Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Peconic Estuary Program Conservation/Mngmt Plan 2001
1 � I I I I 1 16 14 Comprehensive co nsefv MOILIj, management plan w IP kb 41 -� >� - rt , II Peconic Estuary Program Peconic Estuary Program Office Office of Ecology Suffolk County Department of Health Services County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 (631) 852-2077 (Phone) • (631) 852-2743 (Fax) vito.minei@co.suffolk.ny.us walter.dawydiak@co.suffolk.ny.us www.co.suffolk.ny.uAealth/eq/pep.html 1►EPA The Peconic Estuary Program is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreements#CE992002 to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and#CE992066 to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not in any way constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. Technical editing and layout of this report is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Nos. 68-C7-0004 and 68-C-00-121, Work Assignment Nos. 2-12 and 0-18 respectively, to Battelle, Duxbury,Massachusetts and Shor& Orrick Planning Associates, LC, Corpus Christi, Texas, subcontractor to Battelle. • Approved by the USEPA on November 15,2001 This plan should be cited as: Peconic Estuary Program.2001.Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 866 pp. Sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act. Suffolk County Department of Health Services,Program Office. • • Peconic Estuary Program CCMP . Acknowledgements Program Director Vito Minei, Suffolk County Department of Health Services Deputy Program Director Walter Dawydiak, Suffolk County Department of Health Services Policy Committee Kathleen Callahan,United States Environmental Protection Agency,Chair Jean Cochran,Town of Southold,on behalf of the Local Government Committee Ray Cowen,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Robert Gaffney, Suffolk County Executive Management Committee Janice Rollwagen,United States Environmental Protection Agency,Chair Jean Cochran,Town of Southold,on behalf of the Local Government Committee David Stillwell,United States Fish and Wildlife Service Darrel J.Kost,New York State Department of Transportation Lisa Liquori,Town of East Hampton(1993-2000),on behalf of the Technical Advisory Committee Charles McCaffrey,New York State Department of State • Kevin McDonald,Group for the South Fork,on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Committee Arthur Newell,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation' Bill O'Beirne,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration George Proios,on behalf of the Suffolk County Executive * Chris Smith,Cornell Cooperative Extension(2000-2001),on behalf of the Technical Advisory Committee Fred Thiele,New York State Assemblyman,on behalf of the New York State Legislature *Voting Members Coordinators Federal: Rick Balla,United States Environmental Protection Agency State: Dr.Matthew Sclafani,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation County:Laura Bavaro,Suffolk County Department of Health Services Public Outreach:Gayle Marriner-Smith,Ecovision,Inc. Marine Conservation Planner: Dr. Marci Bortman,The Nature Conservancy Key Partners Cornell Cooperative Extension Suffolk County Planning Department(Dr.DeWitt Davies) The Nature Conservancy(Susan Antenen) United States Fish and Wildlife Service(Tom Halavik) United States Geological Survey(Chris Schubert) Other Key Participants New York Sea Grant(Dr.Jack Mattice,Cornelia Schlenk,Bob Kent) North Fork Environmental Council(Debbie O'Kane) SUNY at Stony Brook—Marine Sciences Research Center(Dr.Kirk Cochran,Dr.Robert Cerrato) • Suffolk County Department of Public Works(Charles Bartha,Ed Lynch,Dominick Ninivaggi) i Peconic Estuary Program cCMP Federal, State,and County Elected Officials U.S. Congressman Felix Grucci Former U.S.Congressman Michael Forbes Former U.S. Congressman George Hochbrueckner New York State Senator Kenneth LaValle New York State Assemblyman Fred Thiele New York State Assemblywoman Patricia Acampora Suffolk County Legislator Michael Caracciolo Suffolk County Legislator George Guldi Special Appreciation Association of Marine Industries Long Island Farm Bureau(Joseph Gergela) Towns of Brookhaven,East Hampton,Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold Former Staff Members Jon Gorin Dr.Cynthia Decker Mario Paula Max Strieb Sponsoring Agency Acknowledgements The United States Environmental Protection For their leadership,guidance and assistance,we wish to thank Jeanne Fox,Bill Muszynski,Rich Caspe, • Kevin Bricke,Felix Locicero,Noemi Mercado,Betsy Tam Salter,Mario Del Vicario,Jon Gorin,Mario Paula,Bob Vaughn,Patrick Durack,Paul Giardina,Mary Logan,Mary Mears,Pat Carr,Terry Ippolito, Dennis McChesney,Jim Ferretti,Towana Joseph,Eric Simpson,Jim Olander,Donna Somboonlakana, Doug Pabst, Steve Ferreira,and Tristan Gillespie. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation We wish to thank Gordon Colvin,Karen Chytalo,Byron Young,Alice Weber,Ken Koetzner,Chris LaPorta,and Debra Barnes of the Bureau of Marine Resources for their technical assistance and support of this document. The technical guidance of Phil DeGaetano,Dick Draper,Alan Fuchs,Robert Schneck, Anthony Leung,and Laura Star of the Division of Water are also greatly appreciated. Thanks also to Stephen Hammond,Vinnie Palmer,and Chart Guthrie for their critical input and assistance. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Special appreciation is extended to Robert Gaffney,the Suffolk County Executive,for his guidance and support,and the Suffolk County Legislature for its continuing commitment to the Program. Clare Bradley, M.D.,M.P.H.,Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, is also recognized for her unfailing dedication. The Bureau of Marine Resources,including Dr. Robert Nuzzi,Robert Waters, John Bredemeyer,Gary Chmurzynski,Charles Schell,Cindy MacArthur,Mike Jensen,and Mark Long,and the Bureau of Environmental Management, including Kim Shaw and Mark Reuschle,are much appreciated for all of their hard work. The clerical and cartographic staff at the Office of Ecology,especially Arlene Freudenberg,Jeanine Schlosser,Barbara Harrison,and Thomas Keenan,must be acknowledged for their attention and willingness to contribute to the Peconic Estuary Program. NOTE:A complete PEP Management Conference membership listing is located in Appendix C. • Peconic Estuary Program CCMP qli • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW PLEDGE FOR THE PECONIC ESTUARY ............................................................................ 1-1 GOALS ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1-3 THE PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM................................................................................. 1-5 Geographic Scope of the Program................................................................................... 1-6 PECONIC ESTUARY MANAGEMENT ISSUES.................................................................. 1-6 BrownTide...................................................................................................................... 1-7 NutrientPollution............................................................................................................ 1-8 Habitat and Living Resources....................................................................................... 1-10 Pathogens and Closed Shellfish Beds........................................................................... 1-13 Toxics............................................................................................................................ 1-15 Critical Lands Protection............................................................................................... 1-17 Public Education and Outreach..................................................................................... 1-18 Financing....................................................................................................................... 1-19 Plan Implementation and Post-CCMP Management..................................................... 1-20 Environmental Monitoring Plan.................................................................................... 1-21 CCMPORGANIZATION...................................................................................................... 1-22 ManagementActions..................................................................................................... 1-22 ActionCosts.................................................................................................................. 1-23 Status............................................................................................................................. 1-24 Timeframe..................................................................................................................... 1-24 Cost................................................................................................................................ 1-24 CHAPTER TWO: BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................2-1 MEASURABLEGOALS.........................................................................................................2-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................2-3 TheBrown Tide Organism..............................................................................................2-5 BROWN TIDE BLOOMS IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM....................................2-6 ContributingFactors........................................................................................................2-8 Chemicals and Trace Metals..................................................................................2-8 Meteorological and Climatological Factors...........................................................2-8 Dissolved Inorganic and Organic Nitrogen...........................................................2-8 OtherFactors.........................................................................................................2-9 PublicComments...................................................................................................2-9 RESEARCHEFFORTS..........................................................................................................2-10 Brown Tide Monitoring Network..................................................................................2-10 Other Suffolk County Capital Programs.......................................................................2-11 Brown Tide Research Initiative.....................................................................................2-12 Brown Tide Steering Committee and Workplan...........................................................2-12 MANAGEMENTACTIONS..................................................................................................2-13 Benefits of the Brown Tide Management Actions........................................................2-15 Costs of the Brown Tide Management Actions............................................................2-15 Brown Tide Actions Summary Table............................................................................2-16 Status...................................................................................................................2-16 Timeframe...........................................................................................................2-16 Cost......................................................................................................................2-16 • qPeconic Estuary Program CCMP CHAPTER THREE:NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT PLAN • OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................3-1 MEASURABLEGOALS..........................................................................................................3-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................3-3 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ESTUARY SYSTEM........................................................3-4 Characterization Studies..................................................................................................3-4 PEP Hydrodynamic and Eutrophication Model...............................................................3-5 Key Findings Related to Nutrients in the Estuary System...............................................3-7 SOURCES AND LOADINGS OF NUTRIENTS IN THE SYSTEM......................................3-8 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES...........................3-9 DissolvedOxygen............................................................................................................3-9 Nitrogen.........................................................................................................................3-11 OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS.............................................................3-13 MitigationPriority Waters.............................................................................................3-13 Stressed/Threatened Waters...........................................................................................3-14 Preservation Priority Waters..........................................................................................3-15 MANAGEMENTSTRATEGY...............................................................................................3-15 Existing and Emerging Management Programs.............................................................3-16 Additional Planning and Management Based on PEP Characterizations......................3-17 Modeling and Nitrogen Loading Workgroups...............................................................3-18 MANAGEMENTACTIONS..................................................................................................3-19 Benefits of Management Actions...................................................................................3-39 Costs of Management Actions.......................................................................................3-39 • Nutrients Actions Summary Table.................................................................................3-40 Status....................................................................................................................340 Timeframe............................................................................................................340 Costs.....................................................................................................................340 CHAPTER FOUR:HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................4-1 MEASURABLEGOALS..........................................................................................................4-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................44 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES OF THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM............4-4 DeepWater Zone.............................................................................................................4-5 Finfish....................................................................................................................4-5 Shellfish.................................................................................................................4-5 OtherInvertebrates.................................................................................................4-5 Birds.......................................................................................................................4-5 Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals.........................................................................4-6 ShallowWater Zone........................................................................................................4-6 Finfish....................................................................................................................4-6 Shellfish.................................................................................................................4-7 Birds.......................................................................................................................4-7 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.............................................................................4-7 Intertidal/Shoreline Zone.................................................................................................4-9 Marshes..................................................................................................................4-9 Mud and Sand Flats and Sandy Beaches..............................................................4-12 Coastal Bluffs and Islands....................................................................................4-12 Peconic River,Freshwater Wetlands,and Ponds...........................................................4-12 TerrestrialZone..............................................................................................................4-13 • 11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP =`,. • OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS4-14 PhysicalAlteration........................................ .............................................................4-14 Chemical Contamination...............................................................................................4-15 InvasiveSpecies............................................................................................................4-15 DeepWater Zone...........................................................................................................4-15 Finfish..................................................................................................................4-15 Shellfish...............................................................................................................4-16 Birds....................................................................................................................4-16 Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals.......................................................................4-16 ShallowWater Zone......................................................................................................4-17 Shellfish...............................................................................................................4-17 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation...........................................................................4-17 Intertidal/Shoreline Zone...............................................................................................4-17 Peconic River,Freshwater Wetlands,and Ponds..........................................................4-19 TerrestrialZone.............................................................................................................4-20 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND ACTIONS..................................................................4-21 Critical Natural Resource Areas....................................................................................4-22 Habitat Restoration Work Group..................................................................................4-24 MANAGEMENTACTIONS..................................................................................................4-24 Benefits of the Management Actions............................................................................4-68 Costs of the Management Actions.................................................................................4-69 Habitat and Living Resources Actions Summary Table...............................................4-69 Status...................................................................................................................4-69 • Timeframe...........................................................................................................4-69 Cost......................................................................................................................4-69 CHAPTER FIVE:PATHOGENS MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................5-1 MEASURABLEGOALS .........................................................................................................5-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5-3 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA.............................................................................................5-3 QUALITY/IMPAIRMENTS....................................................................................................5-5 BeachClosures................................................................................................................5-5 ShellfishBed Closures....................................................................................................5-5 HarmfulAlgal Blooms.................................................................................................... 5-7 Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning.................................................................................5-7 Pftesteria................................................................................................................5-8 SOURCES OF PATHOGENS IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM..............................5-9 Nonpoint Sources of Pathogen Contamination...............................................................5-9 On-site Disposal Systems......................................................................................5-9 StormwaterRunoff..............................................................................................5-10 Best Management Practices.................................................................................5-11 Point Sources of Pathogen Contamination....................................................................5-11 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS..................................................................................................5-13 Benefits of Management Actions..................................................................................5-37 Costs of Management Actions......................................................................................5-37 Pathogens Actions Summary Table ..............................................................................5-38 Status...................................................................................................................5-38 Timeframe...........................................................................................................5-38 Cost......................................................................................................................5-38 iii Peconic Estuary Program CCMP CHAPTER SIX: TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN • OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................6-1 MEASURABLEGOALS..........................................................................................................6-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................6-3 OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS...............................................................6-3 Environmental Criteria and Standards for Toxic Substances..........................................6-3 Surface Water Quality Criteria........................................................................................6-3 GroundwaterQuality Criteria..........................................................................................6-4 Sediment Quality Criteria/Dredged Material Guidelines.................................................6-4 Finfish, Shellfish and Game.............................................................................................6-4 Criteria for Radioactive Materials...................................................................................6-4 RiskBased Criteria..........................................................................................................6-5 SOURCES OF TOXIC CONTAMINANTS WITHIN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM...............................................................................................................................6-5 PointSources of Pollution...............................................................................................6-5 Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.........................................................................................6-7 AgriculturalInputs.................................................................................................6-8 Suburban and Urban Stormwater Inputs................................................................6-8 GolfCourses........................................................................................................6-11 Marinasand Boating............................................................................................6-11 Marine Engine Wet Exhaust................................................................................6-12 Treated Lumber in the Marine Environment........................................................6-13 AtmosphericDeposition......................................................................................6-14 • Dredged Material Placement................................................................................6-14 SiteSpecific Concerns...................................................................................................6-15 Sewage Treatment Plants.....................................................................................6-15 North Sea Municipal Landfill Site,North Sea,NY.............................................6-15 Rowe Industries Site, Sag Harbor,NY................................................................6-17 Brookhaven Laboratory(BNL),Upton,NY........................................................6-17 Actions under the Superfund Program.................................................................6-18 Navy Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant(NWIRP)Site(Calverton,NY)...........6-20 The(Bulova)Watch Case Factory Site(Sag Harbor,NY)..................................6-21 Plum Island Animal Disease Center....................................................................6-21 CHARACTERIZATION WITH RESPECT TO TOXICS......................................................6-21 SurfaceWater Quality....................................................................................................6-22 SedimentQuality...........................................................................................................6-22 Finfish,Shellfish and Crustacean Quality......................................................................6-25 DredgedMaterial Quality..............................................................................................6-26 GroundwaterQuality.....................................................................................................6-26 Environmental Impacts Associated with Brookhaven National Laboratory..................6-28 MANAGEMENTACTIONS..................................................................................................6-35 Benefits of Management Actions...................................................................................6-51 Costs of Management Actions.......................................................................................6-51 Toxics Actions Summary Table.....................................................................................6-52 Status....................................................................................................................6-52 Timeframe............................................................................................................6-52 Cost......................................................................................................................6-52 iv Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 6 • CHAPTER SEVEN: CRITICAL LANDS PROTECTION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................7-1 MEASURABLEGOALS.........................................................................................................7-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................7-3 Rationale for Land Protection.........................................................................................7-3 Public Willingness to Preserve Land...............................................................................7-4 Population and Land Use in the Peconic Watershed.......................................................7-5 Recreational Use and Value of the Watershed......................................................7-6 Non-Recreational Use and Value of the Watershed..............................................7-7 Criteria for Land Protection Priorities.............................................................................7-7 Means of Achieving Land Protection..............................................................................7-9 New York State Land Acquisition Programs........................................................7-9 Suffolk County Land Acquisition Programs.........................................................7-9 Town Community Preservation Fund Project Plans............................................7-11 Agencies and Organizations that Protect Land.............................................................7-11 Types of Protection Tools Available...................................................................7-12 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS..................................................................................................7-13 BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS........................................................................7-24 COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS..............................................................................7-24 TOXICS ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE.............................................................................7-24 Status.............................................................................................................................7-24 Timeframe.....................................................................................................................7-24 Cost................................................................................................................................7-25 CHAPTER EIGHT:PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................8-1 MEASURABLEGOALS .........................................................................................................8-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................8-3 Citizen's Advisory Committee........................................................................................ 8-3 Public Education and Outreach Strategy.........................................................................8-3 Public Participation for Soliciting Input on the Draft CCMP.........................................8-6 Public Participation Strategy during Implementation of the CCMP...............................8-7 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS.................................................................................................... 8-7 BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS........................................................................ 8-24 COST OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS................................................................................8-24 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE........................................................................................ 8-25 Status................................................................................................................... 8-25 Timeframe...........................................................................................................8-25 Cost...................................................................................................................... 8-25 CHAPTER NINE: CCMP FINANCING OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................9-1 MEASURABLEGOALS.........................................................................................................9-2 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................9-3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY................................................................................................9-3 NEPDedicated Funds.....................................................................................................9-3 New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act.........................................................9-7 BaseProgram Funding....................................................................................................9-8 Additional Funding Sources............................................................................................9-8 ActionCosts....................................................................................................................9-9 v Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ., MANAGEMENTACTIONS..................................................................................................9-10 • CCMP Financing and Implementation Management Plan Actions Summary Table.....9-27 COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...............................................................................9-33 CCMP FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONSSUMMARY TABLE.......................................................................................9-33 Status..............................................................................................................................9-33 Timeframe......................................................................................................................9-33 Cost................................................................................................................................9-33 CHAPTER TEN:POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................................10-1 MEASURABLEGOALS........................................................................................................10-2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................10-3 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................10-3 Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure.......................................10-3 