing much of the length of the southern portions of the harbor on the west shore. The most productive high value vegetated and unvegetated wetlands are located in the northern half of the harbor, primarily along the west shore in the Village of Lloyd Harbor and on the east shore north of Knutson West Marina. Although the entire northern portion of the harbor supports a productive hard clam shellfishery, the most productive areas are in the extreme northwest portion of the harbor and east of the navigation channel. The viability of the shellfishery is dependent upon high water quality and undisturbed vegetated and unvegetated wetlands. Water ~uality The water quality classification for the entire harbor is SA, and its highest assigned use standard is shellfishing. The harbor fails to meet the SA water quality and use standards, although the northern portions usually meet standards for primary contact recreation, such as swimming. Conditional sheilfishing is allowed in the northern portions of the harbor during the winter and early spring, except after a 0.1' rainfall within a 24 hour period. Excessive coliform loading after prolonged periods of heavy rainfall during the summer has occasionally resulted in bathing beach closures. Five vessel waste pumpout facilities are available for public use in the southern portion of the harbor. Three of these facilities are owned by the town and are open continuously from April 1 through November 15 without charge. The other two facilities are privately owned and charge ten dollars per pumpout. An additional town-owned facility is planned near the mouth of the harbor at Castle Cove Marina. Wastes from pumpout and dump facilities are transported to and receive pretreatment and full secondary treatment at the town's sewage treatment plant. The state, on behalf of the town, submitted a petition to the EPA for a determination that there are sufficient vessel waste facilities in the harbor to support state designation of the harbor as a vessel waste no-discharge zone. The EPA has tentatively determined that there 432 Special Management Areas are sufficient facilities available to support such a state designation, which would prohibit the discharge of all treated and untreated vessel wastes into the harbor. Summary of lssues and Problems The issues and problems confronting Huntington Harbor as a maritime center are summarized below and illustrated on map 19.0. Development Constraints and Potential for Redevelopment Given the already intensely developed shoreline around the southern portions of the harbor, the limited space between West Shore Road and the harbor on the west shore, the residential development and parkland surrounding the remainder of the shoreline, and development constraints associated with high natural resource values in the northern portions of the harbor, limited opportunities exist for new commercial water-dependent uses. There is, however, the potential for new water-dependent uses in areas where water-dependent uses currently exist, and for redeveloping non-water-dependant uses and sites in the southern portion of the harbor with water-dependent uses. There is also an opportunity to provide for cleaner and more efficient operation of existing and new water-dependent uses and to improve water quality throughout the harbor to increase capacity and economic efficiency. COMMERCIAL WATER-DEPI~NDENT USES The existing water-dependent uses in the southern portion of the harbor are consistent with the existing C-9 zoning category; however, the C-9 district also allows non-water-dependent uses, which could displace the important water-dependent uses. Some non-water-dependent uses occupy valuable waterfront space that could be used by water-dependent uses, or by water-enhanced and other uses that support water-dependent uses. Important commercial water-dependent uses elsewhere in the harbor are located in residential zoning districts and, as nonconforming uses, can be displaced easily. There is a need to protect water-dependent uses in the C-9 district and in other areas from displacement. There are inadequate support facilities, such as loading and unloading docks and parking areas, for commercial fishing and shellfishing. Over 80 baymen currently park their vehicles on the shoulder of West Shore Road. They carry equipment and products across intertidal wetlands and up a steep embankment to and fi.om their vehicles and vessels, resulting in baTardous traffic conditions, natural resource impairments, and inefficient and unsafe operation. The few docks available to the commercial fishing and shellfish industry are nonconforming uses which can be displaced by non-water-dependent uses. A partial solution to this problem, identified by the town, could be acquisition of a marina on the west shore of the harbor, construction of a commercial fishing and shellfishing loading and offloading dock, and designation of the adjacent area for the mooring of commercial fishing and shellfishing vessels. Such a solution would provide some of the support facilities and long- term stability required by the commercial fishing and shellfishing industry. Navigation The harbor is extremely congested with moored vessels, moored floats, and in-water structures, primarily from the middle to the southern reaches of the harbor along both the east and west shores and along most of the west side of the harbor. In some instances, in- water structures extend seaward too close to the channel and mooring areas and, in some cases, are within the lines of the channel. These conditions are unsafe, as are conditions Special Management Areas 433 LLOYO HARBOR 0,0 Mi. PT NECK EAST SS Huntington Harbor Maritime Center I I [ [ [' Harbor U~ D~rict :;;..:~: Moored Vessels '~ Public Access Improvements · Significant Urban Nonpolnt Source Pollution Water Quality Improvement Project Sewage Treatment Plant Outt'all Significant Shellfishories Bathing ~h NO Navigation Obstructions mi Baymen's Dock Project MAP .1 9.0 HALESITE HUNTINGTON HARBOR. N. Y. where moored vessels are in close proximity to bathing areas. There is a need to reduce this congestion and the competition for space that it creates throughout harbor. Access to Underwater Lands and the Foreshore A number of leases, easements, and grants to town-owned underwater lands and the foreshore have been issued. Although leases, easements, and grants often retain some form of continued public use of public lands, many of the current holders of these agreements prohibit or prevent public access to. and use of these public lands for commercial and recreational fishing, sbellfishing, strolling, swimming, and boating. Physical access is restricted by physical barriers, such as fences built perpendicular and parallel to the shoreline. These physical barriers, such as along West Shore Road, prevent public access across public lands to the harbor and along the shoreline at the water's edge. Docks and bulkheads also limit and prevent access along shoreline. Water Quality, Wetlands and ShelO~shing The harbor fails to meet the SA water quality classification in terms of both water quality and use standards, precluding its assigned use for sbellfishing throughout the harbor. This problem is greatest in the northern portions of the harbor, where the most productive shellfishery exists. Urban nonpoint source pollution from the harbor's fully developed watershed, the intense concentration of vessels, and occasional sewage treatment plant malfunctions are the primary causes of water quality and use impairments. The southern portions of the harbor are where most of the water quality impairments exist, and even if efforts are undertaken to reduce nonpoint source impairments in this area, it is doubtful that water quality will ever be improved to the point where shellfishing will be allowed. In addition, the dredged and intensely developed southern portion of the harbor does not contain or support, nor is it feasible to reconstruct, a habitat conducive to the propagation of shellfish. Winter conditional shellfishing does take place in the northern portions of the harbor, and it may be possible to improve water quality in the northern portion of the harbor to increase opportunities for direct harvesting or additional relays. The town's sewage treatment plant contributes an average of 1.9 to 2.0 million gallons of secondary treated waste per day in the southern portions of the harbor. The biological integrity and high resource values of the vegetated wetlands, which partially support the habitat and shellfishery in the harbor and the entire Huntington/Northport Bay complex, are impaired by sedimentation and physical destruction in many areas. The biological integrity, functions, and resource values of these wetlands are dependent upon an undisturbed condition and high water quality. Recreation The harbor itself is extremely overcrowded. There are several use conflicts throughout the harbor, such as those between vessel moorings and bathing at Gold Star Battalion Beach, between vessel mooring and shellfishing, and between recreational vessel docks and navigation. Coindre Hall, a former estate and private school now owned by Suffolk County, is located on a hillside overlooking the northern portion of the harbor. The estate grounds include a large expanse of open space adjacent to the harbor, a boathouse adjacent to the harbor, and a large dock. There is pOtential for the adaptive reuse of the portion of the property adjacent Special Management Areas 435 to the harbor for waterfront access for passive water-dependent and water-enhanced uses, such as open space enjoyment, fishing, and nature and marine study. Infrastructure and Development Constraints The Southern portions of the harbor are almost fully developed. There is very little room for new water-dependent uses, or expansions of existing water-dependent uses either in-water or upland, with the exception of the narrow strip of land between West Shore Road and the harbor, and lots that are currently developed with non-water-dependent uses, which could be redeveloped with water-dependent uses. The extremely narrow strip of land between West Shore Road and the harbor, where several small docks servicing commercial vessels exist, provides very little space for any upland uses. Although the sewage treatment plant is operating well within its current capacity and could treat additional wastes, additional wastes would increase nitrogen loadings to the harbor, the adjacent bay complex, and Long Island Sound. The drat~ Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan has recommended denitrification modifications to the plant, which would decrease the plant's capacity. Drainage and flooding problems are extensive around the southern perimeter of the harbor, where shoreline erosion and sedimentation results, where bulkheads are in disrepair, or where the shoreline is unprotected by structures or vegetation. High natural resource values are development constraints throughout the northern portions of the harbor. Summary of Overall Objectives 1. Protect and maintain existing water-dependent uses in their present locations and improve conditions, so that they can operate cleanly and more efficiently within well defined limits, in order to improve economic efficiency and prevent further impairments to wetlands, water quality, and shellfisheries and to prevent further congestion, use conflicts, and use impairments in the harbor. Limit new or expansion of existing commercial water-dependent uses to the southern portion of the harbor. 2. Prevent impairments to navigation and access to underwater lands and along shoreline by limiting in-water structures to well defined perimeters to prevent further overcrowding and prevent impairments to navigation. Prevent in-water structures orthe anchoring or mooring of vessels or floats in channels, bathing areas, the most productive shellfishing areas, or in other inappropriate areas. Allocate space for mooring areas and structures consistent with upland use. 3. Assure adequate long-term commercial fishing and shellfishing loading and unloading and vessel mooring. 4. Maintain the current SA classification and use standards for shellfishing and bathing in the northern portion of the harbor outside of the Harbor Use District by improving water quality, and improve water quality in the southern portion of the harbor in the Harbor Use District. 5. Preserve and protect the harbor's shellfishery and the habitat that supports it. 6. Reduce conflicts between recreational boating, swimming, shellfishing, and other uses. 436 Special Management Areas 7. Coordinate and facilitate dredging necessary for water-dependent uses consistent with water quality and natural resource constraints. Ac~onsNeeded Develop a Harbor Management Plan as a component of the town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program that achieves the preceding objectives and includes priority actions such as the following projects and procedural recommendations: Projects 1. Commercial Fishing and Shellfishing - In the northwest portion of the harbor, acquire a site and construct a commercial fishing and shellfishing loading and unloading dock and parking area. Establish a permanent mooring area for baymen (also see procedural item 3, Navigation). This would also eliminate the traffic safety problem and natural resource impairments from loading and unloading along West Shore Road. (Objectives 1,2,3,5,6) 2. Navigation - Maintain the harbor channel and anchorage basin at adequate depths, use clean dredge spoil for beach nourishment, and dispose of fine or contaminated sediment in Western Long Island Sound dump site. (Objectives 1,3,7) 3. Recreation - Move moored vessels further offshore from Gold Star Battalion Beach and extend lines demarcating the bathing area further offshore. Redevelop the lot leased to the Foreign Legion at the south end of the harbor for boat trailer parking and the underground treatment of roadway runoff described below in water quality. (Objectives 1,2,6) Water Quality - Improve water quality by implementing structural and nonstructural urban nonpoint source management practices to manage, control and treat urban nonpoint runoff and stormwater runoff from roads by constructing retention basins or leaching basins, providing roadway improvements to control and treat runoff, retrofitting direct pipe discharges from roadways to treat runoff prior to entry into the harbor, and maintain and create adequate buffers adjacent to the harbor, such as to control and treat runoff prior to entry into harbor. Add denitrificatiou to the town-owned sewage treatment plant, as recommended in the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Provide an additional vessel waste pumpout or dump station for public use at north end of harbor. Explore the desirability and feasibility of constructing a demonstration project meadow/marsh/pond roadway runoff treatment system using the existing ponding area on the Coindre Hall property to reduce pollutant loadings and sedimentation to the harbor and for habitat improvements and nature study. (Objectives 1,4,5,6) Public Access - Review leases, grants and easements to town-owned underwater lands and formerly underwater filled lands, reassert public trust rights and interests to those lands where appropriate, and remove or mitigate obstructions where appropriate. (Objectives 1,2,3,5,6) Special Management Areas 437 Procedural 1. Regulatory Simplification - Simplify the state and local regulatory process for public and private actions that are consistent with the harbor management plan. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) 2. Water Dependent Uses - Maintain the C-9 zoning district in the southern portion of the harbor and elsewhere where commercial water-dependent uses currently exist, and ensure that water-enhanced and non-water-dependent uses can not displace water-dependent uses and replace non-water-dependent uses in the C-9 district with water-dependent uses, by amending the C-9 zoning text to eliminate non-water-dependent uses, except when they support or complement water- dependent uses. Establish seaward perimeter boundaries for new and existing water-dependent uses within the C-9 zoning districts and, within these perimeters, allow modifications to docks, piers, floats, pilings, etc., without requiring new regulatory permits for minor modifications, while reporting changes to the town and state. (Objectives 1,2,5,6) 3. Navigation, Anchoring, and Mooring - Prevent impairments to navigation in channels, fairways, and anchorage or mooring areas. Prevent use conflicts between vessels and other uses, such as bathing, by establishing buffer areas adjacent to navigation channels and other uses and by designating public recreational, commercial fishing, marina, yacht club, and boat yard mooring areas. Limit vessel anchoring and mooring adjacent to sensitive wetlands and productive shellfisheries in the northern portions of the harbor. Allocate mooring area and establish offshore boundaries consistent with the upland water-dependent uses. (Objectives 1,2,3,5,6) 4. Water Quality - Amend the water quality classification fi.om SA to SB in the Harbor Use District to reflect the actual uses within the harbor. Designate the harbor a federal and state vessel waste no-discharge zone and delegate federal enforcement authority to the state and town, pursuant to Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, and develop an implementation strategy for enforcement. (Objectives 4,5,6) 5. In-Water Structures - In areas of the harbor other than those adjacent to the C-9 zoning district, protect public access to and across all publicly owned underwater lands and the foreshore and prevent impairments to navigation by limiting the seaward extension of in-water structures to the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters. (Objectives 1,2,5,6) 6. Harbor Improvement District - Establish a Harbor Improvement District, pursuant to Section 190 of the New York State Town Law, to provide a funding mechanism for public projects and physical improvements in and adjacent to the harbor, such as: water quality .improvement projects; studies; construction and maintenance of public launching ramp, parking lots, bulkheads, docks and parks, pumpout and waste reception facilities; anchorage areas; land acquisition; and dredging. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) 7. Tax Assessments - Assess water-dependent uses for their value as water-dependent uses, rather than assessing them as non-water-dependent uses, since non-water- 438 Special Management Areas dependent uses would be prohibited by the amended C-9 zoning. (Objectives 1,2,3) MAITITUCK INLET Mattituck Inlet is located in the hamlet of Mattituck on the north shore of Long Island, in the Town of Southold, and is the only harbor on the north shore to the east of Mount Sinai Harbor. The tidal inlet is extremely narrow and approximately two miles long. The widest parts of the inlet, which are only a few hundred feet wide, are in the southern half. The inlet supports substantial vegetated tidal wetlands, shellfisheries, and a state-designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. It also contains a number of commercial and recreational water-dependent uses which are concentrated in three locations: at the inlet's extreme southern end; at its midpoint; and on the west shore near the northernmost end of the inlet. Residential development surrounds most of the inlet. Water-dependent uses include five marinas, commercial fishing, party and charter boats, and a transient anchorage area and two boat ramps in the extreme south end of the inlet. Most of the water-dependent uses are concentrated on the west side of the inlet. Agriculture is a major land use within the inlet's watershed. Approximately 21 acres of vacant, underutilized land, zoned Marine-II (M-II), is available for new commercial development or redevelopment on the northwest side of the inlet. This is a former industrial area which consisted of petroleum and asphalt tank farms. This area could accommodate new marinas and other recreational or commercial water-dependant uses, or a mix of uses. Sufficient space exists for upland dry rack storage of vessels and limited in-water facilities, boat ramps, and associated parking areas. Water Dependent Uses Commercial Fishing and Shellftshing Facilities in the inlet support approximately 20 to 25 commercial fishing vessels. Most of these boats make daily runs, although several make extended trips. There are excellent docking facilities for commercial fishing vessels, with over 250 feet of buikheaded dock space. One facility has a hydraulic crane for loading and unloading and, unlike most ports on the Sound, provides some gear storage space. No ice is available, and fuel facilities are deficient, requiring fuel to be brought to commercial vessels. Mechanical and engine repairs for commercial vessels are lacking, but is provided by on-call mechanics. Unlike other ports on the Sound, Mattituck is used by transient commercial vessels from Shinnecock Inlet during the summer. Although the inlet is relatively small, it is also an extremely productive shellfish growing and commercial harvesting area, producing hard clams, soft clams, and oysters of local and regional importance. Recreation The inlet is the only harbor on the north shore east of Mount Sinai Harbor and provides long-term and transient recreational vessel anchoring, slips, and services. Five marinas in the inlet provide dockage for approximately 600 recreational vessels, and approximately 150 recreational vessels are moored throughout the inlet. The greatest single concentration of moored transient vessels (approximately 25) are located in the federally dredged anchorage area at the extreme southern end of the inlet. Two boat ramps, one owned and operated by the Mattituck Park District for district residents and the other owned by the town and for Special Management Areas 439 town residents, are at the south end of the inlet. A 1.3 acre parcel at the extreme northwest comer of the inlet south of the west jetty, recently acquired by the Town of Southold in 1993 using Environmental Quality Bond Act funds, is an appropriate and suitable site for a public boat ramp due to its proximity to the Sound. Two parks and beaches, which are part of the Mattituck Park District, front Long Island Sound on both the east and west side of the inlet and are limited to use by park district residents. The park and beach on the west side abuts the inlet's west jetty at the inlet's entrance. The east park and beach abuts the inlet's east jetty and the Mattitock Inlet Wetlands Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat located south of the beach. The inlet also supports some recreational shellfishing. The state-owned wetlands and the park abutting them on the east shore provide opportunities for passive recreation such as nature study and observation. Natural Resources Wetlands and Habitat Vegetated tidal wetlands exist throughout the inlet. The most extensive undisturbed vegetated wetlands are part of the approximately 60 acre state-designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, which includes most of the open water of the inlet and its wetlands north of Mill Road. Most of the vegetated wetlands in the designated habitat are owned by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The remainder of the underwater lands and tidal wetlands are owned by the Town of Southold. Wetlands are highly productive and support a variety of fish and wildlife within the inlet and in Long Island Sound near the inlet, including a substantial soft clam and oyster shellfishery, which is dependent on high water quality and undisturbed wetlands. Water Quality The water quality classification in the inlet is SA, and its highest assigned use standard is shellfishing. The inlet fails to meet the class SA water quality and use standards during the summer. Conditional shellfishing is allowed, however, in the winter except following a 0.2" rainfall within a 24 hour period, when coliform loadings exceed acceptable levels. Agricultural and urban nonpoim runoff within the iniet's narrow drainage basin are the primary sources of water quality and shellfish harvesting use impairments. Roadway drainage pipe discharges to the creek have been identified by the town as a source of nonpoint pollution. Water quality and .use impairments are also related to large numbers of vessels in marinas and the public anchorage at the south end of the inlet. Summary of Issues and Problems The issues and problems confronting Mattituck Inlet as a maritime center are summarized below and illustrated on map 20.0 Problems within the inlet and its immediate area include: limited public access to the inlet and its resources for water-dependent recreation, navigation, and shellfishing; use conflicts within the inlet; insufficient infrastructure; and substandard groundwater and surface water quality. Issues include: the need to protect and prevent the displacement of water-dependent uses within the inlet; to redevelop approximately 21 acres of vacant and underutilized waterfront land at the north end of the inlet; to improve surface water quality for shellfishing; and to maintain high value natural resources within the inlet. 440 Special Management Areas, N~ ~OUN~ Mattituck Inlet Maritime Center KEY: ;:.~:i..'.::Marine II Zoning District ~ Commercial Fishing Support Facilities ~.¥}~/'r.~ Opportunity for Water Depenaent Redevelopment 0 Public Access/Street End Improvements · Proposed Vessel Waste Facilities Dredged Material Disposal/Beach Nourishment/Sand Bypassing SH Significant Habitat SS $ignifieant Shellt'mheries · Urban/Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution MAP 20.0 MATTITUCK MATTITUCK HARBOR, N.Y. Commercial Water-Dependent Uses Although the existing water-dependem uses are consistent with their current M-II zoning category, the M-II district also allows non-water-dependent uses which could displace the important water-dependent uses. The displacement of docking facilities for the commercial fishing fleet would be disastrous, since the existing facilities are the only ones available in this part of the Long Island Sound region, and their loss would adversely affect the commercial fishing industry on Long Island. There is also a need to maintain the existing marinas in the inlet to meet the demand for recreational vessel storage and servicing. There is an opportunity to facilitate the location of new water-dependent recreational facilities or a mix of water-dependent and water-enhanced uses within the existing 21-acre underutilized area at the north end of the inlet. This area is most appropriate for new water-dependent uses, such as marinas, boat yards, and boat ramps, due to its proximity to the Sound, its previously disturbed and leveled terrain, and few natural resource constraints both on and immediately off-site. This is also one of the only areas in the inlet large enough to provide sufficient buffer area between water-dependent uses and residences. Petroleum tanks have been removed; however, some remaining tanks may still contain asphalt. It is not known if the area is contaminated or in need of remediation prior to redevelopment. If these areas are redeveloped for commercial or recreational water-dependent uses, such as marinas or boat yards, remediation may not be necessary. Navigation and Access to Underwater Lands and the Foreshore New in-water structures, such as docks and bulkheads, have become prevalent throughout much of the inlet. These structures impede access along the foreshore and to underwater lands for shellfishing and other uses, and impede navigation in narrow, shallow areas. New in-water structures which adversely affect access and navigation need to be limited to the minimum necessary in order for property owners to exercise their littoral rights of access to the water, in order to prevent impairments to navigation and public access along the shore. Structures that cover large areas of underwater lands should be limited to areas adjacent to upland areas zoned for water-dependent uses, and should be limited in length so as not to interfere with navigation channels and navigation buffer areas. The anchorage at the south end of the inlet does not provide moorings for transient vessels. These vessels must use conventional anchors with greater scope than moorings. As a result, the vessels swing in large arcs and use valuable space in the basin. Vessels often anchor outside of the basin due to a lack of space. Permanent or semi-permanent moorings and tackle for transients, which are safer than conventional anchors and use a shorter scope, would result in better use of space in the basin. A greater concentration of vessels could be moored in the anchorage rather than spread out elsewhere in the inlet. Infrastructure Constraints Major new development and major expansions of existing development are constrained throughout the inlet due to the lack of a readily available potable water supply, insufficient roadway infrastructure and parking space for major expansions of existing commercial uses, and insufficient surface water area between the established navigation channel and commercial upland uses. The shallow groundwater table, which has been the area's source of potable water, has been polluted from agricultural pesticides. It is not economically feasible to extend new public water supply lines to the area. Narrow, winding residential streets surround the entire inlet, except at its extreme south end, where a major county road is within a few hundred feet of the Mattituck Park District and town boat ramps. Limited 442 Special Management Areas parking is available at the south end of the inlet at the boat ramps, the park and beach at the entrance to the inlet on its west side, and at the park and beach at the entrance to the inlet on its west side (ail for district residents only). Little space is available for new in-water structures or uses, since the inlet is so narrow and the existing navigation channel occupies much of the inlet. Erosion and Inlet and Beack Maintenance At the entrance to the inlet, beach erosion and shoaling is a problem that needs to be resolved. Shoaling of the inlet is a hazard for large commercial and recreational vessels, and the two jetties along each side of the inlet's entrance prevent the downdrift movement of beach material, resulting in downdrift erosion of the beach on the east side of the inlet. Sand bypassing of the inlet would reduce inlet shoaling and restore the sand budget to downdrift beaches. Water ~,~_!~ and ShellCuhing Substandard water quality resulting from nonpoint source pollution precludes the inlet's assigned use for shellfishing during most of the year, except during cold and dry periods during the winter when there is very little runoff entering the inlet. While water quality frequently fails to meet the inlet's assigned SA water quality standards, it may be possible to improve water quality, re~in the SA classification, and reopen areas within the inlet for shellfishing. This will require adequate control and tream~ent of stormwater and agricultural runoff using nonstructural as well as structural management practices prior to its entry into the inlet. If these improvements are effective, the standard for closures might be amended to relax the 0.2* rainfall standard to allow shellflshing more often. In addition, use conflicts between sbellflshing and concentrations of vessels in marinas and mooring areas need to be minimized in order to reopen portions of the inlet to shellfishing. Some of the potential risks of vessel waste pollution may be reduced by providing sufficient pumpout or dump stations for vessel wastes and designating the inlet a vessel waste no-discharge zone, but the potential for pollution from concentrations of vessels would still exist. In order to effectively resolve these use conflicts, concentrations of vessels will have to be limited to specific areas and prohibited in areas that are most important for shellfish harvesting. Summary of Overall Objectives 1. Protect and maintain existing water-dependent uses in their present locations and improve conditions, so that they can operate cleanly and more efficiently, and allow these uses to expand within well-defined limits. 2. Facilitate the siting of new water-dependent uses on former industrial sites at the north end of the inlet, such as at least one public boat ramp and parking area, marinas and/or boat yards with dry rack storage. Any in-water facilities would be limited in size to prevent intrusions into the main navigation channel of the inlet. 3. Provide necessary infrastructure improvements (roads, parking, water supply, inlet and channel maintenance/bypassing, water quality improvements) to sustain existing and new development. Maintain high natural resource and habitat values throughout the inlet. Special Management Areas 443 Improve water quality for shellfishing and high value habitats by remediating water quality impairments resulting from agricultural and stormwater runoff and vessel waste discharges. Prevent use conflicts between shellfishing in highly productive shellfishing areas and congregations of commercial and recreational vessels in the southernmost anchorage basin, at marinas, and at other facilities and areas within the inlet. 7. Protect, maintain, and improve public access to underwater lands and the foreshore for shellfishing, fishing, recreational boating, and passive recreation. Actions Needed Develop a harbor management plan as a component of the town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program that achieves the preceding objectives and includes priority actions, such as the following projects and procedural recommendations: Projects 1. Commercial Fishing - Provide ice, fuel, and mechanical repair facilities and services for commercial fishing vessels. (Objectives 1,2) 2. Recreation - Provide permanent or semi-permanent mooring tackle at the public anchorage at the south end of the inlet for more efficient use of space by transient vesaels, and prohibit concentrations of anchored or moored vessels in productive shellfishing areas. User fees for moorings would pay for upkeep and maintenance of mooring tackle, etc. This would reduce vessel versus shellfishing conflicts by providing for a greater concentration of vessels in the anchorage rather than productive shellfishing areas, and preventing conflicts in important shellfishing areas. Provide a public park and a boat ramp with associated parking lots on the 1.3 acre state-owned parcel on northwest side of inlet. Maintain the inlet channel and anchorage basin at adequate depths and use clean dredge spoil for downdrift beach nourishment. (Objectives 1,2,3,5,6,7) 3. Water Quality - Install detention or retention basins, provide street end improvements to control and treat runoff, retrofit direct pipe discharges from roadways to treat runoff before discharge to the inlet, and maintain or create adequate buffers along watercourses tributary to the inlet. Direct runoff to buffer areas for treatment prior to discharge in the inlet. Use federal Clean Vessel Act funds to provide sufficient vessel waste pumpout and dump stations for all vessels using the inlet. (Objectives 1,3,4,5,6,7) 4. Shellfish - Improve water quality by managing, controlling, and treating agricultural and urban nonpoint runoff. Construct detention or retention basins, create buffers, and improve street ends to prevent direct discharges to the inlet. Limit vessel mooring in productive harvesting areas and increase public anchorage capacity to relocate vessels from harvest areas. Establish shellfish spawner areas (especially for oysters). Transplant shellfish from anchorage area, marinas, and channels to spawner areas and other areas for harvesting. Increase access for shellfishing during winter months by providing public boat ramp at north end of inlet. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,:5,6,7) Access - Provide a public boat launch near the mouth of the inlet (see recreation above). Limit new bulkheads along the shoreline which result in loss of intertidal areas used for ~. ~. Special Management Areas access along inlet's shoreline. Limit the length of new docks to the minimum necessary to prevent impairments to navigation in channels and access to underwater lands for shellfishing. Provide pedestrian access to the inlet from street ends as part of street end improvements designed to control and/or treat roadway runoff. Maintain the inlet channel and anchorage basin. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) Marinas - Maintain the inlet channel and anchorage basin at adequate depths. (Objectives 1,2,3,6,7) Procedural 1. Regulatory Simplification - Simplify the state and local regulatory process for public and private actions that are consistent with the harbor management plan. (Objectives 1,2,3) 2. Water-Dependent Uses - Maintain the M-II districts in their current locations to ensure that water-enhanced uses can not displace water-dependent uses, and amend the M-II zoning text to eliminate non-water-dependent uses. Consider a specific provision for protecting commercial fishing facilities from displacement. (Objectives 1,4,6) 3. In-Water Structures - Establish seaward perimeter boundaries for new and existing water-dependent uses withIn M-II zoning districts. There is a need to limit the seaward extension of in-water structures given the narrow nature of the inlet. Within these perimeters, allow modifications to docks, piers, floats, pilings, etc., without requiring new regulatory permits for every minor modification, although changes should be reported to the town and state. Allow these in-water uses despite the SA water quality classification. Where commercial uses exist, reclassify surface waters to SB within the area occupied by these uses and within a limited and well-defined adjacent area, where shellfishing does not occur or where the area is not a productive shellfishery. (Objectives 1,2,4,6,7) 4. Tax Assessments - Assess existing water-dependent uses for their value as water- dependent uses, rather than assessing them as non-water-dependent uses, since non- water-dependent uses would be prohibited by the amended M-II zoning. (Objectives 1,2) Water Quality - After sufficient vessel waste pumpout and dump stations are available (most conservative standard would be one facility for each 300 vessels), designate the inlet a federal and state vessel waste no-discharge zone, and delegate federal enforcement authority to the state and town pursuant to Section 312 of the Clean Water Act. (Objectives 3,4,5,6,7) Harbor Improvement District - Establish a harbor improvement district, pursuant to Section 190 of the New York State Town Law, to provide a funding mechanism for public projects and physical improvements in the inlet, such as water quality improvement projects, studies, construction and maintenance of launching ramps, public docks, anchorage areas, bulkheads, land acquisition, public docking facilities, dredging, etc. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) Special Management Areas 4~5 PORT CHESTER HARBOR Port Chester Harbor is located in the northernmost portion of Westohester County on Long Island Sound, west of Greenwich, Connecticut. The commercially developed harbor area comprises the eastern portion of the village's central business district. Port Chester contains three marinas, two yacht clubs, two aggregate transshipment locations at a cement and asphalt plant, a petroleum unloading and transfer facility, and modest storage areas for commercial fishing equipment, most notably lobster crates. Recently, a petroleum storage facility was phased out. The harbor is serviced by a federal navigation channel and basin. The primary land and water use objectives in this harbor are to protect and maintain existing water-dependent commercial uses, except for those uses that will be removed as part of the village's waterfront redevelopment projects, and to promote the development of new water- dependent commercial uses, primarily marinas, on underutilized waterfront sites. MAMARONEcKHARBOR Mamaroneck Harbor is located in the mid-portion of Westchester County's frontage on Long Island Sound. The commercially developed harbor represents the eastern edge of the village's central business district. Mamaroneck Harbor consists mostly of water-dependent uses that serve the needs of recreational boaters. The harbor contains five marinas, four yacht clubs, and three boat yards. Less than 20 years ago, the harbor was used to import aggregates and petroleum products; however, these uses have since been phased out. One of the boat yard facilities that exists represents one of the few facilities on Long Island that services large (100 feet plus) commercial vessels. The harbor is served by a federal navigation channel and basin. The primary land and water use objectives in this harbor are to protect and maintain existing uses and to improve the conditions in which they function. NEW ROCH~r.