Management Responsibilities..............................................................................10-4 Technical Responsibilities...................................................................................10-4 ProgramAdministration.......................................................................................10-6 Administrative Support........................................................................................10-6 Benefits of Continuing the Existing Management Conference Structure............10-6 Drawbacks of Continuing the Existing Management Conference Structure.......10-7 LONG-TERM MONITORING...............................................................................................10-7 MonitoringPriorities....................................................................................................10-10 Additional Natural Resources Research and Monitoring Needs..................................10-11 LandUse Monitoring...................................................................................................10-11 Living Resources Monitoring Coordinator..................................................................10-12 Living Resources Research Plan..................................................................................10-12 MEASURING PROGRESS OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION............................................10-12 Dual Approach: Reports on Outputs and Outcomes....................................................10-12 TechnicalMeasures.....................................................................................................10-13 Non-Technical Measures.............................................................................................10-13 CCMPReporting.........................................................................................................10-13 DATAMANAGEMENT......................................................................................................10-14 POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS.........................................................................10-15 COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS.............................................................................10-22 POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE......................................10-22 Status............................................................................................................................10-22 Timeframe....................................................................................................................10-22 Cost..............................................................................................................................10-22 • Vi Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Qlh, • LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Brown Tide Management Actions...............................................................................2-17 Table 3-1. Peconic Estuary Program Total Nitrogen Loading Estimates.....................................3-10 Table 3-2. Surface Water Characterization and Management Hierarchy.....................................3-14 Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Actions...................................................................................341 Table 4-1 Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions..........................................4-70 Table 5-1. Areas Sampled for the Presence of Pfiesteria in the PEP..............................................5-8 Table 5-2. Sewage Treatment Plants in the Peconic Estuary System........................................... 5-12 Table 5-3. Clean Vessel Act Grants in the Peconics.....................................................................5-25 Table 5-4. Peconic Estuary Demonstration/Implementation Projects—Pathogen Mitigation...... 5-35 Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions..................................................................................5-39 Table 6-1. Toxics of Concern in the Peconic Estuary System........................................................6-6 Table 6-2. Summary of New York State Health Advisories for Chemicals inSportfish and Game............................................................................................6-23 Table 6-3. Pesticide Chemicals Detected in Suffolk County Wells in Two Recent Studies.........6-29 Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions.......................................................................................6-53 Table 7-1 Critical Lands Protection Strategy Actions .................................................................7-26 Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions................................................ 8-26 Table 9-1. Cost Estimates for Implementing Recommended Actions............................................9-4 Table 9-2. Commitments,Previous Funding Allocations and Available Funding to is Implement the PEP CCMP........................................................................................9-5 Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions......................................................................9-34 Table 10-1. Environmental Monitoring Plan.................................................................................. 10-9 Table 10-2. Post-CCMP Management Actions............................................................................. 10-23 is vii Peconic Estuary Program CCMP LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Study Area Boundaries...................................................................................................1-4 Figure 1-2. Land Uses in the Peconic Estuary..................................................................................1-6 Figure 2-1. Areas of Brown Tide Occurrence on Long Island..........................................................2-4 Figure 2-2. Bay Scallop Landings.....................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3. Brown Tide Organism....................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4. Flanders Bay Peak Tide Cell Count...............................................................................2-7 Figure 3-1. Location of Eelgrass Beds&Routine Marine Surface Water Monitoring Stations.....3-50 Figure 3-2. Regional Planning Area Boundaries............................................................................3-51 Figure 3-3. Water& Sediment Quality Technical Characterization Framework............................3-52 Figure 3-4. Routine Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program...................................................3-53 Figure 3-5. Mean Summer Total Nitrogen Concentrations............................................................3-54 Figure 3-6. Average Summer Light Extinction Coefficients..........................................................3-55 Figure 3-7. Creek Embayment Mean Summer Total Nitrogen Concentrations..............................3-56 Figure 3-8. Routine Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program Summer Dissolved Oxygen(DO)Conditions-Surface Samples...............................................................3-57 Figure 3-9. Nitrogen Loading Trends.............................................................................................3-58 Figure 3-10. Land Uses in Peconic Estuary Study Area(1995).......................................................3-59 Figure 3-11. Total Nitrogen Load by Land Use................................................................................3-60 Figure 3-12. Estimated Groundwater Total Nitrogen Concentrations Worst-Case Conditions....................................................................................................................3-61 Figure 3-13. Western Estuary-Potential Worst-Case Groundwater Degradation...........................3-62 • Figure 3-14, Estimated Groundwater Total Nitrogen Concentrations No Open Space andWorst-Case Conditions..........................................................................................3-63 Figure 3-15. Regional Groundwater Quality....................................................................................3-64 Figure 3-16. Groundwater Inflow Budget.........................................................................................3-65 Figure 3-17. Total Nitrogen Loading to Peconic River and Flanders Bay .......................................3-66 Figure 3-18. Total Nitrogen Loading East of Flanders Bay..............................................................3-67 Figure 3-19. Surface Water Monitoring Program Percentage of Stations with Dissolved Oxygen(DO)Standard Violations vs. Total Nitrogen(TN)Ranges...........................3-68 Figure 3-20. Total Nitrogen(TN)and Dissolved Oxygen(DO)Standard Violations SummerConditions......................................................................................................3-69 Figure 3-21. Location ofMacroalgae(1994)....................................................................................3-70 Figure 3-22. Proposed Nitrogen Management Workgroups.............................................................3-71 Figure 4-1. Waterfowl Breeding,Migration,and Wintering Areas..................................................4-8 Figure4-2. Eelgrass........................................................................................................................4-10 Figure4-3. Tidal Wetlands.............................................................................................................4-11 Figure 4-4. PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAS)..........................................................4-23 Figure 5-1. Uncertified Shellfish Growing Area Acreage in the Peconic Estuary System...............5-7 Figure 6-1. Toxic Chemical Monitoring Stations and Potential Toxic Sources.............................6-16 Figure 6-2. Brookhaven National Laboratory's Location with Respect to New York State andLong Island............................................................................................................6-33 Figure 6-3. Brookhaven National Laboratory's Six Operable Units and OU V Areas...................6-33 Figure 64. BNL's Sewage Treatment Plant and the Sub-Areas of Concern within the Plant.......6-34 Figure 6-5. Areal Extent of Sediments Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated with Metals Above Toxicity-Based Cleanup Goals....................................................................6-34 Figure 9-1. Post-CCMP Management Structure.............................................................................10-5 Figure 9-2. Long-Term Monitoring Candidates..............................................................................10-8 • viii Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • APPENDICES APPENDIXA: REFERENCES........................................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B: MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STRUCTURE..................................................B-1 APPENDIX C: MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP...............................................0-1 APPENDIX D: DEMONSTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS............................D-1 APPENDIX E: BROWN TIDE RESEARCH PROJECTS...............................................................E-1 APPENDIX F: BROWN TIDE INTERIM WORKPLAN................................................................F-I APPENDIX G: PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM(PEP)LIBRARY REPORTS........................G-1 APPENDIX H: AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .........H-1 APPENDIX I: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN ...........................................................I-I APPENDIX J: FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REPORT.....................................................................J-1 APPENDIX K: BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS.............................................................................K-1 • APPENDIX L: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.................................................................L-I • ix _ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP } • This Page Intentionally Left Blank. • • z Peconic Estuary Program CCMP l` • LIST OF ACRONYMNS AEM - Agricultural Environmental Management AMI - Association of Marine Industries ASMFC - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BMP - Best Management Practice BNL - Brookhaven National Laboratory BTRI - Brown Tide Research Initiative BTSC - Brown Tide Steering Committee CAC - Citizen's Advisory Committee CCMP - Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CNRA - Critical Natural Resource Area COP - Coastal Oceans Program CVA - Clean Vessel Act CZARA - Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments DDT - Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DIN - Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen DMR - Discharge Monitoring Report DMS - Dimethyl Sulfide DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid DO - Dissolved Oxygen DON - Dissolved Organic Nitrogen DPW - Department of Public Works EBPS - Environmental Benefits Permitting Strategy ECL - Environmental Conservation Law EQIP - Environmental Quality Incentives Program EPF - Environmental Protection Fund ER-L - Effects Range Low ER-M - Effects Range Medium FIFRA - Federal Insecticide,Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act HRWG - Habitat Restoration Work Group ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act MAFMC - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MSD - Marine Sanitation Devices MTBE - Methyl tert-butyl Ether NDA - No Discharge Area • NEP - National Estuary Program xi a4 Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP a* NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service • NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS - Nonpoint Source NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service NWIRP - Nary Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant NYS - New York State NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOS - New York State Department of State NYSDOT - New York State Department of Transportation OMWM - Open Marsh Water Management OSDS - Onsite Disposal System OU V - Operable Unit V PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PEP - Peconic Estuary Program RI - Remedial Investigation SAV - Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SCDHS - Suffolk County Department of Health Services SCWQCC - Suffolk County Water Quality Coordinating Committee SEQRA - State Environmental Quality Review Act SPDES - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SRS - Systematic Random Sampling STP - Sewage Treatment Plant TAC - Technical Advisory Committee TCA - Trichloroethane TCE - Trichloroethylene TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers USCG - United States Coast Guard USDA - United States Department of Agriculture USDOE - United States Department of Energy USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency USDA-FSA - United States Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency USFDA - United States Food and Drug Administration USGS - United States Geological Survey UV - Ultra-Violet VOC - Volatile Organic Compound • xii Peconic Estuary Program CHAPTER ONE OVERVIEW PLEDGE FOR THE PECONIC ESTUARY We find and declare that • The Peconic Estuary is an important natural resource that provides incomparable beauty and significant recreational and commercial benefits; The Peconic Estuary's living resources, water quality, and aesthetic character have suffered from development and other human uses;and Restoration and protection of the Peconic Estuary's environmental quality require focused management by a partnership of Federal, State, and local governments, affected industries, academia, and the public. We therefore pledge to restore and protect the environmental quality of the Peconic Estuary through the preparation and implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. —Peconic Estuary Management Conference • CHAPTER ONE 1-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • GOALS Ensure a healthy and diverse marine community; optimizing opportunities for water dependent recreation. > Promote the social and economic benefits,which have been associated with the Peconic Estuary System. Establish a comprehensive water quality policy,which ensures the integrity of marine resources,habitat,and terrestrial ecosystems while supporting human activities in the Peconic Estuary study area. 1 Ensure an effective technical,regulatory,and administrative framework for the continued monitoring and management of the Peconic Estuary study area. 1 Achieve zero discharge(from point and nonpoint sources)of toxic pollutants,and particularly of bioaccumulative chemicals. > Promote an understanding and,thus,appreciation of the value of the Peconic , Estuary as an ecosystem and as a mainstay to the East End economy so that it is preserved and restored as one of the last great places in the Western Hemisphere. > Involve the many and diverse stakeholders in the Peconic Watershed regarding the implementation of the CCMP and in the future direction and decisions affecting the estuary. MMMMMMIFJ • CHAPTER ONE 1-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • INTRODUCTION The Peconic Estuary, situated between the North and South Forks of eastern Long Island,New York, consists of more than 100 distinct bays, harbors,embayments,and tributaries(See Figure 1-1). The area surrounding the Peconic Estuary's watershed is rich in rolling farmland,scenic beaches and creeks,lush woodlands,and wetlands. The Peconic Estuary System includes the Peconic Estuary and those land areas that What is an Estuary? contribute groundwater and stormwater runoff An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water to the Peconic River and Estuary. The estuary that connects to the open sea. It is a transition zone system features numerous rare ecosystems that where saltwater from the ocean mixes with freshwater are home to many plant and animal species, from rivers and land. The amount of freshwater including several nationally and locally flowing into the estuary varies from season to season andfrom year to year. This variation, together with the threatened and endangered plants and animals. daily rise and fa!l of the tides and the consequent The Nature Conservancy has designated the movement of saltwater up and down rivers, creeks, and Peconic Estuary System as one of the"Last in embayments creates a unique environment. Great Places"in the Western Hemisphere. Estuaries are among the most productive of the earth's systems. More than 80 percent of all fish and sheWlsh Bountiful living resources support commercial species use estuaries as a primary habitat or as a fin and shellfishing,as well as other water- spawning and nursery ground. Estuaries also provide dependent and water-related activities. feeding, nesting, breeding and nursery areas for a wide Tourism and recreation are central to the local variety ofanimals. • economy, including businesses such as restaurants and marinas that cater to recreational fishermen,boaters,bathers,hunters,and nature enthusiasts. In 1993,more than 1,100 establishments were identified as"estuarine dependent"and gross revenues for these establishments exceeded$450 million per year. More than 7,300 people are employed in these businesses,with a combined annual income of more than$127 millions The numerous ecological,cultural,and economic assets of the Peconic Estuary System are enjoyed by both residents and visitors. The East End towns are home to approximately 100,000 people. During the summer season,this number swells to over 280,000. These year-round and seasonal populations put pressure on the area's natural resources and impact water quality. In recent years, many stakeholder groups have expressed concern about the impacts of population growth,new development,and natural resource exploitation on the overall health of the system. Some of the earliest concerns were raised in 1985,after the first appearance of the Brown Tide. The devastating impacts of this algal bloom heightened public awareness about the linkage between the region's ecology and economy. The Brown Tide also served to mobilize the citizens and local governments of eastern Long Island in an effort to save the estuary from careless exploitation and irreversible degradation. Historically, impacts from population growth and unchecked development have not been as severe in the Peconic Estuary as in certain other regions on Long Island. However,a number of problems have emerged in recent years,in addition to the Brown Tide,which suggest that the estuary is at a crossroads. 'Estuarine-dependent establishments include businesses such as commercial fishing,marine transportation,marinas,boat building and repair,eating and drinking establishments,hotels and motels,selected retail and membership sport clubs,and other enterprises that cater in whole or in part to tourists and recreationists during the peak season. CHAPTER ONE 1-3 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • lk h N y m � a p t . o Figure 1-1. Study Area Boundaries. • 1-4 CHAPTER ONE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP These problems include the closure of shellfish beds due to pathogenic organisms,declines in fmfish abundance,the loss and fragmentation of habitats,nutrient over-enrichment resulting in low dissolved oxygen(DO)levels(in Flanders Bay),the potential for low levels of toxics to impact the system,and the loss of open space and farmland to residential development. There is a growing awareness of the need for remedial efforts to correct existing problems as well as proactive efforts to prevent further degradation of the system. THE PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM The National Estuary Program(NEP)was established by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1987, which amended the Clean Water Act. Congress added the Peconic Estuary System to the priority list of estuaries for inclusion in the NEP in October 1988. In 1991,the Peconic Estuary was The National Estuary Program nominated for inclusion in the NEP. This nomination represented the effort and desires of a Congress recognized the significance of preserving wide variety of estuary stakeholders, including and enhancing coastal environments with the citizen's groups,environmental groups, local and establishment of the National Estuary Program(NEP) in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act. The State governments,academic institutions,and purpose of the NEP is to promote the development of many private organizations. The Peconic Estuary comprehensive management plans for estuaries of was accepted into the ranks of the NEP in national significance threatened by pollution, September 1992,and the Peconic Estuary development, or overuse. There are currently 28 Program(PEP),a partnership of all stakeholders, estuaries in the program. • including Federal,State,and local interests and the public,officially commenced with a kick-off conference in April 1993. This Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP)is the product of a tremendous amount of research and effort by resource agency staff and local citizens serving on the various task forces and committees known collectively as the Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference. The Management Conference structure and membership are shown in Appendices B and C. Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference Objectives • To protect and improve the Peconic Estuary system water quality to ensure a healthy and diverse marine community; • To preserve and enhance the integrity of the ecosystems and natural resources present in the study area so that: - Optimal fish and wildlife habitat and diversity of species can be ensured, and - Conservation and wise management ofconsumable,renewable resources of the estuary are promoted and enhanced, • To optimize opportunities for water dependent recreation; • To promote to the maximum practicable extent, the social and economic benefits that have been associated with the Peconic Estuary system; • To minimize health risks from human consumption of shellfish and fmfish; and • To promote, to the maximum extent possible,public awareness and involvement in estuarine management issues. 001 • CHAPTER ONE 1-5 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Geographic Scope of the Program • The Peconic Estuary is located on the eastern end of Long Island,New York, and is bordered by Long Island's north and south forks. The major river discharging freshwater into the estuary is the Peconic River. This freshwater mixes with the salt water from the many bays in the estuary system leading out to the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1-1 depicts the boundaries of the Peconic Estuary Program study area. The eastern end of the study area is an imaginary line through Block Island Sound between Plum Island and Montauk Point,beyond which lies the open sea. The western boundary is at the headwaters of the Peconic River,just west of the William Floyd Parkway. The study area also includes those land areas that contribute groundwater and stormwater runoff to the river and estuary. The study area includes the following municipalities: all of the Town of Shelter Island; significant portions of the Towns of Riverhead, Southold,East Hampton and Southampton; a small portion of the town of Brookhaven; and all or portions of the Villages of Greenport, Dering Harbor, Sag Harbor, and North Haven. More than 128,000 acres of land and 121,000 acres of surface water are included. Figure 1-2 shows the percent distribution of land uses in the Peconic Estuary Watershed. • Residential • Commercial • Industrial • Agriculture 60% • Institutional • Recreation • Open Space • • Undeveloped or "Vacant" Figure 1-2. Land Uses in the Peconic Estuary. PECONIC ESTUARY PRIORITY MANAGEMENT ISSUES Priority management topics were initially identified in the Peconic Estuary nomination document for inclusion in the National Estuary Program. These topics were Brown Tide,nutrients, habitats and living resources,pathogens, and toxics. In this final CCMP,these topics are joined by critical lands protection,public education and outreach,financing,and overall implementation. These priority issues have been selected,both initially and currently,based on impacts,threats,and importance in meeting the overall goals of the Peconic Estuary Program. It is not enough to only address known or existing problems;management conference participants recognize the need to also take a proactive approach and prevent problems from occun•ing now and in the future. Each of these priority management topics is discussed below. Specific actions to address each of these priority management topics can be found in the Management Plan chapters of this CCMP. ]-6 CHAPTER ONE • Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • The PEP has developed measurable goals for each chapter. In many cases,these measurable goals are first order estimates based on best available information and on management conference judgment. These goals will be refined in each annual report,as new information becomes available. Brown Tide The Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)has routinely monitored the water quality of the Peconic Estuary since 1977. In June 1985,an unusually large and persistent algal bloom, now known as Brown Tide,was first noted in Peconics. The Brown Tide organism is identified as the phytoplankton species Aureococcus anophaggferens'and has also bloomed in Long Island's South Shore Estuaries,as well as in Narragansett Bay,RI,and Bamegat Bay,NJ. In 1988 Suffolk County expanded its monitoring operations in an effort to determine the cause of Brown Tide. Although the cause of Brown Tide is still not known,the study's resulting final report, the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program(BTCAMP)(SCDHS, 1992), was the primary source for the Peconic Estuary Program's National Estuary Program Nomination Report(SCDHS, 1991). The BTCAMP serves as the initial Brown Tide characterization for the Peconic Estuary Program. Brown Tide research and characterizations are routinely reported in scientific literature and are systematically updated through Sea Grant's Brown Tide Research Initiative Reports and SCDHS' Brown Tide Workplan(last updated in 1998). • Since its first appearance in 1985,the Brown Tide has had a serious impact on natural resources,the local economy,the general aesthetic value of the estuary,and possibly regional tourism. The abundant Peconic bay scallop population was virtually eradicated by the onset of this bloom. Eelgrass beds,which contribute to the regional importance of the estuary as a shellfish and finfish spawning and nursery area,have been adversely impacted. Hard clams appear to have been affected by the blooms,although to a lesser extent than scallops. In addition,finfish landings may have declined during the blooms. The Brown Tide turns the normally blue waters of the bays brown—a situation which is unappealing(although not harmful)to swimmers and tourists. While a significant amount of research has been completed and additional projects are still underway, the chemical,physical,and/or biological factors that cause,sustain,and end Brown Tide blooms are yet to be determined. Efforts are ongoing to determine what management actions can be undertaken to prevent or, if that is not possible,mitigate the effects of the recurrent Brown Tide on the ecosystem and economy of the estuary. The PEP's measurable goals with respect to Brown Tide blooms include: • Continue to better coordinate,focus,and expand Brown Tide research efforts(measured by funding appropriated, frequency of Brown Tide symposiums and frequency of updating the Brown Tide Workplan and coordinations within the Brown Tide Steering Committee). [See Action B-1] 'Different Brown Tide organisms have been associated with algae blooms in various pans of the country. Throughout this CCMP,the term"Brown Tide"refers specifically to the phytoplankton species Aureococeus anophagejjerens,which has been identified as the source of the Brown Tide blooms in the Peconic Estuary. • CHAPTER ONE 1-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Continue the current level of water quality sampling in the Peconic Estuary(measured by the • number and frequency of samples taken per year and the number of bays and peripheral embayments sampled). Currently,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services conducts biweekly monitoring at 32 stations in the Peconic Estuary throughout the year, resulting in over 830 samples taken annually. [See Action B-1] Measurable goals for the Brown Tide-related natural resource impacts are found in the Habitat and Living Resources Chapter(Chapter 4). Nutrient Pollution The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan("L.I. 208 Study";Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978)and the BTCAMP(SCDHS, 1992)identified nutrients,specifically nitrogen, as a priority management issue facing the Peconic Estuary. More recent status and trends information in the Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Overview(SCDHS, 1998),the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report(1976-1996)(SCDHS, 1998),the Peconic Estuary Surface Water Quality:Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation report(SCDHS, 1998),and the Nitrogen Loading Budget and Trends report(SCDHS, 1999)emphasize the need to reduce anthropogenic(human-influenced)nitrogen loads to the estuary. These reports incorporate the results of many other technical studies dealing with groundwater quality and quantity, sediment nutrient flux,etc. Excessive nutrient loading in an estuary can result in low dissolved oxygen levels in the water,a • condition that can be harmful to marine life. Although nitrogen itself is generally not harmful,too much nitrogen can lead to excessive algal blooms. Algae consume oxygen(respire)at night, potentially depleting dissolved oxygen levels in the water column. Also,when algae die,they can settle through the water column to the sediments,where the organic matter is decomposed by bacteria. Bacterial decomposition uses oxygen("sediment oxygen demand"),as well as releases nitrogen back into the water column("sediment nutrient flux"). Thus,algal blooms can lead to repeated or prolonged periods of low dissolved oxygen,particularly in poorly flushed embayments. Algal blooms can also produce a shading effect in the water that can impact eelgrass. Overall,the system is not experiencing widespread low levels of oxygen related to excessive nitrogen loading. However,the western portion of the system(Peconic River and Flanders Bay)has a legacy of nutrient over enrichment and periodic, short-term dissolved oxygen problems. Although there are larger sources of nitrogen,the PEP surface water computer model indicates that the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant(STP)is a controllable nitrogen loading sources of major significance in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay area. The importance of the treatment plant nitrogen loading is due to the concentrated nature of the STP discharge at a location near the mouth of the Peconic River,a poorly flushed area of the estuary system. Historically,duck farming along the shores of the Peconic Estuary was a major pollutant source. At the peak of the industry in the middle of the twentieth century,there were 21 duck farms in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay area discharging large quantities of animal wastes that contained nitrogen into the system. Presently,there is only one duck farm remaining in operation located on Meetinghouse Creek,which discharges to the north-central portion of Flanders Bay. • 1-8 CHAPTER ONE Peconic Estuary Program CCUP • Bottom sediments contribute recycled nutrients to the water that originate from external point and nonpoint source inputs. The release of nitrogen from the sediments represents more than 50 percent of the estimated total nitrogen load to the system. Groundwater,accounting for more than 21 percent of the nitrogen input, is the largest external, locally manageable source to the estuary. It combines nitrogen from residential and agricultural fertilizer,on-site sewage disposal systems,and other sources. Atmospheric deposition to surface waters represents approximately 26 percent of the nitrogen load to the system. The