~EHARBORANDECHO BAY Echo Bay and New Rochelle Harbor are located in the south most portion of the Westchester County shore on the Sound. The commercially developed harbor areas is separated from, but in close proximity to, the central business district. Like Mamaroneck Harbor, nearly all the water-dependent uses serve the needs of recreational boaters, however, there are no boat yards. There are six marinas and eight yacht clubs. There are modest storage areas for commercial harvesters especially lobster crates. Within the past 20 years, similar to Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor was used as a receiving point for aggregate shipments and Echo Bay for unloading and storage of petroleum products. These uses no longer exist. There are two federal navigation channels, one in each harbor, and a basin in Echo Bay. The primary land and water use objectives are to protect and maintain existing uses, to improve the conditions in which they function, and to accommodate new marinas and other type recreational uses on underutilized sites. CITY I$I,~aVD AND F~T BRONX SHOI~ City Island and East Bronx Shore is located in the Bronx in Eastchester Bay. City Island is densely developed with water-dependent uses and a large portion of the island's edge is used for water-dependent uses. Many water-enhanced uses, mostly restaurants, and residential 446 Special Management Areas uses are located on the inland portion of the island. Numerous boat equipment shops and services exist to serve the needs of recreational boaters. City Island has eight marinas, six yacht clubs, two boat yards, a concentration of party and charter recreational fishing boats, some commercial fishing vessels, and an oil unloading and storage facility. On the East Bronx Shore, between Pelham Bay Park and Throg's Neck Bridge, there are four marinas and two yacht clubs. No federal navigation channel or basin exists. The primary land and water use objectives are to protect and maintain existing uses, to foster limited development of new water-dependent uses on underutilized sites, and to improve the conditions in which they function. PORT WASHINGTON Port Washington is located on Manhasset Bay in Nassau County in the western portion of the county's frontage on Long Island Sound and is densely developed with water-dependent uses. There are ten marinas, five yacht clubs, five boat yards, a concentration of charter and party recreational, fishing boats, and an oil transfer and storage facility. Many shops and services exist in the Port Washington hamlet and the Village of Manorhaven to serve the needs of recreational boaters. Manhasset Bay was once used to import aggregates, but is no longer used for this purpose. A federal navigation channel and basin serves Manhasset Bay. The primary land and water use objectives are to protect and maintain existing uses, to accommodate new marinas and other types of recreational uses on underutilized portions of the waterfront in Manorhaven, and to improve the conditions in which they function. GLEN COVE CREEK Glen Cove Creek is located on Hempstead Harbor in Nassau County in mid-portion of the county's frontage on Long Island Sound. There are two marinas, three yacht clubs, a boat yard, two aggregate transshipment facilities, and an oil transfer and storage facility. A federal navigation channel serves the creek. The city's central business district exists just to the east of the eastern side of the creek. Consideration will be given to including water- dependent uses located on the west shoreline of Hempstead Harbor in this Maritime Center, provided existing parks on the west shoreline of the harbor are not affected. The primary land and water use objectives are to protect and maintain existing uses, to improve the conditions in which they function, and to accommodate new water-dependent commercial and industrial uses on underutilized sites along the creek. A major impediment to siting new uses in this area is the need to assess the full extent of hazardous waste contamination in the upland area near the creek and in the creek itself and to complete remedial action. Hazardous waste site assessments are being conducted by the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NORTtlPORT HARBOR Northport Harbor is in western Suffolk County, and like Huntington Harbor, is within the largest harbor and bay complex on Long Island Sound. The commercially developed harbor is in integral part of the Village of Northport's central business district, and has three marinas, three yacht clubs, a boat yard, and a large public dock within a public park, and provides mooring facilities for commercial fishing and charter and party boats. A small federal channel parallels the public park, leading to a federally dredged anchorage area, Special Management Area~ 447 village dock, and commercial water-dependent uses near the park. Fishing and boat building have been replaced by parkland and recreational uses, except for an historic boat yard. The primary objectives in this harbor are to protect and maintain existing uses, to improve conditions within which they operate, allow appropriate expansions of existing uses, and to provide a clean and efficient harbor area which supports these uses. PORT JEF1~RSON HARBOR Port Jefferson Harbor is part of a large harbor and bay complex located in central Long Island in Suffolk County. The southern portion of the historic commercial harbor is the focal point of the Village of Port Jefferson's central business district, which is a tourist center. It has two large marinas, two yacht clubs, a cross-Sound passenger and cargo ferry, commercial fishing and charter and party boats, a major aggregate and oil transhipment facility, a large boat launching area, and a major oil-fa:ed electric generating facility. Commercial and industrial uses have been and are being replaced by recreational uses and increased public access. The primary objectives in this harbor are to protect and maintain existing uses, to promote new and expanded uses, and to provide clean and efficient commercial, industrial and recreational uses within the harbor. OTEF. R It, Ot OR ARFAS NOT CONSW MARiTZMB CF2rrF2S Milton Harbor in Westchester County, Oyster Bay in Nassau County, and Cold Spring Harbor, Nissequogue River, Stony Brook Harbor, Mount Sinai, and West Harbor in Fishers Island in Suffolk County contain a modest number of water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. However, the existence of high value natural resources and the need to protect these resources, the existence of established residential communities, or the lack of adequate land-side and water-side infrastructure outweighs the need to promote water- dependent uses in these areas. Enhancing Maritime Centers for Water-Dependent Uses SUMMARY OF STATE ACTIONS Infrastructure improvements, harbor management planning, regulatory changes, and coordinated dredging and dredge disposal would ensure more efficient waterborne transpor~ of essential commodities, such as commercial fish harvests, aggregates for use in construction projects, and petroleum fuel products for homes, motor vehicles, and power plants. Improving Maritime Centers would also ensure recreational enjoyment for thousands of pleasure boat operators and fishermen that use the Sound's waters. For Maritime Centers, the state should: Prepare management plans. A management plan should be prepared for each Maritime Center in consultation with local governments. The plan should: provide harbor specific information about existing conditions, such as land and water uses, uses permitted by zoning, historic resources, natural resources, landside and waterside infrastructure, and public access 448 Special Management Areas · describe the inland and waterside Maritime Center boundary · include a description of the issues and objectives that the plan will focus on such as desired land and water uses, redevelopment opportunities and objectives, navigation and dredging needs, public access objectives, landside and waterside infrastructure needs and priorities, and natural resource protection and restoration objectives · contain performance standards and design guidelines to guide future development · establish boundaries Boundaries should be established for each Maritime Center as the management plans are being prepared. Generally, areas that should be considered for inclusion in the Maritime Center boundary include: land currently used for water-dependent uses; underutilized land where the development of new water-dependent uses is desired; surface waters committed to or necessary for water-dependent uses; and adjacent upland containing commercially developed properties, such as business districts, that are or could be connected to the marine commercial waterfront and contain uses supportive or complimentary to water-dependent uses. If inadequate land area exists to accommodate the growth of working coast uses where growth is desired, land adjacent to or near the marine commercial waterfront should be assessed to determine the feasibility of accommodating working coast uses and the appropriateness of being included in Maritime Center boundary. · ~stablish infrastructure investment priorities. Work with local governments and the private sector to set priorities for public and private sector investments in infrastructure such as maintenance dredging of navigation channels and anchorage basins, and construction and maintenance of docks and piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, parking lots, rest rooms, pumpout stations, and waterfront parks to improve the quality of these areas. Infrastructure improvements will better support existing uses and foster the development of new water-dependent uses. · Promote mixed use developments. Flexibility in the state policy on waterfront development in Maritime Centers is necessary to allow accessory non-water-dependent uses. Many working coast uses require substantial revenues for maintenance of shore front infrastructure, such as docks, piles, bulkheads, and navigation channels. Revenues generated by uses which are accessory to working coast uses can improve the economic viability of working coast uses and prevent total conversion of the site to non-water-dependent uses. However, state policies and standards must ensure that complementary non-water- dependent uses will not displace or interfere with the operations of working coast uses. Limited water-enhanced uses within Maritime Centers are also appropriate, but not at the expense of water-dependent uses. · Improve and shorten the regulatory process. The following approaches should be considered to improve and shorten the regulatory process in Maritime Centers. The first approach is a general permit, administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, for water-dependent commercial and industrial uses located in Maritime Centers. This permit could be the same as, or a slight variation of, Special Management Areas 449 the proposed State Program General Permit that is now being discussed by state agencies and United States Corps of Engineers. The permit could allow a range of moderate improvements or routine maintenance activities to occur. This permit would not represent a new layer of regulation or be in addition to existing permits; rather, the general permit would consist of existing permits necessary for a coastal development project, such as tidal wetlands, water quality, and coastal erosion hazard permits. The various existing permits would comprise, and be folded into, one general permit. The permit would specify timeframes and project thresholds to guide the timing and scale of modest improvements or routine maintenance activities. The second approach is a general permit based on a state-approved Maritime Center plan. The time frames and project thresholds of the general permit and an increased number of activities, could be based on the Maritime Center plan. Actions in Maritime Centers covered by the general permit could be exempt from consistency review by the Depa~iment of State. A general permit could be an incentive to siting new water dependent commercial and industrial uses in Maritime Centers. The third is a consolidated permit system for actions in Maritime Centers to shorten the regulatory process. Features of a consolidated permit system would be: a single application which is copied to, and reviewed by, all the involved state agencies; for major proposals, a pre-application meeting or scoping session with involved agencies; a single hearing; and issuance of one state agency permit and approval. The fourth approach is continuing and expanding the use of Reconfiguration Perimeter Conditions that allow the alteration of reconfiguration of in-water structures, such as the number, width, length, and location of docks, piles, and ramps within the perimeter or envelope of an existing dock facility. · Assign compatible water quality classifications. Ensure that water quality classifications and the associated "best usage of waters description" are compatible with existing water-dependent commercial and industrial uses, and if anticipated, the growth of new water-dependent uses. Surface waters in six of the ten proposed Maritime Centers are assigned the 'SB ~ Classification: Port Chester Harbor, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle Harbor, City Island, Port Washington, and Glen Cove. Surface waters in the Maritime Center of Port Jefferson (the southern most portion of the harbor) are assigned the 'SC' Classification. Surface waters in the remaining three Maritime Centers are assigned the "SA" Classification: Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, and Mattitock Inlet. Consideration should be given to changing the classification from 'SAw to 'SB' in these three Maritime Centers in areas where concentrations of water-dependent commercial uses exist. Such a change in classification would be consistent with water quality classifications assigned to other Maritime Centers and be more compatible with water- dependent uses than the 'SA' Classification. Existing conditions, such as the following, could be used as the basis for reclassifying surface waters in Maritime Centers: · Due to poor water quality and the presence of actual or potential pollution sources, it is highly improbable that the area to be reclassified will ever be certified for shellfish harvesting. · 450 Special Management Areas The area to be reclassified must currently be uncertified for shellfishing purposes due to the presence of water-dependent uses that are potential or actual pollution sources. · The area is suitable for the development of water-dependent uses and does not exhibit habitat or natural resource characteristics that are suitable or conducive to the propagation of shellfish resources. · Improve coordination of dredging and spoil disposal. Coordinate dredging actions in Maritime Centers to minimize individual regulatory and cost burdens and to minimize impacts to natural resources. Improved coordination will ensure safe, cost-effective navigation to and from Maritime Centers. · Improve environmental quality. Maintaining existing, and fostering the development of new, water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers through reduced regulatory burdens and infrastructure investments does not mean a reduction in environmental quality. Best management practices will be applied to ensure that existing and new development will achieve improved environmental quality. · Afford protection from nuisance suits. Protect pre-existing water-dependent commercial and industry uses fi.om nuisance suits by adjacent property owners. · Work with local goveru~nents to complete Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. The state should continue to work with local governments to complete Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. An emphasis should be placed on completing local programs where there is a state-designated Maritime Center. · Work with local governments to complete harbor management plans. Harbor management plans, as components of Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, should be completed to address problems of conflict, congestion, and competition for space in the use of harbors, surface waters, and underwater lands in Maritime Centers. Harbor management plans will address the needs of water-dependent recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and ensure the orderly growth of water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers. AREAS FOR CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT Continued economic growth in appropriate locations is central to the vitality of the Long Island Sound region. One of the foremost objectives of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program is to achieve this objective by identifying Areas for Concentrated Development where state investments will be focused to spur private sector-led redevelopment. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources identified many benefits to justify the designation of Areas for Concentrated Development. These include: Special Management Areas 451 Urban sprawl along the waterfront is discouraged since development can be channeled into and accommodated on akeady disturbed locations rather than in unspoiled or environmentally sensitive areas. · Redevelopment provides opportunities to revitalize degraded areas and to restore some measure of environmental and visual integrity to a disturbed area. · Existing infrastructure can be used more efficiently and provided at a lower cost than entirely new services at other locations. · Redeveloping areas present opportunities to reestablish the public's connection to the waterfront by integrating public access into redevelopment projects. · Redeveloping areas provide opportunities to introduce new uses that meet community and regional needs. The concept of identifying target areas for concentrated development to protect natural resources and open space is similar to the efforts underway in other states where progressive land use management techniques are being used to guide development to desired locations. Such states include New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Florida, Oregon, Georgia, Maine, and Rhode Island. Revitalizing the Sound's Waterfront Centers Development actions in Areas for Concentrated Development should be viewed as a step toward restoring the man-made and natural environment in the Long Island Sound watershed. Sites that comprise Areas for Concentrated Development are located on or near Long Island Sound and consist mostly of blighted and underutilized lands. These lands, in their existing condition, are highly undesirable for economic, aesthetic, environmental, and public health and safety reasons and can be put to better use. By harnessing regional growth and development pressures, along with the demand for specific uses, and channeling them into Areas For Concentrated Development, deleterious conditions can be eliminated and new desired uses can be established. Development pressures are turned into opportunities for rejuvenating communities and improving the economy and environment. Redevelopment can play an important role in local and regional economic growth by providing new commercial and residential uses, creating jobs, and expanding the tax base. Vacant or deteriorated waterfront lands provide opportunities to develop uses such as new marinas or other intensive waterfront uses which are likely to have limited future growth opportunities in the coastal area of the Sound. Redevelopment can boost growth in commercial and retail uses that provide goods and services to local businesses and consumers. Fostering appropriate redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Development by integrating commercial and retail uses with public open spaces and waterfront access, will improve the quality of the waterfront, making it a more lively and diverse place for residents, workers, and visitors. An attractive waterfront will draw people to these areas, benefiting merchants and adding significantly to the quality of life in the local area and region. Areas upland or adjacent to Areas for Concentrated Development will also benefit. Nearby or adjacent neighborhoods will become more attractive places to live, and residents will benefit from their proximity to the redeveloped waterfront. 452 Special Management Area~ The Sound itself comprises the largest contiguous open space in the region providing relief from the built environment, particularly in the western half of the Sound. A redeveloped waterfront with increased public access and new activities will draw people to the waterfront and allow more people to enjoy the open space benefits the Sound provides. A goal and objectives statement for Areas for Concentrated Development, which follows, was developed to provide a clear expression of the desired effect redeveloped areas will have on communities, the economy, the built and natural environment, particularly Long Island Sound, and people. The goal and objectives express a common vision for areas to be redeveloped, that when accepted by individuals, communities, and local, state, and federal government agencies will facilitate the broad base of understanding and support required to redevelop Areas for Concentrated Development. By pursuing desired and compatible uses, achieve redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Development that revitalizes communities or discrete areas of a community, creates jobs and generates tax revenues, enriches the quality of life, advances environmental quality, and sustains the Long Island Sound region as a clean, inviting, and healthy place. DEVELOPMENT AND ~CONOMIC OBJECTIVES · Redevelop areas in context with community character and establish uses which are capable of substantially contributing to the economic base of the community and region. · Implement appropriate design, development, and performance standards for all development, including public and private sector initiatives. · Recognize the need for and facilitate private development which can help finance public improvements. · Provide land uses such as residential, commercial, and retail along or near the waterfront, including uses which are dependent on or enhanced by a waterfront location. · Ensure proper siting of water-dependent and water-enhanced uses and encourage redevelopment of existing public docks and piers as centers for maritime activity. · Encourage development in areas currently served by available infrastructure and transportation systems, and coordinate infrastructure and transportation system improvements to target areas selected for high levels of use. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC OBJECTIVES · Provide diverse land uses which are of interest to the public. · In all public and private actions, protect and improve the positive elements of the built and natural environments and implement best management practices to restore the Sound. · Maximize the use of publicly-owned waterfront property for the direct benefit and use of the public. Special Management Area~ 453 · Require public waterfront access to the Sound in ail major development actions affecting the shoreline. · Make public investments that will result in a clean and accessible waterfront. · Encourage and facilitate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and develop productive uses for remediated sites. PLANNING PRINCIPLES Well-conceived and well-constructed redevelopment will benefit the community and region and can advance the environmental quality of the Sound. Successful redevelopment will include the establishment of clearly defined places that have their own identity and function. New construction must recognize and be compatible with important culturai and natural features. Planning principles to guide redevelopment include: Redeveloped areas will be of various scaies and each should have a distinctive identity by taking advantage of unique man-made and natural characteristics. Redevelopment actions should be of a scale that conforms to the setting. · Redevelopment should build upon existing resources such as local history and important natural and man-made features to reinforce community identity and add to the sense of place. The waterfront should be a focal point of redevelopment actious. · Redevelopment must respond to community and regional needs, the marketplace, and environmental constraints and opportunities. To achieve successful redevelopment in Areas for Concentrated Development, performance standards and design guidelines must be established. Communities that contain Areas for Concentrated Development will need to ensure that the above planning principles, aiong with specific performance standards and design guidelines, are reflected in their Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs and implementing local laws. Specific standards and guidelines need to be established for each individual project in Areas for Concentrated Development. Performance standards guide the type and density of land use of residential, commerciai, industriai, recreational, and mixed uses. Standards that should be covered include ailowable use, density, height, and requirements for open space and public access. Design guidelines provide the means for achieving design quality. Major topics that are covered include: site layout, waikways and promenades, visual quality, architecture, landscaping, streetscape amenities, and signs. Definition and Criteria for Identifying Areas for Concentrated Development The basis for the definition and criteria to identify Areas for Concentrated Development are outlined by the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. The character of Areas for Concentrated Development suggested by the task force are: (1) urban waterfront areas; (2) locations where redevelopment serves as a catalyst for the redevelopment of a blighted or underutilized area or improves a deteriorated condition; (3) areas where infrastructure and transportation facilities exist; or (4) locations where redevelopment can advance the New York State Coastal Management Program in terms of public access, the retention and 454 Special Management Areas expansion of water-dependent uses, or the facilitation Of new economic activities appropriate to the region. An Area for Concentrated Development is defined as a waterfront area that is part of or near a business district and contains blighted or underutilized properties which are adequate in size to accommodate significant redevelopment. Redevelopment actions shall result in a majority of the following: a restored and revitalized waterfront or adjacent inland area; a strengthened local and regional economy through the development of commercial, industrial, and residential uses; improved waterfront recreation opportunities, public access, or dockage; improved views to the waterfront; restored and preserved historic sites; improved environmental quality; enhanced community character and sense of place; and enhanced visiting pleasure. In their geographic scope, Areas for Concentrated Development will generally be a discrete area of a community, not' the entire community. The criteria to determine whether an area, which meets the above definition, is selected as an Area for Concentrated Development are: Community Initiative and Commitment: The community demonstrates initiative and commitment to undertake and follow through on major redevelopment projects to improve the area. The local government demonstrates an interest in, and commitment to, significantly improving the community's waterfront or business district through an expression of one or more of the following: citizen support and consensus; plans which demonstrate sound economic development and land/water use objectives; or preparation of preliminary waterfront inventories and design plans. · Local Planning: The community has an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) or is actively preparing a LWRP. A LWRP provides the local comprehensive land use planning context for redevelopment. Adequate Land and Water Use Controls: The community has, or will have in place, adequate land and water use controls to manage the use, density, and location of development. These controls are necessary to ensure that the size, scale, and intensity of uses generated by redevelopment are appropriate and compatible with the landside and waterside character of the community. · Land and Water Use Optimization: New development will generally improve the environmental quality of the area. New development will make optimal use of the areas land and water resources which include the built and natural environments, land and water uses, community character, and infrastructure, with particular attention to providing water-dependent and water-enhanced uses. · Infrastructure: Infrastructure and transportation systems exist which are adequate to service the proposed redevelopment. If the existing systems are inadequate, they can be repaired or upgraded to satisfactorily service the intended redevelopment. · Economic Growth: Opportunities exist to stabilize or improve the local and regional economy through redevelopment projects. The area can accommodate a significant increment in growth and development. Redevelopment opportunities exist to achieve economic growth and diversity on the local and regional level through the development of a range of appropriate uses. Public investment in the area must result in significant Special Management Area~ 455 · Opportunities to Restore and Redevelop: Sufficient development demand exists which can be channelled to areas for redevelopment. These development pressures can be used as opportunities to restore and redevelop significant blighted or underutilized areas, buildings, land, waterfronts, or neighborhoods through appropriate redevelopment. · Public Access: Public access can be improved by enhancing existing public access or by establishing new public access. Opportunities exist to establish: public open spaces on the waterfront which allow a wide range of recreational uses, waterfront recreation facilities and features to attract people to the waterfront, or an access circulation system that links waterfront areas and the business district to the waterfront. · Community Needs: The area to be redeveloped will serve community needs as an activity center for a range of cnitural, living, employment, recreational, and educational opportunities. The redeveloped waterfront can be established or improved as a place for people to gather, socialize, recreate, or work. Redevelopment will result in the addition of new public or semi-public facilities or improvements to existing facilities. · Regional Significance: The area can accommodate a significant level of new development and is, or has the potential to be, a waterfront area of regional or statewide sl~nificonee. Redevelopment in the area will make major contributions to the region for retention or expansion of water-dependent uses or expansion of economic activities appropriate to the region. Long Island Sound's Areas for Concentrated Development The following communities are recommended to be designated as Areas for Concentrated Development since they meet the definition and criteria. These communities represent an initial selection of Areas for Concentrated Development and are not a final list. Additional Areas for Concentrated Development are likely to be recommended by state and local agencies and the public. See map 21.0. The project descriptions are from Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRP) and are meant to provide a general description of potential redevelopment projects that exist. These descriptions are not meant to provide a detailed discussion of site-specific projects. THH Vrr~rAGI~ OF PORT CHE~TF.R The Village of Port Cheater, with two miles of waterfront on the Byram River and Port Chester Harbor, is located in the southeastern portion of Westchester County, ten miles north of the Bronx and west of Greenwich, Connecticut. The village and its waterfront was an industrial center for many years, the peak period of industrial activity being from 1910 to 1930. The village's popularity as an industrial center was due in large part to the efficient transportation network consisting of the Byram River, the Old BnsWn Post Road, and the railroad. After World War I, waterfront industrial use began declining to be replaced by residences and parking lots. The construction of two interstate highways, which caused people and goods to bypass the village rather than to stop in it, further contributed to decreases in waterfront industrial activity and an overall decline of the downtown. As a result, major redevelopment opportunities exist in the form of underutilized or vacant property on the waterfront and near the central business district. 456 Special Management Areas Proposed Areas for Concentrated Development CONNECTICUT VBlag, City of Glen Cove Village of,; ~ ~ NYC MAP 21.0 SUFFOLK Legend Areas for Future Conelder~,~_n~ I City of New Rochelle 2 Town of Smithtown 3 Village of Port Jefferson Criteria Met for Designation Port Chester meets the Area for Concentrated Development definition since: (1) four underutilized, large tracts of land, ranging from one to 23 acres, have been identified for major redevelopment by village officials, (2) the sites are located in the waterfront area in or near the village's business district, and (3) redevelopment actions will achieve a majority of the objectives contained in the definition. The village has demonstrated initiative and commitment to undertake and follow through on redevelopment projects in the waterfront area. The village's redevelopment plans are described in the Port Chester Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), which the village voluntarily prepared, that has received local, state, and federal approval. The village's approved LWRP provides the comprehensive planning context for redevelopment. The village-sponsored and -approved Marina and Downtown Redevelopment Project is a priority project that has gone through the State Environmental Quality Review process and found to be consistent with the LWRP. Three other redevelopment projects are advancing through design or approval processes. Public participation has occurred through public hearings on the LWRP and for individual projects. Port Chester adopted adequate land and water use controls to ensure that the type, size, scale, and intensity of redevelopment is compatible with the community. The proposed uses are expected to stabilize, and moderately expand, the existing central business district. The areas to be redeveloped will provide uses that are desired by the community including office, retail, residential, parking facilities, marinas, and parks. By identifying sites for redevelopment, the village has established that Port Chester will allow significant new growth as long as new development is consistent with the village's redevelopment objectives. The village's existing infrastructure and transportation systems will be improved or upgraded at project sites to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. By redeveloping in a built area, optimum use will be made of existing infrastructure. Redevelopment will achieve economic growth that will benefit the local and regional economy by establishing a variety of new desired uses, an increase in tax revenues from new commercial and residential development, and the creation of construction and permanent jobs. Redevelopment will also improve the quality of Port Chester while having minimal on-site impacts since the sites targeted for redevelopment are in a deteriorated or disturbed condition. Developing these sites will help to contain development,' minimize urban sprawl, and relieve local and regional growth pressures. Best management practices will be implemented when properties are redeveloped to minimize nonpoint source runoff to Port Chester Harbor and the Byram River. Public access to and along the Byram River will be improved through renovations to the existing Byram River Marina, the development of two new marinas, and a waterfront promenade. These projects will improve existing public access and provide new public access at waterfront locations not currently providing access. Port Chester has been identified as a Maritime Center of regional importance. Redevelopment actions will ensure the'retention and expansion of marinas through improvements to an existing public marina and the development of new marinas. 