remaining small load(less than 3 percent)to the estuary is from stormwater runoff, tributary streams,and sewage treatment plants. Although these sources are a small percentage of the total regional loading,they may have localized adverse effects. The quantity of nitrogen found in both groundwater and surface water is directly related to land uses within the system. Undoubtedly,the amount of open space found throughout the study area has spared the system thus far from significant long-term,widespread problems. The fact that much of this open space is available for development heightens the need for enlightened and carefully thought- out growth management plans. This is especially true in most of the western portion of the system (the Peconic River Corridor and Flanders Bay area)and around embayments poorly flushed by cleaner seawater. The PEP's measurable goals with respect to nutrients include: • Decrease the total nitrogen concentrations in the western estuary to a summer mean of no • more than 0.45 mg/I (based on 1994-96 model verification conditions,and measured by surface water nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines). [See Actions N-4,N-5,N-10] • Improve the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the western estuary to ensure that the New York State dissolved oxygen standard(currently 5.0 mg/l)is not violated(measured by surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). [See Actions N-1,N-10] • Ensure that the total nitrogen levels in shallow waters remain at or below 0.4 mg/I to help optimize water clarity,maintaining and potentially improving conditions for eelgrass beds,a critical habitat(based on 1994-96 model verification conditions,and measured by light extinction coefficients as compared to the recommended eelgrass habitat optimization goal of at or below 0.75 t 0.05 in"). [See Actions N-1,N-4,N-5,N-10] • Ensure that the existing total nitrogen and dissolved oxygen levels are maintained or improved in waters east of Flanders Bay(i.e.,do not increase TN nor decrease DO) (measured by surface water total nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines and surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). [See Actions N-1,N-2,N4,N-5,N-10] • Develop a quantitative total nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary (measured by development of a strategy and timely endorsement by local and State agencies). Preliminary work group estimates,and work performed by other programs, indicate that a 10-25 percent fertilizer reduction goal is a reasonable first order target for existing residential and agricultural fertilizing programs. [See Action N-31 • CHAPTER ONE 1-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Implement a quantitative nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary • (measured by attaining the PEP recommendations including the implementation of the recommended Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)program,as well as other recommendations,which may include fertilizer reduction programs,sanitary system upgrade programs,point source controls,etc.,as well as monitoring for the impacts on measurable groundwater quality parameters). [See Actions N-3,N-4,N-5,N-10] • Ensure that there is no substantial net increase in nitrogen loading to areas east of Flanders Bay and reductions in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region so that an increase in new development would be offset by reductions in loads from pre-existing uses. The nitrogen work groups will develop means of attaining this goal,which may include groundwater performance standards(e.g.,nitrogen concentrations in groundwater resulting from post-development discharge/recharge), implementing fertilizer and clearing restrictions,and zoning. [See Actions N-3,N-4,N-5,N-6,N-101 • Continue sponsoring and coordinating research and information gathering(measured by funding appropriated,and research conducted,relative to PEP recommendations). [See Actions N-7,N-8,N-9] • Continue and expand open space acquisition programs(measured by funding appropriated and acres acquired in target areas). [See Action N-61 Habitat and Living Resources • The eastern end of Long Island, including the Peconic Estuary,contains a large variety of natural communities,from upland pine barrens along the Peconic River to soft-bottom benthos in the main bays. There is a larger percentage of undisturbed habitats and a greater diversity of natural communities within this watershed than anywhere else in the coastal zone of New York State. The Peconic Estuary System is home to a number of species that are raze or endangered globally, nationally,and locally, including a variety of plants,birds, insects,amphibians,reptiles,and fish. In addition to these individual species,there are complete habitats in the region that are found nowhere else in New York State and are rare even on the east coast of the United States,such as pine barrens and Atlantic white cedar swamps. Some of these are currently in danger of being reduced in size or completely lost. The Characterization Report of the Living Resources of the Peconic Estuary(1998)identified the living resources that are at risk and determined how human activities have or could alter their health. Other PEP reports characterizing the Peconic's living resources include: • Tidal Creeks Study(1999) • Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study(1999) • Peconic Estuary Surface Water Quality Nitrogen,Dissolved Oxygen,and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat(1998) • Historic Shellfishing in the Peconic Estuary Based on Baymen's Interviews; 1945-1985 (1998) • The Peconic Watershed—Recent Trends in Wetlands and Their Buffers(1998) • CHAPTER ONE 1-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP if • • Species Composition, Seasonal Occurrence and Relative Abundance of Finfish and Macroinvertebrates Taken by Small—Mesh Otter Trawl in Peconic Bay,New York(1998) • An Assessment of Shellfish Resources in the Tributaries and Embayments of the Peconic Estuary(1998) • Protocols for Harvesting and Transplanting Eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary(1997) • Peconic Bay System: Aquaculture(1997) • An Annotated Bibliography of the Natural Resources of the Peconic Estuary and Adjacent Locations on Eastern Long island,NY(1997) • An Assessment of Shellfish Resources in the Deep Waters of the Peconic Estuary(1997) • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study(1996) • Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Report(1996) • Commercial Finfish and Crustacean Landings from Peconic and Gardiners Bay 1980-1992(1995) • Bay Scallop Restoration,Western Peconic Bay(1995) • Rare Plants,Rare Animals and Significant Natural Communities in the Peconic Estuary (1995) • Planting Bay Scallops: Results of Reseeding Bay Scallops in the Peconic Bay,NY, 1986 to 1992(1993) Habitat loss,fragmentation, and degradation are frequently the result of physical alteration of the land. In the Peconic Estuary System, low-lying marshes and swamps historically have been ditched, drained,and filled for mosquito control and construction. Most of the inlets and navigation channels in the embayments and surrounding creeks have been dredged. The use of bulkheads,rip-rap,and other structures has been widely permitted in order to stabilize waterfront property throughout the system. Much of the uplands have been cleared for agriculture or,more recently,residential use. The natural resources most affected by these practices include wetlands,beaches,grasslands,forests, coastal ponds,and possibly eelgrass beds. In some cases,these land use practices have caused direct impacts to living resources and habitats in the Peconic Estuary System. More often,however,development and land alteration cause indirect degradation to habitats and subtle changes in natural communities. For example,fill for roads and railroads has cut off the flow of water into some tidal wetlands. Over time,the vegetation has changed and the marsh has either become a freshwater wetland or has gradually filled in and become upland. Dams have been built on many of the rivers and creeks emptying into the estuary,which prevents the movement of anadromous fish into fresh water for spawning. Dredging has altered water currents in small embayments and creeks,which has led to changes in sediment distribution, suspended solids in the water column,and community composition. The use of hard structures along the shoreline has caused scouring in shallow areas and the loss of associated communities. In many cases,these changes have been quite localized and subtle,with no apparent impairments to human uses of the area. In some cases,development and human uses have caused degradation and destruction of habitat to the degree that the habitat can no longer support certain species, some of which are now endangered. Many species have requirements for very specific habitats,such as pine barrens,freshwater wetlands, CHAPTER ONE 1-11 E„ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP and maritime grasslands that have been slowly degraded and destroyed over time. Other species have • historically been over-exploited for food(turtles)and fur(seals). And some species,such as the osprey,became victims of contamination by synthetic chemicals. Because the reasons for the declines in different species vary, solutions for protecting and restoring endangered wildlife populations must be tailored to specific needs. In some cases,preservation and restoration of a single habitat type will contribute to the protection of a whole suite of species. In other cases,species- specific actions must be taken to protect the organisms. Evidence from monitoring some of the important species found in the estuary, such as winter flounder,scup,weakfish,bay scallops,eelgrass,piping plovers,and least terns,indicates poor productivity and recruitment of these species. Low fish recruitment may be due to less egg development,fewer adults producing eggs,and/or less habitat. Loss of eelgrass from Brown Tide and possibly nutrient enrichment may contribute indirectly to poor recruitment of juvenile bay scallops. Predation,off-road vehicles,and heavy beach use are some of the causes attributed to poor piping plover and least tern productivity. Other causes of poor productivity and recruitment include invasive species,changes in water quality,and habitat loss,degradation,and fragmentation. Impacts may be occurring from specific activities such as navigational dredging, shellfish dredging,overharvesting, shoreline hardening,mosquito control,and tidal obstructions. Many of the actions in the Habitat and Living Resources chapter are intended to reduce or eliminate these threats and to protect,restore,and enhance productivity and recruitment. Additional investigations and monitoring that determine the extent of these threats would be of great value to the Peconic Estuary Program. Estuary-wide impacts of all kinds can potentially result from the accumulation of localized changes to the system. Daily road runoff of oil and gas,farm and lawn runoff of herbicides and pesticides, nutrient pollution,Brown Tide,and small scale physical changes(i.e.,propeller scour,addition of individual docks and piers)are only a few examples of activities that can have reverberating effects throughout the Peconic ecosystem. Physical and chemical disturbances can threaten habitat,health, and reproduction of fish,shellfish,and wildlife. In some instances,effects are only sublethal,altering fecundity or growth,while other outcomes result in low diversity. Unfortunately,stresses on the Peconic Estuary ecosystem from either incremental or"every day"activities have not been fully quantified and analyzed to understand their cumulative impacts. To accurately understand cause and effect relationships,more scientific inquiry and monitoring of Peconic Estuary living resources and its watershed are needed. The actions of this CCMP focus on broad natural resource conservation efforts,as well as specific management actions for selected species and habitats. The PEP'S measurable goals with respect to habitat and living resources include: • Protect the high quality habitats and concentrations of species in the Critical Natural Resource Areas(measured by acres of open space protected and development of model ordinances). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-6,HLR-10,HLR-11,HLR-13,HLR-14,HLR- 15,HLR-16] • Maintain current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reduce shoreline hardening structures by five percent(measured by the percent change of natural vs.hardened shorelines through GIS mapping). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-2,HLR-5, HLR-8,HLR-13,HLR-15] • Maintain current eelgrass acreage(2,100 acres in main stem of the estuary)and increase acreage by ten percent over 10 years(measured by inter-annual aerial surveys with GIS • 1-12 CHAPTER ONE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP and SCUBA assessments). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-3,HLR4,HLR-6,HLR-9,HLR- • 10,HLR-15,HLR-16] • Maintain and increase current tidal and freshwater marsh acreage, and restore areas that have been degraded(e.g.,restricted flow,Phragmites australis dominated,hardened shoreline)(measured as number of acres of marsh with GIS). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR- 2,HLR4,HLR-5,HLR-7,HLR-81 • Maintain a policy of no new mosquito ditches and not re-opening ditches that have filled- in by natural processes;and restore 10-15 percent of mosquito ditched marshes through Open Marsh Water Management(measured by the number of acres of restored tide marsh using Open Marsh Water Management). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-2,HLR-5,HLR-7, HLR-8] • Increase the number of piping plover pairs to 115 with productivity at 1.5(over a three- year average),distributed across the nesting sites in the Peconic Estuary(measured by annual piping plover surveys). [See Actions HLR-1, HLR-8,HLR-13,HLR-15,HLR- 16] • Develop recommendations and guidelines to reduce impacts to marine life from dredging-related activities(measured by amount of reduced dredging volumes and protected benthic habitat acreage). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-3,HLR-5,HLR-6,HLR- 15] • Foster sustainable recreational and commercial finfish and shellfish uses of the Peconic Estuary that are compatible with biodiversity protection(measured by juvenile finfish • trawl surveys,bay scallop landings,and identifying,protecting,and restoring key shellfish and finfish habitat). [See Action HLR-1,HLR-11,HLR-12] • Enhance the shellfish resources available to harvesting through reseeding,creation of spawning sanctuaries and habitat enhancement(measured by scallop and clam abundance/landings). [See Actions HLR4,111,11-7,HLR-8,HLR-9,HLR-10,HLR-12, HLR-16,HLR-171 • Link land usage with habitat quality in tidal creeks(measured by continued funding of benthic and water quality surveys to measure the quality/impacts to the habitats within selected tidal creeks). • Ensure that the existing and future aquaculture(shellfish and finfish)and transplanting activities are situated in ecologically low-productive areas of the estuary and that they are mutually beneficial to the aquaculture industry,natural resources,and water quality (measured by the extent and location of aquaculture/transplant facilities,water quality measures,and natural resource data). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-3,HLR4,HLR-6, HLR-10,HLR-15,HLR-17] • Annually initiate five percent of the projects identified in the Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan for the Peconic Estuary(measured by the number of projects funded and implemented annually). [See Actions HLR-7,HLR-81 Pathogens and Closed Shellfish Beds Pathogens are disease-causing organisms that include bacteria,viruses,algae and fungi. The Peconic Estuary Program focused on the potential health risks associated with consumption of contaminated shellfish and direct water contact and/or ingestion,as well as the economic losses associated with • shellfish bed and beach closures in the Peconic Estuary. The Characterization Report of the CHAPTER ONE 1-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Pathogens of the Peconic Estuary(1997)identified the main pathogens of concern,as well as their • sources. Other PEP reports and projects characterizing the Peconic's pathogen concerns include: • Water Quality Monitoring(SCDHS) • Shellfish Sanitation Unit and water quality monitoring/sanitation surveys(NYSDEC) • Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of the Peconic Estuary (Tetra-Tech,Inc.) • Delineations of the stormwater contributing areas in the estuary(SCDHS) • Regional Stormwater Runoff Management Project(Horsely and Witten,Inc.) • Several Action Plan Demonstration Projects • Several Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Projects The primary pathogens of concern in the Peconic Estuary are those associated with human and animal wastes. It is difficult to directly measure the concentration of specific pathogens in seawater due to the variable nature of their occurrence. Instead,the level of fecal bacteria in the water is measured using bacterial indicator species such as coliform. Nonpoint sources of pathogens(especially stormwater runoff)have been identified as the main contributors to the degradation of shellfish beds in the Peconics. Although these pathogens do not directly affect shellfish,human health is at risk from the consumption of contaminated water or • seafood harvested from contaminated waters. To protect human health,shellfish beds can be closed to harvesting in two ways:documented violations of bacterial standards("water quality closures")or proximity to potential sources of pathogens("administrative closures"),such as sewage treatment plant(STP)outfalls,marinas, or mooring areas. Administrative closures are used because of the potential for unpredictable, intermittent releases of pathogens or the discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated wastes. Both water quality and administrative closures can be either year-round or seasonal. There are also "conditional"closures in which beds are open for the season except when a specified amount of rainfall occurs. This is to avoid pathogens that may be transmitted with stormwater runoff. Shellfish bed closures in the Peconic Estuary due to pathogen contamination are a significant problem. The number of highly productive,commercially important shellfish lands has been estimated at nearly 21,000 acres. Almost 3,000 of these 21,000 acres,or 14 percent,are closed to shellfishing. Bathing waters are also sampled for the presence of bacterial indicator organisms. Only one bathing beach,the Town of East Hampton public beach at the south end of Lake Montauk,has been closed due to contamination in recent years. It is believed that this contamination results from wildlife and waterfowl,stormwater runoff,and possibly malfunctioning or failing on-site disposal systems in the Ditch Plains community south of Lake Montauk. Pathogens that cause disease in marine organisms are not a significant issue in the estuary. • CHAPTER ONE 1-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • The PEP'S measurable goals with respect to pathogens include: • Maintain current level of lands available to shellfish harvesting,with the ultimate aim of re-opening lands currently closed to harvesting(measured through coliform levels and numbers of acres of shellfish beds available to harvest). [All Actions] • Maintain and improve water quality of the estuary through a reduction of overall stormwater runoff,particularly key areas identified through the Regional Stormwater Runoff Study(measured through the number of stormwater remediation projects implemented). [See Actions P-1,P-2,P-3,P4,P-12,P-13,P-14] • Eliminate all vessel waste discharge to the estuary(measured by the adoption/implementation of a Vessel Waste No Discharge Area in the Peconic Estuary, the number of pump-out facilities and the volume of waste pumped annually). [See Actions P-6,P-7,P-8,P-91 • Attain a zero discharge of stormwater runoff in new subdivisions(measured by site plans for new developments that achieve this goal and the development of new ordinances and Habitat Protection Overlay Districts). [See Actions P-1,P-2,P-3,P41 Toxics Toxic contamination is not currently a significant problem in the estuary. However,toxic substances have been found in the estuary,and impacts from toxic substances have been documented,and limiting the inputs of toxic substances to the system remains a management topic,particularly as human uses in the watershed and estuary intensify. At some specific locations,remedial investigations and clean-ups are occurring under Federal and State hazardous waste clean-up laws. Toxic contaminants include both human-made and naturally occurring substances that can cause adverse ecosystem or human health effects. Toxics can be present in surface water,groundwater, soil, sediments,and plant and animal life. Toxics can directly affect the ability of fish,shellfish,and wildlife to survive or reproduce. Some toxics can accumulate in the edible tissues of fish,shellfish, and wildlife,making them unsafe as a food source for either people or wildlife. Toxic contamination could also impact dredging and dredged material placement operations because limited placement options are available for contaminated sediments. New York has established statewide health advisories to limit or restrict human consumption of fish, shellfish,and wildlife due to the presence of chemicals,including PCBs,pesticides such as dichloro- diphenyl-trichloroethane(DDT)and chlordane,and metals such as cadmium. Some of these advisories are in place for species that can be harvested from the Peconic Estuary. Because these species may migrate,the source of these pollutants may be from outside of the Peconic Estuary. Toxic contaminants that may be present in the estuary are as diverse as the land uses and activities from which they originate. Sources include runoff from residential developments and businesses, roads and parking lots, sewage treatment plants and individual on-site disposal systems,agriculture, golf courses,mosquito control measures,marinas and recreational boating,Federal and State Superfund sites,treated lumber,and leaking underground storage tanks. Environmental standards, guidelines,or criteria exist for only a small portion of the literally tens of thousands of substances that support our modem lifestyles. Work continues to better assess the impacts toxic substances individually and cumulatively have on the system. The focus of this Management Plan is on those • land uses and activities that could contribute toxics to the system in order to prevent problems from CHAPTER ONE 1-15 Ai. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i occurring in the future. Of particular concern are those land uses and activities that take place on,are • adjacent to,or directly affect surface waters. Pesticides,an emerging concern,may be introduced to the Peconic System from suburban and urban sources as well as from agricultural operations and mosquito control measures. Though no causal link has been identified,low levels of pesticides may be affecting aquatic resources, including eelgrass,sensitive larval stages of commercially and recreational important finfish and shellfish, including lobsters,and other ecologically important species. Even pesticides that are banned or not being applied can cause or contribute to environmental problems if they are not disposed of or are improperly stored. Several pesticides have already been detected in groundwater resources. "A Characterization of the Resources of the Peconic Estuary with Respect to Toxics"(PEP,January 2001)is the primary document describing the status of the Peconic Estuary with respect to toxics. Other PEP reports addressing toxic substances in the estuary include: • Chemical Contaminant Distributions in Peconic Estuary Sediments(Arthur D.Little, Inc., 1996) • Peconic Estuary Fish, Shellfish and Crustacean Toxics Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan for Field Collection Effort(EPA Region II, 1999) • Preliminary Data Tables for the Peconic Estuary Tributaries Sediment Toxics Survey (EPA Region II, 1999) • Sediment Toxicity Testing in the Peconic Estuary/Watershed Using the Amphipod, Ampelisca abdita(EPA Region 11,August 1998) Other reports related to toxics that may be of interest include: • (Final)Plutonium Contamination Characterization and Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment Report for Operable Unit V(IT Corporation for Brookhaven National Laboratory/Brookhaven Science Associates,2000) • Proposed Plan for Operable Unit V: Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant,Brookhaven National Laboratory(U.S. Department of Energy,2000) • Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties,NY(Suffolk County Department of Health Services, June 1999) • Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Waters of New York State in Relation to Land Use — 1997(U.S.Geological Survey,June 1998) • Pesticides in Streams in New Jersey and Long Island,New York and Relation to Land Use(U.S. Geological Survey,May 1999) • Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk County,New York 1998(U.S. Geological Survey,June 1999) The PEP's measurable goals with respect to toxics are: • Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters,groundwaters,sediments and biota)where there is evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources • CHAPTER ONE 1-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP fl,r4h 41 • (as measured by surface water,groundwater,sediment and biota monitoring programs). [See Actions T-2,T-3,T-4,T-5,T-6,T-7,T-8,POE-51 • Comply with schedules for conducting site characterizations,remedial actions and post- remedial monitoring at hazardous waste sites;effectively characterize risks and protect human health and the environment at hazardous waste sites;ensure compliance with permit limits for point source discharges(as measured by compliance with schedules at hazardous waste sites;conducting effective characterizations;and point source monitoring). [See Action T-2] • Decrease overall emissions of reportable toxics from the five East End towns(as measured by the Federal Toxics Release Inventory). [See Action T-7] • Eliminate holdings of banned,unneeded and unwanted pesticides and hazardous substances by 2005 (as potentially measured by collections during"Clean Sweep" programs,household hazardous waste collection programs and events,or surveys of farmers/commercial landscapers/homeowners). [See Action T-4] • Decrease overall agricultural/residential/institutional pesticide applications in the five East End towns(as potentially measured by point-of-sale surveys, surveys of residents,or commercial applicator tallies). [See Actions T-4,POE-5] • Eliminate to the maximum extent practicable,pesticide applications on turf grass on all publicly held land by 2003 (as potentially measured by resolutions passed[or equivalent]). [See Action T-41 • Eliminate underground storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements via incentive programs and public education and outreach(as potentially measured following baseline established of number of underground storage tanks [USTs] and monitoring of the number of underground tanks removed,retired,and replaced). [See Actions T-6, POE-5] • Decrease the total amount of treated lumber installed in the marinelestuarine environment (as potentially measured by baseline established from shoreline surveys and monitoring of permits issued for bulkheading installations,replacements,and removal). [See Actions T-6,POE-51 • Reduce the number of two stroke marine engines in use in the estuary(as potentially measured by harbormaster conducted surveys). [See Action POE-51 Critical Lands Protection Ever increasing development is consuming and fragmenting open space and natural habitats,and stressing watersheds and natural communities. Numerous PEP reports,already mentioned in the Nutrients and Habitat and Living Resources chapters,detail the importance of protecting open space to protect the Region's water quality and natural habitats. This chapter represents the Peconic Estuary Program's strategy for developing a Critical Lands Protection Plan,a recommendation that arose from the public comments of the September 1999 draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP). The Critical Lands Protection Plan (CLPP)will ultimately evaluate the land available in the Peconic Estuary Study Area and identify land protection priorities with respect to estuarine management concerns. It is the intent of the • Critical Lands Protection Plan to prioritize the land available for development"through the lens"of CHAPTER ONE 1-17 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP habitat and water quality protection and evaluate the funding needed for that protection. The Critical • Lands Protection Plan will be a useful tool for state and local agencies that make land acquisition decisions in part on estuarine considerations. Since the actual Critical Lands Protection Plan still needs to be developed,there are no measurable goals associated with this strategy at this point. Measurable goals will be developed and included in the Post-CCMP annual report. Public Education and Outreach Citizen involvement has been a critical component of the PEP since its inception. The Program formed a Citizens Advisory Committee(CAC)to ensure broad-based public participation in the development of the CCMP. This CAC consists of representatives from marine-related industries, environmental and civic organizations,as well as baymen,boaters,recreational fishermen,and other interested citizens. The CAC has made significant contributions by assuring public involvement in all aspects of the program and encouraging the public to learn more about the Peconic Estuary System. The CAC has utilized television events and radio broadcasts as well as printed materials in its public education and outreach efforts. Educating and involving the public and obtaining public support is vital to the success of the PEP. All residents of eastern Long Island need to understand their role as users of the system and the effect that actions and inaction have on the quality and sustainability of the area's many resources. Effective public participation will provide the broad-based public support needed to ensure that actions reach the implementation phase. The ultimate goal of public participation in the PEP is to establish a public consensus that will ensure long-term support for the implementation of the CCMP. While developing this consensus among individuals and key segments of the public,an understanding of individual and collective roles in watershed protection can be established,making that constituency dedicated to caring for the Peconic Estuary System. The Public Participation Strategy during implementation of the CCMP stresses the need to continue to bring together the stakeholders in the watershed,participate in decision-making affecting the estuary,encourage participation in programs to protect,enhance and restore the estuary and its watershed,and conduct education and outreach efforts on priority topics. A hallmark of the Peconic Estuary Program has been and will continue to be the preparation and use of innovative and high quality participation,education and outreach methods, including printed materials,television and radio spots,and conferences. The elements of the Public Participation Strategy itself are embodied in the actions in this chapter,as well as through the representation of the Citizens Advisory Committee chair on the Management Committee. The PEP's measurable goals with respect to Education and Outreach are: • Annually,embark on one new,substantial public education effort addressing each of the following areas: - Conducting Brown Tide education and outreach; - Reducing residential fertilizer use in the Peconic Watershed; - Improving,protecting or enhancing habitats and living resources; - Reducing pathogen loadings to the estuary;and • CHAPTER ONE 1-18 kNPeconic Estuary Program CCMP +, Reducing the use and loadings of toxics substances to the estuary. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory committee). [See Actions POE-3,POE4,POE-5,POE-6,POE-71 • Annually,conduct one major watershed effort involving students in estuary management (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory committee). [See Action POE-7] • Annually,conduct one major watershed-wide event to educate those who live,work,or recreate in the Peconics(as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Actions POE-7,POE-8] • Annually,support the establishment of one new local embayment or tidal creek association(as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Action POE-71 Financing This Management Plan contains actions for the protection,enhancement,and restoration of the Peconic Estuary System. For some actions in this Plan,the agency or organizations involved have made a commitment to carry out the action. For other actions,the PEP is recommending the action be undertaken;often additional funding is needed. These actions and this Plan have been created as part of the characterization and planning phases of the PEP. Funding for the development portion of this process has been provided by the National Estuary Program under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Once the final CCMP is approved,the PEP will focus on implementation of the Management Plan and its actions. Funding for the continued operation of the PEP and for the implementation of each action in the Plan will need to be secured. A wide variety of funding sources will need to be secured to ensure full implementation of the CCMP. Securing this funding is a responsibility of the Peconic Estuary Program as a whole and the agencies,organizations and individuals that make up the Management Conference. Without a comprehensive strategy for funding the implementation of all aspects of the Plan,the PEP runs the risk of not fully achieving its goal of becoming a guide to managing water quality, living resources, and habitats of the Peconic Estuary. The ability of the PEP to achieve its goals and objectives, and the pace at which progress is made,will clearly be a function of the availability of funding. Substantial funding is currently available for land acquisition programs in the five East End towns at the town,County,and State level. There is also$30 million commitment to implement this Plan and the South Shore Estuarine Reserve Plan under the New York State Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act. Under the leadership of Governor George E.Pataki,sixty-seven projects have been funded under the New York State Bond Act,Environmental Protection Fund,and State Revolving Fund,for the Peconic Estuary. There are,however,limitations on the types of activities that may be funded under these programs,and therefore additional sources of funding must be secured. Many actions will continue to be funded through ongoing activities of existing governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. Collectively,these are referred to as`Base Programs." Numerous existing and new funding sources and mechanisms are described in the Plan, including existing programs at the Federal, State and County level,the State Revolving Loan fund,municipal bonds,funds from fines and settlement,tax abatements and incentives and the establishment of municipal improvement districts,as well as encouraging participation in implementation by not for • profit organizations and other private entities. CHAPTER ONE 1-19 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The PEP's measurable goals with respect to financing are: • • Effectively use existing funding and secure new or additional governmental funding for CCMP implementation from the following sources: - Federal Government,particularly the U.S.Department of Agriculture; - State Government, particularly the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and State Revolving Loan Fund; - County Government,particularly the Suffolk County 1/41/o Sales Tax Program; - Town Governments;and - Village Governments. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). [See Actions F-2,F-3] • Secure new or additional private sector funding for CCMP implementation,from the following sources: - Businesses;and - Not for profit organizations. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). [See Actions F4,F-7] Plan Implementation and Post-CCMP Management The Peconic Estuary Program has long recognized the need for establishing a long-term framework for Peconic Estuary management. In light of the significance placed upon post-CCMP management and monitoring by Congress,the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),the PEP Management Conference,and the PEP Management Committee directed that a separate section of this Management Plan specifically deal with the issue of long-term management. Chapter 10 of this CCMP includes not only an extended discussion on the critical issue of long-term institutional and organizational framework,but also a summary of other important parameters, such as long-term monitoring,mechanisms for measuring progress,and data management. The PEP is continuing the existing management structure. A Program Office will continue to be located in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology,with oversight from a Management Committee consisting of voting representatives from the EPA,the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC), Suffolk County,Local Government,and chairs of the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee. Chapter 10 also includes actions on reporting progress in implementing the CCMP and measuring environmental quality,as well as working with local governments and local government officials to develop plans for particular waterbodies in each town. The Peconic Estuary Program's measurable goals with respect to post-CCMP management and implementation are: • Implement the Peconic Estuary Program Environmental Monitoring Plan. [See Action M-2] • CHAPTER ONE 1-20 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • • Produce annual reports. [See Action M-31 • Update municipal officials. [See Action M4] • Develop sub-watershed implementation plans(as measured by the number of sub- watershed plans initiated). [See Action M-5] Environmental Monitoring Plan An effective monitoring program is necessary to assess the status and trends of the health and abundance of the Peconic Estuary's water quality,habitat,and living resources. This Environmental Monitoring Plan reports on the region's existing and future monitoring efforts and coordinates the environmental changes these data can be used to track. By reporting on environmental changes,the Peconic Estuary Program will be able to evaluate whether measurable environmental results have been achieved and whether the goals and objectives of the PEP CCMP are being met. Compiling monitoring programs into one document promotes cooperation among agencies and stakeholders,clarifies existing efforts,and provides an avenue for integrating results from different monitoring programs and projects for scientific,regulatory,and general interests. The Peconic Estuary Program has identified 25 core monitoring workplans,those activities required to determine whether the CCMP measurable goals are being met. These workplans are discussed in detail in Appendix I. • A key component of the long-term Plan is the Suffolk County Department of Health Services routine surface water quality monitoring program,which addresses Brown Tide,nitrogen,dissolved oxygen, light extinction,and point sources. The Suffolk County Planning Department will also monitor changes in land use. For habitat and living resources,the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC)will continue its juvenile finfish trawl surveys,and will integrate information from other monitoring programs such as the NYSDEC wetlands inventory,the Endangered Species Program,and the NMFS Commercial Landings Program. The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring Program(Cornell Cooperative Extension and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service)is also a key component of the Plan. Coliform bacteria monitoring(NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program)and toxic chemical monitoring(EPA)are also included in the Environmental Monitoring Plan. The PEP will continue to sponsor and coordinate Brown Tide research,and will seek funding for the Habitat and Living Resources Research and Monitoring Plan. CHAPTER ONE 1-21 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP j CCMP ORGANIZATION • The primary purpose of this CCMP is to identify actions that need to be taken by government agencies,businesses,private organizations,and citizens to attain the goals and objectives established by the Management Conference. Toward this end,the CCMP contains seven individual but interrelated Management Plans that address the priority problems of the estuary,as well as There are many existing regulatory programs at the the need for public education and outreach. Federal, State, and local level that effectively prohibit or Each Management Plan contains specific control point and nonpoint sources ofpollution. In order actions to address issues and impacts in the to prevent duplication of effort between the actions in Peconic Estuary System. In some cases,the this CCMP and existing programs, a Base Program actions fall within the scope of existing Analysis has been completed as part of the CCMP programs,while in other cases they represent development process. The Base Program Analysis new programs or initiatives. To aid in describes existing mechanisms for addressing priority implementation, lead and participating problems and recommends options for improving or agencies and organizations who are committed enhancing the management of those problems. In to implementing actions,or to whom keeping with the findings of the Base Programs Analysis, some of the actions found in the CCMP call for new recommendations are being made, are actions and programs, whereas others expand on identified. Time frames,schedules,and where existing programs or call for review or coordination possible,the costs and sources of funding for with existing management activities. canying out these actions also have been identified. The costs for some actions will be home by agencies and organizations in the normal course of carrying out their business and therefore no"new"funding is needed. In such cases,however,existing environmental program funding levels must be maintained and funding authorizations and appropriations continued. Other actions and certain components of general Plan implementation will require the identification of new funding sources or the allocation of funds already set aside for the broad purpose of implementing the Plan (such as the New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act). The PEP will seek funding for the implementation of specific recommendations. Funding opportunities to be explored include publiclprivate partnerships as well as opportunities to apply enforcement settlement and other funds to carry out recommended actions. These funding options are discussed further in Chapter 9. Management Actions Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities,as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources,because they are being undertaken through"base programs"or with funding that has been committed. In other cases,in order to complete the priority actions,new or additional resources,or endorsements need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. The Peconic Estuary Program and Management Conference were formed specifically to prepare the CCMP. However,much work remains to be done to ensure coordinated implementation of the Plan. This effort will be led by the Peconic Estuary Program,as discussed in Chapter 10. Remaining research needs, long-term monitoring efforts,and a mechanism for measuring the progress of CCMP implementation are also included in Chapter 10. • 1-22 CHAPTER ONE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Action Costs Information in the cost column of the management action tables in the back of each chapter represents the Peconic Estuary Program's best estimate of the costs associated with each action implementation. "Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where practicable,the Peconic Estuary Program has made estimates of the costs of base programs,either in terms of dollars or work years. Where this Plan recommends or commits to new,expanded,or enhanced efforts beyond those tasks that may be described as base programs,the Peconic Estuary Program has attempted to quantify the necessary resources to carry out the new,expanded,or enhanced work. Resources were expressed as a dollar amount,typically for projects suitable for contracting out,or as "work years"or"full time equivalent"employees(or"FTEs")for work that is most likely to be carried out by governmental staff. Some activities require both contracting dollars and FTEs. Resource needs expressed as FTEs are usually estimated to the nearest one-tenth of a work year(i.e., approximately one month or 20 work days). For some of the smaller tasks that are likely to be undertaken with other separate but related tasks,the FTE estimates may be combined,and this is indicated in the table. For estimating the overall cost of implementing this Plan,the Program will use an estimate of$75,000 per FTE per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits,and indirect costs. The actual cost of a full time worker may be more or less than this amount and will likely vary by agency,complexity of task,and point in time at which work is initiated. Carrying out some tasks requires an annual and ongoing investment of resources. Other tasks have • been expressed as one-time investments. This distinction is made for each action in the Plan,and is also reflected in the total cost of implementing the Plan. For programmatic resource allocation analysis,a significant effort has been made to quantify time commitments for actions involving PEP sponsoring agencies(EPA,NYSDEC,or SCDHS). For such actions,a commitment has been indicated and resource needs have been estimated. Carrying out these actions forms the core workplan for the PEP coordinators from the sponsoring agencies and the Program Office staff. In many cases,the Peconic Estuary Program was unable to quantify resources(either in dollar amount or in work years)associated with these base programs. This is because elements related to recommendations and actions are frequently inextricably linked to regional management initiatives targeted at areas larger than the PEP watershed,making segregation of PEP resources exceedingly difficult or impossible(e.g.,coastal zone management programs for all of Long Island;endangered species management,etc.). Also,recommendations and actions are often intertwined in larger and/or related programs,making their individual cost isolation impractical(e.g.,staff working on wetland mapping and trends analysis also work on numerous other natural resource efforts, such as permitting and enforcement,as well). Finally,parties responsible for implementing actions use diverse and often incompatible methods of accounting and cost/time analysis,making efforts to discretize costs difficult and ultimately, inherently inaccurate,and thus,unhelpful. Not all resource needs have been estimated at this point in time,and the costs of some activities will be subject to further refinement in the future. Many costs have not been estimated for the private sector,because the planning processes have not developed actions specific enough to do so(e.g., septic tank management recommendations,since recommended pump-out intervals have not yet been specified and upgrade incentive programs have not been fully agreed upon). The PEP will attempt to estimate these costs in the future as needed and will attempt to identify funding for compliance • assistance where possible. CHAPTER ONE 1-23 Flo Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Status • An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are"recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities;"N"indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. `Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE"is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTER ONE 1-24 Peconic Estuary Program CHAPTER TWO BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES 1) Determine the chemical,physical and biological factors responsible for producing, sustaining and ending blooms of the Brown Tide organism,Aureococcus anophage erens. 2) Determine what management actions can be undertaken to prevent or, if that is not possible,to mitigate the effects of recurrent Brown Tide blooms on the ecosystem and economy of the Peconics. • CHAPTER TWO 2-1 Pecomc Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS • The PEP'S measurable goals with respect to Brown Tide blooms include: • Continue to better coordinate,focus, and expand Brown Tide research efforts(measured by funding appropriated,frequency of Brown Tide symposiums, frequency of updating the Brown Tide Workplan and coordinations within the Brown Tide Steering Committee). [See Action B-1] • Continue the current level of water quality sampling in the Peconic Estuary(measured by the number and frequency of samples taken per year and the number of bays and peripheral embayments sampled). Currently,the Suffolk Department of Health Services conducts biweekly monitoring at 32 stations in the Peconic Estuary throughout the year,resulting in over 830 samples taken annually. [See Action B-1] Measurable goals related to natural resources are found in the Habitat and Living Resources Chapter (Chapter 4). • CHAPTER TWO 2-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP k§a INTRODUCTION Brown Tide is a marine microalgal bloom. Microalgae,or phytoplankton,are microscopic, single- cell plants that are found in all natural freshwater and marine ecosystems. The Brown Tide has appeared in Long Island's Peconic and South Shore Estuaries(see Figure 2-1)as well as in Narragansett Bay,Rhode Island,Bamegat Bay,New Jersey,the Delaware Inland Bays,the Maryland Coastal Bays,and in South Africa. When present in large numbers,the Brown Tide organism literally turns the usually clear blue-green waters of the Peconic Bays a deep brown. At concentrations above 200,000 to 250,000 algal cells per milliliter(ml),water transparency drops to two feet or less. The brown waters are unappealing to swimmers and fishermen, impacting residents,tourists,and the sportfishing industry. An even greater impact of the Brown Tide organism is its impact on natural resources. Although the Brown Tide is not known to be harmful to humans,either through direct contact,ingestion of Brown Tide-filled waters,or through the ingestion of finfish or shellfish harvested from affected waters,the Brown Tide organism has had deadly effects on at least one marine organism,the bay scallop. The abundant Peconic bay scallop population was virtually eradicated by the onset of the Brown Tide. The reasons for the severe impact of the Brown Tide on the bay scallop are not well understood. The devastating effects on the scallops may be related to toxic,mechanical(i.e.,the small size of the Brown Tide organism may interfere with proper ingestion)and/or nutritional (i.e., the Brown Tide organism may not provide required nutrients)parameters,and effects may vary with • the growth stage(larval,juvenile,adult)of the scallop. Other impacts of the Brown Tide potentially include declines in eelgrass coverage and hard clam populations. Eelgrass beds provide important shellfish and finfish spawning and nursery areas. Impacts to eelgrass may be due in part to reduced light penetration caused by the Brown Tide In 1982, the 500,000 pound Peconic Estuary scallop bloom density. Sharp declines in finfish harvest accounted for 28 percent of all U.S. landings landings between 1985 and 1988 also may have and had a dockside value of $1.8 million. After been due, in part,to the Brown Tide. Finally, appearing in the Peconic Estuary in June of 1985, and harmful algal blooms such as Brown Tide are persisting in high, though decreasing, concentrations also believed to be a causal factor for for extended periods in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, anoxia/hypoxia(no or little dissolved oxygen), the Brown Tide bloom virtually eliminated the bay and may affect the hatching and survivorship of scallop population. By 1987 and 1988, the Brown Tide harvest had dropped to only about 300 pounds per fish larvae. year(see Figure 2-2). As a result of re-seeding efforts and the disappearance of the Brown Tide, bay scallop The overall economic impacts of the Brown Tide landings once again reached pre-Brown Tide levels in have been severe,for the scallop industry as well 1994. Based on NYSDEC data, 266,448 pounds of as other bay-related businesses dependent on scallops worth $1,732,357 were harvested in 1994; tourism,recreation,fishing,and shellfishing. however, a Brown Tide bloom in 1995 caused severe Scientists are still working to try and understand scallop mortality. The 1995 scallop harvest dropped to what causes the Brown Tide blooms,how future 23,000 pounds, valued at $180,000. The 1996 scallop blooms can be prevented,and how the impacts of landings came in at only 53 pounds,valued at$400. the Brown Tide blooms can be mitigated. • CHAPTER TWO 2-3 N 1+. 