458 Special Management Areas Port Chester's Areas for Concentrated Development The Village of Port Chester's LWRP contains descriptions of major urban renewal projects that will improve and reshape its waterfront. Development is proposed to be sited on extensive vacant and underutilized parcels that would result in minimal impacts on the natural environment. Village officials envision and have planned for redevelopment to transform their village from a decayed former industrial and commercial center to a full-service village with an emphasis on marine recreation. To achieve this, the village intends to make better use of the extensive underutilized and vacant property for marine recreation use, public access and open space, residential, offices, and retail shops. Approximately 75 percent or 1.5 miles of the village's waterfront is targeted for redevelopment. The priority projects are shown on map 22.0 and include the following: · The Marina and Downtown Redevelopment This project calls for the construction of offices, a wide range of retail shops, residential apartments, the reconstruction of an existing marina to provide 150 slips, and a public promenade. Central to this redevelopment objective is improving the connection and relationship with the village's central business district which is adjacent to the waterfront. · Columbus Park Marina This project entails the construction of a 200-slip public marina under 1-95, boat storage, boat ramp, and public parking. · Affordable Housing This project entails the creation of 60-plus affordable housing units at Purdy and Traverse Avenues for senior citizens and families. · The Harbor Park Marina This project, located near the south end of the village, calls for predominately residential townhouses and multifamily units at an average density of 25 units per acre, limited retail shops, approximately 200 boat slips with 100 slips for public use, a public waterfront walkway, and other public amenities. Sewage Treatment Sewage generated by new development would be treated by the Port Chester sewage treatment plant which is linked to the Blind Brook sewage treatment plant located in the City of Rye. The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) indicates that both plants, which are operated by Westchester County, are being evaluated for denitrification. The sewage treatment plant in Port Chester does have some excess capacity, but it is anticipated that this capacity would be significantly reduced or eliminated when modifications are made for nitrogen removal to achieve the 'no net increase policy" for nitrogen discharges as established by the LISS. The LISS initial infrastructure project list includes an estimate of $200,000 for a biological nutrient removal retrofit at the Blind Brook treatment plant to reduce nitrogen loading to the Sound. New development within the Port Chester Area for Concentrated Development cannot result in an increase in the nitrogen loading to the Sound. Capacity at the Port Chester and Blind Brook sewage treatment plants may need to be increased to accommodate Special Management Areas 459 AREA FOR CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT: Port Chester Waterfront Village of Port Chester Westchester County PROJECT KEY: 1. Marina and Downtown Redevelopment 2. Columbus Park Marina 3. Affordable Housing 4. Residential and Marina Project MAP 22.0 new development. THE VILLAGE OF MANORHAVEN The Village of Manorhaven, with approximately two miles of waterfront on Manhasset Bay, is located in northwest Nassau County five miles east of the municipal border between Queens and Nassau counties. Manorhaven was known during the 1950's as a waterfront resort community for people from New York City. Many summer homes that were built years ago have become permanent residences as the village has evolved into a year-round community. The waterfront consists mostly of marinas, yacht clubs, parkland, single family homes and condominiums, and a deteriorated former ferry dock site. Manhasset Isle, once famous for its seaplane facility, now abandoned, is developed with single family homes, marinas, and some manufacturing and retail stores. The former sea plane facility, known as the Thypin Steel property, represents the major redevelopment opportunity. Criteria Met for Designation Manorhaven meets the Area for Concentrated Development definition since: (1) three underutilized sites exist, ranging in size from one to ten acres, that have been identified for major development by village officials, (2) the sites are located on the waterfront near or in the village's business district, (3) and redevelopment will achieve most of the objectives described in the definition. The Village of Manorhaven has demonstrated initiative and commitment to undertake and follow through on redevelopment projects. The Manorhaven LWRP was voluntarily commenced by village officials and provides the comprehensive land use planning context for redevelopment. The LWRP describes three underutilized sites, redevelopment plans for each site, and plans to improve public access and restore wetlands. Based on the LWRP, village officials obtained local support to purchase underutilized waterfront land to construct a park and improve public access, applied for a wetlands restoration grant, and plan to have feasibility studies prepared to establish the most appropriate use for two underutilized sites. Public participation is ensured through an LWRP advisory committee, including citizens and business owners, that oversee the preparation of the LWRP. The village intends to adopt land and water use controls to ensure that the type, size, scale, and intensity of redevelopment is compatible with existing uses. Redevelopment will improve the quality of the Manorhaven waterfront and business district by introducing desired community uses including residential, retail, marinas, and parks. These new uses will have minimal on-site impacts since the sites targeted for redevelopment are in a deteriorated or disturbed condition. By identifying sites for redevelopment, the village has established that significant new development will be allowed, so long as new development is consistent with the village's redevelopment objectives and improves the quality of the Manorhaven waterfront. By redeveloping in a built area, optimum use will be made of existing infrastructure which is expected to be adequate to accommodate redevelopment. Redevelopment will achieve economic growth that benefits the local and regional economy by establishing new desired uses, an increase in tax revenues from new commercial and residential development, and the creation of construction and permanent jobs. Developing these sites will help to contain development, minimize urban sprawl, and relieve local and regional growth pressures. Special Management Areas 461 Public access opportunities to and along Manhasset Bay will be improved through the creation of a park and marina at the Morgan Ferry Dock, the development of new marinas or water-dependent uses on Lot 778, provisions for waterfront recreation facilities at the Thypin Steel property, and a waterfront promenade that will parallel North Sheets Creek and Manhasset Bay. These projects will improve existing public access and Provide new public access at waterfront locations not currently providing access. Manorhaven, as part of Port Washington, has been identified as a Maritime Center of regional importance. Redevelopment actions will improve Manorhaven as a boater's destination and result in the retention and expansion of marine recreational uses. Manorhaven's Areas for Concentrated Developtnent The Village of Manorhaven has been active in preparing its LWRP since shortly after volunteering to prepare the plan in June 1992. Village officials plan to improve Manorhaven as a boater's destination by expanding services for boaters and improving the visual quality of the waterfront to attract increased numbers of visitors and boaters to boost the local ecunomy. To achieve this, the village intends to redevelop three deteriorated parcels, restore two wetlands, and improve public access to the waterfront. Approximately one-half of the village's one mile waterfront will be affected. The priority projects are shown on map 23.0 and include the following: · Morgan Ferry Dock To redevelop the deteriorated Morgan Ferry Dock property for public use as a waterfront park, a small marina and mooring for 100 resident and transient vessels, and a fishing pier. The site is one acre in size and publicly owned. · Thypin Steel Property To redevelop the Thypin Steel property for a mix of uses including residential, hotel (to provide overnight lodging for boaters), and retail. The site is 10 acres in size, contains a deteriorated four story building, and is privately owned. · Lot 778 To remove barges and marine debris from a two-acre publicly-owned parcel and redevelop the site for water-dependent uses. The removal of the debris would enable the upland property owners or the public owner, which remains unclear, to make betxer use of the location with water-dependent' uses. · Wetland Restoration and Public Waterfront Access To restore the wetland and habitat values of North Sheets Creek marsh and East Sheets Creek marsh by removing debris, minimizing pollutants entering the creek from overland runoff and street drains, and re-establishing wetland vegetation. A waterfront walkway is planned that would connect the marine commercial waterfront area to the nearby neighborhood business district by passing through public waterfront parkland located on the north edge of North Sheets Creek, and possibly continuing around to the south edge. 462 Special Management Areas H~gh Marinas AREA FOR Sands Poin fsBase\ \ ? \ CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT: Manorhaven Waterfront Village of Manorhaven Na~au County PROJECT KEY: 1. Morgan Ferry Dock 2. Thypin Steel Property 3. Lot 778 4. Wetland Restoration MAP 230 ~":g~ Sewage Treatment Sewage generated by new development would be treated by the Port Washington sewage !r.eatment plant which has no excess capacity. The Long Island Sound Study's (LISS) initial ~ntrastructure project list includes a cost estimate of $16 million for denitrification for Port Weshington's sewage treatment plant to achieve the "no net increase policy' for nitrogen discharges, as established by the LISS. New development within the Manorhaven Area for Concentrated Development cannot result in an increase in the nitrogen loading to the Sound. Capacity at the Port Washington sewage treatment plant may need to be increased to accommodate new development on the Manorhaven waterfront. THE CITY OF GLEN COVE The City of Glen Cove is located in northwest Nassau County seven miles east of the border between Queens and Nassau counties. The city has approximately eight miles of waterfront on Hempstead Harbor and Long Island Sound, including Glen Cove Creek which is~ one mile long. For many years, from the mid-1800's to the early 1900's, Glen Cove was a resort community for wealthy New York City residents. However, during approximately this same period, and to a lesser degree since, industrial uses have been located on Glen Cove Creek. Today, primarily as a result of industrial activity, the creek is heavily contaminated with toxic and hazardous wastes. The geographic extent and the level of contamination is not known; investigations by the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are ongoing. To date, five inactive hazardons waste sites, totaling close to 50 acres, have been identified and are undergoing remediation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and USEPA. Because of the contamination, there are many vacant or abandoned sites on Glen Cove Creek and the remaining sites are developed with industrial uses, marinas, or municipal facilities. Another problem is that the creek has not been dredged in years due to the expectation that the sediments are also heavily contaminated. The creek has silted in to the degree that it is unnavigable at low tide. The creek, once a tidal estuary, was transformed into a navigation channel by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1929. At that time, the City of Glen Cove transferred title to the creek to the Army Corps of Engineers in return for routine dredging of the channel at 10-year intervals. Criteria Met for Designation The City of Glen Cove meets the Area for Concentrated Development definition since: (1) six underutilized sites, totaling close to 50 acres, have been identified for redevelopment, (2) the sites are located on or near Glen Cove Creek near the city's business district, and (3) redevelopment actions will achieve a majority of the items in the definition. A priority action, and a major impediment to redevelopment until completed, is the need to assess the full extent of hazardous waste contamination in the Glen Cove Creek area and complete remedial action plans. The City of Glen Cove has demonstrated initiative and commitment to redevelopment the Glen Cove waterfront. The city voluntarily prepared its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which provides the comprehensive planning context for redevelopment on Glen Cove Creek. However, near the time the city thought it had completed its LWRP. sites 464 Special Management Areas heavily contaminated with hazardous waste were identified in the Glen Cove Creek area which delayed completion of the LWRP. The city is expected to adopt, adequate land and water use controls necessary to ensure that the type, size, scale, and intensity of redevelopment is compatible with the community. The areas to be redeveloped will provide desired uses including retail, residential, office, parking facilities, marinas, and parks. Redevelopment is expected to stabilize and moderately expand the existing central business district which is located just east of the creek. Redevelopment will improve the quality of Glen Cove while having minimal on-site impacts since the sites targeted for redevelopment are contaminated with hazardous waste and contain abandoned structures. By identifying Glen Cove Creek as an area for redevelopment, city officials have established that significant new growth will be allowed as long as new development is consistent with the city's redevelopment objectives and improves the quality of the waterfront area. By redeveloping in a built area, optimum use will be made of existing infrastructure which may need to be improved or upgraded to accommodate redevelopment. Redevelopment will achieve economic growth that will benefit the local and regional economy by establishing a variety of new uses, an increase in tax revenues from new commercial and residential development, and the creation of construction and permanent jobs. Developing these sites will help to contain development, minimize urban sprawl, and relieve local and regional growth pressures. Public access opportunities to and along the Glen Cove Creek will be improved through the development of a waterfront promenade that will provide new public access at waterfront locations not currently providing access. Walkways will be established from the creek to the city's central business district. Glen Cove has been identified as a Maritime Center of regional importance. Redevelopment actions will encourage the development of water-dependent and water-enhanced commercial uses. Glen Cove's Areas for Concentrated Development The city is working with the Department of State to complete the City of Glen Cove LWRP. The city desires to transform the creek from a severely contaminated wasteland to a usable corridor for marinas and other commercial uses that would complement the city's nearby central business district. Should clean-up efforts occur on a reasonably timely basis, the creek represents a prime opportunity for redevelopment. Currently no specific redevelopment proposals exist for the creek. It is unlikely that private investments will be made until the extent of contamination is established, remedial action plans are underway, and the creek is dredged. Public investments in the form of remedial action are necessary before private sector investments will occur. The priority projects are shown on map 24.0 and include the following: · I-Iazardous Waste Assessment and Remediation To determine the geographic extent and level of contamination on the upland and in the navigation channel and proceed with remediation. Special Management Areas 465 ~ 1iVIES POINT .+" ~~/~*~.~ FOR CONCENT~TED D~ELOPME~: G~n ~ve Cre~ C~ of G~n ~ve N~ ~unW ~O3E~ K~: ~mp~e ~rdous ~ ~me~ remed~tion and redevelop remediated sit~ with ~propri~e 1. Captain's Cove Condominiums 2. Maffice Site 3. Edmos Corporation 4. U Tungsten 5. ~owers Chemco s. crown Bykman ~AP 24.0 · Redevelop the Creek With Appropriate Uses Upon the completion of remediation actions, dredge the creek and develop the vacant sites with appropriate commercial uses. Improve the connection and relationship between the creek and the downtown business district. Sewage Treatment Sewage generated by new development would be treated by the City of Glen Cove sewage treatment plant. Glen Cove's sewage treatment plant has some excess capacity but it is anticipated that this capacity would be significantly reduced or eliminated when modifications are made for nitrogen removal to achieve the "no net increase policy" for nitrogen discharges aa established by the Long Island Sound Study. The LISS initial infrastructure project list includes an estimate of $14 million for denitrification for Glen Cove sewage treatment plant. New development within the Glen Cove Area for Concentrated Development cannot result in an increase in the nitrogen loading to the Sound. Capacity at the Glen Cove sewage treatment plant may need to be increased to accommodate new development on Glen Cove Creek. Communities for Future Consideration Additional communities that are good candidates for Areas for Concentrated Development include: THE CITY OF NEW ROCH~r. rP. The City of New Rochelle is located in the southeast corner of Westchester County and has close to nine miles of shoreline on New Rochelle Harbor and Echo Bay. New Rochelle has long been known as a major recreational boating center on the Sound and remains that way today. The city's waterfront area is developed with single and multifamily residential uses, several large and small waterfront parks, and many private beach clubs, yacht clubs, and marinas. The downtown area is not adjacent to the waterfront but is located near the waterfront only a few blocks away. A significant amount of underutilized urban land exists on or near the waterfront upon which a variety of water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses can be located. Redevelopment efforts are also targeted for the city's downtown area where there is considerable vacant office and retail space. City officials desire to invigorate New Rochelle and enhance its image as a recreational boating center by redeveloping vacant or underutilized waterfront parcels affecting approximately three miles of the city's waterfront. THE TOWN OF SMITHTOWN The Town of Smithtown is located in the northwest section of Suffolk County and has approximately 35 miles of shoreline on Smithtown Bay, Stony Brook Harbor, and the Nissequogue River. The waterfront area, which is mostly developed, consists of residences, parks, a modest number of marinas and yacht clubs, and a limited number of retail uses. Concentrations of commercial and industrial uses are located in the central and southern portions of the town near the Long Island Expressway and the Northern State Parkway. The King's Park Psychiatric Center, located southwest of the entrance to the Nissequogue River, is a large state-owned institution on approximately 565 acres of land in the town's waterfront area. This facility has major redevelopment potential. Prior to the state's deinstitutionalization policy, the King's Park Psychiatric Center had a group quarters Special Management Areas 467 population of over 600 persons. The resident population is now only a small percentage of its peak capacity. A master plan, based on the town's approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, is b~ing prepared by the state with the town for the future use of the property. Conversion of the property for a variety of uses or mixed use development is being considered such as residential, institutional, recreation and open space. The town desires to ensure that reuse of this property will not adversely impact the community and the character of the area. THE VH. r4GE OF PORT JEFFERSON The Village of Port Jefferson is located near the mid-portion of Suffolk County and has close to two miles of waterfront. Land uses in the waterfront area include water-dependent commercial and industrial uses, retail, and residential. Port Jefferson Harbor has transformed, in a short period of time, from a harbor that was once used mainly for water- dependent industrial uses such as shipbuilding, petroleum transfer and storage, and aggregate transshipment to a harbor area that has become popular for recreational boating and tourists. Marinas and other uses that serve visitors such es hotels, restaurants, and retail shops have replaced many of the industrial uses. Village officials desire to further improve Port Jefferson as a destination point for visitors by providing additional marine recreation facilities and hotel accommodations and improving the visual quality of, and access to, the waterfront. The village wants to achieve these objectives without adversely affecting the historic and scenic qualities of the village. Advancing Projects in Areas for Concentrated Development SUMMARY OF ASSISTANCE TO ADVANCE PROJECTS Examples of the types of assistance that could be used to advance redevelopment actions in Areas for Concentrated Development include funds for marketing and feasibility studies, land surveys, design and engineering plans, construction drawings, land acquisition and assemblage, bn~rdous waste site analysis and remedlation, infrastructure improvements, sewage treatment plant improvemem, construction, and natural resources restoration. Immediate needs in the Village of Port Chester are funds for infrastructure improvements for the Marina and Downtown Redevelopment Project. New water and sewer lines are needed to serve the new retail, office and residential uses. Funds are also necessary to repair and expand the existing marina. In the Village of Manorhaven, priority needs are for funds to transform the Morgan Ferry Dock property to a marina and waterfront park, to complete feasibility studies for a mixed use development on the Thypin Steel property and reuse of Lot 7'/8, and to restore wetlands and mitigate stormwater discharges in North Sheets Creek. Priority needs in the City of Glen Cove are for the continuation of hazardous waste assessments and remediation of properties on and near Glen Cove Creek. Technical assistance teams could be used to assist communities in achieving their redevelopment objectives. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that a technical assistance team of knowledgeable coastal management experts be established in each coastal region consisting of designated representatives from various state agencies. The team leader would be a technical assistance coordinator who would draw upon the resources of other entities to ensure that the technical assistance needs of communities and 468 Special Management Areas coastal resource users are met. A team could be assembled to assist communities in implementing redevelopment plans for Areas for Concentrated Development by: expediting provisions for technical assistance and information, assisting in defining project development needs, ensuring that redevelopment project actions receive priority attention within a particular agency, and facilitating permit processing. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES TO ADVANCE PROJECTS Existing state programs can be of assistance in advancing redevelopment actions in Areas for Concentrated Development. The following program summaries represent a sampling of the types of programs which may be the most helpful to advance projects in Areas of Concentrated Development. These program summaries are based on material provided by: the NYS Department of Economic Development, principally the state's Economic Develooment Plan: Strate~,ies and Initiatives for 1993-19~6 and A Guide To N~v York Economic Develonment R~n-rcr'-~; the NY$ Department of Transportation; and the NYS Depa, i~,ent of Environmental Conservation. NYS Economic Development Program Components Urban Development Corporation (UDC) UDC assists in planning and stimulating development in communities. Program assistance is available primarily to local development corporations, other not-for-profit economic development corporations, and municipalities undertaking projects to stimulate the economic development of urban and commercial areas. A main feature of UDC is to provide assistance to local economic development organizations to help them analyze, plan for, and implement development projects in their communities. Although UDC has programs which are available for eligible projects in all communities, many programs give preference to distressed communities. Three programs in UDC's Urban and Community Development Program may be appropriate to advance projects in Areas for Concentrated Development. The Community Project Planning Program provides grants for comprehensive planning studies of major, mixed-use, urban projects which are likely to result in significant economic development in municipalities and metropolitan areas in the state. Comprehensive project planning studies involving mixed-use, urban projects may address issues, such as zoning, design, development costs, and financial feasibility for projects covering sites encompassing a minimum of one city block or five acres. The Targeted Area Development Assistance Program provides project loans and grants as well as study grants involving the acquisition, construction, renovation or improvement of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development in highly distressed communities. The Commercial Revitalization Program provides grants to local development corporations, business improvement districts, and other not-for-profit organizations, enabling communities to revitalize the physical and economic conditions of downtown commercial districts, especially in areas affected by physical blight, socio-economic distress, or economic deterioration. Special Management/ireaz 469 Job Development Authority (JDA) The JDA, the State's Economic Development Bank, assists companies in meeting their financing needs in order to expand or build new facilities resulting in job retention or creation. Economic Response Team Through the Department of Economic Development and the Long Island Partnership, Economic Response Teams could be assembled to address economic opportunities in Areas for Concentrated Development and other locations in the Long Island Sound region. Economic Response Teams are typically used to respond to specific company inquiries and to address issues of business retention and expansion,.mostiy for manufacturing businesses. Economic Development Zones Program The purpose of this program is to target economically impoverished areas in order to stimulate private investment, business development, and job creation. The program works with distressed communities with serious economic need (based on unemployment, poverty and economic distress statistics) and demonstrated commitment to revitalizing their communities. The program encourages business development by offering new and expanded businesses a combination of tax credits, reduced utility rates, low interest loans, and priority attention from state agencies. Through this type of targeted assistance, it is expected that new businesses will be created and expanded and chronic trends of community distress will be reversed. Nineteen communities have been designated; a total of 40 communities are expected to be designated. Communities with designated Areas for Concentrated Development may meet the criteria. Regional Economic Development Partnership Program (REDPP) Business development programs of REDPP, which are administered by the New York State Urban Development Corporation, are designed to provide low cost financing for a variety of business development projects that will result in job creation or retention in the state. The various types of assistance include business development loans and grant.s, business infrastructure loon and grant combinations, and economic development assistance grants. Environmental Fad~es Corporation The EFC is the primary provider of environmental infrastructure assistance in the state. The EFC provides technical and'financial assistance to municipalities, the private sector, and state agencies to build or expand environmental infrastructure. Low interest rate loans are made available to municipalities through the New York State Revolving Loan Fund for water pollution control projects. Most loans have financed point source projects, such as sewer system and waste water treatment plant improvements. Recently, low interest rate loans have been made available through the State Revolving Loan Fund .for projects that will protect water resources from nonpoint source pollution. Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) The recently established EPF identifies projects and programs eligible for funding including: open space land conservation; non-hazardous landfill closure; controlling nonpoint source pollution; municipal waste reduction and recycling; park, recreation, and historic preservation; and local waterfront revitalization programs and coastal rehabilitation. 470 Special Management Areas Transportation Programs NYS Department of Transportation Industrial Access Program This program provides state funding for highway and bridge improvements which will facilitate economic development by providing or improving access to industrial or agricultural facilities. The transportation improvements must result in .jobs being created or retained in New York State. The creation or retention of jobs and investment are primary criteria. Sixty percent of assistance is offered as a grant; the balance, as a no-interest loan over five years. Federal Transportation Enhancements Various types of 'transportation enhancement' projects--such as pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and historic preservation--are eligible for funding if they have a direct relationship to intermndal transportation system improvements. Funding for transportation enhancements is from the National Intermndal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act the purpose of which is to develop a national transportation system that is economical sufficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in a global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner. State Superfund Program The purpose of this program is to provide funds to remediate inactive hazardous waste sites. The remedial action process consists of: a thorough site investigation to determine the length, depth, and width of contamination; enforcement; remedial action selection; design; and construction. DEC is conducting a site investigation on Glen Cove Creek to determine the extent of contamination. It is anticipated that since at least six sites are contaminated, the creek may be designated as one large Superfund site. OUTSTANDING NATURAL COASTAL AREAS Within each of Long Island Sound's ecological complexes lie coastal areas that host outstanding arrays or significant examples of natural elements 6r ecological communities. In many cases, the natural resources of these areas have attracted human use from prehistoric times. The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that environmentally sensitive areas be identified to focus state agency efforts in protection, enhancement, and restoration. The LIS CMP proposes designation of three Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas (ONCAs) and presents information on ten additional areas for consideration. The Need for Natural Area Management Natural coastal landscapes and the plants and animals that they support enrich the quality of life enjoyed by residents and visitors to the Sound, but ensuring that these resources can thrive or even be sustained in areas that are under increasing pressure from development is difficult. Protection programs, whether for natural areas or for built resources, such as historic structures, generally focus on the specific resource and do not always incorporate the broader area that adjoins and influences the viability of the resources. Special Management Areas 471 Ecological communities cannot be viewed in isolation from one another. They are part of, and interact with, larger landscapes and ecological systems containing a myriad of elements. Because these elements interact and are interdependent, their management must be addressed in an integrated, holistic manner. The Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are designed to define primary areas of concern within which management efforts will be concentrated to protect and enhance the individual resources and larger natural landscapes of Long Island Sound. Identification of Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas are defined geographic areas within the Long Island Sound coastal boundary and generally are composed of a variety of smaller,natural ecological communities that together form a landscape of environmental, social, and economic value to the people of New York. An ONCA must meet the following three criteria: Criterion 1: The area coatalns si~nifleant natural resources. An area must first qualify as an ONCA on the basis of its natural resources. The natural resources of the area are significant to the coastal region if they contain assemblages or outstanding examples of natural ecological communities; fgsh or wildlife habitat; endangered, threatened, or rare plants or plant communities; or coastal geologic features. Significance is further determined by analysis of the cultural value or the historic or present-day human use made of the natural resources, which may enhance the standing of a potential ONCA. Although people may live in an area to be considered for designation as an ONCA, it must have a preponderance of significant natural resources to satisfy this criterion. Criterion 2: The resources are at risk. Areas determined to contain significant resources are evaluated next with regard to whether the resources are at risk. Risk is determined by the degree to which a potential ONCA's natural and related cultural resources have been subject to, or are likely to be subject to, primary, secondary, and cumulative negative impacts associated with existing and new development or people's activities. Such impacts place ecosystem viability and, consequently, people's quality of life, at risk. Criterion 3: Additional management measures are needed to preserve or improve the significant resources, or sustain their use. Finally, an area with significant resources that are found to be at risk must require additional management measures beyond those currently available to maintain or improve those resources and the viability of the ecological complex within which they function. Guidelines for Applying the Criteria The following provides guidance for applying the criteria to an area under consideration as an ONCA. Criterion I: Significance of Natural Resources Although ONCAs may contain some development or impairments to ecological systems, they must have a preponderance of significant natural resources. F, cological communities must be #natural,# defined here as ecological communities wherein the physical conformation of the land or water body and the biological composition of the resident communities is not 472 Special Management Areas significantly different from the character of the land or water body and the community that would have been found prior to modem human influence. Although no ecological communities in the Sound's coastal area escape human influence, those that retain the predominantly native biological composition of a community are considered "natural." By contrast, a "cultural' ecological community, such as a mowed lawn with trees, contains fewer species--a significant proportion of which are exotic--than would occur in a natural community. Ecological and geologic significance of the natural resources may be recognized in existing regulatory and public planning arenas, as illustrated by regulations to protect or conserve the resources, inclusion in planning documents, or previous designations. Ecological significance is indicated when the area lies within or contains: · New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat · United States Fish and Wildlife Service Significant Coastal Habitat · National Wildlife Refuge or a state or county wildlife sanctuary · state, county, town, or private nature preserve · natural ecological communities that provide sites for education in environmental or natural sciences · New York Natural Heritage Program species or plant community element occurrence · habitat for endangered or threatened species or species of special concern designated by the state or federal governments · freshwater or tidal wetlands that provide important fish, wildlife, and water quality benefits · site identified for acquisition or other priority protection by the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan or a county or local open space plan because of the significance of the ecological resources · site identified as important or significant for its ecological resources in an approved or draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Geologic significance is indicated when the area contains or lies within: · a component of the Coastal Barrier Resources System · a Co~tal Erosion Hazard Area identified by New York State · an area identified as important or significant for its geological resources, natural protective features, or coastal erosion and hazard potential in an approved or draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program or comprehensive waterfront plan · an area recommended for acquisition or other priority protection in the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan or a county or local open space plan because of the significance of its geological resources, natural protective features, or coastal erosion and hazard potential · freshwater or tidal wetlands that provide important erosion, sedimentation, and pollution conU'ol benefits · a geologic formation critical to shoreline/beach nourishment or protection from tide, wind, and wave energy · a barrier spit · a geologic formation of scientific or educational significance · a geologic formation unique to the region or the state Special Management Areas 473 An area found to possess significant natural resources also may possess slgnifiqant cultural resources related to the significant natural resources. Determinants of cultural or human use significance include: · The area's natural resources provide economic benefits. The coastal features, natural elements and/or community character of the area provide direct and indirect economic benefits to the region through recreation, tourism, property values, commercial fishing and shellfishing, related commercial enterprises, and user fees. · The area provides significant active or passive outdoor recreational opportunities. · The area contains signifleant archaeological or historic sites or traditional groups or societies that are integrated with, derived from, or dependent on the area's natural resources. · The area provides signif'mant scenic or aesthetic benefits or a sense of place; that is, the natural and/or cultural characteristics of the area form a cohesive framework from which people derive a specific sense of a uniquely identifiable location in the region. Criterion 2: Resourc~ at risk An ONCA's natural and related cultural resources are determined to be at risk from identifmble primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts from gove~m~tent actions and people's activities: · where conflicts in use or in resource protection objectives exist, preventing adequate management of the area and its resources · where pressure on a resource from human use or exploitation threatens the very resource sought · where the potential of significant cumulative impacts to the ecosystem is great · when past or imminent actions are likely to change the characteristics of development paUerns or the intensity of use within the area The following definitions were adapted from ~,~~. A primary impact is one which occurs at the same place and time as a particular action/activity and which likely would occur as a direct result of the action/activity. Example: Dredging for creation of a marina may remove productive shellfish beds. A secondary impact is one which is foreseeable, but occurs at a later time or at a greater distance and likely would be indirectly caused by the action/activity. Example: Heavy use of fertilizers on a golf course may increase the nutrient load of runoff entering ponds, resulting in rampant algal/plant growth, consequent oxygen depletion when plant matter decomposes, then fish kills. Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental or increased impact of an action or activity when added to other past, present, and future actions or activities. Cumulative impacts can result from a single action or a number of individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Example: The clearing of an acre of forest adjacent to a stream corridor for a single family dwelling may have relatively insignificant, short-term, negative hnpacts on the stream's fish resources, but similar activities, repeated along the length of the stream corridor, may remove shade, ,4.74 Special Management Areas produce significant sedimentation, and increase nutrient loads, ultimately altering stream conditions to the point where sensitive species, such aa trout, no longer can be supported. The following is a partial list of activities which may have adverse primary, secondary, or cumulative impacts on the natural and related cultural resources of the ONCA. These, and similar activities, should be evaluated to determine the degree to which the existing or potential extent of the activity within the ONCA would place resources at risk: · materials discharge into surface water or groundwater · water intakes: installation and operation · wetland alterations · topographic or hydrologic alterations · alterations to natural ecological communities · alteration to or demolition of historic structure or historic landscape The following are examples of specific activities that may include or engender the above: · residential, commercial, industrial, or office construction · road construction · energy transmission, telephone, or cable line construction · expansion and intensification of existing uses · off-road recreational vehicle use · dredging The following chart provides examples of primary impacts, and the secondary and cumulative impacts that possibly, but not necessarily, follow. Vegetation loss Vegetative loss P/ping plover clfick death by off-rond vehicle Elevation of nit~o~.n levels in Lo~ of forest; replacement by single-family dweilin~ FIo~in~ plutic wutu in b~y f~om vessel wute diaclmr~e Loes of freshwater wethnd from sedimentation Lo~ of mUive vegetation end · horeline devei~ant enter surface waters Soil eroeion Sedim~tatio~ in wetland Population reduction, gen~ pool Ingestion by or entrainment of sea turtles Lo~ of amphibian bre~ding area; loss of source for immigration stock Nonpoint source pollution of surface waters Coataminated shell~h bed Shoreline ere~ion Lo~ of regional fishery Extinction of species RegionsJ hypoxia, loes of biolo~/cal diversity Local extinctions of n~ive Extinction of species Island-wide extirpation Beach clo~ures Lo~ of local shell~h Special Management Areas 475 Criterion 3: Additional Management Measures Needed Management measures are needed to protect and restore estuarine and terrestrial ecosystem functions for their intrinsic values, aa well aa for the benefits derived by people who live in and visit them. When the significant resources of a candidate ONCA are at risk from identifiable primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts, the final level of evaluation determines whether the identified impacts can or are being addressed through existing management measures. If adequate steps are being taken or are imminent to protect and restore the natural resources within a candidate ONCA, this criterion is not met. Additional management measures are required, for example: · to augment or refine regulatory and non-regulatory programs or approaches that have not provided or may not provide sufficient protection to all the area's resources · to provide opportunities for natural resources planning among multiple jurisdictions · to resolve conflicts in use or in resource protection objectives for adequate or timely management of the area and its resources · to prevent cumulative environmental impacts Based on the natural and related cultural resources in an area, and the factors placing those resources at risk, any of the following additional meaaures, and combinations thereof, may be required for effective long-term protection: · regulation · acquisition · other land protection strategies (such aa easements, landowner agreements) · remediation · research and planning · increased intergovernmental coordination · public education · incentives for local governments and voluntary action Management Objectives for Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas The objectives of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program for ONCAs are listed below. The objectives are related to one another, because the resources, as well as their impairments, are related. The achievement of a given objective may depend on the achievement of another. An overall strategy must be developed for each ONCA that shows recognition of these relationships. · Prevent fragmentation of natural ecological communities. · Curtail nutrient and contaminant loads to Long Island Sound and its tributaries. · Manage development in the ONCA watersheds to result in cleaner surface waters, protection of estuarine life, maintenance of conunercial shellfishing, and restoration of shellfish harvesting where natural ecosystem processes may permit. · Maintain the benefits of natural shoreline functions. · Protect and restore freshwater and tidal wetlands and their natural functions. 476 Special Management Areas · Protect and, where appropriate, expand populations of New York Natural Heritage elements (endangered, threatened, and rare species and rare natural communities). · Maintain sustainable populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife species that depend on the resources of an ONCA for critical stages in their life cycles. · Protect, and where possible, expand native plant communities. · Ensure that recreational activities in the ONCA will be compatible with the protection of ecological communities; endangered, threatened, and rare species; species of special concern; economically important species; and other intrinsic ecosystem elements. · Prevent impairments to coastal access and develop new access opportunities that are compatible with protection of natural resources. · Request the public to drive the process of protecting the resources of the ONCA. Long Island Sound's Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas Three locations, shown on map 25.0, have been identified as Outstanding Natural Coastal Area~ following an evaluation of their resource values, the degree of risk, and the need for additional management measures. Among the many significant natural areas of the Sound, these ONCAa--Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor, Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond, and Stony Bronk-Setauket--will be the focal points for a new and comprehensive management program. Each area is described and analyzed below. OYSTER BAY-COLD SPRING HARBOR OUTSTANDING NA17JRAL COASTAL AREA The proposed Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area (map 26.0) extends from Peacock Point south along Peacock Lane in Lattingtown to the state coastal area boundary, then east along the coastal boundary to the west side of Cold Spring Harbor, where it follows the extended coastal boundary proposed by the Town of Huntington. It then follows the highest elevational contour along the east side of the harbor north into the Village of Lloyd Harbor and ends at the northern boundary of Lloyd Harbor Village Park. The ONCA is in both the Town of Oyster Bay and the Town of Huntington and both Nassau and Suffolk counties. It includes ail of the villages of Cove Neck and Centre Island and parts of the villages of Lattingtown, Matinecock, Mill Neck, Upper Bronkville, Muttontown, Oyster Bay Cove, Laurel Hollow, and Lloyd Harbor. It includes all the waters' of the Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor complex. Because they are densely developed and lack the requisite namrai features, neither the Village of Bayville nor the hamlet of Oyster Bay are included. Nonetheless, human activities in these areas play a significant role in the overall ONCA ecosystem. Many human activities, such as shellfishing, in turn, are affected by the ability of the ecosystem to perform its namral functions. Propozed extenaions of ~te coa.~d area boundary are shown on map 26.1. The boundary is propmed to be extended beyond the existing coastal boundary to include the wetlands and headwaters of streams discharging to Oyster Bay Harbor and Cold Spring Harbor and large remaining tracts of native oak-tulip tree forest and chestnut oak forest. These forest communities are characteristic of New York's coastal lowlands, but development has greatly diminished their extent and they are continuing to disappear. Special Management Areas 477 Proposed Outstanding Natural Coastal Area (ONCA) flyGDOG 1S9~' MAP 25.0 CONNECTICUT Crab Meadow- Freeh Pond 8to~y. Brook-Se~uket SUFFOLK NYC Legend Ar~ ~or Future ConsideralJon 4 8~ M~~ R~ 7 ~~ ~w 8 ~~ 9 b~ ~ 10 ~ ~ Application of the Criteria to the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA Criterion 1: Significance of Natural Resources Although it is located mostly in densely populated Nassau County, the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA has a relatively high proportion of land in its natural or nearly natural state. The uplands and surface waters sustain a high diversity and large populations of wildlife, fish, and other freshwater and estuarine organisms. SignO~ance of Ecological and Geological Resources The ONCA contains a variety of geologic formations that support diverse natural communities: glacial moraines support dry and mesie native plant communities, including chestnut oak forests and oak-tulip tree forests; ravines yield red maple-hardwood swamps, springs and creeks; headlands with barrier spits yield maritime shrubland and maritime sandy beaches; bluffs support mixed hardwoods; and bays contain marine subtidal, intertidal, and salt marsh communities. Freshwater impoundments contain emergent marshes and ponds. For additional information, refer to the description of the Harbors Complex, chapter 3. The Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA is rich with freshwater wetlands and streams that run north, mix with tidal waters, and finally discharge to the harbors. These systems originate from areas where groundwater reaches the surface, yet they also are fed by precipitation, ov~land runoff, and direct road drainage. Several areas of the streams are impounded, forming ponds. The two largest freshwater wetlands are the Beaver Brook-Shu Swamp system (connected to Mill Neck Creek tidal wetlands) and the Cold Spring Harbor headwaters. Tidal wetlands lie throughout the ONCA, with the largest intertidal marsh areas at Mill Neck Creek, Frost Creek, Oak Neck Creek, and Centre Island and smaller tidal systems near Goose Point and at the head of Cold Spring Harbor. The Mill Neck Creek wetland system is one of the north shore's largest undeveloped wetland ecosystems. The Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge (OBNWR) is the centerpiece of this ONCA. The OBNWR includes tidal wetlands and waters of Mill Neck Creek, most of Oyster Bay Harbor and Cold Spring Harbor west of the Suffolk County line, portions of Frost Creek wetlands, and the inland Mill Pond, south of lower Oyster Bay Harbor. The refuge supports the most important waterfowl wintering area on the north shore of Long Island, particularly for scaup and black duck. Other federal, state, county, town, and village preserves and recreational parks lie within the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA, its extended area, and its watershed. Some of the parks, though not officially designated as preserves, protect native plant communities from development, thereby providing wildlife habitat. Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, in Cove Neck, is contiguous with the OBNWR. Planting Fields State Park and Arboretum in Upper Brookville contains native forests, in addition to its gardens, former Coe estate buildings, and greenhouses. The state also holds land adjacent to the pond system at the head of Cold Spring Harbor. Bailey Arboretum County Park lies within the ONCA. Muttontown Preserve and Stillwell Woods County Park are in the upper watershed of the ONCA. The Tiffany Brook Preserve lies within the ONCA's extended boundary area. The Nature conservancy maintains preserves in the ONCA and its extended area and watershed. These include: Uplands Farm, Franklin's Pond, and St. John's Pond Preserve in Cold Spring Harbor; Davenport and Fox Hollow Preserve in Laurel Hollow; Cushman Special Management Areas 479 Preserve in Oyster Bay Cove; and the Iselin and Rose Preserves near Planting Fields. The privately-owned Shu Swamp Nature Preserve in Mill Neck provides natu~'e trails and a setting for interpretive walks. Cold Spring Harbor Fish Hatchery, a private nonprofit environmental education facility, lies just south of Route 25A at the head of Cold Spring Harbor. Two New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) elements have been identified within the ONCA boundary in recent years: osprey breeding at Mill Neck Creek wetlands with a 'housekeeping' nest at Lloyd Harbor and sweet bay in Mill Neck in a freshwater wetland area. Additional NYNHP elements have been located in recent years in the proximity of areas proposed for an extended ONCA boundary: downy lettuce, green milkweed, Atlantic white cedar, whorled mountain mint, Mitchell sedge, and woods-rush. HisWric records for white milkweed, yellow giant-hyssop, heart sorrel, and a rare sedge indicate their occurrences within the ONCA in the early part of this century. Collins sedge was last observed in one of these extended areas in 193:5. Such historic records guide research regarding habitat needs and indicate the need for further field investigations regarding possible present-day occurrences. There are approximately 14 barrier spits in this ONCA, including four that are within protected units of the Coastal Barrier Resource System. These and other geologic formations in the ONCA, such as shoals, dunes, and bluffs, are natural protective features that protect the bay environment and coastal properties from flooding and erosion hazards. The following designations, programs, and plans that are applicable within this ONCA indicate the degree of public recognition of the significance of its natural resources: USFWS Signifieant Coastal Habitat: The ONCA contains a portion of the 'Three Harbors Area' Significant Coastal Habitat identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1991. Appendix 6 contains the full Three Harbors Area site description and map. Appendix 6 provides information from the ~ Areas Study regarding the selection of the Significant Coastal Habitats. Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat: The ONCA contains three Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, designated under Executive Law, Article 42: Mill Neck Creek Wetlands, Oyster Bay Harbor, and Cold Spring Harbor. Chapter 3 contains details of these habitat units. New York Open Spaee Conservation Plan: 'Conserving Open Space in New York State,' produced pursuant to State Land Acquisition, ECL, Article 49, Title 2. In addition to the sites listed in the plan, the Region I Land Acquisition Advisory Committee recommended four sites within this ONCA, eight others within the proposed extended ONCA, and 1:5 more in its watershed and the Oyster Bay SC}PA for public acquisition or protection. At least three parcels already have been acquired. Special Groundwater Protection Areas: Part of the Oyster Bay Special C}roundwater Protection Area (SC}PA), designated pursuant to ECL, Article :5:5, lies within the ONCA and its proposed extended areas. Designation as an SC}PA 'warrant[s] urgent management attention' to protect the land as a source of uncontaminated recharge to the deep flow aquifer (LIRPB, 1986). New York State regulated tidal wetlands (Tidal Wetlands Act, ECL, Article 25): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of wetland resources. 480 Special Management Areas Oyster Bay - Cold Spr,n Harbor MAP 26.0 Outstand~n Natural Coastal Area New York State regulated freshwater wetlands (Freshwater Wetlands Act, ECL, Article 24): Refer to chapter :3 for a detailed description of wetland resources. Coastal Barrier Resource System ,protected units (federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of coastal barrier resources. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs: A draft joint Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) has been prepared for the Town of Huntington and the villages of Asharoken, Huntington Bay, Lloyd Harbor, and Northport. The Town of Oyster Bay is preparing a harbor management plan and an LWRP. Significance of Cultural Resources Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor are widely known for the commercial fisheries they sustain. Under a lease with the town, the F.M. Flower and Sons Oyster Co. harvest 90 percent of New York's oyster crop from these waters. According to the NYS DEC Bureau of Shellfisheries, the overall oyster harvest in the two water bodies was 70,255 bushels in 1991 and 74,374 bushels in 1992. The hard clam harvest was 27,932 bushels in 1991 and 29,713 bushels in 1992. The ONCA is a major New York port area for lobster boats and clam boats. Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor are recognized by the public as outstanding areas for water-related recreational activities, such as fishing, boating, sailing, shellfishing, and bird watching. The Town of Oyster Bay operates Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Park and Beckman Beach at the southern end of Oyster Bay Harbor. The Town of Huntington offers Cold Spring Harbor Marine Park along Route 25A in Cold Spring Harbor. Two town beaches lie along the neck to Centre Island. Village parka and beaches are situated throughout the ONCA. A portion of the Nassau-Suffolk Greenbelt Trail extends north from · Woodbury into the ONCA, through Stillwell Woods County Park, to the west side of Franklin Pond Preserve, and continuing north to the west side of Cold Spring Harbor. General public access to the coast is limited within the ONCA, primarily by residency requirements of village and town beaches and parks. Although the vast refuge is the focal point of water-related activities, and theoretically is open to all, there is no physical access to the refuge via federally-owned property. The OBNWR management is interested in promoting non-motorized small boat use rather than power boats and live-aboard vessels, but parking and launching sites are not available to nonresidents of the town. The primary land use in the ONCA, its extended area, and its watershed is low-density residential, closely followed by open space. If the OBNWR property is included in area calculations, the predominant acreage in the ONCA is public open space. Citizens have made recent concerted efforts to identify additional areas for public ownership. Given the extensive existing public holdings in this area, this activity indicates the public's concern for the natural environment in the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA and points to a desire to maintain the area's essential character. The countryside of rolling, laurel- and oak-covered hills, and open fields descending to bays, coves, and salt marshes, with expansive water views and diatant land horizons is maintained by the presence of large estates found throughout the ONCA, its extended area, and its watershed.. The historic sites of Cold Spring Harbor are appreciated by residents and visitors alike. Views from the barrier spits, beaches, and bluffs are dramatic and give a feeling of isolation and wildness. 482 Special Management Areas Oyster Bay - Cold spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area with Watershed Detail ONCA Sou,,d~, [] V.eetmd W.e, nd. [] ~r,m,,.,,t C,,.t,, ~i.~ -- ' Wmreh~l Bound~ MAP 26.1 NYSDOS 1993 J Four areas within the ONCA are described in New York State Museum Archaeological Site Files. These areas are on Centre Island, Oak Neck, and near Frost Creek. Virtually all of the remaining area in the ONCA possesses "multiple site sensitivity," because of the presence of archaeological and historic resources. These ancient sites are further testimony to the long-standing connection between the natural resources of this ONCA and the area's attractiveness for human habitation. Criterion 2: Resources at Risk Historic and current human use has altered the landscape, adversely affecting ecosystem functions. Past and present industrial activities, existing development--which is dense in Bayville and the hamlet of Oyster BaY--and recreational activities in the surface waters and in the watershed have resulted in primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the ONCA's natural ecological communities, and hence on Long Island Sound's ecosystem and people's quality of life. Water quality in this ONCA is threatened by degraded conditions in the tributaries to the embaymeots, heavy boat traffic, vessel discharges, point-source discharges of pollutants, and nonpoint-source pollution. Although most of the OBNWR's waters and the remainder of Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor meet the standards for their assigned 'classifications, some do not meet their use standards and are closed to shellflshing seasonally or year-round. Beaches have been closed in some areas, when coliform bacteria counts are high. In the Oak Neck Creek portion of the Mill Neck Creek wetlands and in two areas of the lower Oyster Bay Harbor, high concentrations of lead, copper, nickel, silver, and zinc were found in samples taken by the USFWS in 1990. The possible bioaccumulation of heavy metals in shellfish and other invertebrates, vertebrates, algae, and higher plants indicates the need to continue monitoring and to identify and control sources. Past and present industrial and commercial activities in the vicinities of the sampling sites may be the sources of the contaminants (USFWS, 1991). An area along the west shore of Oak Neck Creek (a tributary to Mill Neck Creek) is reported to have been filled with construction debris. A Nassau County water supply well in Bayville near Mill Neck Creek had high elevations (100-1000 /~g/I) of total volatile organic compounds in 1986 (Nassau County, 1987), but two others nearby had none detected at 10/~g/I or above. The source(s) of contaminants reaching the sediments of Mill Neck Creek and the groundwater supply may be very localized. The Commander Oil facility and the former Jakobson Shipyard threaten the resources of the ONCA, because of past and potential oil spills and other contamination originating from these installations. The Town of Oyster Bay recently gave summonses to Commander Oil for environmental violations during inspections conducted by town planning and development inspectors. The state is developing the terms of a consent order for the clean-up of the shipyard. A municipal sewage treatment plant is situated on the shoreline of lower Oyster Bay Harbor, directly adjacent to the public beach. The effluent is discharged into the harbor and contributes to nutrient loadings in the harbor complex. The Cold Spring Harbor National Laboratory discharges to the south end of Cold Spring Harbor, with the sarne effect. Two private clubs lie in the ONCA and several more in its watershed. These clubs encompass over 1,200 acres, with significant acreage devoted to golf courses. Several golf courses contain freshwater wetlands contiguous with tidal wetlands. One of the golf clubs 484 Special Management Areas has a large golf course, swimming beach, and forested areas adjacent to the tidal wetlands of Frost Creek. The area constitutes partially natural open space in the community. The golf course has been extended over the marsh islands, using fill and shore reinforcements, with bridges connecting the islands and the club beach on Long Island Sound. Pedestrians and maintenance operations may deter use by wildlife other than Canada geese, which often are attracted to golf courses by the particular juxtaposition of forage grasses and surface Inappropriate land use in and adjacent to freshwater and tidal wetlands contributes to the deterioration of wetland benefits, such as wildlife habitat, erosion and sedimentation control, stormwater filtration, and aesthetic amenities. Shoreline fortification structures, exotic landscaping, and drainage facilities are common existing modifications that remove, alter, or introduce pollutants to wetlands in this ONCA. Public entities also contribute to wetland impairments. At Mill Pood, for example, street drains empty into the pond, causing siltation and potential contamination, and a town-owned maintenance yard is situated in the wetland adjacent area, on or near OBNWR property. In the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA watershed, large remaining tracts of forested land present opportunities for preservation, but also contribute to a false sense of unlimited forest resources. Relative to many other north shore areas, this ONCA retains a 'countryside' appeal, which is attributable to the large estate holdings. Yet, the watershed of Oyster Bay-Cold Spring has more land potentially available for residential development than any sub-watershed of the Sound in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Estate subdivisions proceed, as well as individual lot developments. Much of the "available~ land is steeply sloping, with highly erodible soils, or includes or is adjacent to wetlands. Fragmentation of natural ecological communities occurs through development, construction of long docks, hardening of the shoreline, and private and institutional landscaping activities. Once-forested corridors around the tributaries to the harbors have been modified to create large estate lawns, yet maintain the potential for reestablishment through cooperative restoration agreements. Fragmentation of these corridors not only reduces wildlife habitat, but also removes protective buffer zones from wetlands and surface waters. People inhabit and play in nearly all the different geologic formations in this ONCA. Public and private erosion control projects, requiring significant expenditures, have altered coastal processes. Within the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA, extensive areas of shoreline already are hardened, most notably in Bayville, West Shore Road, lower Oyster Bay Harbor, and Cold Spring Harbor. Bayville contains 71 percent of all structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary from Queens to Miller Place. Erosion along Centre Island Road, caused, in part, by sea walls to the west in Bayville, is threatening a loss of access to Centre Island. Although erosion rates have not been measured in the harbors, the combination and intensity of human uses places safety and financial investment at risk in some of these waterfront areas. For example, West Shore Road to Bayville suffered severe damage in 1992-1993. State Route 25A near Cold Spring Harbor may need relocation because of flooding and erosion damage. Emergency repairs not only are expensive, but often preclude attention to protective state and federal environmental regulations, requirements of the OBNWR, and local environmental laws. Consensus among multiple jurisdictions is needed for long-term, erosion-control strategies. Special Management Areas 485 There is considerable debate about whether the OBNWR is overused. The 1968 transfer of the refuge property from the town to the federal government contains unusual provisions that create unique management problems for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The deed is not specific regarding moorings, swimming, boating, and commercial activities other than shellfishing, but a Memorandum of Understanding allows all boating and general recreational activities to continue. When the property was deeded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the mineral rights, limited mooring facilities, and aquaculture privileges of the bay were retained by the Town of Oyster Bay. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the town are seeking clarification on the recreational uses allowed in the bay. It is clear the OBNWR is a regional and statewide resource of importance that is in demand for competing uses. Because of the above uncertainties regarding uses of the OBNWR, there are unresolved legal matters between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and certain landowners around the refuge who have built docks that extend into the federal waters. Regardless of the legal foundations, there are a large number of docks over 100 feet long throughout the ONCA which impair lateral access along beaches and near-shore navigability. General public access to ponds for freshwater fishing is limited by village parking restrictions. The refuge's Mill Pond offers a popular early season trout fishery, but over use of this one resource has exacerbated shoreline compaction and erosion. Hand feeding encourages Ca~d~ geese to remain at the pond, which, in turn, contributes to water quality problems in the pond and in lower Oyster Bay Harbor. Although the town beach in the hamlet of Oyster Bay affords physical and visual access to the water, residents are concerned about runoff from the beach perking lots entering the harbor. Bathing is not permitted because the town has not provided required sanitary and safety facilities. The municipal sewage treatment plant, which is situated west of the public beach, and discharges directly into the harbor, presents aesthetic problems for beach users. The plant recently was upgraded to provide chlorination for pathogen removal and to increase its capacity to handle groundwater infiltration. Population growth in the ONCA watershed is expected to rise. Based on available land and existing zoning, total build-out population is estimated to be about :50,5:50 people housed in approximately 17,900 units. If such an increase were to occur, over :5,000 new residents would require services and demand access to and use of the waterfront. Secondary environmental impacts of development (such as nonpoint source pollution, spills of toxic and b~'~rdous materials, solid waste, introductions of exotic plants and domestic pets, and increa.~ed traffic) and cumulative impacts (such as effects of incremental losses of wetland, shoreline, and forest resources from illegal filling, development of wetland adjacent areas, road and yard widening, erosion control structures, and cultural "grooming" of the landscape) may reasonably be expected to increase, unless a plan for restoring and maintaining ecosystem vitality is developed and followed. Criterion 3: Additional Management Measures Needed Within the coastal area and the propo~xl extended boundaries for this ONCA are many different governmental jurisdictions and overlaps in regulatory authority. The incorporated villages of Lat~ingtown, Bayville, Mill Neck, Matineeock, Upper Brookville, Oyster Bay Cove, Cove Neck, Laurel Hollow, and Lloyd Harbor; the towns of Oyster Bay and Huntington; Nassau County and Suffolk County; New York State; and lands and underwater lands of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all come together in and around the water bodies 486 Special Management Areas of Oyster Bay and Cold Spring Harbor. Agreement and cooperation among all levels of government, hand-in-hand with the citizens they represent, is imperative for real protection of this outstanding coastline. Research, long-term monitoring, education, open discussion and long-term planning can provide the feedback necessary for such cooperative ventures to be sustained. The Town of Oyster Bay LWRP and the joint LWRP for the Town of Huntington and the villages of Asharokan, Huntington Bay, Lloyd Harbor, and Northport need to be completed. These LWRPs should incorporate the management measures needed to protect the resources of the ONCA, particularly harbor management plans, which are needed to achieve coordinated and comprehensive regulation and management of all uses of surface waters and underwater lands. Furthermore, the Oyster Bay Harbor component of the Town of Oyster Bay's harbor management plan and the Cold Spring Harbor portion of the Huntington harbor management plan need to complement each other. With the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the process of developing such plans would help clarify many unresolved issues related to jurisdictional conflict and appropriate uses and would result in better protection and management of the area's sensitive natural resources. Clear courses of action and lines of authority would be ensured in responses to oil spills. Through st~_te management, all levels of government, as well as citizens, could cooperate within a unified framework to protect the resources of the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA. Management of this ONCA must recognize that people and their activities are an integral part of this natural area; however, additional guidance, restrictions, and enforcement measures are needed to reduce deleterious human impacts and restore natural communities and processes. Specific Actions Needed Develop a comprehensive management plan for the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. Extend the coastal boundary to include areas shown on map. The following specific, planning and management actions are needed: SPDES: Reasseas SPDES permits; set new discharge limits as needed. If necessary, create a SPDES program specific to the ONCA with strict enforcement. Freshwater Wetlands Maps: Amend state regulatory maps for Nassau County freshwater wetlands to include appropriate wetlands that are less than 12.4 acres in size. Land Use Regulation: Evaluate large private open space and estate holdings for their best use; amend local zoning regulations, if necessary. Erosion Monitoring: Monitor shoreline erosion rates in the harbors; adjust bluff setback requirements accordingly. The following site-specific actions should be included in the management plan, but may be undertaken while the plan is being prepared: Mill Neck Creek (1 acre): If not already public trust land, acquire for addition to complex of county and federal land along tidal wetlands. In addition, improve water quality by establishing a permanent forested corridor from Planting Fields Arboretum north to the west tributary; curtailing stormwater runoff to creek and tributaries. Special Management Areas 487 Planting Fields Arboretum: Establish a native plant nursery and research program, with demonstration gardens and public education in the uses of native plants. West Harbor: Protect water quality and significant commercial oyster fishery. National Wildlife Refuge: Resolve discrepancies between deed restrictions on bottom land transferred to National Wildlife Refuge and codes and rules of the refuge system, especially regarding boat moorings and bottom disturbance. Beaver Lake: Provide fishing access (parking). Shu Swamp: Protect rare species and eradicate invasive exotic plants; acquire linking properties along stream corridor. Atlantic White Cedar Swamp: Protect with conservation easement or deed restriction. Golf courses: Promote 'gold coast' golf course aesthetic, that is, 'golden' fairways and roughs to improve quality of groundwater recharge and surface runoff and to protect coastal wildlife. Frost Creek: Eliminate golf course from any tidal wetland areas it may be occupying and restore to intertidal marsh. Sagamore P/ill National Monumeat: Recommend establishing access to OBNWR through site. C~ntr~ Island: Maintain the barrier land form at Bayville and the connection to Centre Island. Protect, through appropriate means, the following prOperties Or _areas: Jakobson's Shipyard (5.2 acres): Clean up hazardous materials at site. Redevelop into waterfront park with marine educational facilities. Oyster Bay Waterfront: Capone (Rial) property (2.16 acres), LILCO site (2 acres), Mill Pond property (2 acres). Provide coastal access. Treat stormwater runoff and discharge from Mill Pond. Planting Fields-Mill Neck Corridor: Humes property (45 acres), Dean property (86 acres), Silveri property (43 acres). Establish permanently protected corridor from Planting Fields State Park and Arboretum to Mill Neck Creek to provide wildlife habitat, stream corridor and freshwater wetlands protection, coastal water quality benefits, groundwater protection, native plant community protection. Oyster Bay Cove: Garver property (51 acres), Held property (9 acres). Add to recem acquisition by county of Schiff property to protect contiguous forested area for protection of watershed and groundwater, chesmut oak forest, wildlife habitat, and potential archaeological site. Stiliwell Lane Woods (250 acres): Acquire to protect wamrshed of Cold Spring Harbor, native forest, freshwater wetlands, and wildlife corridor. Should be acquked with Cold Spring Harbor Contributing Area for maximum benefit. 488 Special Management Areas Cold Spring Harbor Contributing Area (66 acres): Acquire to protect watershed of Cold Spring Harbor, native forest, threatened wildlife species (northern harrier and spotted salamander), cross-island greenbelt trail, and Nature Conservancy preserve. Should be acquired with Stillwell Lane Woods for maximum benefit. M*fll Pond Outlet Creek Channel Adjaeent Area: Acquire for coastal access, establishment of Mill Pond discharge retention basin and native vegetation buffer area, and installation of interpretive kiosk or gazebo. Restore the following areas: Oak Neck Creek: Identify tidal wetland areas lost to filling for possible restoration. Determine the feasibility of containing and removing any contaminants prior to any alterations to the filled areas. Protect breeding osprey and large population of breeding diamondback terrapin. Mill Pond: Develop native brook trout fishery. Remove street drains to pond or design and install pre-treatment for street runoff. Discourage goose population; provide public access (parking). Mill Pond Outlet Channel: Create public open space link (via LILCO property to north) with National Wildlife Refuge, and develop interpretive program to include resources of the refuge as well as structures in access corridor (remnants of old grist mill and 1893 power generating plant). CP. AB MEADOW-FREsH POND OUI~TANDING NAIIIRAL COASTAL AREA The proposed Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area (map 27.) extends from Long Island Sound west of Blanchard Lake and the park at the terminus of Waterview Street in the Town of Huntington southeast to the entrance drive to the LILCO power plant eastern lagoon, then east along the main entrance drive to the intersection with Eatons Neck Road, west along Eatons Neck Road to a midway point between the previous intersection and the intersection of Eatons Neck Road and Ocean Avenue; from there the boundary runs south to Locust Avenue (a small cemetery lies to the west of this line), whereupon it follows the coastal boundary running east. The proposed ONCA boundary departs from the coastal boundary at Soundview Drive in Fort Salonga, Town of Smithtown, and runs north along Soundview Drive to Beverly Court. It then extends along Beverly Court to the north, crossing Beach Hill Drive, and continues to Long Island Sound. The municipal boundaries of the towns of Huntington and Smithtown run through the center of the Fresh Pond freshwater wetland system. Proposed extensions of the state coastal area boundary are shown on map 27.1. The boundary is proposed to be extended to include the area south of Breeze Hill Road and Brookfield Road to Route 215A in Fort Salonga, which contains forest freshwater wetlands and headwaters of the Fresh Pond system, and recreational open space. The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) facility in Northport, which is the largest oil- fired generating plant in the United S~t~, is immediately to the west of the ONCA. It is excluded from the ONCA, because it lacks the requisite natural features. Activities at the plant, however, are significant in the overall ONCA ecosystem; in turn, the plant's proper functioning can be affected by forces of the natural environment. Special Management Areas 489 Application of the Criteria to the Crab Meadow-l~resh Pond ONCA Criterion 1: Significance of Natural Resources Although it is located in the urbanized western half of Suffolk County, the Crab Meadow- Fresh Pond ONCA has a relatively high proportion of land in a nearly natural state, and the uplands and surface waters sustain a high diversity and large populations of wildlife, fish, and other freshwater and estuarine organisms. Ecological and Geological Significance The ONCA contains a variety of geologic formations that support diverse natural conununities: bluffs rising to 100 feet above sea level and morainal bills support remnants of mixed hardwood forests; beaches and dunes support maritime sandy beach and shrubland communities; and coastal lowlands contain a salt marsh, tidal creek, and contributory freshwater wetlands, as well as the freshwater wetlands associated with Fresh Pond. For additional details, refer to the discussion of the Harbors Complex, chapter 3. The Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond ONCA contains freshwater wetlands and streams that run north, mix with tidal waters, and finally discharge to Long Island Sound. These systems originate from areas where groundwater reaches the surface, but they also are fed by precipitation, overland runoff, and direct road drainage. Crab Meadow is one of the few large, tidal marshes along New York's Long Island Sound coastline. The nearly 300-acre marsh behind a set of barrier land forms (possibly former baymouth bars) is within a Town of Huntington park. Osprey, a New York State threatened species, nested at Crab Meadow in 1993. The Fresh Pond freshwater wetland system, at the eastern end of the ONCA, is unusual among Long Island surface waters discharging to the Sound, because it remains fresh for most of its length. Fresh Pond discharges to the Sound over a dam at its northern end to a beach that is approximately 400 to 500 feet in width. Portions of the freshwater wetlands surrounding Fresh Pond are included in the Suffolk County Nature Preserve system. Adjacent to Crab Meadow is the 158-acre Idalcarnah County Nature Preserve, which was acquired for watershed protection and open space. The preserve contains Crab Meadow's eastern tributa~ and associated freshwater wetlands. Impoundments of the stream form large, shallow ponds and red maple-hardwood swamps. A mixed hardwood forest, dominated by oaks and hickories, lies adjacent to the freshwater wetlands. Blanchard lake is at the western end of the ONCA. The lake and its associated freshwater wetlands are about 16 acres in size. A right-of-way carrying power lines from LILCO's Northport power plant traverses the ONCA watershed in a southerly direction. Forested, with sections of freshwater wetlands, the right-of-way provides a wildlife corridor through residential areas, though the land is not officially recognized or managed as 'open space.' The ONCA contains coastal barrier land forms. The two at the mouth of Crab Meadow's creek are protected under the Coastal Barrier Resource System. The entire coastline of this ONCA is identified by New York State as a natural protective feature under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act. The shoreline has high hazard potential. Because ofhistoric high rates of shoreline erosion in this ONCA, the majority of the shoreline has been hardened with 490 Special Management Areas Crab Meadow - Fresh Pond *M Outstanding Natural Coastal Area · o ,,'- ~' man-made stabilization structures. The following designations, programs, and plans are applicable within this ONCA: USFWS Significant Coastal Habitat: The ONCA contains a portion of the "Three Harbors Area" Significant Coastal Habitat identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1991. Appendix 6 contains the full Three Harbors Area site description and map. Appendix 6 provides information from the Northeast Coastal Areas Study regarding the selection of the Significant Coastal Habitats. New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat: The ONCA contains one Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as designated under Article 42 of New York's Executive Law: Crab Meadow. Chapter 3 contains details of this habitat unit. New York Open Space Conservation Plan: "Conserving Open Space in New York State," produced pursuant to State Land Acquisition, ECL, Article 49, Title 2. In addition to the sites listed in the plan, the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee recommended one site, the "Waterside Avenue Wetlands', for acquisition. These privately held freshwater wetlands contribute to Crab Meadow and lie to the south below the western end of the marsh. New York State regulated tidal wetlands (Tidal Wetlands Acg., ECL, Article 25): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of wetland resources. New York State Fefuhted freshwater wetlands (Freshwater Wetlands Act, ECL, Article 24): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed descriptinn of wetland resources. Coastal Barrier Resource System protected units (federal Coastal Barrier Resources Ac0. Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of coastal barrier resources. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs: A draft joint LWRP has been prepared for the Town of Huntington and the Villages of Asharoken, Huntington Bay, Lloyd Harbor, and Northport. The Town of Smithtown's LWRP was approved in 1989. The Town of Smithtown, in its LWRP, supports public acquisition of the privately owned portions of the Fresh Pond freshwater wetland system. Suffolk County Open Space Program: The county included the Fresh Pond wetlands among areas targeted for acquisition in its open space program; only certain northern portions presently are in county ownership. Significance of Cultural Resources The Town of Huntington owns recreational parks for residents at Crab Meadow Beach. Crab Meadow Park and Golf Course, and Geissler's Beach. North of Blanchard Lake lies the town's Kirschbaum property, an undeveloped park on Long Island Sound made up of 13.9 acres of beach, pond, trees and grass. The town is proposing the site be used for camping. Suffolk County owns approximately 25 acres of nature preserve land around Fresh Pond. The pond is used for ice skating and fishing, but access is limited by parking availability. Largemouth bass, white perch, pumpkinseed sunfish, and alewives were found in Fresh Pond during a 1988 survey by NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries. Alewives, which are anadromous, 492 Special Management .Areas Crab Meadow - Fresh Pond OUtstanding Natural Coastal Area with Watershed Detail ONCA MAP 27.1 993 find their way into Fresh Pond from Long Island Sound in the spring for spawning. Although they are not game fish, the young alewives provide excellent food for the largemouth bass and white pemh. Local residents, enthusiastic about the arrival of alewives, have been known to scoop them up in buckets as they come up the creek that crosses the beach and assist them over the dam into Fresh Pond. Recreational fishing also is available in Long Island Sound. The Sound offers opportunities to catch a variety of saltwater fish, including bluefish, striped bass, tautog, porgy, flounder, fluke, weakfish, and snapper. Access to the waters of Long Island Sound for day fishing is available at Geissler's Beach. In this area, the Sound also is used for trolling, party boats, and some commemial fishing. Nearby Smithtown Bay is a popular and productive duck hunting area. Blanchard Lake is mostly on LILCO-owned property, but some of the east shore of the lake is privately owned. A small community park and boat ramp are maintained by local residents. The pond is used for ice skating in the winter. General public access to the coast is limited primarily by residency requirements at town beaches and parks. Although day fishing along Long Island Sound is permitted at Geissler's Beach, a seasonal beach sticker is required for access to the area from Memorial Day to Labor Day because parking space is limited. Attempts to improve access, especially at Fresh Pond and Makamah County Nature Preserve, must be controlled carefully to avoid conflicts with natural resources protection. The primary land use in the ONCA and its extended area is low-density residential (one dwelling unit or less per acre), which is nearly equaled in acreage by open space and recreational land uses. Residential use in densities of two to four dwelling units per acre is the next most prevalent, followed by "vacant" land. There is a small amount of commercial development along Route 25A at the southern boundary of the ONCA. The Town of Huntington has identified several scenic vistas within the ONCA in its LWRP. Open, unobstructed views of Long Island Sound are available to Town residents at Crab Meadow Beach, Geissler's Beach, and Crab Meadow Golf Course. On clear days, Connecticut's shoreline is visible. Views over the Crab Meadow marsh also are accessible from the southern and eastern portions of Crab Meadow Beach. An osprey pole, complete with nest and osprey, was visible from the southeast comer of the beach parking lot in the spring of 1993. The Town of Smithtown LWRP notes that Fort Salonga Road (a portion of Route 25A) is a designated State Scenic Highway. In the Town of Smithtown, the remains of Fort Salonga, used during the Revolutionary War, are located near British Colony Road. A house once kept as a summer home by the founder of Tuskegee Institute, Booker T. Washington, is on a bluff overlooking Long Island Sound in Fort Salonga. Six additional historic sites in Fort Salonga have been identified in the Smithtown Historic Sites Inventory and are listed in the town's LWRP. The Fort Salonga area contains a town historic district. All but a small southern portion of the ONCA is described in New York State Museum Archaeological Site Files. The ONCA is considered to possess "multiple site sensitivity," because of archaeological, and historic resources. These designations are testimony to the long-standing connection between the natural resources of the ONCA and the attractiveness for human uses. 494 Special Management Areas Criterion 2: Resources at Risk Historic and current human use of the Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond ONCA has altered the landscape, adversely affecting ecosystem functions. Development has destroyed and fragmented natural communities, particularly in the last 40 to 50 years. About 20 percent of all of the Town of Smithtown's natural wetlands were destroyed since the late 1940's through development. Although all of the Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond ONCA's saline waters are classified *SA,* portions do not meet the standards for this classification. Crab Meadow's creek is closed to shellfishing, because it does not meet standards for coliform bacterial levels. Nonpoint source pollution from groundwater contamination and stormwater runoff appears to be a major contributor to water quality deterioration. Two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites are located in the groundwater contributing area of the Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond ONCA. One is an open dump south and west of Old Northport Road and east of Town Line Road, owned by S. P. Materials. It is in the sub-watershed of the Fresh Pond system. An investigation report assessing environmental problems is under review. Soil and groundwater sampling is required to evaluate potential exposure pathways. The Huntington Landfill, clo~d in 1989, is the other inactive hazardous waste site in this ONCA. Groundwater and, consequently, private residential wells down gradient of the landfill show contamination with POE and leachate indicators. Across from the site, private well samples showed high levels of chlorides, iron, manganese, and ammonia. Monitoring wells at the landfill site have shown organic and inorganic contamination. The landfill is scheduled for an early capping program. Design for capping was due in March of 1993, pending further characterization of the landfill plume. The LILCO power generating plant to the west of the ONCA discharges heated water into Long Island Sound, raising the ambient water temperature approximately 13 degrees Centigrade, but it operates within federal and State thermal discharge limits. Sbellfishing is prohibited at the plant's intake and discharge lagoons. Oil is transported by tankers to LILCO's offshore oil loading platform, ttxcept for a few oil spills over the last 15 years, the Long Island Sound waters adjacent to the ONCA have been relatively free of chemical pollutants. Water quality in this ONCA also is threatened by alterations to the tributaries, sometimes for the specific purpose of directing road drainage to them. For example, the headwaters area of the freshwater wetland system in Makamah County Nature Preserve has been altered to form a ~recharge basin' that receives road runoffand, therefore, sediment and contaminants. The freshwater wetland adjacent area at the Fresh Pond headwaters is threatened with commercial development. Property along Route 25A, partially comprised of freshwater wetlands, is zoned #neighborhood business'. This area and Route 25A, immediately to the south, flood frequently, even though a drainage ditch leads from the highway right-of-way north toward a deciduous swamp. Backyards along the wetland, as well as the parking lot of a shopping center across Route 25A from the wetland's adjacent area, also become flooded. Development in Fresh Pond's watershed, which is large relative to the size of the wetland, increases the rate of runoff funneled to this constricted and impounded system, carrying sediment and contaminants from a large area and lowering the quality of the surface water. Special Management Areas 495 The tidal marsh at Crab Meadow, although large and undeveloped, has been impaired by extensive mosquito ditching. The ditches, which drain the marsh of shallow pools of standing water where mosquitos breed, also have reduced the number of acres supporting intertidal marsh. Nearly half of Crab Meadow now is high marsh, which is less productive biologically. Portions of tidal wetlands in the ONCA are dominated by the non-native common reed, Phragmite$ au~tralis. This species is an invasive pest because it aggressively replaces native species of much higher wildlife value, especially in previously disturbed wetland areas. Though difficult to control, it must be eradicated to restore wetland functions. The Crab Meadow Park Golf Course and Country Club is a 408.7-acre recreational facility adjacent to the Crab Meadow marsh. The Indian Hills Country Club lies immediately to the west of and across a narrow road from Fresh Pond. Together, these areas represent large portions of the ONCA in partially natural open space, but maintenance practices at these two golf courses contribute contaminants and increase the nutrient load to the wetlands. In addition, the land use itself has caused the elimination of forested upland buffer areas, which provide important wildlife habitat and assist in pollution attenuation. At Blanchard Lake, fishing is limited by the lake's low dissolved oxygen levels during summer months, which few fish species can tolerate. High nutrient levels causing this condition have not been linked as yet to a specific source. Incremental clearing and clear-cutting for development has reduced much of the former large forested areas in the ONCA into fragments. Such fragmentation has potentially devastating effects on wildlife species. Relatively large forested holdings remain, however, on the publicly owned lands, the southern portion of the Indian Hills Country Club, and along the LILCO power line right-of-way. The remaining large forested area surrounds the freshwater wetlands contributing to Crab Meadow at the western portion of the ONCA. This forest land is privately held, and therefore is available for development. A large old field area lies south of Blanchard Lake. Two others are outside the ONCA on the adjacent LILCO property. Only two, relatively small, agricultural areas remain in the ONCA. Such areas .require active management to offset the eventual succession to forest, if old field wildlife species are to be sustained. For the most part, other portions of the ONCA available for development pose severe constraints, such as freshwater wetlands, steep slopes, and flood hazards. These areas mostly are forested. They buffer the wetlands and surface waters of the ONCA from sedimentation arising from erosion and attenuate nutrient and contaminant loading. People inhabit and play in nearly all the different geologic formations in this ONCA. Public and private erosion control projects, requiring significant expenditures, have altered coastal land-shaping processes. Although a great deal of the ONCA's shoreline is hardened with man-made structures, many houses in the ONCA are in danger of being damaged by bluff erosion. Many already have lost large portions of their backyards. Beach fortification fronts houses at Makamab Beach along Waterview Street East. The Town of Huntington built a revetment at the east end of the beach, but now proposes to move the revetment south, because erosion already has scoured the area behind it. In addition, the revetment is thought to have impaired beach sand replenishment to the west. Because hardened shorelines may deprive beaches down drift of an adequate sand supply by trapping 496 Special Management Areas sand that sloughs from bluffs, protection of the beach houses at Makamah Beach may be adversely affecting normal beach nourishment to the west. Further fortification could intensify the negative impacts and cause a loss of beach benefits to the public as well as to the home owners. A jetty at Crab Meadow's creek mouth, others at the LILCO plant, and groins along the shore west of Crab Meadow may be capturing sand moving to the west along this stretch of Long Island Sound's shoreline. As a result, Asharoken Beach, even further to the west, is being deprived of its normal sand supply. The narrowing of the beach at Asharoken threatens access to Eatons Neck. At Crab Meadow Beach, natural shoaling resulting from a tidal delta formation at the mouth of the creek may provide the shoreline with added protection from wave energy. Yet, an active town bulldozing program removes these shoals to prevent pockets of deep water off shore at low tide. It is unclear whether the shoals, lel~ undisturbed, could be a supply source for sand eroding at the western portion of Crab Meadow Beach. Criterion 3: Additional Management Measures Needed Within the coastal area and proposed extended boundaries of this ONCA are several governmental jurisdictions: New York State, Suffolk County, and the Towns of Huntington and Smithtown. Agreement and cooperation among theae levels of government, hand-in-hand with the citizens they represent, is imperative for real protection of an outstanding coastline. Research, long-term monitoring, education, open discussion, and long-term planning can provide the communication necessary for such cooperative ventures to be sustained. The Town of Huntington LWRP needs to be completed. This program would incorporate the management measures needed to protect the resources of the ONCA. The Town of Smithtown LWRP also needs to incorporate management measures for the ONCA. Both towns need to prepare harbor management plans and coordinate their efforts to reach consensus among agencies. The plans, backed by the legal authority of the LWRPs, could achieve coordinated regulation of all uses of surface waters and underwater lands in the towns, and, thus, in the ONCA. Through state management, all levels of government, as well ns citizens, could cooperate within a unified framework to protect the resources of the Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond ONCA. Management should recognize that people and their activities are an integral part of this natural area. Guidance, restrictions, implementation, and enforcement should be included to reduce deleterious human impacts on this coastal area and restore natural communities and processes. Spec~w Actions Needed Develop a comprehensive management plan for the Crab Meadow-Fresh Pond Outstanding Natural Coastal Area. Extend the coastal boundary to include areas shown on map. The following specific, planning and management actions are needed: Sediment Transport Study: Conduct a sediment transport study to determine the role of the Crab Meadow creek tidal delta in beach nourishment at Crab Meadow and to the west, as well as the magnitude of the impacts created by the groins and jetties in the ONCA in Asharoken Beach erosion. Should the marsh at Crab Meadow be restored, consideration Special Management Areas 497 should be given to the resulting hydrologic regime before sediment transport alterations along the beaches are designed. The following site-specific actions should be included in the management plan, but may be undertaken while the plan is being prepared: State Route 25A: Tighten controls on curb cuts. Require that the section of highway traversing the ONCA watershed carry mandates for permeable areas of native vegetation as well as limits on road-side signs and other aesthetic insults. Fresh Pond: Provide improved fishing access. Evaluate present dam structure and repair, modify, or replace, as appropriate. Evaluate Fresh Pond system for possible designation as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Crab Meadow Park and Golf Course: ]Encourage town to make significant efforts to change maintenance practices that are damaging to receiving waters; promote a new "comtal aesthetic" for golf courses to counteract the strong desirability of high-maintenance, unnaturally green fairways. Indian Hills Country Club: Encourage establishment of a wildlife corridor through establishment of native plantings on the property to link Fresh Pond and Crab Meadow. Encourage changes in maintenance practices to protect water quality. Protect, through appropriate means, the following properties or areas: Waterside Aveuue Wetlands (approximately 34 ac~s): Acquire the freshwater wetlands and surrounding forest at the headwaters of the west tributary to Crab Meadow recommended by the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory Committee for protection of wildlife habitat, water quality, and open space. Fresh Pond Headwaters and Buffer Area: Acquire freshwater wetlands and adjacent area between Route 25A and Fresh Pond that are in private ownership for flood control, protection of freshwater wetlands, surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and open space purposes. Restore or remediate the following: S. P. Materials Inactive F~,~rdous Waste Site: Complete necessary investigations and remediatinn. Huntington Landfill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site: Complete necessary investigations and remediation. Crab Meadow: Design and implement a tidal wetlands restoration project to counteract the effects of mosquito ditching on the low marsh. Evaluate open water marsh management as an alternative for mosquito control. In addition, evaluate headwaters area of eastern tributary for possible restoration from recharge basin to red maple-hardwood swamp or emergent marsh. Devise appropriate alternative treatment of road drainage (reswration of Crab Meadow was recommended in the Long Island Sound Study Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan). Blanehard Lake: Determine causes of seasonally low oxygen levels, which limit the survival of aquatic organisms. Remediate, as appropriate. 498 Special Management Area~ STONY BROOK-$ETAUlfl~T OUTSTANDING NA~.PRAL COASTAL The proposed Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Natural Coastal Area (map 28.0) extends from a point along the Long Island Sound shoreline west of Wilderness Road in the Village of Nissequogue, south along the watershed divide to the coastal boundary along Route 25A in the Village of Head-of-the-Harbor, then rum northeast along the coastal boundary into the Village of Old Field, then south and east through Setauket, East Setauket, and the Village of Poquott along the coastal boundar~ to Washington Street. It then rum northeast along Washington Street to the shoreline, whereupon it crosses Port Jefferson Harbor to Pine Road in the Village of Belle Terre. It then follows Arbutus Road to Camp Woodbine Road, then follows'Crooked Oak Road to Seaside Drive, then extends northeast to the shore at White Beach. Because they lack the requisite features, neither lower Port Jefferson Harbor and the Village of Port Jefferson nor the southeastern portions of the Village of Belle Terre are included in the ONCA. Human activities in these areas do, however, play a significant role in the overall ONCA ecosystem. In turn, many of these human activities are affected by the ability of the ecosystem to perform its natural functions. prop°sed extensions of the state coastal area boundary are shown on map 28.0. The boundary is proposed to be extended beyond the existing coastal boundary to include the headwaters and freshwater wetland systems discharging to the bays and harbors of the ONCA, forested areas of the Village of Old Field that protect groundwater recharge and lie over the peninaula's surface watershed divide, and historic districts in Stony Brook, Setauket, and Fast Setauket. Application of the Criteria to the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA Criterion 1: Significance of Natural Resources Although it is located in the western half of Suffolk County and is within one of New York's urban areas, the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA has a relatively high proportion of undeveloped land. The uplands and surface waters sustain a high diversity and large populations of wildlife, fish, and other freshwater and estuarine organisms. Ecological and C~ologiad S~ee The ONCA contains a variety of geologic formations that support diverse natural communities: morainal hills reaching 200 feet above sea level support mixed hardwood forests, including chestnut oak forests; headlands with spits and baymouth bars, beaches, dunes, and bluffs that support maritime sandy beach and shrubland communities, and remnants of maritime red cedar forests; bays containing marine subtidal, intertidal, and salt marsh, communities; and tributaries to the bays containing tidal creak~ and freshwater wetlands. Freshwater impoundments contain emergent marsh communities and ponds. For additional detail, refer to the disenssion of the Central Bays Complex in chapter 3. Groundwater in the ONCA flows through shallow discharge zones toward the surface waters of the harbors, bays, and Long Island Sound. Numerous fresh springs and wetlands are present in areas where the water table intersects the surface. The waters of the resulting freshwater wetlands and streams run north, mixing with tidal waters and ultimately discharging to the harbors and bays. Although these systems originate from groundwater discharge, they also receive overland runoff and direct road drainage. Several areas of the Special Management Areas 499 streams are impounded, creating ponds. Most of the wetlands are regulated by the state and local governments. Stony Brook Harbor, West Meadow Creek, and Flax Pond contain the largest tidal marshes; Conscience Bay and Old Field Beach are fringed with significant ~idal marsh acreage. The Bartlett Marsh and Aunt Amy's Creek (tributary to Stony Brook) are freshwater wetland systems contributing to Stony Brook Harbor. Two smaller freshwater tributaries lead to Setauket Harbor. Port Jefferson has a creek that empties into the lower harbor. The freshwater wetlands and ponds of the Setauket Mill Pond system contribute to Conscience Bay. This system, which is the largest of the freshwater wetlands in the ONCA, and has the largest drainage, provides habitat for a variety of waterfowl. It also offers warm water fishing and other passive recreational opportunities. Several small ponds and swamps are in the ONCA watershed. Bach is important to maintain in its mnst natural state for wildlife, because of the relative scarcity of freshwater resources in this portion of the Long Island Sound coastline, especially in the northern portions of the peninsulas. One small wooded swamp in Old Field, partially filled prior to regulatory protection, provides habitat for roosting black-crowned night heron and snowy egret, and breeding mallard and amphibians. State, county, town, and village preserves and open space parks lie within the ONCA watershed. The state owns a tidal wetlands conservation area at Flax Pond in Old Field and another along Strong's Neck. The state also owns an open space corridor extending to the east from Route 25A in Setauket, held as a right-of-way for a *paper* highway spur. The State University of New York at Stony Brook (SUNY/Stony Brook) owns "Sunwood,* the former Frank Melville estate in Old Field, a forested tract facing Smithtown Bay. Local governments also have acquired many parcels for open space and conservation purposes. Suffolk County owns the undeveloped McAllister County Park (?6 acres) in Belle Terre. The Town of Brookhaven owns parkland on Old Field Beach in Old Field and most of the West Meadow Beach barrier spit. The Village of Old Field owns most of the remainder of Old Field Beach; the county owns the eastern tip, which is designated as a county bird sanctuary. The Town of Smithtown owns large portions of the Long Beach barrier spit; the Village of Nissequogue owns the eastern most 27-acre portion which is a wildlife refuge. All the villages own individual small parcels scattered throughout their municipal limits. Relatively large proportions of overall land area in the villages of Nissequogue and Head-of- the-Harbor are devoted to open space, held in a variety of ownerships: 144.4 acres (8.8%) in Head-of-the-Harbor, and 395.7 acres (17.2%) in Nlssequogue. Most of SUN*Y/Stony Brook's 1,100-acre campus is situated within the ONCA's watershed. Much of the campus is densely wooded. Its predominant forest cover-type is Appalachian oak-hickory forest. Private and semi-private organizations, including the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, the Stony Brook Community Fund, the Stony Brook Foundation, the Frank Melville Memorial Foundation, and the Three Village Garden Club own tracts of open space throughout the ONCA. The Stony Brook Community Fund has an agreement with the Three Village School District allowing the use of a Marine Biology Facility at the West Meadow Wetlands Preserve, which is approximately 80 acres in size. For 33 years, summer ~00 Special Management Areas Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Natural Coastal Area ': '::: ::':¢:':: ' ' .. classes, primarily for high school students, have been supported there. A right-of-way carrying power lines from the Long Island Lighting Company power generating plant in Port Jefferson contains old field vegetation and provides a wildlife corridor through residential areas, although the land is not officially recognized or managed as "open space." The Nature Conservancy maintains three preserves in the ONCA and its extended area and watershed: the David Weld Sanctuary in Nissequogue, East Farm Preserve, and land along Fifty Acre Road in Head-of-the-Harbor. Suffolk County owns the development rights to farm property adjacent to the East Farm Preserve. The New York Natural Heritage Program has identified 12 heritage element? occurrences within the boundaries of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA. They include nesting sites of piping plover, least tern, and common tern and the marine rocky intertidal community, which is rare in the state. The marine rocky intertidal area in this ONCA is a research site for the study of seaweeds. Long Island Sound coastal waters are critical developmental habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, a federally designated endangered species. The turtles have been tracked with radio telemetry by the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation into the waters of West Meadow Creek. Okeanns has found that the loggerhead sea turtle, a federally designated threatened species, also uses Long Island Sound coastal waters and West Meadow Creek. The diamondback terrapin, which is a designated special concern species in New York, occurs in Conscience Bay and probably breeds there, according to Okeanos. It also has been reported to occur in Stony Brook Harbor. There are seven barrier spits in this ONCA, including three that are within protected units of the Coastal Barrier Resource System. These and other geologic formations in the ONCA, such as shoals, dunes, and bluffs, are natural protective features that protect the bays and coastal properties from flooding and erosion hazards. A large proportion of the coastline on the Sound within this ONCA is designated by the state as a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, much of which is held in public ownership. Bluff areas on the west side of Old Field and residential areas along the Nissequogue bluffs and the Long Beach barrier spit are notable exceptions. The following designations, programs, and plans are applicable within this ONCA: USFWS Significant Coastal I4~hitat: The ONCA contains a portion of the "Port Jefferson-Swny Brook Harbor Complex" Significant Coastal Habitat identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1991. Appendix 6 contains the full Three Harbors Area site description and map. Appendix 6 provides information from the Northeast Coastal Areas Study regarding the selection of the Significant Coastal Habitats. New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats: The ONCA contains five Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, as designated pursuant to Executive Law, Article 42: Stony Brook Harbor and West Meadow; Flax Pond, Conscience Bay, Little Bay, and Setauket Harbor; Port Jefferson Harbor; and Port Jefferson Beaches. Chapter 3 contains de~ails of these habitat units. New York Open Space Conservation Plan: 'Conserving Open Space in New York State,' produced pursuant to State Land Acquisition, ECL, Article 49, Title 2. In 'addition to the sites listed in the plan, the Region 1 Land Acquisition Advisory 502 Special Management Areas Committee recommended 235 acres within Stony Brook Harbor for public acquisition/ protection. The suggested area is considered suitable for inclusion in the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and was included in a region specifically designated as important for migratory birds. In addition, the area offers unique vistas, the opportunity to consolidate open space, and access to the coast. The state owns the underwater lands and formerly underwater lands of Stony Brook Harbor, so purchase would focus on uplands and upland buffer areas. This proposal should be evaluated further to determine if these components are in need of additional protection through acquisition, or to reassert state ownership of formerly underwater filled lands. New York State regulated tidnl wetlands (Tidal Wetlands Act, ECL, Article 25): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of wetland resources. New York State regulated freshwater wetlands (Freshwater Wetlands Act, ECL, Article 24): Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of wetland resources. Coastal Barrier Resource System protected units: (federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act). Refer to chapter 3 for a detailed description of coastal barrier resources. Locel Waterfront Revitalization Programs: A draft LWRP has been prepared for the Town of Brookhaven. The Village of Head-of-the-Harbor has a joint LWRP with the Village of Nissequogue that was approved in 1991. The Town of Smithtown's LWRP was approved in 1989. SignO~icanee of Cultural Resources Port Jefferson Harbor supports commercial and recreational fishing. It is a major New York port area for trawlers, lobster boats, clam boats, and party/charter boats focused on Long Island Sound fisheries. The waters of this ONCA themselves also are used to a limited degree for commercial hard and soft clamming and oyster harvesting. The overall harvest for the Town of Brookhaven's north shore hard clara harvest areas was 3,990 bushels in 1991 and 4,639 bushels in 1992. Almost the entire hard clam harvest is from Conscience Bay and Port Jefferson Harbor. The oyster harvest in the town's north shore areas totaled 33,579 bushels in 1991 and 19,874 bushels in 1992. Oysters, hard clams, and soft clams are also harvested primarily from Stony Brook Harbor. The western portions of this ONCA support environmental education activities that supplement science classes in local schools, and foster understanding and stewardship of--and, potentially, careers in--estuarine resources. A BOCES/SCOPE program entitled 'Farming the Sea: A Hard-Shelled Clam Maricultore Project" involves high school students from Hauppauge, Kings Park and Comsewogue in growing and replenishing hard clam stocks in Stony Brook Harbor. This ten-year program is so successful that it recently expanded to Mount Sinai Harbor. Natural resources of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA are used in scientific studies conducted by programs at SUNY/Stony Brook. Research areas include sediment transport, mariculture, wildlife, fmfish, and marine algae. SUNY/Stony Brook's Marine Sciences Research Center operates an educational field research station at Flax Pond. Special Management Areas 503 An attic room above the Stony Brook Post Office was the location of the first office of the Environmental Defense Fund, now a national nonprofit environmental organization, that was responsible for the scientific studies and litigation that led to the historic banning of the pesticide DDT. The bays of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA are recognized by the public as outstanding areas for water-dapendent and water-related recreational activities, such as fishing, boating, sailing, shellfishing, and bird watching, and are used heavily. Local ordinances prohibit the discharge of firearms in most uplands. Stony Brook Harbor and Smithtown Bay are used heavily .by waterfowl hunters. The Town of Brookhaven provides parks for residents at Stony Brook Harbor (launching ramp, bathing beach, fishing pier), West Meadow Beach (bathing beach), Setaukct Harbor (launching ramp), and Port Jefferson Harbor (marina, launching ramp). In its draft LWRP, the Town of Brookhaven expressed a desire to restore public access to a town-owned parcel in the Village of Old Field that served as a boat launch on Conscience Bay. The Town of Smithtown operates a marine park and beaches on the north side of Stony Brook Harbor on the Long Beach barrier spit. Privately-owned recreational facilities, such as beach clubs and yacht clubs, are scattered throughout the ONCA. General public access to the coast in this ONCA is limited by parking restrictions enforced by the towns and villages. Boaters represent a significant proportion of users of the more remote beaches, which are accessible only by water or by foot. The Stony Brook historic district and harbor front is featured in ~hort Walks on Lon~, Island, a guidebook by Rodney and Priscilla Albright that encourages exploration of varied natural and historic features in the Long Island landscape. The primary land uses in the ONCA, its extended area, and its watershed are low and medium density residential, vacant, open space/recreational, and institutional. The institutional lands are primarily held for conservation or historic preservation, although some are school properties. Fields and large remnants of mixed hardwood forests are in private ownership in the large estates remaining in the Stony Brook-Se~ulret ONCA. The Village of Head-of-the-Harbor has approximately 33 percent of its residential land in estate holdings. The Village of Nissequogue has approximately 40 percent of residential land in estates. Both of these villages have listed their selections of locally important natural areas in their joint LWRP. The extensive holdings of land for conservation or historic preservation purposes by private and semi-private organizations in this ONCA points to a desire among local residents to maintain the area's 'sense of place.' Large wooded properties, farms, and old fields throughout the ONCA, extended ONCA, and its watershed yield views of bays, coves, tidal marshes, creeks, ponds, bluffs, beaches, distant land horizons, and expansive vistas over Long Island Sound. The coastline views are dramatic and give a feeling of bucolic isolation. The towns and villages have identified numerous scenic vistas within the ONCA in their LWRPs. Wildlife resources are abundant and also offer many captivating visual experiences. The historic atmosphere maintained in the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA is appreciated by residents and aRractive to visitors. The character of the ONCA's populated areas ranges 504 Special Management Areas from village streets to country lanes to graceful estates to rural seclusion and farmland. Historic and architecturally significant structures throughout the ONCA complement the landscape to complete the blend of cultural and natural resources that engenders this ONCA's unique character. Four Town of Brookhaven historic districts lie within or partly within the ONCA: Stony Brook, Old Setauket, Dyer's Neck, and East Setauket Historic Districts. The Hawkins Homestead (also known as the Captain Eleazer Hawkins House), built ca. 1660, is on the State and Federal Register of Historic Places. Portions of three National Register historic districts lie in Head-of-the-Harbor along Route 25A. The Village of Nissequogue has designated the entire village area a local historic area. Fourteen properties in Nissequogue and Head-of-the-Harbor are listed in the State Register es Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. These properties all represent estate development on Stony Brook Harbor between 1878 and 1930. A nomination has been forwarded to the National Park Service for thematic designation on a national level. Large areas within the ONCA are described in New York State Museum Archaeological Site Files. Virtually all of the land area in the ONCA possesses 'multiple site sensitivity,' because of archaeological and historic resources. These designations are further testimony to the long-standing connection between the natural resources of this ONCA and the area's attractiveness for people. Significant archaeological sites in the ONCA are located primarily along the water. An area along the bay in Old Field has been identified by the New York Stat~ Historic Preservation Office as sensitive. The Town of Brookhaven has listed 18 culturally significant sites within the coastal area that include prehistoric camp sites, shell midden, and burial grounds. The villages of Head-of-the-Harbor and Nissequogue are especially rich with significant archaeological sites. Cultural resources in this ONCA include the Museums at Stony Brook, which is Long Island's largest private museum. It is comprised of three museums and several historic buildings on a 9~acre site. Among the collections for which it is known is the comprehensive works of William Sidney Mount, a 19th century American artist who painted landscapes and images of rural agrarian life, which feature many of the farms on the north shore of Long Island. Another attraction is its internationally acclaimed collection of 250 horse-drawn vehicles. Criterion 2: Resources at Risk Historic and current human habitation of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA has altered the landscape, adversely affecting ecosystem functions. Pest and present land uses in the ONCA watershed, including industrial activities in Port Jefferson and Port Jefferson Station, have resulted in primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the ONCA's natural ecological communities, and hence on Long Island Sound's ecosystem and people's quality of life. Water quality in this ONCA is threatened by degraded conditions in the embayments and their tributaries, resulting from heavy boat traffic, vessel discharges, point source discharges of pollutants, and nonpoint source pollution. Although all of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA's bays and harbors are classified 'SA,' except for lower Port Jefferson Harbor (Class 'SC'), portions do not meet their use standards. Little Bay, Setauket Harbor, the southern Special Management Areas 505 half of Conscience Bay, the southern end of Port Jefferson Harbor, West Meadow Creek, and portions of Stony Brook Harbor are uncertified shellfish areas, because they do not meet National Shellfish Sanitation Program standards for coliform bacterial levels. Combinations of stormwater runoff, falling septic systems, wildlife, vessel discharges, and sewage effluent contribute to the high coliform levels. The Village of Head-of-the-Harbor is developing a stormwater control project for village roads to abate nonpoint source pollution in Stony Brook Harbor. The runoff control program is likely to have positive effects, but the problem of nonpoint source pollution reaching the ONCA's surface waters is pervasive, and must be managed on a watershed as well as a water body basis. The Setauket Mill Pond, an impounded section of the largest freshwater wetland system in the ONCA, receives stormwater through direct discharges from storm drains and from its headwaters, which have been channelized to collect discharges from drains in the upper watershed. The release of large amounts of sediment into the pond is evidenced by long- lasting turbidity following heavy rain and by deltas of sediment in the pond at the discharge points. Lawn chemicals from residences and pollutants from paved surfaces in close proximity to the pond and its tributary contribute to nutrient and other contaminant loading in the pond. A large year*round waterfowl population at the Mill Pond further contributes to nutrient and coliform loading, as well as sediment deposition. The freshwater system once supported a trout fisbery, but now is a warm water fishery that includes largemouth bass, bluegills, and carp. The Frank Melville Memorial Foundation, which owns the park in which the Setauket Mill Pond is located, supports dredging the pond to remove accumulated silt and construction of catch basins in appropriate locations in the. pond's watershed. The Stony Brook Mill Pond and Park, which is owned by the Stony Brook Community Fund, also supports a large year-round waterfowl population. Waterfowl feeding is a major pastime at this pond, one side of which is bulkheaded and filled for a level lawn area. The freshwater wetlands tributary to the Stony Brook Mill Pond receive discharges of stormwater drained from State Route 2:5A. Downstream, Aunt Amy's Creek receives stormwater drained from Christian Avenue. The above sources contribute nutrients and contaminants to Stony Brook Harbor. The main tributary to Setauket Harbor collects street runoff from the heavily traveled State Route 25A in the commercial district of ~ast Setauket. A retention basin constructed in the creek channel to treat runoff must be dredged periodically for sediment removal. The streets of lower Port Jefferson Village are subject to inundation when storms with heavy rains coincide with high tides. The steep slopes and hilly streets of the upper village virtually become rivers of runoff because of poor soil permeability and extensive paving. The stormwater carries gravel, topsoil, fines, and contaminants into the flooded lower streets, which eventually drain into the harbor. Two New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites are located in the groundwater contributing area of the ONCA. One is Lawrence Aviation Industries, which is in the surface watershed of the ONCA. Waste generated by the production of titanium sheet metal between 19:59 and 1980 included fluorides, sludges, caustic acids, and halogenated solvents. Wastes were dumped in several areas on the site, which is in a commercial and residential 506 Special Management Areas area of Port Jefferson. It has been confLrmed that groundwater and surface water are con..t~fi~a, ted ~ith trichloroethylene, tetrachlornethylene, and lead. A pond and creek down graaient fi.om me site, in Port Jefferson Village, have been contaminated with low part-per- million levels of trichloroethylene; the creek will be posted to advise residents. The degraded creek empties into Port Jefferson Harbor. A second Inactive HaTardous Waste Site, Suffolk Materials Mining Corp., lies within the watershed of this ONCA. A public water supply well about one mile down gradient of this site has shown no contamination. Several private drinking water supply wells located down gradient have shown solvent contamination, yet the source remains undetermined. Investigation of this hazardous waste site should be completed to determine the need for remediation. The transport of oil through the Port Jefferson portion of the ONCA by tankers servicing the LILCO power plant presents some risk of nearby oil spills. The Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA retains large areas of vegetated tidal wetlands. These vitally important ecological communities are threatened by diminished protection of wetland buffer areas, shoreline hardening, dredging activities, and erosion by motor boat and jet ski wakes. Portions of tidal wetlands in the ONCA are dominated by the non-native common reed, Phragmites australis. This species is an invasive pest, because it aggressively replaces native species of much higher wildlife value. Though difficult to control, it must be eradicated to restore wildlife habitat and other important wetland functions. The pond at the historic Mills Pond House in St..lames frequently floods its banks as it collects runoff from State Route 2:5A, Mills Pond Road, and nearby farmland. The pond has severe sedimentation and turbidity problems, which endanger aquatic life. The pond is one of very few freshwater resources in the ONCA's watershed and should be protected. A retention basin should be constructed near the state road for treatment of watershed runoff. Relative to many other north shore areas, the prevailing neighborhood character of this ONCA retains a "countryside' appeal, which is attributable to the remaining large estates, horse farms, and agricultural land. Because of its agricultural history, the ONCA's forests generally are not old growth, native forests, but instead are secondary growth arising from former growing fields or pastures. The woods often are a mix of oaks, hickories, and black locust; however, there are extensive areas of monocultural stands of Norway maples. This aggressive species, nearly devoid of wildlife value, has a competitive advantage in establishing itself in poor or depleted soils, and naturalizes quite freely. It has become a major pest in the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA, robbing resideBt wildlife of good quality habitat, yet creating an illusion of lush, healthy forest. In some areas dominated by Norway maples, verticillium wilt is killing significant numbers of mature trees, opening up the canopy. Native forests and remnants are found in areas that were not previously farmed. Some of these areas are on droughty morainal hills, such as chesmut oak forest patches in Old Field, and mixed oak/hickory/laurel forests (approximating Appalachian oak-hickory forests) in the ONCA's watershed north of the South Setauket pine barrens. The poor soils, as well as construction constraints, such as steep slopes, may be responsible for keeping these forests intact so far. As level construction sites become more scarce, however, these forests are Special Management Area~ 507 threatened with further fragmentation and eradication. The cumulative impacts of such losses are potentially devastating on wildlife. Groundwater and surface water quality may also be adversely affected. In the ONCA watershed, large areas of the undeveloped land on the SUNY/Stony Brook campus have been cleared of forest and replanted with turf grass, Japanese black pine, sycamore, Norway maple, and other exotic species. Maintenance of large areas of turf grass is labor intensive and expensive and it can preclude the purity of groundwater recharge, depending on the application of fertilizers and pesticides. The Stony Brook-Setaukct ONCA watershed contains many acres of old field habitat, but most of such fields-gone-fallow are threatened with development. Some farmland development rights have been purchased in Head-of-the-Harbor by Suffolk County. Even when in public or other protective ownership, formerly farmed areas require active management to offset the eventual succession to forest, if old field wildlife species are to be sustained. Retaining habitat for old field species will be an increasing challenge in the metropolitan region. People inhabit and play in nearly all the different geologic formations in this ONCA. Public and private erosion control projects, requiring significant expenditures, have altered coastal land-shaping processes. Within the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA, a few areas of shoreline are hardened by structures such as sea walls, bulkheads, or revetments. Where erosion of bluffs is taking place, bea_~ches down drift are being supplied with sand. Where seawalls or bulkheads may be starved of sand, efforts to relocate dwellings and other valuable structures should be considered prior to any proposal to stabilize the shoreline. In addition, it must be understood by residents that deposition of brush and other materials on bluffs is not helpful in curtailing erosion; it simply impedes the growth of stabilizing vegetation and eventually exacerbates the problem. Docks over 100 feet long are found primarily in Conscience Bay and Setauket Harbor in this ONCA. Such docks impede navigation near shore. In addition, without adherence to strict design and construction standards, such docks may interfere with the rights of the public to move freely along the shore below the mean high water mark. A proliferation of long docks visually break up the coast's natural curves, lines, and expanses of color. Navigation channels in Pon Jefferson Harbor and Stuny Brook Harbor have been maintained by dredging. The channel in Port Jefferson must be kept open for oil tankers delivering fuel to the LILCO plant in the harbor and for the Port Jefferson ferry service to Connecticut. Dredging in Stony Brook Harbor has historically been the subject of much heated debate. The LWRPs applicable in this ONCA have incorporated policies addressing sediment transport, tidal prism, pollutant transport, and habitat protection. Decision-making standards contained in the LWRPs have been developed for any dredging in Stony Brook Harbor, which is limited to maintaining existing dredged areas. In this ONCA, general public access to the coast is limited primarily because of residency requirements of village and town beaches and parks. Many of the publicly owned waterfront properties are accessible only by boat. This situation also makes law enforcement at these areas logistically more difficult. 508 Special Management Areas Beach cottages occupy Town of Brookhaven land at West Meadow Beach under the provisions of long-term leases, which expired in the early 1980's. A town decision to deny renewal of the leases has been upheld by the courts after being challenged by the cottage owners. The town developed a plan to convert the area into an active and passive recreational park and nature preserve, expanding shoreline accessibility. In the summer of 1993, the town held a public hearing on an option to extend the beach cottage leases for twelve more years and subsequently decided to exercise that option. The beach leases are likely to remain controversial for some time. In the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA, boating and fishing are popular to the point of causing congestion in the waterways, posing safety problems, water quality impairments, noise disturbances, and wildlife impacts. Moorings and dockage have reached the ONCA's saturation point. Any improved access must be controlled carefully to avoid conflicts with natural resources. Beach-nesting shorebird areas need greater protection than they are presently afforded from domestic pets, beaters, campers, and simple foot traffic, which have potentially devastating effects on eggs and chicks. Off-road vehicles are threatening survival of these endangered and threatened species at a county park. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Fouodation, Long Island Sound's waters are used by Kemp's ridley sea turtles. More research is needed to fully understand the role Long Island Sound plays in the life cycles of sea turtles. It is becoming clear, however, that threats to sea turtles are abundant in coastal waters. Collisions with boats account for 40 percent of sea turtle deaths and injuries. Dredging disturbs feeding grounds and individuals are destroyed when sucked into hydraulic dredges. Better protection is needed for these endangered and threatened species. As development increases in the Stony Brouk-Setauket ONCA, secondary and cumulative environmental impacts of development may reaaonably be expected to increase unless a plan for restoring and maintaining ecosystem vitality is developed and implemented. The secondary impacts include nonpoint source pollution, spills of toxic and bn-~rdous materials, solid waste generation and disposal, introductions of exotic plants and domestic pets, and increased traffic. Cumulative impacts include incremental wetland, shoreline, and forest losses resulting from filling, development of wetland adjacent areas, rood and yard widening, erosion control structures, and cultural 'grooming" of the landscape. Criterion 3: Additional Management Measures Needed Within the coastal area and proposed extended boundaries of this ONCA are several governmental jurisdictions: New York State, Suffolk County, the towns of Smithtown and Brookhaven, the villages of Nissequogue, Head-of-the-Harbor, Old Field, and Poquott. Port Jefferson Village and the Village of Belle Terre lie just outside the ONCA and have impacts on its environmental quality. Agreement and cooperation among these levels of government, hand-in-hand with the citizens they represent, is imperative for real protection of an outstanding coastline. Research, long-term monitoring, education, open discussion, long- term comprehensive planning and intergovernmental implementation of comprehensive plans can provide the communication necessary for such cooperative ventures to be sustained. Special Management Areas 509 The Town of Brook, haven needs to complete its LWRP. The LWRP would incorporate the management measures needed to protect the resources of the ONCA. The Town of Smithtown LWRP also noeds to incorporate management measures developed for the ONCA. The Villages of Old Field, Belie Terre, Port Jefferson, and Poquott need to develop LWRPs. The municipalities in the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA need to cooperate to develop strategies for managing waterways and to develop comprehensive harbor management plans which would coordinate regulation of all uses of surface waters and underwater lands in the towns and villages, and, thus, in the ONCA. Through comprehensive planning and management, ail levels of government, as well as citizens, could cooperate within a unified framework to protect the resources of the Stony Brook-Setauket ONCA. Management should recognize that people and their' activities are an integral part of this natural area. Guidance, restrictions, implementation, and enforcement should be included to reduce deleterious human impacts on this coastal area and restore natural communities and processes. Specific Actions Needed Develop a comprehensive management plan for the Stony Brook-Setauket Outstanding Naturai Coastal Area. Extend the coastal boundary to include areas shown on map. The following specific, planning and manage~nent actions are needed: Port Jefferson Stormwater turnoff Control: Encourage the Village of Port Jefferson to institute a comprehensive runoff control program that includes modifications to drainage infrastructure, strict construction guidelines, and landscaping requirements. In addition, encourage phasing out high maintenance landscaping in the village and replacing it with xeric and other native landscaping, as appropriate. Beach-nesting shorebirds: Develop and implement specific plans for promotion of endangered and threatened beach-nesting shorebirds to address hnpects from human uses. Afford the highest possible protection of these species, as well as rare communities, in any efforts to increase public access. Sh~l~h Resonre~: Aase~ sbellt~h resources in the ONCA and develop a coston~ strategy for replenishing and maintaining ~ocks for conunercial and recreational shellfishing. Boat Speeds: Control boat speeds and designate no,wake zones to protect salt marshes, bay bottoms, and estuarine fish and wildlife resources, and for public safety and noise abatement. The following site-specific actions should be included in the management plan, but may be undertaken while the plan is being prepared: Setanket ~ Pond: Develop and implement a strategy for abating runoff in the immediate water~hed of the pond to correct siltation and eutrophication of this community resource and the receiving waters of Conscience Bay: Treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the wetlands by providing retention area{s) at heedwamrs and catch basins to settle out particulates. Acquire land as neceasary for construction of such treatment areas. F-valuate the pond for restoration needs. Reduce use of pond by Canndn geese and duck~ by planting native shrubs and other vegetation along banks. Prohibit waterfowl feeding. 510 Special Management Areas Inactive Fl~rdous Waste Sites: Complete investigations and remediate as appropriate. State Route 25A (in ONCA watershed): Control paving and curb cuts to reduce the need to collect runoff. Require permeable areas of natural vegetation as well as limits on road- side signs and other aesthetic insults in rights-of-way. Head-of-the-Harbor: Evaluate large private properties adjacent to Suffolk County's development rights holdings and Nature Conservancy preserves for protection needs. Beaches: Develop protection strategies for beach-nesting shorebirds at Long Beach, Young's Island, Crane Neck Point, the barrier spit at Flax Pond, Old Field Beach, and McAllister County Park. Long Beach: Require modification or removal of unpermitted or inappropriate erosion control structures. N'tssequogue Golf Club and St. George's Golf and Country Club: promote a 'gold coast" golf course aesthetic: "golden" fairways and roughs to improve the quality of groundwater recharge and surface runoff and to protect wildlife. Port Jefferson Sewage Treatment Plant: upgrade as necessary. Protect, through appropriate means, the following properties or areas: Stony Brook Harbor: Acquire wetland buffer and upland areas adjacent to Porpoise Channel for protection of tidal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, open space, and flood and erosion. Buffer Zones, Upland Areas Adjacent to Wetlands: Acquire land necessary for implementation of wetlands restoration and stormwater runoff control, as noted below. Restore or remediate the following areas: Lawrence Aviation Industries: Complete the investigation ofb~7~rdous wastes. Remediate the site and contaminant plume, including creek and pond in the Village of Port Jefferson. Suffolk Materials Mining Corp.: Complete the investigation of hazardous wastes. Remediate the site and environs as appropriate. Stony Brook Mill Pond: Modify the existing stormwater drainage system for State Route 25A to treat road runoff prior to discharge into the wetland or pond. Encourage the Stony Brook Community Fund to plant native vegetation along the pond bulkhead to discourage Canada geese from lawn area. Prohibit waterfowl feeding. Aunt Amy's Creek: Modify the existing stormwater drainage system for Christian Avenue and vicinity to treat road runoff prior to discharge into the creek. Setauket llmrbor Primary Tributary Adjacent Area: Establish a uatorally vegetated buffer zone adjacent to the retention basin constructed in the channel of the main tributary to Setauket Harbor. This may require partial acquisition of adjacent properties. Modify the existing stormwater collection infrastructure to provide better sediment trapping. For enhanced treatment .of runoff directed to this tributary, a naturally vegetated buffer zone Special Management Areas 511 should be established using land that is currently used for parking and automotive repair. The stormwater collection system design should be modified for better sediment trapping prior to discharge to the creek. Setauket Harbor, Southeastern Tributary: Evaluate for restoration needs. West Meadow Beach: Discontinue cottage leases, remove the cottages, and restore dunes and native beach vegetation in accordance with a the town's plan to restore ecosystem benefits and achieve improved public access to the coast. Protecting the Sound's Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas Potential measures toward achieving the management objectives of the LIS CMP for the identified ONCAa are described briefly below. It is the intent of the LIS CMP to specify measures that are driven primarily by what is understood about ecological relationships in the ONCA, within the context of a place where people live, work, and play. These measures and the specific actions needed for each ONCA must be integrated in the comprehensive management plan to be developed for each ONCA in a way that resolves conflicting needs, establishes priorities, and details a coordinated and effective implementation strategy. Measures protecting the valued resources of the ONCA, which necessarily must be creative and aggressive, must be specified in partnership with public and private interests. For sound decision-making, the long-term consequences of seemingly minor individual decisions must be understood. The LWRP for the Villages of Head-of-the-Harbor and Nissequogue highlights this concern with the following statement: Suburbanization has approached, which means more than an increase in population, new building, and greater demands upon resources. People who have not encountered these resources before should be introduced to keeping these blessings--clean air, clean water, a wonderful range of wildlife, a rich historic heritage, much quiet and serene visual beauty--and be in~'oduced as well to the costs attached to keeping these blessings intact. In the long run there may be no way of ensuring the preservation of these values except by arousing the interest and the affection of many. Curtail nutrient and contaminant loads to Lonlf Islnnd Sound and its tributaries. · Implement Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Section 6217(g) nonpoint source management measures. · Implement the water quality recommendations of the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. · Provide sufficient vessel waste pumpout and dump facilities to establish vessel waste no- discharge zones in all embayments. · Preserve country clubs and golf courses, because they provide partially natural open space; however, make significant efforts to change maintenance practices that are damaging to receiving waters and aquatic life. Promote a new 'coastal aesthetic* for golf courses to counteract the strong desirability of high-maintenance, unnaturally green fairways. 512 Special Management Areas · Retrofit direct discharges of street drainage to surface waters and wetlands to implemem best management practices. · Incorporate oil spill contingency plans for inclusion in harbor management plans. · Remediate contaminated sites and put them to beneficial uses, such as public parks. Protect and restore freshwater and tidal wetlands and their natural functions. Develop a strategy that includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: · Revise tidal wetlands regulations to permanently prohibit filling or degrading of mapped, vegetated tidal wetlands, increase protection in buffer areas, and take into account sea level rise. · Restore tidal wetland areas dominated by ~ aus~is and remove P. autraJis wherever possible. · Assess historical losses of freshwater wetlands; determine if and where restoration would be appropriate. · Preserve freshwater wetlands through land acquisition, purchase or transfer of development rights, landowner agreements, conservation easements, restrictive covenants, and other means. · Develop a capital or management program with priorities for acquisitions, treatment of stormwater drainage from roads prior to discharge into wetlands, and restoration of upland buffer areas. · Use existing public properties for wetland creation, with priority given to disturbed sites. In no case should wetland creation on state land require destruction of a viable natural ecological communities. · Remind local tax assessors to take wetland restrictions into account when assessing properties for tax purposes. · Develop a public education and environmental stewardship program for wetlands in ONCAs. Protect and, where appropriate, expand populations of New York Natural Heritage elements (endangered, threatened, and rare species and rare natural communities). · Develop protection and expansion strategies for populations of endangered and threatened specios. Where it is appropriate to do so, develop strategies for expansion of rare n~O~ral communities and populations of rare species; where expansion of such is not appropriate, develop protection strategies. These strategies may include, but should not be limited to, acquisition of land, limitations to access, identification of buffer areas, landowner agreements, public education, and stewardship programs. Strategies should be developed in consultation and cooperation with the NYSDEC's endangered species program, the New York Natural Heritage Program, and The Nature Conservancy. The US Fish and Wildlife Service should be included in planning for the Oyster Bay-Cold Spring Harbor ONCA. The stra~'egies should ensure shared implementation by public and private parties. Special Management Area~ 513 Maintain sustainable populations of fish, shelWzsh, and wildlife species that depend on the resources of an ONCA for critical stages in their life cycles. · Develop habitat management plans to avoid potential impacts to fish and wildlife as identified in New York State's Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat designation narratives and in OBNWR reports Habitat management plans should include, but should not be limited to, harvest limits and regulations that are based on monitoring populations of commercially and recreationally exploited species, habitat protection and expansion, and mariculture, as appropriate. They should be developed in consultation and cooperation with appropriate state, federal, and private entities. Protect, and where possible, expand native plant communities. · Identify native forest corridors for protection or restoration in the watershed. These corridors would help sustain wildlife and protect endangered, threatened, and rare plants, and also would maintain and restore buffer zones to freshwater wetlands and streams o · Require the use of native plants wherever possible densely developed areas to provide habitat transition zones. · Promote native plantings on country club~ and golf courses to restore wildlife habitat and corridors. Native plants may be especially appropriate in the roughs. · Discourage high maintenance landscaping. Promote xeric and other native landscaping. · Restore native vegetation to developed and degraded areas at every opportunity, especially on publicly owned land. Contain and eradicate nuisance exotic species. Reintroduce native species. Specifically: · Require new landscaping on state properties to consist of high percentages of native plants. Allow exceptions only at established horticultural gardens; areas requiring turf grasses, where only low-maintenance vegetation will be permitted; and in areas where native species survival would be impaired. In the latter case, permit only those hardy species that are proven not to naturalize. · Target existing public holdings, such as parks, for native plants upgrading. The benefits will be realized at substantially lower costs than new acquisitions of properties, which, in their current undisturbed state, already are yielding benefits. This program can seize new opportunities for value added back. · Utilize existing state nursery facilities or cooperate with native plant nurseries within the region to undertake research on propagation and suitabilities of native species for landscaping, and educational demonstration gardens to promote uses. By these combined efforts, applications of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (and expenditures for such) may be reduced, the quality of groundwater recharge and stormwater runoff improved, natural erosion control established, and wildlife habitat restored. 514 Special Management Areas Maintain the benefits of natural shoreline functions. · Prohibit hardening of the shoreline and other impediments to natural coastal processes in areas not needed to protect intensely developed areas and substantial public investments. · Develop strategies for removing hardened shorelines and moving development upland and away from erosion and flood haT. rd areas. · Where bluff erosion is rapid, provide incentives for moving houses atop bluffs where erosion is rapid back from the bluff face as far as is feasible. Acquire properties where this is not possible because of small lot size. · Educate residents on value of natural vegetation to bluffs and activities that exacerbate bluff erosion. · Prohibit clear-cuRing of vegetation on bluffs. Manage development in the ONCA watershed to result in cleaner surface waters, protection of estuarine life, maintenance of sheHf'zshing, and restoration of shellfish harvesting where natural ecosystem processes may permit. · Encourage reuse of existing developed areas and those along the shoreline for uses that are less likely to result in water quality impacts. · Delineate areas where development can proceed with minimal negative impacts on natural resources, such as small, vacant parcels in densely settled areas of the. watershed, and in sewered areas, once sewage treatment plants meet LI$S nitrogen recommendations. · Identify areas where development should be discouraged or avoided, p.articularly large tracts of open space, private recreation facilities, large estates and lands adjacent to the surface waters and tributaries of an ONCA, and coastal erosion hazard areas. · Encourage protective development measures, such as transfer of development rights, cluster development, existing use zoning for large estates and private recreation facilities. · Ensure that development or redevelopment will be guided by the overall objectives for the ONCA within which it is situated; uses and practices having negative impacts on water quality, estuarine life, coastal access, and visual resources should be phased out and discouraged. · Acquire appropriate properties for preservation and restoration. Ensure that recreational activities in the ONCA will be compatible with the protection of ecological communities, endangered, threatened, and rare species, species of special concern, economically important species, and other intrinsic ecosystem elements. · Accommodate low-impact recreational uses of the estuarine environment and discourage or prohibit those activities that threaten the survival of endangered, threatened, rare, and special concern species and other intrinsic ecosystem elements. Decisions regarding allowable uses will be based primarily on sensible protection of such elements, and perpetuating those features that provide benefits to the greatest numbers of people. Special Management Area~ 515 · Preserve country clubs and golf courses, because they provide partially natural open space; however, make significant efforts to change maintenance practices that are damaging to receiving waters and aquatic life. Promote a new ~coastal aesthetic" for golf courses to counteract the strong desirability of high-maintenance, unnaturally green fairways. Prevent impairments to coastal access and develop new access opportunities that are compatible with protection of the natural resource values and uses of the ONCA. · Prohibit long docks to prevent impairment of navigation near the shore and lateral access along the shorelines. · Develop new access opportunities only as components of an ONCA management plan, to ensure protection of vulnerable natural resources. Provide the public with the information necessary and the opportunity to protect the resources of the ONCA. · Provide mechanisms for increased community involvement in deciding and planning for the area's environmental future. Aesthetics, neighborhood charaeter, architecture, and historic and archaeological preservation may be elevated in importance by development review boards interested in maintaining the sense of place so appealing to residents and visitors. This will assure inhabitants of the ONCA that the natural area they call home will remain, in many ways, 'the same, only better." · Develop coastal stewardship opportunities for citizens interested in monitoring and protecting resources by assisting in enforcement efforts. · Foster extensive community education and participation through which residents, planners, regulators, and other decision-makers will share a set of common goals toward restoring and maintaining a natural area reserve in which people live, work, and play. Additional Areas for Consideration as Outstanding Natural Coastal The following additional areas exhibit characteristics that may make them suitable candidates for consideration as Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas in the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. Brief, general descriptions of these areas follow. · Pelham Bay Park-South Westchester Islands · Litzle Neck Bay · Lloyd Neck-Eatoas Neck · Sunken Meadow-Nissequogue River · Mount Sinai Harbor · Wading River · Wildwood-Baiting Hollow · Riverbead Bluffs · Eastern Islands · Fishers Island 516 Special Management Areas BAY PARIr-SOtf~'~ WESTCHESTER ISLANDS The Pelham Bay Park-South Westchester Islands lies in a highly urbanized area that includes parts of New York City and Westchester County and includes significant coastal parkland. It lies within the Narrows Complex, identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Significant Coastal Habitat. It includes Pelham Bay Park, Glen Island County Park, David's Island, Huckleberry Island, and Shore Park in the Village of Pelham Manor. City Island and the densely developed portion of Hart Island are excluded from the ONCA. The area is included in the New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan as a Special Natural Waterfront Area. Pelham Bay Park comprises more than 2,700 acres of natural areas and active recreational facilities; 600 acres of the park are underwater lands. The park contains two sanctuaries and harbors more than 400 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and invertebratez among a diversity of natural ecological communities. It occupies an important location in the migratory flight routes of raptors, including osprey, bald eagle, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, and kestrel. It contains valuable historic and archaeological resources, as well. The area hosts large populations of wintering waterfowl, including black duck, scaup, and Car~la_ goose. The islands offthe Westehester shore, especially Huckleberry Island, provide habitat for large numbers of colonial waterbirds and support the most southerly occurrences of marine rocky intertidal communities on bedrock along the North Atlantic coastline. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, harbor seals are known to use these areas for haulout sites. NECK BAY The Little Neck Bay area encompasses the productive waters of Little Neck Bay, Alley Pond Park, Udalls Cove Preserve and Ravine, tidal wetlands at Udalls Cove, Fort Totten, and parkland with pedestrian walkways along the western shore of the bay. It includes parts of Queens and North Hempstead. The ONCA lies within the Narrows Complex, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified as a Significant Coastal Habitat. It contains a state-designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and the Long Island Sound/Upper Fast River Special Natural Area, proposed in the New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan. Its salt marsh and marine subtidal communities are significant for their assemblages of native species, especially in their juxtaposition with urban development. LLOYD NECK-EATONS NECK The Lloyd Neck-Eatons Neck area encompasses the two necks and the coastal waters of Lloyd Harbor, Huntington Bay, Northport Bay, and Duck Island Harbor. It includes the Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge and Caumsett State Park. It lies entirely within the Town of Huntington and the Harbors Complex, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified as a Significant Coastal Habitat (Three Harbors Area). It contains six Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. It supports at least three areas used by endangered beach-nesting sborehirds. The north coast of Lloyd Neck contains geologically significant bluffs, where Cretaceous sedimentary deposits are exposed. Natural ecological Special Management Areas 517 communities in the uplands, wetlands, marine and freshwater environments have been maintained in lightly developed areas and protected open space. The area also contains significant archaeological and historic resources. The waters support a significant shellfishery. SUNlCF3~ MEADOW-NI$$EI2FOGt.~ RIVER The Sunken Meadow-Nissequogue River area encompasses the entire Nissequogue River, its headwaters, Sunken Meadow State Park, Caleb Smith State Park; Short Beach Town Park, and other adjacent county and town parkland. It lies mostly in the Town of Smithtown and the Villages of Nissequogue and The Branch, although the river's headwaters, lie partly in the Town of Islip. The Nissequogue River is the largest north-flowing freshwater watercourse on Long Island. The Nissequogue River has been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Significant Coastal Habitat and is a state-designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The area contains a wide variety of marine and terrestrial ecological communities, including the largest Atlantic white cedar community in western Suffolk County. Sunken Meadow State Park offers superb coastal access, as well as active and passive recreation opportunities. The first Long Island Greenbelt Trail, providing hiking access through natural areas from Long Island Sound to the Great South Bay, is located in this area. The river is a designated Scenic and Recreational River, pursuant to the state Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Act. The area includes a preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy. The entire area is rich with archaeological and historic resources. MOUNT SINAI HARBOR The Mount Sinai Harbor area encompasses Mount Sinai Harbor, Cedar Beach, Cordwood Landing County Park, a Port Jefferson Village beach, state tidal wetlands, and the lightly developed, steeply sloped morainal hills and kettle holes of the harbor's immediate watershed. The area lies within the Town of Broukhaven and part of the Village of Belle Terre. The harbor and its environs are rich with ecological, historic, and archaeological resources. The waters support a regionally significant shellfishery. The Wading River area includes the entire Wading River Marsh and its watershed to North Country Road, from the Wading River's outlet to the Sound at the northwest to the western extent of the development south of Herod Point on the east end. It does not include the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant site. The Wading River Marsh is a salt marsh bordered by freshwater wetlands and forested morainal hills to the south, development to the east, a decommissioned nuclear power plant to the west, and a barrier land form and beach houses to the north. The marsh is a designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and provides habitat for endangered sea turtles as well as numerous other fish and wildlife species. According to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, it is a potential breeding site for harbor seals. The marsh contains numerous Nature Conservancy preserve holdings. The area has significant archaeological and historic resources. 518 Special Management Areas WH~nWOOD. BAI~ING HOLLOW The Wildwood-Baiting Hollow area is entirely within the Town of Riverhead, and extends from the western boundary of Wildwood State Park to approximately Edwards Avenue at the eastern end. It includes lands south to Sound Avenue. As one of only three New York State Parks on the Long Island Sound coast, Wildwood State Park is highly valuable for public access. The park provides camping, picnicking, swimming, and cross-country skiing opportunities. The park is forested, with numerous trails and dirt roads. To the east lies a small development and Camp Baiting Hollow, presently owned by the Boy Scouts of America. Salt marsh and beach-front, held by the state for conservation purposes, lie north of the camp. The camp contains freshwater wetlands that discharge to the salt marsh and steeply sloped uplands that support a variation of oak-tulip tree forest. In 1975, Sound Avenue was designated a scenic and historic corridor by the State Legislature "in honor and celebration of the American bicentennial and the role of Long Island in the American Revolution." The Riverhead Bluffs area is entirely within the Town of Riverhead. It extends from Warner Drive east to Pennys Road and south to approximately the midpoint between the shoreline and Sound Avenue. It includes a rare ecological community of dwarfed American beech trees, known as a maritime beech forest. It is one of only two known maritime beech forests in New York (and in size, the larger, by far), and one of three known along the east coast. It is estimated there are 20 or fewer such communities world-wide. Except where clearing or other human-induced disturbance has taken place, the maritime beech forest provides nearly complete vegetative cover to the bluffs, from the crest to the toe, along this reach of shoreline. It is not known at present whether the beech forest is a major factor in stabilizing the bluffs or is a plant community that becomes established only under relatively stable bluff conditions. The wide beach at Friar's Head supports beach grass and other vegetation at the base of the bluffs. Portions of the maritime beech forest are threatened with development. Ish4,vo$ The Eastern Islands area includes Plum Island, Plum Gut, Great Gull Island and Little Gull Island. It lies within the Orient Point-Islands Complex, identified as. a Significant Coastal Habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It contains the Plum Gut Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The area is entirely within the Town of Southold. The lands and waters are owned by the state and federal governments. Plum Gut is a deep, open water channel where the waters of Gardiners Bay meet those of eastern Long Island Sound. Its significance for fisheries is described in chapter 3. Plum Island, where federal laboratories for animal disease research are located (USDA Plum Island Animal Disease Center), is restricted from public access, and excluded from the Coastal Management Program. Great Gull Island is considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be of national, if not international, significance, because it is colonized by over 6,000 pairs of common tern and approximately 1,200 pairs of roseate tern (federally endangered). It is Special Management Areas 519 the second largest breeding population of roseate tern in North America and is actively studied by the American Museum of Natural History. Both Great Gull and Little Gull Island are small and rocky and are dominated by grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. For a comprehensive description of the significance, threats, and conservation considerations of the Orient Point;islands Complex, much of which is included in this area, please refer to appendix 2. F/$HE~ IS/AND The Fishers Island area includes all of Fishers Island and the turbulent open water area to its southwest known as The Race. It also includes islands north of Fishers Island: North Dumpling; South Dumpling, Flat Hammock, Pulpit Rock, West Clump, Middle Clump, East Clump, and Seal Rocks. Wicopesset Island to the east, and nearshore islands to the south also are also included. The islands north of Fishers Island are included in the Fishers Island Sound Complex Significant Coastal Habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Race is a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat that is included in the Orient Point-Islands Complex. The small islands around Fishers Island are important seal hanlout areas, primarily because of their isolation from human activities. Fishers Island is a unique, rural and residential island with over 41 species of rare plants, diverse natural ecological communities, including one of two globally rare maritime beech forests in New York State, unusual geologic features, significant historic resources, and surface supplies of drinking water. 520 Special Management Areas Chapter 8 ADVANCING the SOUND AGENDA This chapter presents a comprehensive strategy for implementing the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program recommendations. The strategy is presented in two parts: (1) a management framework outlining the range of general and specific state actions that will be undertaken; and (2) specific implementation actions for the Developed Coast, the Natural Coast, the Public Coast, and the Working Coast. All the recommendations proposed by the LIS CMP are summarized in a table at the end of the chapter and reflect an action agenda for management of the Sound. Given that state government has many competing and similarly important demands on its resources, which are limited, choices must be made and priorities set among the recommendations that are in the table. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK As noted in chapter 1, state government has four general tools at its disposal to implement the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program--planning, investment, direct action, and regulation. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program would use all these tools to achieve the vision for the Sound: ... enhance community character, reclaim the quality of natural resources, reinvigorate the working waterfront, and connect people to the Sound ... Planning Despite the wealth of information that exists and was consulted in developing the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, there are gaps in our understanding of the ecosystems, geology, economic opportunities, and community resources of the Sound. The LIS CMP includes a number of planning and study recommendations which will be used to define and advance future management actions for the region. These recommendations include, but are not limited to: developing management plans for special areas, designating vessel no- discharge zones, nominating and designating Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, developing a shoreline monitoring program for the entire region, and completing LWRPs and harbor management plans. Investment The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources also recommended that the regional coastal management programs be used to target and set priorities for state investments in the coastal area for both development and natural resource enhancement. These investment priorities, to be agreed upon by state agencies and communities affected in the region would ensures more efficient allocation of limited resources. State invesunent includes assistance for infrastructure as an incentive for development, for improved public amenities, and for environmental restoration. State investment takes a variety of forms from cost sharing with local governments to financial assistance to the private sector. The Department of State, state Advancing the Sound Agenda 521 agencies, and local governments need to develop consensus on regional priorities for the Sound coastal area from among the array of investment needs identified in the LIS CMP. ~ Direct Actions Direct actions are the array of activities that state agencies undertake themselves, for example buying land and constructing a park, building a highway, or making a special designation pursuant to state law. The LIS CMP contains a number of recommendations for direct state action, ranging from land acquisition to construction. The program incorporates acquisition recommendations of the state Open Space Conservation Plan, the Long Island Sound Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs, DEC's Fishing Access Plan, and others necessary for the management and preservation of critical coastal resources. Additionally, state construction or enhancement of various facilities, such as artificial fishing reefs, state parks, and roadway drainage systems, is also proposed. Specific state designations, such as Scenic Byways and Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, are also direct actions that can be undertaken to implement parts of the LIS CMP. Regulation There are four regulatory components proposed to implement the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program. Two, centralized consistency and coastal policy refinement, will be significant means to forward the goals of the LIS CMP. C~ CONSISTI~NCT The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources recommended that the state consistency review process be centralized for certain activities so a comprehensive review of significant development in the state coastal area could be provided. The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act needs to be amended to incorporate a new system of centralized consistency. COASTAL POLICY P~FINEMENTS The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources intended that the regional coastal programs establish the basis for refining and tailoring the existing 44 state coastal policies to be more specific and reflect unique features, opportunities, and priorities in the region. The Long Island Sound Coastal Program makes specffic recommendations for refining the state coastal policies. These recommendations draw on a number of sources, including, but not limited to, the policies and objectives of existing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs in the region; enforceable components of the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan; and recommendations of the state Open Space Conservation Plan. The policy revision recommendations reflect the unique opportunities to concentrate coastal development in appropriate locations, to redirect development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and to address long-standing issues of state concern. Chapter 6 contains the Long Island Sound coastal policies. REGULATORY CHANGES Several state agencies have regulatory jurisdiction in the Long Island Sound coastal area. To better coordinate regulatory decision-making and more appropriately direct regulatory efforts to the specific needs of the region's coastal resources, a number of regulatory recommendations are included in the LIS CMP. These recommendations build upon the 522 ~lvancing the Soun~t Agenda successes of existing regulations to improve resource protection needs of the region and, at the same time, attempt to streamline the regulatory review process. They strengthen the state's ability to prohibit the over exploitation of natural resources while also giving a greater degree of predictability to the region's regulated community. Based on the recommendations, state agencies will be consulted and, where appropriate, they will undertake regulatory changes. STATE LF. GISLAI'ION Finally, there are a few areas where the LIS CMP has identified the need to enact new legislative authority in order to address particular resource management or development needs in Long Island Sound. Process for C. oo erative .Management: annual ltnptementation Review, State Agency Focus Teams, and Local Government Involvement The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program contains ambitious, but realistic, recommendations for better management of the Sound's natural and economic resources. However, it is not a program that can, or should, be implemented by one agency. The program and the vision behind it demand a cooperative management effort among state agencies and among all levels of government and citizens. It is a partnership. To make this parmership function smoothly, the following is proposed: · Long Island Sound Coastal Advisory Commission An active commission composed of state agencies, local governments, and environmental and business representatives should be created to serve as a sounding board and advisory body for state government. The commission would advise on a range of matters, including implementation of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, and policies, revision of the program and policies, and regional and inter-regional coordination. This body should meet periodically in a setting that allows flee-ranging discussion among participants. A~ other regional coastal management programs are completed on Long Island, the focus and composition of the commission would broaden accordingly. · Focus Area Task Groups Small focus groups, composed of state agency representatives, should be created to work with local governments to implement the recommendations and develop management plans for Maritime Centers, Areas of Concentrated Development, and Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas. The agency composition, as well as the lead, of the focus groups would vary with the type of management plan to be developed. The focus group members would: assist with design of management plans and completion of management plans; work as facilitators for various approval actions; ensure that implementation actions get the necessary priorities within the particular agency; assist with defining project development needs, such as the content of RFPs; and assist with public information efforts. · Assistance to Local Governments Advancing the Sound Agenda 523 DOS should continue its technical assistance to local governments to complete LWRPs and harbor management plans, and address specific local coastal issues. Certain critical issues in Long Island Sound's coastal area are more adequately addressed in partnership with local governments. These include the allocation of land and water uses, nonpoint source pollution, management of increasingly congested harbors, and erosion of beaches, bluffs and shoretands. The Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program emphasizes the state-local partnership and makes specific recommendations for enhancing the local coastal management efforts to advance the Sound agenda. In particular, the LIS CMP opportunities within areas identified for concentrating development and in natural areas. The program also identifies areas where local governments can advance the management of harbors and watersheds. DOS should actively assist local governments w implement these recommendations. SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION The following chart indicates which of the above implementation tools are required for each of the recommendations in the report. 524 Advancing the Sound Agenda Table ,32 Long Island Sound Coastal ]~[ans ~rnent Pre dementntinn Summ LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY STATE MANAGEMENT CATEC_d3RY Planning Inve~- Direct Action Regulation Local and merit Gov't Study Aequi- Other Policy New/Amended Action NO. [ RECOMMENDATION sition Revisio~ Reg [ Law The Developed t I Establish Areas for Conceu~od Devek,~m~u;, X 2 Encourage consolidation and new growth in Areas for Concentrated Development X X X X 3 Encourage development in npp~opz~d~ ~ X X X X 4 C oo~,~,.ve t~.,~mg for large rotes X X X 5 M ...... historic ceu~na of commercial a~t~v~,y as building blocks X X X 6 Complete LWRPs X X 7 Encourage local government to use land use authority fully X X X $ E~A,'.:-'. p~'~,,.~ty for use of w,~.£.,~t land X X 9 Evahm~e I~,~ic and archaeological re~.~,~ces X 10 A~--,~ historic' ' and archecolog~cal' resources more effectively in LWRPs X X 11 Encourage local government to preserve goff courses for recreational use X X 12 Deai?ato Scenic Area~ of Statewide Significance X X X X The Nature/Corn/ 13 Identify Out~.~.~L.g Natural Coastal Areaz 14 Amend ¢o~ policies to ~nclude ONCA m~n~gement guideli~e~ X X 1~ Refine co~al policies m reflect ~he ne~l for imegr~ed ecosystem management X LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY. continued STATE MANAGHIVIENT CATEGORY Planning Invest- Direct Action Regulation Local and ment Gov't Study Acqul- Other Policy New/A~nended Action sition Revision Reg I Law No. RECOMMENDATION The Nalural Coa~t--cominued 16 l]~tablish prim~ities for wetland rest. orntion X X 17 Develop a state wetlands "not gain" management streteg X X X 15 Prepare unmagement plans for SCFWHs X X 19 Establish a Long Island Sound native plsnts program X 20 Site ~on and acquisitions X X X X X 21 Develop wildlife corridors X X 22 Develop an ecosystem monitoring program X X X 23 Golf course maintenance changes X 24 Improve ecological complexes X X X X X X 25 Amend coacml policies to maintain the nntural shoreline, while protecting areas of significant natural and economic X 26 Avoid imrd erosion control structures X X 27 State expenditure in CBRA areas X X 28 Reduce casualty loss deductions X 29 Amend UFPBC to address ce~%in hazards X 30 Require flood insurance for mortgages in SFHAs and CEHA X are~.q 31 Implement recommendations on Governor's Task Force on X X X X X X X X C.~*! Erosion 32 Establish coastal processes monitoring program X X X 33 Under~ke a shoreline erosion rete ~udy ~d upa~e CEllA X X 34 Bvalu~e new inle~ X X 35 Develop a ¢o,~r~ive plan for ~ bypassing along the Long Island Sound coast X X 36 C~,~e erosion mn~gement plans X X X 37 Encourage local zoning to address siting in hazard ares X X 38 Develop public education paor~ua on coastal processes X 39 R~quho disclosuro of coastal bn~nrds fol' al] property transfers X 40 lmpl~m~fi; a "no net increase* policy for nitrogen X X X X X X X X 41 R~dce londln_oq of toxic substa]lc~ X X X X X X X X 42 Control CSO d,~.h,~s~. X X X X X X X X 43 Co,.uol vessel waste discharge X X X X X 44 Im.r.!~.~.~ the federal coastal a~suvoi~ pollution control program X X X X X X X 45 Imp.,~ve visual access oppommities X 46 .',~afi.~ and provide access ~o ~,i~n~ vistas X X X X X 47 Co,q,1~ a coastal network of ~'~u~.ays and blueways X X X X X 48 Pro.ct exis~ access facilities and p~u~e new public access facilities X X 49 Provide for physical access and ~o~s for new devalopment X X S0 Clarify and strengthen public trust ~,~.s~ in public trust lands X 51 Map public trust lands X 52 Require adequate proof of ownership for activities in public trust lands X X X 53 Consider cumulative impacts of grants and bases on the public trust in decision-making X 54 R~.~.~ pubUc trust fights X X LONG ISLAND SOUND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY. continued STATE MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Plnnning Invest- Direct Action Regulation Loc~ and ment Gov't Study Aequi- Other Policy New/Amended Action sition Revision Reg Lnw No. RECO~ATION The Public Coast--cominued 55 Develop e~tucatiomd mnteri~ls on the public trust X X 56 Develop a public access guide X 57 Protect shipwrecks nad other underwater historic resources X X X 58 Set priorities for development of an appropriate mix of X X X X X X publi~ _-cc_-_~_~ and recreation 59 De~i~atz Maritime Center~ X X X 60 Specify oppropr/ate water-dopondont u~e~ for LIS con,iai X 61 Complete nnd Ul~nte LV~.P$ X X 62 Devt~lop stnndards for marin~ and yacht clubs X X 63 Pret~t commercinl fishing fleet X X 64 l~.nhnnC~ tire 5oond's shollfishzo' X X X 6S Improve lobster harvesting regulations X 66 Pretg~t existing fergy service from Connzcticnt to Long X 67 Provide for major petroleum tnmshipmont X X 68 Encourage phase-out of ceg~n oil storag~ facilities X X 69 Implement a state oil spill contingency plan X 70 Protect aggregate transshipment points X X 71 Protect LI~ agricultural lands X X X X 72 Set p~io.~ivs for infrastructure investment in M~utime Centers X X X X 73 l~t~l~h an ~f.~ucmre funding mec~ X X 74 Provide coaw~ercial fishing ~l'.~ucture X X X X 7~ ~.~muct artificial fibbing reefs X X 76 &~po.~ dewlo~.~u~ of ferry ~ervicos X X 77 Ew;-~*_e off, ore petroleum tr~sfer f~. X X 78 Require that new oil storage facilifiea be located i~md X 79 ~.'~-L~e ~pp~optiate rolLqe of ¢le4ui dl~d~0 ~ud~z~al X 80 Provide me value ~ments for ~.'~-'~-~lent uses in m~hno centers X 81 Shmten ~o wgul~to~ process in ~ ~a X X $3 Er~u~o ~quaculture development X 84 ~upl~ development of a high ~ fen~ X 85 Develop -~-~-~o~,, management plans X X 86 Revise coastal policies to achieve safe use of coastal waters X X 87 l~wior dredging standards X X 88 Pm cle~ dr~ige ma~ial ~o ~.o~¢ial u~e X X 89 U~ilize ~ Dmdgi~g Clearinghouse X X X Appendices and References .Appendix Historic and Cultural Resources The following represents a detailed inventory of the historic resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area that have received recognition through listing on the State and national Register of Historic Places. The details of each listed historic property or district are summarized from the National Register nominations on file at the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic. Comments on the condition and accessibility of a property are based on information noted at the time of listing and may have changed. In addition, many other buildings in the coastal area have been identified by local communities as potential listings on the State and National Registers. Westchester County also has an inventory of historic places that includes State and National Register sites and other sites of historic interest, while coastal communities have identified and listed many sites of local historic and architectural significance. 533 WESTCI-IEST~;R COUNTY LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Playland Amusement Park Playland Parkway, City of Rye 7/80 1928 Public 280 acre county owned amusement park featuring numerous significant buildings, amusement rides, concessions, entrance plaza, landscaped mall, swimming pool, lake and beaches. Predominant Art Deco style, with Spanish Revival Bath House. Designed by Walker and Gillette. Architecturally, historically and culturally significent as first planned amusement park in US. Parks basic plan and structures remain intact. Good/fair condition. Public access. National Historic Landmark. LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Boston Post Road Historic District Boston Post Rd, City of Rye 10/82 Alansten-1838, Lounsberry-1831, Whithy-1854 Public/private 286 acre Historic District with 25 buildings. Illustrative of 300 years of growth along the Post Road. Includes unique resources of architectural, historical, and cultural significance. 3 main structures - Alansten (the Jay House), a Cn'eek Revival residence built for the lay Family; Lounsberry, a Greek Revival residence; and Whitby, a Gothic Revival residence designed by AJ Davis and now the Rye Golf Club. Included in the District is the Marshlands Conservancy, part of the original Jay Estate, the Jay Family Cemetery, numerous associated buildings, and at least l0 significant loci of prehistoric activity. Most of the land in the District remains open and undeveloped, with the exteriors of the major structures largely unaltered. Condition varies from good to deteriorated. Public a~¢ess. LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Larchmont Post Office Chatsworth Avenue, Village of Larclunont 5/89 1937 Public Listed as part of thematic resources listing, #United States Post Offices in New York State, 1858-19'~3'. Colonial Revival style, significant as intact representative example of federal architecture of Depression era. Good condition. Limited public access. LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Davenport House 157 Davenport Ave, City of New Rochelle 5/80 1859 Private 2 story Gothic Revival cottage designed by AJ Davis. Enlarged and remodeled without detracting from original cottage design. Significant 534 Appendix 1 LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION as a Davis design and a rare example of this style and assemblage over time. Good condition. Lispenard-Rodman-Davenport House 180 Davenport Ave, City of New Rochelle 9/86 1690 Private 2 story Picturesque/Colonial residence. Significant as enlargement to one of the earliest Huguenot houses in New Rochelle, historic fabric of early house remains amongst period alterations. Manifestation of two hundred year evolution of important regional house form. Significant as residence of 3 families prominent in development of New Rochelle. Good condition. Limited public access. NEW YORK CITY: BRONX COUNTY LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Bartow-Pell Mansion and Carriage House .Pelham Bay Park, Shore Road, Bronx 10/74 183642 Public Traditional 5 bay, 2 story Greek Revival granite country house with granite carriage house. Featuring simple stone facade, handsome interior details, and fine garden. Significant as one of the important examples of the Greek Revival style in New York City and its environs. The property testifies to the enduring association of the Pell family with Westchester and Bronx Counties over a period of two centuries. Property was acquired in 1888 by the City of New York for future park development. In 1914 the International Garden Club leased the house; continuously utilized since then as club headquarters, the mansion has been open to the public as a house museum since 1946. The grounds are part of Pelham Bay Park. Good condition. Limited public access. Public School 17 (City Island Community Center and Historical Nautical Museum) 190 Fordham Street, City Island, Bronx 8/84 1897-8 Public 2 story, 5 bay brick school in Georgian Revival style compatible to the residential scale of the neighborhood. Significant as a representative example of Georgian Revival style school architecture designed by C.B.J. Snyder. Used as a school until 1975. Building now serves as the City Island Community Center and houses the City Island Historical Nautical Museum. Deteriorated condition. Limited public access. .,~ppendb: / 535 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: House at 175 Belden Street 175 Belden Street, Bronx 4/82 c.1800 Private 2 story picturesque cottage. Intended for rural locations, this style is seldom found in urban areas, thus this house is one of the few of its type known to exist in New York City. The house is one of the most noteworthy structures on City Island and is a special part of New York City's architectural heritage. Good condition. No public access. Fort Schuyler (State University of New York Maritime College) Fort Schuyler, Bronx 5/86 1833-56 Private Fort Schuyler is located at the junction of the East River and the Long Island Sound on Throgs Neck, an area which was militarily significant for the defense of New York City. The fort, typical of 19th century coastal fortifications, is built of grey granite in the shape of an irregular pentagon. The fort has retained its exterior and basic structural integrity. It is surrounded by a complex of 19th century officers housing and warehouses. The site constitutes a significant complex illustrative of the 19th century military coastal fortifications which protected New York City and the gateway to the interior of New York State. Restored in 1934-8 as part of the campus of the New York State Maritime College, it is a successful example of adaptive reuse. Excellent condition. Limited public access. NEW YORK CITY: QUP~ENS COUNTY LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Fort Totten Officers' Club Corner of Tomm and Murray Avenues, Fort Totten, Queens 2/84 1870, 1887 Public 2 story frame castellated Gothic Revival style building with a projecting central tower pavilion, principal elevation terminates with identical 3 story towers at each end. Sheathed in clapboard, finished with wood detailing. Interior configuration altered over the life of structure, but portions of original paneling, moldings and decorative plaster remain. A distinctive visual landmark in its garrison setting. Historically and architecturally significant as an unusual and intact example of late Gothic Revival style institutional architecture associated with the garrison life of a New York Harbor defense installation. Assumes additional architectural significance as a rare wood frame interpretation of the style. Fair condition. Limited public access. 536 Appendix 1 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Cornelius Van Wyck House 126 West Drive, Douglaston, Queens 9/83 1735, 1750-70 Private 2.5 story wood frame Dutch Colonial farmhouse on its original site. Original parts of house built c. 1735 to the "one room plan" of the early settlers of the New York area, enlarged between 1750-70 to its present form. Building covered with long hand-hewn shingles which have rounded or notched butts. Decorative features in Georgian style on main elevation. Exposed ceiling beams, early staircase, Georgian mantlepieces, full panelled wall and a classic box cornice decorate the interior. Architecturally significant as a rare surviving example of an early Dutch Colonial farmhouse characteristic of Dutch Colonial architecture on Long Island. Historically significant for its associations with the Van Wyck family, one of the early Dutch family to settled in Queens in the seventeenth century, and a family linked with the revolutionary period of American history. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Allen-Beville House 29 Center Drive, Douglaston, Queens 8/83 148-50 Private Symmetrical 2.5 story white clapboard Italianate farmhouse. Decorative exterior includes full-height windows, bracketed cornice and porches, fluted Doric columns, ornamental entablature, and Queen Anne doors. A bracketed cupola crowns the house and is one of its most striking features. Formal Italianate interior with surviving original details. Architecturally significant as a rare surviving example of an Italianate farmhouse built in New York City in the 19th century. Became part of the William P. Douglas Eats_re_ In 1905-6 the Douglas Manor Development Company bought the 180 acre Douglas Estate and subdivided the land as a real estate development. The area became an attractive middle-class suburb, which included the Allen-Beville house. Douglas Manor is itself an active National Register District proposal, covering almost the entire peninsula of Douglaston, north from Parsons Beach. Excellent condition. Limited public access. NASSAU COUNTY LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Saddle Rock Grist Mill Grist Mill Lane, Saddle Rock 12/78 1715 Public 2.5 story timber-framed, shingled grist mill with gambrel roof. Site features tidal and stream-fed mill pond and sloop landing. An important appendix I 537 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATI~: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: example of this rare technology, the Saddle Rock Grist Mill is the only operating tidal grist mill on the east coast. Long Island Wind and Tide Mills Thematic Resources. Good condition. Museum. Limited public access. John Philip Sousa House (Wildbank) 14 Hicks Lane, Sands Point National Historic Landmark, 5/66 1907 Private 2.5 story eclectic stuccoed brick residence. Home of John Philip Sousa, conductor, composer of United States Marine Corps Band. Sands Family Cemetery Sands Point Road, Sands Point 3/92 1704-1867 Private 1 acre Sands family cemetery. Records indicate that 112 members of the family, relatives and friends are buried in the cemetery. The Sands Family Cemetery is historically and architecturally significant for its association with the early settlement and growth of the sands Point area, its distinguished collection of well preserved gravestones and its information on early settlers. Roslyn Village Historic District Central historic core of Village of Roslyn 4/87 Various Various The 6:5 acre Roslyn Village Historic District consists of 81 contributing buildings in the central historic core of the Village. It contains a representative sampling of building types, architectural styles and land use patterns associated with the Roslyn's historic development between c.1680 and 1930. Most buildings are 19th century residential and commercial structures including numerous Federal and Greek Revival frame buildings. Incorporates the Main Street Historic District. Notable properties include Georgian Revival Bryant Library and Roslyn Presbyterian Church. The Roslyn Village Historic District is historically and architecturally significant as an intact and cohesive enclave of historic buildings, landscapes, and streetscapes which illustrate Roslyn's growth and development. The district has retained much of it's historic character and scale, in spite of intense development pressure. Roslyn Village Multiple Resources Area. Main Street Historic District Main Street, Rnslyn 1/74 Various Various 538 Appendix 1 DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATB: OWNERSHIP: DBSCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWI~RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: Primarily a residential neighborhood with a cluster of commercial buildings, the Historic District includes 50 contributing buildings. These are mostly 19th century frame vernacular structures. Notable buildings include the Ellen E. Ward Memorial Clock Tower, Obadiah Washington Valentine House, Warren Wilkey House, and Van Norstrand-Starkins House. Architecturally significant as an essentially uncompromised cluster of vernacular 19th century residential and commercial structures in a Village context and an illustration of the architectural development of the Village of Roslyn. Incorporated within the Roslyn Village Historic District, although it retains its separate identity as an intact and visually cohesive neighborhood. Roslyn Village Multiple Resource Area. Hicks Lumber Co. Store 1345 Old Northern Boulevard, Roslyn 10/86 1920 Private 2 story Colonial Revival frame commercial building with 2 story portico. It is architecturally significant as an unusual example of Colonial Revival commercial architecture in Roslyn. Roslyn Village Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limimt public access. Roslyn Grist Mill 1347 Old Northern Boulevard, Roslyn 10/86 1715-41 Public 2.5 story Colonial frame grist mill features intact timber framework and survival of original gearing and milling equipment. It is historically and architecturally significant as the only surviving building representative of Roslyn's 18th and 19th century water power industries and as a rare and intact example of lgth century milling technology and construction practices. Altered for use as a museum and tea house in 1916. Roslyn Village Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. Roslyn Savings Bank Building 1400 Old Northern Boulevard, Roslyn 10/86 1932 Private 2 story brick Georgian Revival bank. Retains original columned banking hall. It is architecturally significant as one of the Villages most sophisticated and authentic examples of Georgian Revival style design. Rnslyn Village Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public Wilier Titus House 1441 Old Northern Boulevard, Roslyn 10/86 c1860 · 2~ppendix' 1 539 OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: 540 Appendix I Private 2 story Italianate frame residence. Architecturally significant as an intact representative example of Italianate style domestic architecture in Roslyn. Roslyn Village Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. Cedarmere-Clayton Estates Bryant Avenue and Northern Boulevard, Roslyn Harbor 2/86 1840's, 1930's Public Two contiguous estates located on the east side of Hempstead Harbor. The 7 acre Cedarrnere Estate of William Cullen Bryant is located within the Coastal Area. Cedarmere features a large rambling 2.5 story main residence and associated estate structures, including a Gothic Revival mill. The main house is an 18th century farmhouse enlarged in Colonial Revival style. Estate features picturesque waterfront landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. The estates are architecturally and historically significant estates in Roslyn harbor. They contain a variety of styles of buildings and landscapes and are associated with three important families. Good/deteriorated condition. Limited public access. Sea Cliff Summer Resort Thematic Group Sea Cliff 2/88 1864-95 Various The Sea Cliff Summer Resort Thematic Resources includes 27 individual component properties which are historically and architecturally significant for illustrating the village's rapid development as a popular summer resort during the late 19th century and are distinguished examples of seasonal homes for middle-income Americans. The properties display popular late 19th century architectural styles, including Gothic revival, Stick style,Queen Anne, Shingle style and Second Empire, all featuring distinctive picturesque design and detail in contrast to the vernacular tradition of Long Island. These properties display a high level of architectural integrity and represent one of the best collections of late Victorian era architecture in Nassau County. The following individual properties are situated within the coastal area: Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence at 290 Eighth Avenue Residence at 362 Sea Cliff Avenue at 176 Prospect Avenue at 137 Prospect Avenue at 162 Sixteenth Street at 173 Sixteenth Street at 195 Prospect Avenue at 199 Prospect Avenue Residence at 52 Eighteenth Avenue Residence at 58 Eighteenth Avenue LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: Residence at 65 Twentieth Avenue Residence at 378 Glen Avenue Residence at 332 Franklin Avenue Residence at 9 Locust Place Residence at 19 Locust Place The Crowell residence, 375 Littleworth Lane The Shell House 26 Westland Drive, East Island, Glen Cove 6/88 1850-75, 1910 Private ~Th~e Shell House is comprised of a small Norman style core (1850.75), red in 1910 into a Tudor Revival style residential dependency of the .I.P. Morgan, .Ir. Matinecock Point Estate. The Shell House is the sole surviving element of this once prosperous estate. The house retains a bigh degree of architectural integrity and has architectural significance as a distinctive example of a residential dependency associated with Long Island's Gold Coast era of estate development. Good condition. Limited public a~s. .Iohn E. Aldred Estate (Ormston) 8/79 1916 Private A 117 acre estate fronting Long Island Sound featuring a large Tudor Revival limestone residence designed by Bertram G. Goodhue. It is situated within formal gardens and landscaping designed by the Olmstead Brothers. The property includes two main clusters of estate dependencies. The property is significant as one of the few major estates to survive intact from the Gold Coast era. Currently owned by the Order of St. Basil the Great. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Seawanhaka CorinthiaffYacht Club Centre Island Road, Oyster Bay 1/74 1891-2 Private 12 acre property fronting Oyster Bay harbor featuring a large Colonial revival frame clubhouse designed by Robert W. Gibson. Many exterior and interior details. Architectural character unimpaired despite continuous use as headquarters of a well known small boat sailing facility, one of the oldest amateur yacht clubs in the United States. Excellent condition. Limited public access. James WilliamBeekmanEst~te (The Cliffs) West Shore Road, Oyster Bay 12/73 1863-64 Appendix 1 541 OWN-~RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: 542 Appendix 1 Private 37 acre estate overlooking Oyster Bay, featuring a large Gothic Revival residence designed by Henry O. Harrison for James William Beckman, the politician and civic leader. Detailed interior features. Estate also features the Spring Lake archeological site, a possible village site. The Beekman Estate has archeological, historical and architectural significance. It is particularly significant for the intact and undisturbed nature of the site. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Oyster Bay Post Office Shore Avenue, Oyster Bay 5/89 1935-6, 1936-7 Public 2 story brick Georgian Revival post office designed by Bottomley, Wagner and White. Significant interior detailing, including mural and sculpture series by Abell Sturges, Ernest Peixotto, and Leo Lentelli. Architecturally significant as an outstanding example of public architecture during the Great Depression and for its sophisticated design. Artistically significant for interior mural and sculpture collection. Listed as pan of United States Post Offices in New York State, 1858-1943, Thematic Resources. Good condition. Limited public access. Raynham Hall 20 West Main Street, Oyster Bay 6/74 c. 1738 Public 2.5 story Colonial frame residence dating from 1738, modified in the mid-19th century and restored in the 1950's. Significant as illustration of domestic vernacular design common to Long Island in 18/19th century. Historical significance from association with the locally prominent Townsend family. Excellent condition. Museum. Limited public access. Edward H. Swan House Cove Neck Road, Oyster Bay 5/76 1853 Private Substantial 2.5 story residence built as country seat for a wealthy New York City merchant. Architecturally significant as one of the .finest Second Empire style residences to be erected on Long Island. Remains as a landmark to Cove Neck's identity as a country retreat for the wealthy. Excellent condition. No public access. James Alfred Roosevelt Estate (Yellowbanks) 360 Cove Neck Road, Cove Neck Village 5/79 1881 OWI~RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Private 2.5/3 story Shingle Style house located on a 12 acre estate overlooking Oyster Bay Harbor. Modified over the years from its early beginnings as a summer house. The property has architectural significance as one of the major accomplishments of Bruce Price's Shingle Style and historical significance for its association with the Roosevelt family and links with the neighboring Sagamore Estate. Excellent condition. No public access. Sagamore Hill National Historic Site Cove Neck Road, Cove Neck Village 7/62 1884-~ Public 83 acre estate on Cold Spring Harbor featuring large rambling Queen Anne frame residence designed by Lamb and Rich and landscaped grounds. Built for Theodore Roosevelt, his home until his death. National Historic Site. SUFFOLK COUNTY LISTING: I.X)CATION: DESCRII:q"ION: Huntington Town Multiple R~ource A~ea Various sites and districts, Town of Huntington The historic resources of the Town of Huntington were identified through a comprehensive historical/architectural survey undertaken in 1979 by the Huntington Community Development Office in conjunction with OPRHP. The multiple resource area nomination includes 76 individual listings and 10 historic districts. A wide range of building types, architectural styles and periods of construction are represented in the multiple resource area. The properties reflect Huntington's growth and development, representative of early settlement period architecture throu/h to the rapid estate growth of the 'Gold Coast' era. This reflects the historical development of the Town from its early a~rarian culture to its later prominence as a summer resort and its development into a suburban community. The properties and districts w/thin the coastal area are sumnmrized below. LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Harbor Road Historic District Harbor Road, Cold Spring Harbor 9/85 1791-1869 Various 45 acre residential district containing 18 contributing buildings that represent Cold Spring Harbor's earliest settlement. The earliest historic component is the site of the Hewlett-Jones Grist Mill, built in 1791 and destroyed by fire in 1921. The majority of dwellings date from the early 19th century and are representative of the town's settlement period architecture, distinguished by restrained Federal and Greek Revival style App~lix ~ 543 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DF_.SCRIPTION: details. Many of the dwellings received alterations as a result of Cold Spring Harbor's sudden popularity as an affluent summer resort in the late 19th century and again around the turn of the century with the evolution into a year-round residential community. The District is architecturally and historically significant for its association with the original settlement and residential development of Cold Spring Harbor and for the intact collection of various period residences. It is also significant for its associations with the locally prominent Jones and Hewlett families. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Shore Road Historic District Shore Road vicinity, Cold Spring Harbor 9/85 ¢1790-1900 Various 36 acre residential enclave containing 18 contributing buildings. 7 of the dwellings are representative of local settlement period architecture, although many received period alterations and additions as Cold Spring Harbor developed into a summer resort and later into a year round community. The oldest component is the Henry Titus Farmstead, built c1790, the dwelling and related outbuildings form a relatively inta~ farm complex. Wawapek is a fine example of 20th century estate architecture and is reminiscent of an Adirondack lodge. The District is architecturally and historically significant as a relatively intact collection of residences that illustrate the architectural practices and patterns of growth in Cold Spring Harbor. It contains several fine examples of settlement period architecture and a significant turn of the century estate. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. 1vl~in Street Historic District Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor 9~85 c1830-c1910 Various 8 acre primarily residential neighborhood consisting of 31 contributing buildings, constituting the. largely intact historic core of the Village. They illustrate the Villages development from a major whaling port through its popularity as a fashionable summer resort to its emergence as an affluent suburb at the turn of the century. The District includes representative examples of early 19th century settlement period architecture, two early religious properties and later spacious Victorian dwellings. The District is architecturally and historically significant as the intact historic Village core of Cold Spring Harbor, with its intact collection of buildings illustrating the communities development. The buildings depict the many changing architectural styles, including the unique collection of highly decorative late 19th century dwellings known as 'Ship Captains Row'. The District retains its historic appearance as a late 19th century village with its intact streetscape and well-maintained, tree lined landscape rare in this highly developed area. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNF. RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DAT~: Cold Spring Harbor Library 1 Shore Road, Cold Spring Harbor 9/85 1913' Private 1 story, 5 bay Neoclassical brick building designed by Julian Peabody. It is architecturally significant as the most distinguished early 20th century civic building in Cold Spring Harbor and it is a locally significant example of the Neoclassical style. The construction of the library recalls the transformation from a seasonal summer resort to an established year round residential community. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Titus-Bunce House 7 Goose Hill Road, Cold Spring Harbor 9/85 c1820 Private 2 story Greek Revival clapboard residence with elaborate exterior detailing, including mid 19th century Italianate detailing. The dwelling retaim its architectural integrity and historic rural setting. It is architecturally and historically significant as a distinguished example of early 19th century residential architecture in the Village of Cold Spring Harbor and for its association with the Village's historic agricultural development along Goose Hill Road. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Goose Hill Road Historic District Goose Hill Road vicinity, Cold Spring Harbor 9/85 c1770-c1850 Various 20 acre agrarian enclave containing 12 contributing buildings that reflect the early agricultural development of Cold Spring Harbor. The buildings are located on large wooded lots in a relatively undeveloped area. The majority of the buildings date from the Village's initial development and are representative examples 'of Long Island' settlement period architecture. For most part these properties remain virtually unaltered, distanced from the core of the community the area was relatively unaffected by the prosperous growth of the estate era. The most distinctive example of settlement period architecture is the Kehillath Shalom House. The District is architecturally and historically significant for its largely intact collection of residences set in an undeveloped landscape which recall the historic agricultural development of Cold Spring Harbor. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Joseph Lloyd Manor House Lloyd Harbor Road 11/76 c 1766-7 Appendix 1 545 OWNERSHIP: ~-. DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DBSCRIPTION: Private 2.5 story frame Colonial shingled dwelling overlooking Lloyd Harbor. Built as the second manor house of the Manor of Queen's Village for ~Joseph Lloyd. Despite numerous alterations and additions, the house remains in a remarkable state of preservation, retaining many of its decorative elements. Notable interior woodwork. The house is significant as the seat of a large and prosperous country estate associated with the prominent Lloyd family, early settlers of the area. Operated as a museum by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. Good condition. Limited public access. Fort Hill Estate Fort Hill Drive, Lloyd Harbor 6/88 1879, 1900, 1911 Private 23 acre estate on Cold Spring Harbor featuring a dramatically situated monumental brick and limestone Tudor Revival mansion. Designed in 1900 by Boring and Tilton for William Joim Matheson, the house incorporates an earlier building designed by McKim, Mead and Bigelow. Much exterior and internal detailing. Property includes outbuildings, water tower and formal gardens. Property includes site of Fort Franklin, a British Revolutionary War fort. Fort Hill is one of the most architecturally and historically significant late 19th century estates on Long Island and is an intact example of the development of a Gold Coast era estate. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Marshall Field III Estate (Caumsett State Park) Lloyd Harbor Road, Lloyd Harbor 4/79 1711, 1923-25 Public Extensive 1400 acre estate property located between Long Island Sound and Lloyd Harbor. The largely intact former Marshall Field UI estate consists of many notable buildings, open fields, farm complex, picturesque roadways, wooded landscapes and a varied shoreline. Completed in 1925, the .estates diverse landscape, main house and numerous dependencies were designed by John Russell Pope, The estate features a two swry limestone Georgian Revival residence with elaborate detailing and the Henry Lloyd House (1'111). The property now forms Caumsett State Park. The property is architecturally, historically and culturally significant. Within the park boundaries is evidence of prehisWric civilization, architectural statements about successive periods of growth and development in northern Long Island and an environment which includes nearly every kind of natural feature indigenous to this part of New York. C-ood/fair condition. Limited public access. 546 Appendix I LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Lloyd Harbor Lighthouse Entrance to Lloyd Harbor 5/89 1912 Public 2 story reinforced concrete lighthouse with octagonal lantern and attached keepers dwelling. Interior retains much of original structural and finish materials. It is significant as one of the earliest reinforced concrete lighthouses in the nation and because it represents the maritime heritage of the north shore. Van Wyck-L~fferts Tide Mill Lloyd Harbor 6/78 1793-97 Private 3.5 story frame tide mill with original machinery. Best extant example of a tide mill with its original machinery surviving on Long Island. Long Island Wind and Tide Mills Thematic Resources. Fair condition. Limited public access. George McKeeson Brown Estate (Coindre Hill) Brown's Road, Lloyd Harbor 9/85 1910 Public The former George McKeeson Brown Estate occupies 13 acres, part of a larger estate that has been reduced as a result of subdivision. Although reduced in size, the estates main house and nearby dependencies have retained an appropriate historic setting. The large, rambling 2.5 story stucco-ciad structure, designed by Clarence Luce, is distinguished by a massive red clay tile hipped roof, prominent circular roofs, and steeply pointed masonry gables. Elaborate exterior and interior features and detailing. The property is architecturally significant as one of the most distinguished early 20th century estates in the Town of Huntington. A distinctive example of the French Chateauesque style, the estate is representative of those built on Long Island's 'Gold Coast'. Although parts of the main house has been altered nd the estate reduced in size the estate retains much of its integrity. Converted into a school in 1940. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition Gilsey Mansion 36 Browns Road, Huntington 9/85 1900 Private 2 story Colonial revival residence. It is architecturally significant as an outstanding example of a Colonial Revival style mansion. Representative of early 20th century upper income residential architecture in the Town of Huntington, the Gilsey Mansion exhibits the prima~ design Append/x 1 547 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: characteristics of the Colonial revival style. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. William Wooden Wood House 90 Preston Street, Huntington 9/85 1868-9 Private 2.5 story clapboard residence. It is architecturally significant as one of the finest local interpretations of the picturesque style of architecture within the Town of Huntington. The imposing size and sophisticated detailing distinguish this residence from other period dwellings in Huntington. The architectural importance is enhanced by its intact, stylish period interior. The dwelling is historically significant for its association with the locally prominent Wood family. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Daniel Smith House 117 West Shore Road, Huntington 9/85 1830, 1855 Private 2.5 story clapboard residence. It is architecturally significant as an intact, representative example of late settlement period architecture in the Town of Huntington. The property reflects the common building practice of adding a larger, more stylish residence to a smaller dwelling, which is incorporated as a wing. The original dwelling is an example of the local vernacular, while the addition is in the Greek Revival style. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access Henry Williams House 43 Mill Lane, Huntington 9185 c1850 Private 2.5 story clapboard residence. It is an architecturally distinctive mid-19th century residence which exhibits numerous characteristics of settlement period architecture in the Town of Huntington. The property is particularly significant as a combination of both settlement period architecture details and detailing that reflects the late 19th century American picturesque taste in the town's architecture. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Eaat Shore Road Historic District Fast Shore Road, Halesite 9/85 c1800-c1925 Various 548 Appendix I DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIFrION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIFrION: 12 acre Historic District containing 21 contributing elements that comprise a small residential enclave located on the east bank of Huntington Harbor. The historic properties reflect a progression of the area's changing local building practices and patterns of growth. The majority of the residences date from 1860 to 1900 and also includes 3 settlement period dwellings and the site of a mid-18th century pottery works that reflects the neighborhoods original settlement. The District is architecturally and historically significant as one of the few surviving collections of largely intact working class residences in the Town of Huntington, exhibiting the characteristic small scale and the modest detailing and later picturesque, eclectic architectural details popular during the late 19th century in contrast to the surrounding estates of the rich and middle class. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. John Green House 167 East Shore Road, Huntington Bay 9/85 c1900 Private 2.5 story rambling Colonial Revival shingled residence located in an intact ~t~t~ setting. It is architecturally significant as a relatively unaltered and representative example of the larger upper income single family residences built in the Village of Huntington Bay at the turn of the century. It is a distinctive example of the Colonial Revival style. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Bowes House 15 Harbor Hill Drive, Huntington Bay 9/85 1899 Private 2.5 story Shingle style residence. It is architecturally significant as an intact r-e/mresentative example of the larger upper income single family residences built along Huntington's north shore during its rapid turn of the century development. It is also architecturally significant as one of the most distinguished examples of the Shingle style of architecture in the resource area. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition, limited public access. C.A. O'Donohue House 158 Shore Road 9/85 1917 Private 2.5 story shingled Colonial Revival residence. It is architecturally significant as a distinguished example of the early residential architecture in the Village of Huntington bay and an intact representative example of the large, stylish homes built throughout Huntington's north shore at the Append& ~ 549 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIFrION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: turn of the century. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Charles C,-eoghegan House 9 Harbor Hill Drive, Huntington Bay 9/85 c1915 Private 2.5 story clapboard and shingled sheathed residence exhibiting an eclectic mix of Queen Anne and Shingle style architectural features. It is architecturally significant as an intact representative example of the larger upper income single family residences built along Huntington's north shore during its rapid turn of the century development. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. John P. Kane Mansion 37 Kanes Lane,Huntington Bay 9/85 c1850 Private 3 story Italianate clapboard mansion set within the traditional Georgian massing. Once part of a large estate, now lost to subdivision, the lot retains its semi-rural ambience. The property is historically significant as the oldest extant dwelling in Huntington Bay. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. House at 200 Bay Avenue 200 Bay Avenue, Huntington Bay 9/85 1890 Private 2.5 story rambling Tudor-Revival residence. The residence retains its historic picturesque setting and architectural integrity. It is architecturally significant as a representative example of the large, upper income, single family houses built in the Village of Huntington Bay during its rapid turn-of-the-century development and is a well crat~ed example of the Tudor-Revival style. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Bay Crest Historic District Bay Avenue vicinity, Huntington Bay 9/85 c1890-1905 Various 16 acre residential enclave containing 12 residences and 9 contributing outbuildings in intact estate-like settings. The residences exhibit a variety of picturesque styles popular during the Victorian era. The entrance to the district is marked by two granite monoliths marked 'Bay Crest~ and the enclave is clearly delineated as a result of surrounding modern development. The district is marked by a uniformity of period design 550 Appendix I LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNt/RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWI~RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: and scale and laid out on generous landscaped lots off private drives. Planned as a summer house enclave, the dwellings share a combination of typical architectural features. The District is architecturally significant as one of two surviving examples of a planned residential enclave, a distinguished example of late Victorian period residential architecture that illustrates the growth and development of Huntington's north shore as an exclusive residential community. The spacious residences are architecturally significant for their generous massing, superior craftsmanship and stylish late 19th century detailing. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. ,I.T. Robb House (#1) Sydney Road, Huntington Bay 9/85 1887 Private 2.5 story rambling Eclectic style clapboard residence. It is architecturally significant as an intact representative example of the larger upper income single family residences built along Huntington's north shore during its rapid turn of the century development. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. J.T. Robb House (fi2) 23 Sydney Road, Huntington Bay 9/85 1887 Private 2.5 story clapboard and shingled residence designed in an eclectic mix of Shingle and Colonial Revival styles. It is architecturally significant as a distinguished example of the early residential architecture in the Village of Huntington bay and an intact representative example of the large, stylish homes built throughout Huntington's north shore at the turn of the century. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. A.P.W. Kennan House Sydney Road, Huntington Bay 9/85 c1900 Private 2.5 story rambling Colonial Revival residence. It is architecturally significant as a distinguished example of the early residential architecture in the Village of Huntington bay and an intact representative example of the large, stylish homes built throughout Huntington's north shore at the tarn of the century. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. · 9~ena/x ~ 551 LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DAT~: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: 552 Appendix 1 Beaux Arts Park Historic District Upper and Lower Drives, Huntington Bay 9/85 c1905-1915 Various 3 acre residential enclave including 5 large stucco residences and associated buildings set on generous landscaped lots. The decorative Tudor Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival style dwellings represent a dramatic departure from Huntington's pervasive conservative local building tradition. The District is architecturally and historically significant as a small planned residential community, part of a large development that never was completed, and for its architectural styles. It reflected the development of Huntington's north shore as an exclusive residential community at the turn of the century and represents one of the last phases of the architectural and residential development of the area. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. William K. Vanderbilt Estate (Eagles Nest) Little Neck Road, Little Neck 9/85 1907-36 Public 43 acre landscaped estate featuring 10 contributing buildings, arboretums, formal gardens, reflecting ponds and a marble sanctuary. The entrance to the propert~ is marked by I~ge decorative wrought iron gates which have massive black eagles perched on top. Beyond and east of the gates are six marble Byzantine columns taken from the ruins' at Carthage arranged in a semi-circle. The centerpiece of the estate is the mansion, a large Spanish Baroque style residence begun in 1907 and extensively enlarged over the early 20th century. Built for William K. Vanderbilt, Jr, the president of the New York City Railroad and major philanthropist and civic leader, by the renowned architecture firm of Warren and Wetmore. The 3 story stucco building is dominated by a four story tiered bell tower. Elaborate exterior and interior features and detailing. Other contributing elements include the Vanderbilt Marine museum, the former garage/servants quarters, the boat house, the airplane hanger, the powerhouse and garage complex, and the caretakers cottage. The estate is now a museum of marine life and natural history. The estate is architecturally significant as one of the most intact early 20th century estates representative of those built on Long Island's celebrated 'Gold Coast', a period that denotes the transformation of the north shore and saw the development of many large estates and country homes built by wealthy businessman and industrialists. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. Charles Van Iderstine Mansion Idle Day Drive, Lit'tie Neck 9/85 1897 Private DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: Large, rambling 2.5 story clapboard, shingled and shiplap-sided residence. Originally part of an estate, now lost to subdivision, the residence remains virtually unaltered. It is architecturally significant as an outstanding example of the large mansions built on Huntington's north shore at the mrn of the century that exhibit eclectic, picturesque architectural details inspired by a variety of fashionable late 19th century American architectural styles. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. John Harned House 26 Little Neck Road, Centerport 9/85 c1850 Private Composed of two 2.5 story three bay gable roof sections built at the same time and an adjacent barn. It is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of late settlement period architecture in the Town of Huntington and one of the few surviving historic resources associated with the 19th century history of Centerport. The properties continued agricultural use is indicated by the survival of the 19th century barn. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. N. Velzer House and Caretakers Cottage 22 Fort Salonga Road, Centerport 9/85 c1830 Private The Velzer House is a 2.5 story clapboard Greek Revival residence. Located on an adjacent lot is a 2.5 story clapboard caretakers cottage. The Velzer House retains a high degree of architectural integrity and is architecturally significant as the most distinctive example of vernacular (3reek Revival style architecture in the Town of Huntington. It was one of the first residences in Huntington to deviate from standard local building traditions. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. E.G. Lewis House Waterside Road, Northport 9/85 c1855 Private Once part of a large land holding this 4.2 acre parcel includes a 2 story Italianate residence, late 19th century carriage house and spring house and an early 20th century water tower. The residential complex maintains its wooded setting. The main house is architecturally significant as an important example the effect of early picturesque taste affected local building traditions. It is historically significant as one of the few unaltered properties in Northport that recall its 19th century /b,pend~ ~ 553 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNF_RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DF~SCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNF, RSHIP: DESCRIPTION: development. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. N.J. Felix House 235 Asharoken Avenue, Asharoken 9/85 1900 Private 2.5 story shingled and clapboard residence in an eclectic combination of Colonial Revival and Queen Anne style. It is architecturally significant as a representative example of the large upper income single family dwellings built along Huntington's north shore during its rapid development at the turn of the century. It is one of the few intact early 20th century dwellings to survive in the Village of Asharoken. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limited public access. Delameter-Robinson House 536 Asharoken Avenue, Fatons Neck 9/85 1903 Private 2.5 story rambling Tudor-Revival residence designed by local architect Harry E. Donnell. It is historically and architecturally significant as a distinguished mansion that recalls the development of Eatons neck as an exclusive turn-of-the-century residential enclave. It remains largely unaltered and retains its historic integrity. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. No public access Delameter-Bevin Mansion Bevin Lane, Asharoken 9/85 1867 Private 2.5 story clapboard Second Empire style residence with elaborate exterior and interior detailing. Originally the main residence on a large estate, the Delameter-Bevin Mansion lost its estate lands through subdivision. It is architecturally significant as one of the most fully developed examples of Second Empire style residential architecture in the Town of Huntington. It is historically significant as one of the oldest, extant dwellings in the Village of Asharoken. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Good condition. Limited public access. Harry E. Donnell House 71 Locust Lane, Fawns Neck 9/85 1902-3 Private 2.5 story Tudor-Revival residence designed by locally prominent architect Harry E. Donnell as his private home. It is architecturally 554 Appendix 1 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: significant as an intact representative example of the upper income residential architecture built throughout Huntington's north shore at the turn-of-the-century. Huntington Town Multiple Resource Area. Excellent condition. Limit&/public access. Fort Salonga Smithtown 5/82 1776-81 Private Archaeological site of square earthen Revolutionary War fortification, part of a network of British military forts on Long Island. It is significant for its historical associations and its archaeological research potential. Limited public access. Wyandanch Club Historic District (Caleb Smith State Park) Jericho Turnpike 8/90 c1751-1912 Public A 518 acre property developed in the late 19th and early 20th century as a hunting and fishing club. It contains 5 principal buildings set in an extensive tract containing undeveloped woodland, open space and natural waterways. The District derives much of its character from its preserved, naturalistic landscape, the result of early settlement and industry that was later incorporated into an extensive hunting and fishing club. The contributing structures include the Vail House (c1810-20) and outbuildings, Chipman House (late 18th century), Caleb Smith House (c 17:51, enlarged late 19th century for use as clubhouse), and the Whitman Farmhouse (early 19th century)and outbuildings. Each of these exhibit distinctive characteristics of its original construction period aa well as that of the Club period. The property has historical, architectural, recreational, agricultural and commercial significance. It recalls the early development of the area and reflects the trend toward recreational use that characterized the region at the turn of the century. Acquired 1963 by State of New York. Limited public access Blydenburgh Pm'k Historic District Blydenburgh County Park, Smithtown 8/83 c1800-c1900 Public 10 acre area encompassing the remains of an intact, early Long Island settlement called Bushy Neck. It is located within the large Blydenburgh County Park (580 acres). There are 9 structures in two clusters, a mill complex and a farm complex. Includes 2 story New Mill (c1800), Federal Millers Cottage (c1802), the Isaac Blydenburgh House (1821), the Gothic revival Blydenburgh Cottage (c1850), and dependencies. The Historic District is historically and architecturally significant as a rare surviving Long Island settlement. It is closely associated with the early 555 LISTING: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LIS TED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: 19th century development of Smithtown and its locally prominent families and contains significant examples of early 19th century Long Island architecture. C-ood/deteriorated condition. Limited public access. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources Stony Brook Harbor The Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources listing draws together a collection of properties in the vicinity of Stony Brook Harbor. This is a remarkable collection of architecturally and historically significant Long Island country houses, related outbuildings and landscaped grounds. Sharing both the geographic and socio-economic factors that led to the development of estates on Stony Brook Harbor in the period around the turn of the 20th century, these properties form an unusually cohesive group that unifies by extensive family inter- relationships, historical connections and ties with the architectural profession. These development of these estates reflect the transformation of an isolated agrarian community into an exclusive enclave of second homes for wealthy urbanites, a trend that was taking place all along the western section of the Long Island Sound shoe, a trend that saw the shoreline transformed into the sc-called 'Gold Coast'. This was due in part to the proximity of Stony Brook Harbor to the Sound and New York City and to the complex links between the development of the Stony brook Harbor and its ties with the prominent Smith family. Unlike the vast estates of the super rich, located for the most part in Nassau County, the Stony Brook Harbor estates were smaller in scale and linked closely to the history of the region, some of the estates are actually surviving early farmsteads associated with the early settlement period. The Stony Brook Harbor estate type is characterized by a large, distinguished estate house with views of the harbor, sited on a substantial parcel landscaped to effect a naturalistic country setting, these states generally include a variety of secondary buildings and structures that represent the estate's functional history and the lifestyles of the owners. The estates resulted from the distribution of a large family fortune and landholding between the descendants of Richard Smith an early settler and manorial land owner of the area that has become Smithtown. A number of the estates are significant as the work of nationally prominent architectural firms, whose partners were friends or relatives of the clients or indeed owners of the estates themselves. The individual listings are discussed below. Rassapeaque (Francis C. Huntington and Susan Butler Huntington Estate) Long Beach Road, Nissequogfie 8/93 c1865, c1915 Private 23 acre estate composed of a large, mid-nineteenth century house with later additions designed by Lawrence Smith Butler, three contributing 556 Appendix 1 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: support buildings and extensive lawns and fields overlooking Stony Brook Harbor. The house is a 2 story wood-frame clapboard Italianate dwelling that retains representative exterior detailing, with restrained Colonial Revival alterations. The integrity of the estate and its contributing components remain high. The estate is significant as an example of a mid 19th century gentleman farm that was adapted to serve as a country estate. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources Land of Clover (Lathrop Brown Estate) Long Beach Road, Nissequogue 8/93 1912 Private 60 acre estate composed of a large brick Georgian Revival dwelling and a number of historic and contemporary dependencies. The main house, now known as Houghton Hall, was designed by Peabody, Wilson and Brown for Lathrop Brown. Exterior and interior detailing is constrained and remains relatively intact. Contributing dependencies include the horseshoe stable, superintendent's cottage, ice house and garage, U- shaped barn and water tower. The estate is significant as a distinctive example of a turn-of-the-century Stony Brook Harbor estate property, recalling the last phase (c1878-c1930) in the recreational development of Long Island. The estate is also significant for the designs of architect Archibald Brown. Now used as a boarding school, a use that has helped maintain the open estate character of the property. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. James W. Phyfe and Anne Smith Phyfe Estate 87 Stillwater Road, Nissequogue 8/93 1904 Private Originally part of a large estat~ that has been reduced through subdivision and residential development, the remaining 6 acre parcel includes a large Neoclassical style house set in manicured lawns and adjoining carriage house. Includes extensive exterior detailing and spacious interior. The estate house is architecturally and historically significant as a distinctive intact example of the Stony Brook Harbor estate type designed by well known regional architect Isaac H. Green Jr.. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. William J. Ryan Estate (Nissequogue Golf Club) Moriches Road, Nissequogue 8/93 1930 Private 126 acre golf course, once the former William J. Ryan Estate. Despite the development of the golf course, the current landscape recalls the original open estate landscape and does not compromise the setting of the Georgian Revival estate house, designed by Bradley Delehanty, now Append/x 1 557 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTt~D: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: 558 Appendix the clubhouse. Both the exterior and interior retain a high degree of integrity. The estate is architecturally significant as a distinctive example of the Stony BrOOk Harbor estate typeand is the last of the large country houses to be built on Stony BrOOk Harbor. Stony BrOOk Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. Beachbend (William H. Dixon Estate) Smith Lane, Nissequogue 8/93 c1700, c1924 Private Composed of a large eighteenth century Colonial house with 20th century Colonial revival alterations, designed by Peabody, Wilson and Brown, and dependencies set in 19.4 acre estate. Beachbend is historically and architecturally significant as a distinctive intact example of an estate on Stony BrOOk Harbor that retains substantial integrity to both the settlement era and the estate period. It typifies the type of country house and grounds that resulted from the sensitive conversion of an existing Colonial period house at the turn-of-the-century and retains the restrained wood detailing associated with Long Island Vernacular farmhouses of the settlement era. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. Woodcrest (Homer Reboul Estate) Moriches Road, Nissequogue 8/93 1895 Private Composed of a large principal building, two contributing dependencies and a formal garden set in a wooded area of 30 acres, all that remains of a substantially reduced estam. Subdivision of the remaining acreage has resulted in adjacent residential development. The main house is a 2 story Colonial Revival residence in the shingle style. The house is situated with great respect to the topography of the property and with carefully designed vistas of the harbor, Long Beach and the Sound. Interior features have considerable interest. Woodcrest is architecturally significant as a representative early work of the noted Long Island architect Isaac Green, Jr.. The design embodies the features associated with Swny BrOOk Harbor estates and was built within the period of greatest concentration of estate planning in the area. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. Harbor House (George C. Case Estate) Spring Hollow Road, Nissequogue 8/93 1910 Private 22 acre estate composed of large principal dwelling, associated dependencies, landscaped lawns and formal garden set on a heavily wooded parcel. The entire estate parcel is intact as planned. The LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTI~D: DATB: OWNERSHIP: DF. SCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATI~: OWNBRSHIP: DHSCRIPTION: Colonial Revival main house is eclectic~]n style and includes aspects of the Dutch Colonial mode with features associated with the Queen Anne and Shingle styles. Interior and exterior features retain a high degree of integrity. Harbor House is a distinguished and representative example of the turn-of-the-century Stony Brook Harbor estate type. The estate is historically significant for its associations with the Smith family and is . architecturally significant as an intact large scale and well designed example of the country house genre, designed by the firm of Ford, Butler and Oliver. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. By-the-Harbor (Prescott Hall Butler and Cornelia Smith BUtler Estate) Moriches Road, Nissequogue 8/93 c1872-1905 Private 27 acre property that once extended to Stony Brook Harbor. The property includes a relatively small Shingle style country house and contributing dependencies, including a restored casino. The integrity of the main house remains high in spite of a recent damaging fire. By-the- Harbor is historically and architecturally significant as the first of the group of country houses built on Stony Brook harbor dating the period 1878-1930 and as an early and precedent setting example of the idiom later named Shingle Style. It represents one of architect Charles McKim's earliest projects. Historically the house represents the first of several Smith family projects to transform the shoreline of Stony Brook Harbor. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. i~,re C_ottag. e (__Lawr. en.c~. C~..ant. White and Laura Chandler White Estate) oor Koaa, Heaa ot the Hart)or 8/93 1913 Private 2.5 story Revival cottage clad in stucco and associated barn on 1.7 acres. Designed by Lawrence Grant White for his family. Originally part of the White family's once expansive Box Hill estate, the properties have been separated by modern subdivisions. The cottage remains virtually unaltered and retains its architectural integrity..Shore Cottage is historically and architecturally significant for its connections with the Stony Brook Harbor estates, their development and the close network of families in the area. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. Box Hill Estate Moriches Road, St James 12/73 , 19th century ? ' Private 20 acre estate overlooking Stony Brook Harbor featuring rambling Colonial revival/eclectic residence surfaced in pebble-dashed stucco. Originally built as simple farmhouse, purchased and enlarged by architect Stanford White and his son Lawrence Grant White as family /¥pend/x ~ 559 summer resident. Notable .interior. Property inclu~les formal gardens, farm compleX, '~.~octag~ water tower, i~;~n'f~res "Diana~ sculptured bY'A~i;guStus ~int-Gaudens. The p~:operly,.~ias architecturat significance as.an il~valt_~ahle document of White's .d~ign and tastes. Excellent condition. Limited public access. LISTING: Kate Annette Wetherill Estate LOCATION: Harbor Hill Road, Head of the Harbor LISTED: 8/93 DATE: 1895 OWNERSHIP: Private DESCRIPTION: ,- 26.75 acre es.rote overlooking Stony Brook Harbor featuring a large . octag0nal~ Colonial Revival style house and associated structures. The original estate has been subdivided, however, the estate setting is i remarkably intact. The wood shingled house retains a wealth of period detail. The estate is architecturally significant as a distinctive and unusual example of architect Stanford White's country house genre. Despite its unusual and innovative design, the house is representative of the Stony Brook Harbor estate type in setting, detailing and scale. The ,~ estate was part of the tight knit social set of the locally prominent Smith family. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. LISTING:. ;~: Sherre,wogue CElla Smith Emmet and Devereux Emmet Estate) LOCATION: 79 Harbor Road, Head of the Harbor LISTED: State Register, 10/13/92 DATE: c1689, c1850, c1895, 1910 OWNERSHIP: Private Dt~SCRIPTION: 11.95 acre estate composed of a primar~ estate house, 11 contributing . .~ ~. dependencies, and formal garden set within an intact naturalistic setting overlooking Stony Brook Harbor. The original landholdings of the estate a ~ extended over several hundred acres, but has been significantly reduced through subdivision. The estate house is a large wood shingled Colonial period dwelling with significant Colonial Revival additions designed by Stanford White. A complex of farm aod estate dependencies remain ~""~':~ intact. The estate is historically and architecturally significant as an ancestral, settlement period homestead of the Smith family that was acquired in the late 19th century by a descendant of the family and converted into an estate typical of the era and location. Swny Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. LISTING: Thatch Meadow Farm (George W. Bacon Estate) LOCATION~ , Harbor Road, Head of the Harbor LISTHD: .... ~ State Regist'% 10/13/92 DATE: :~, : ~... c175~0,.c 1912 OWI~: ,, Private, ~ Di~scRIpTION: , 2217aCre ~tate featuring a Colonial period dwelling with Colonial Revival and Federal period additions, designed by the firm of Peabody, ~: ~' Wilson and Brown, two cottages and a cluster of farm buildings. The , r,:~ integrity of 'the house and outbuildings remains high. Historically a Smith family farm of over 200 acres, much of the original acreage has 560 .~pend/x 1 LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: LISTED: DATE: OWNERSHIP: DESCRIPTION: LISTING: LOCATION: LISTED: DAT~: OWNF2,SHIP: D~SCRIPTION: been sul[/di~ided for resldentia~ devt~lopmefit~:~/d/hough the ~ seR~g re~. ~ ~ is ~chit~lv,dii~Uish~ ~ ~e or ~ l~m cenm~ s~le~ent Peri~-f~ouse conve~ into a S~ Br~k ~bor ~un~'i~? SWn~ Br~k ~r Esmt~ ~e~ic R~our~. East Farm (Archibald M. Brown Estate) Harbor Road, Head of the Harbor 8/93 c1710, c1910 Private 31 acre estate featuring open farmland, woodland, noted plantings,, a formal garden, an estate house and several historic farm buildings. Originally an 18th century Smith family farmhouse, the Colonial building was greatly enlarged in the Colonial Revival style, in 1910 by the architect Archibald Brown as his own l~rsonal country residence. The estates appearance today is virtually unaltered from the conversion of the farm into a country residence. The estate is architecturally significant as an intact representative example of an 18th century settlement period farmhouse converted into a Stony Brook Harbor couni~y retreat. Stony Brook Harbor F_~t~t~_ Thematic Resources. The Mallows (Alida Chanler Emmet and Christopher Terhple Emmet Estate) .~ ~ ~ Emmet Way, Head of the Harbor 8/93 1906 ,' ,.::: Private / A small 4.1 acre property, once part of a 1:50'acre estate now subdivided for residential development. The estate house is all that survives intact. Designed by Charles A. Platt, the house is a Colonial Revival dwelling finished in Stucco with powerful wooden detailing. The house has a high level of integrity. It is significant as an intact representative example of the 8tony Brook Harbor estate type. Stony Brook Harbor Estates Thematic Resources. .:; St James Historic District . . North Country Road, St James , :, 7/73 18th/19th century Private 90 acre corridor centered on three major pi'operties: the 2.5 St6ry Federal shingled Timothy S.mith House (clS0~?,,,m~ved and eniarged-:. uo,*~-t), ano me uom~c ~tevival frame St James 't/l~i~al (1853) which features stained glass by L.C."Yiffany. ~dsb James Railroad Station, St James General' Store and 6/her 'lgth century frame buildings. The Historic District is significant asUa cluster of structui, es illustrating a variety of architectural styles popular in rural ~ g!~la~d ~hr~ou~the - ~e clubbed ff~ Or~k Rewv~ ~flls-~o~t~ 0 837, d~gn~ bY histori~ enviro~ent. ~ ~nditi6n. :C ~CA~ON: H~hO[ RO~, Stony Br~k .:.. q;~,.r~ :, ~e la~' 19~'s. ~e Grist Mill is histori~ly ~d ~chit~mr~ly signifier ~ a ~istin~ive ex.pie of a vemacul~ mil building on ~ng Isled ~i r~ evidence of i~ orig~ co~ion ~d ~e, ~ well a signifi~t ~ditio~ ~d ~mrmio~ ~at help to expl~n i~ con~ role m a ~able co~erci~ op~tion. -x .0/:: ',~ ~A~ON: 1~ ~is~ Av~ue, S~ny Br~k -, ~O: ~!~ Church ~d C~ . .,* ., . 562 Ap .~rix ~ Coion!ala~fn~I/d church dominated I~/42'fO~f't~w~/~Ded with a ~t ap=e, bulk ~ 1729 by Jo~ S9~. Seve~ ad~fio~ ~cluding a 1~5 p~ish h~l. R~r~ in 1937. ~oR~ ~0~ b~, horse sh~i,~ ~d ~ histOric ~me~, ~~ ~'~.~d ~ope~ r~r~ ~ ~chi~r~ly. signifi~t ~ ~ ~t~in~ ~ple of ~ly ~ ~l~t~ ~chi~re ~d ~n~r~.~ It r~ sig~fi~t',,~ ewaen~ ot ~ orig~ me~ of ~dioh'.~t~i~ ~e older exit ,,:~ _~:,~ ~ ~ E~?cop~ ~rc~bu~ld~g on ~ng hl~ ~d is c0~ider~ ~e regld~ ~ :,~ :L,. ~la~t public~ ~S~re. ~e pro~fl~ ~e ~ro~ aevelopment 0f~e ~ ~d ch~ea ~;'f~nl gi&~ 'o'~h .~, ~ .~ ~A~N: ' No~' C0un~ R~, Mill~ PI~ 'q '~ ~ ,c LIS~: 6/76 v'~'. ... ~,~.~ ~ ~ ~ .~: DA~: ~d 18~ - mid 1~ ~nm~ ' O~RS~: ~iva~ - DESCRI~ON: ~e Historic Dis~ia encomp~s~ a con~nmU0n' ~f propem~ in m~ ve~ul~ ~chi~ s~le ch~ristic of ~ng =}sl~d from ~d 18~ m ~d 1~ ~m~. It r~r~n~ a ~e vmige of ~n~ ; ~. ~ ~s ~idly v~Mg p~t. ~emreof~e~h~ ~' t ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~,mm~smmly nomog~ in s~e ~d ": ~ ~ ~e dis ' : ~k Keviv~ Reverend ~a King HOuse (~J~), ~e F~em1 Miller ~'~ '/ ~ Place A~demy (1834), ~d ~rgi~ Willi~ Miller House (c1720). ~e Hiswric District sp~ ~e ~ ~m ~q~d~7~ ~ndition. :~ "~" ~ L~i~ public ~s. ~ ' ~S~G: ~l~k Hom~ < ..... ~A~ON: 163 S~nd Avenue, No~ville DA~: c1765, 1845 O~~: ~iv~ shob ,_ .~ ,: ;:.v,~,~ n0~e ~d priw.' ~y orig~l f~mr~ ?e~n~ ~ HoM~'~B :i~ ~ ~ ' ~Cfli~ly ~d hiswri~ly signifi~t:~ 6~e :Of ~ old~t exit , ' f~ complex~ on ~eNo~ Fork, a r~enmt~ve e~ple of ~ , .~. f~j~tg? ~ng h~d f~,. It is ~%~ wim fi".l~ly pro~ent · . ~., rd Ho~ ~A~ON. od~ 25, Onem '-' ~ ~S~: 2/~ O~S~: ~iva~ ~s~ :~ .: ~, ~, D~C~ON: 2.~ st~ sh~l~ New Engl~d ~x w~ cl7~r~ l~-W omer lair Mdmo~. ~clud~ well ~ver ~d s~l ah~ on a 6 p o~. ~e pro~ ~s =cMt~r~ly s~gnlflc~t ~ one of ~e' fe~ l~!!~'belie~ to be the only remain~O~ O! me original · oust m .me ~ 'l{~et of ori~ and h hi~tor ically~iignificant~f~ItS.longhorn& ~l~.ag.'oii Wi~th~ ~iitory and dc~'elOl~mer~'~. Fair