10 A O n G �7 e~e [T N \\ NEN i COS" NEW O � \\ YORK \ SAROINERS FI5NE n LONG ISLAND SOUND SAY ISLANQ b p GREAT PECONI SAY A PECElvI O RIV SUFFOLK LITTLE p L QUEENS J NASSAU I COUNTY ANQERS BA PECONIC I COUNTY BAY p KIN IN C S{ MORICNEBq COOK BAY a GREAT SOUTH BAY ArLANrrC OCEAN FL ® Areas Most Affected By Brown Tide x ro ® Peconic Eatuary System .� Groundwater Contributing Area pu z AREAS OF BROWN TIDE OCCURRENCE ON LONG ISLAND NO SCALE SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PBH - 10/97 0 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,IN i • 600,000 500,000 400,000 a 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Figure 2-2. Bay Scallop Landings. The Brown Tide Organism The Brown Tide was first detected in the Peconic Estuary in June of 1985. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography,using electron microscopy, determined that the Brown Tide is caused by a particularly small and previously unknown phytoplankton species,Aureococcus anophage,(jerens(see Figure 2-3). The Brown Tide organism is only problematic when under"bloom"conditions. Phytoplankton communities in temperate coastal waters display a seasonal cycle of abundance and species composition. An algal bloom occurs when accelerated growth of one or a few species is superimposed on this overall community cycle due to a particular concurrence of environmental conditions that strongly favors the growth of a particular species. Most blooms are of relatively limited spatial and temporal extent(McElroy, 1996),but the Brown Tide can persist for unusually long periods of time over large areas(Sieburth el al., 1988). The Brown Tide appears and recedes in the bays of the Peconic Estuary and around Long Island,with no predictable onset,duration,or cessation. • CHAPTER TWO 2-5 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • ,e r. i I h 01 5 Aan Transmission electron micmgaph of the Brown Tide organism.(x47,000) AUREOCOCCUS ANOPHAGEFFERENS • ("golden sphere) ("causing cessation ojjeedmg Figure 2-3. Brown Tide Organism. BROWN TIDE BLOOMS IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM After its initial discovery in the Peconic Estuary in June of 1985,the Brown Tide bloom persisted in high,though decreasing,concentrations for extended periods in 1985, 1986, 1987,and 1988. Peak Brown Tide cell counts in the Peconics often exceeded one million cells per milliliter of water,as compared with a normal,mixed phytoplankton assemblage concentration which would typically range from 100 to 100,000 cells per milliliter. Brown Tide blooms were not evident during 1989. In July of 1990,however,elevated Brown Tide cell counts were observed in West Neck Bay,an enclosed embayment off Shelter Island. Another intense bloom of Brown Tide began in the Peconic Estuary System in May 1991 and persisted in high concentrations through July 1991. In the summer of 1992,Brown Tide reappeared in high concentrations in West Neck Bay and Coecles Harbor,subsiding in the fall of 1992. The Brown Tide did not appear again in the Peconic Estuary until May of 1995,when an intense bloom lasted through June and July,declined in August,became more intense,and then again subsided in September. In 1996,the Peconic Estuary was free of Brown Tide blooms, although a bloom occurred in the South Shore Estuary. Only one localized and short-term Brown Tide bloom occurred in the Peconic Estuary in 1997,in West Neck Bay,but a more widespread bloom occurred in Great South Bay in the South Shore Estuary Reserve System that year. In 1998,there was a summer bloom in West Neck Bay and Great South Bay,with no major Peconic Estuary blooms. In 1999,a major late f dtlearly winter • 2-6 CHAPTER TWO Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i • bloom took place in Great South Bay,and an early summer bloom occurred in Quantuck Bay,with no major blooms anywhere in the Peconics. The Great South Bay bloom continued into the summer of 2000,while the Peconics remained free of Brown Tide in 2000. The dynamics of the Brown Tide bloom(i.e.,concentration and timing of onset,persistence,and subsidence)in the main Peconic Estuary System have often radically differed from those in West Neck Bay and the South Shore Estuary Reserve System. In general,bloom conditions have been consistently most severe in Flanders and West Neck Bays. Peak Flanders Bay Brown Tide cell counts are shown in Figure 2-4. The Brown Tide organism has been observed in small numbers(non-bloom conditions)from Massachusetts to New Jersey. Outside of Long Island,Brown Tide blooms have been observed in Narragansett Bay,Rhode Island,Bamegat Bay,New Jersey,the Delaware Inland Bays,the Maryland Coastal Bays,and in South Africa. 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 W _y 1,000,000 U 500,000 0 - 101 - 1 h . 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year Figure 24. Flanders Bay Peak Brown Tide Cell Counts. • CHAPTER TWO 2-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Contributing Factors • Although advances have been made regarding the identification and characterization of the Brown Tide organism and its growth needs,the causes of Brown Tide are not known. The input of conventional inorganic macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus apparently do not trigger the onset of the Brown Tide blooms,although organic nitrogen may play a role(discussed below). This conclusion is based on laboratory research,comparative monitoring data(historical trends within Peconic Estuary,as well as a comparison of Peconic Estuary to other estuaries),and statistical analysis. More recent analysis of the long-term data set collected by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)suggests that groundwater inputs(related to rainfall patterns)affect the relative amounts of dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen in the waters of the Peconic Estuary,and that this may be an important factor in the onset of Brown Tide blooms. Various constituents and situations believed to play a role in Brown Tide blooms are discussed below. Chemicals and Trace Metals Chemicals implicated by prior research as potential contributors to the Brown Tide's pervasiveness include chelators(molecules or ions that are able to form bonds with metals)such as citric acid and trace metals such as iron, selenium,vanadate,arsenate and boron. A correlation has been noted between the Brown Tide bloom and elevated concentrations of dimethyl sulfide(DMS)in the Peconic Estuary. Because acrylic acid is part of the compound,which forms DMS,it is postulated that acrylic acid also is directly related to the Brown Tide. These,or perhaps some other as yet unidentified chemicals,may be toxic to potential grazers that might otherwise control phytoplankton blooms. Meteorological and Climatological Factors Water circulation in certain areas of the estuary is strongly influenced by winds. It has been postulated that reduced flushing in the Peconics due to a reduction or change in wind patterns results in a retention of land-derived nutrients that may stimulate Brown Tide blooms. Dissolved Inorganic and Organic Nitrogen In terms of using actual field data,perhaps the most plausible hypothesis set forth to date has been produced by Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL),using SCDHS data. BNL hypothesizes that Brown Tide bloom onset conditions may be optimized by elevated ratios of available dissolved organic nitrogen(high"DON")in surface waters,with respect to the supply of dissolved inorganic nitrogen(low"DIN"). These nitrogen constituents may, in turn,be related to groundwater inputs and weather patterns. Thus,the hypothesis is that Brown Tide bloom onset conditions could be optimized in a dry year(low DIN supply from groundwater),particularly when the dry year is preceded by a wet year(which results in conversion of prior groundwater DIN inputs to current DON supply). A long- term management implication of the BNL hypothesis, should it be validated, is to reduce nitrogen loadings(septic systems,fertilizers,etc.; see Chapter 3)to dampen the effect of groundwater nitrogen inputs. In an independent analysis,the U.S.Geological Survey(USGS)lent further credibility to the hypothesis in a study of relative water table altitudes. The USGS found that,between 1985 and 1995, Brown Tide blooms coincided with below-average water table altitudes in the Peconic Estuary study area. During four years with nearly average or above-average water table altitudes,there were no widespread Brown Tide blooms. • 2-8 CHAPTER TWO Peconic Estuary Program CCMP . • Other Factors Monitoring data collected by Suffolk County since 1985 suggest physio-chemical limits for Brown Tide bloom events. It appears that salinities in excess of 26 parts per thousand(ppt)and temperatures between 20-25 degrees Centigrade are factors associated with the occurrence of major bloom events. These limits are consistent with the findings for optimal growth of A. anophagefferens in laboratory Ongoing Brown Tide research is being funded cultures,but are not believed to be sufficient causal with an initial $1.5 million commitment from mechanisms in and of themselves. Finally,a virus, NOAA (over three years), $100,000 in BNL which has been shown to be associated with the services, and $100,000 in Suffolk County funds Brown Tide organism, is suspected to be important in to be used in conjunction with the BNL funds. ending blooms. Suffolk County appropriated an additional $450,000 (over three years) in Brown Tide research capital funds, and is considering The CCMP discussion about Brown Tide represents a additional appropriations. Historic Brown Tide sketch of various historical theories and investigations. research has been funded primarily by Suffolk The state of knowledge about Brown Tide is County and the New York Sea Grant Institute. advancing at a rapid rate,and would be impossible to An additional$1.5M over three years for Brown fully capture in a document such as this CCMP. Tide research recently has been committed by Therefore,persons interested in obtaining updates NOAA. Appendix E contains a summary of about Brown Tide research are encouraged to contact fundedprojects. New York Sea Grant to obtain bulletins summarizing the most current results of Brown Tide Research Initiative investigations(discussed below). Also,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services may be contacted to obtain copies of the latest • summaries and status reports of Suffolk County-funded Brown Tide research. Public Comments Questions have been raised about the possible relationship between radionuclides,toxics,and Brown Tide. The issue of radionuclide and toxic contamination,and Brookhaven National Laboratory,is dealt with in detail in Chapter 6. With respect to Brown Tide,to the knowledge of the PEP,the scientific community has,to date,not produced a credible theory that links Brookhaven National Lab's radionuclide contamination and Brown Tide. This is based on several factors,including the appearance of the Brown Tide in several locations(not just the Peconic Estuary)dating back to 1985. Also,there has been a recent global increase in harmful algal blooms. Moreover,there does not appear to be a hypothesis,which offers a mechanism by which relatively low-level radioactive contamination can result in onset or persistence of Brown Tide. More important than the specific issue,however,is the PEP approach to dealing with the matter. With the assistance of the New York Sea Grant,the PEP has submitted queries to Brown Tide Research Initiative researchers about whether the onset and/or persistence of the Brown Tide may be related to,or caused by,radioactive and/or toxic chemical contamination associated with BNL. The researchers,who are closest to the latest findings about Brown Tide,were asked to offer commentary on the viability of this hypothesis,citing the nature of the basis of their response(personal knowledge of relevant studies,personal expert opinion based on well-established scientific principles, discussions with third parties,etc.). Also,they were asked to provide guidance on elements of a recommended research and/or monitoring program to test it. They were also asked similar questions about other issues posed by the public,including a theory that a relatively low supply of dissolved inorganic nitrogen may be causing the Brown Tide;the corollary to that hypothesis is that human DIN enrichment of surface waters(e.g.,direct applications of nitrogen)could prevent or minimize Brown Tides. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. • CHAPTER TWO 2-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCA-LP Q1,I Other external experts were also identified to respond to the questions about radionuclides. Via this • active process of soliciting input from experts,coupled with periodic updates to the Brown Tide Workplan by the Brown Tide Steering Committee(discussed below),the PEP is able to actively respond to public concerns on a continuing basis. RESEARCH EFFORTS Since the first appearance of the Brown Tide in 1985,significant effort has gone into researching the causal mechanisms behind the appearance and persistence of the Brown Tide. Numerous agencies and organizations from New York,as well as Rhode Island and New Jersey,have become involved in Brown Tide research. To refine the research agenda,the PEP, in cooperation with the New York Sea Grant Institute and the State University of New York at Stony Brook's Marine Sciences Research Center,hosted a Brown Tide Summit in October 1995,with local,national,and international experts meeting to develop a comprehensive research agenda. The Summit resulted in both recommendations for the direction of future research and commitments for funding. BNL and Suffolk County announced the formation of the Brown Tide Monitoring Network,funded with$100,000 in Suffolk County funds with a matching amount from BNL. NOAA announced that$1.5 million,over three years,would be used for funding the Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI). Finally,a Brown Tide Steering Committee was proposed by various Federal, State,and local representatives to more broadly coordinate and guide Brown Tide research and monitoring efforts. The proceedings of the Summit were published in January 1996 as a New York Sea Grant publication(No.NYSGI-W-95-001). An additional $1.5 million over three years has been committed by NOAA to pursue the most promising avenues of Brown Tide research and management. Brown Tide MonUoring Network The Brown Tide Monitoring Network is a research effort funded jointly by BNL and Suffolk County. The primary objectives of this research effort are to: • Determine the basic photosynthetic physiology ofAureococcus in the field; • Deploy three real-time monitoring buoys in the Peconic Bays system to measure the abundance of chlorophyll,temperature,salinity,dissolved oxygen and tidal information, and use this information to develop and test models for bloom dynamics; and • Develop and maintain a Brown Tide"home page"on the World Wide Web containing real-time data from the buoys. • 2-10 CHAPTER TWO Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ts. BNL is also funding an in-house research effort that will investigate the photosynthetic and nutrient uptake physiology of Brown Tide,including conducting nutrient addition experiments with natural seawater samples from Peconic Bay that contain Brown Tide. The final part of the study,a retrospective analysis of the oceanographic,meteorological,and biological conditions that are associated with Brown Tide blooms in the Peconic Estuary,has already resulted in the formulation of the hypothesis previously noted on the roles of dissolved inorganic and organic Historic Research Efforts and Findings nitrogen and groundwater levels and rainfall patterns in the onset of blooms. Between projects and totaling Suffolk County funded Brown Tide Work by BNL researchers(now at the research projects Institut approximately$400,000. The New York Sea Grant Institute funded $700,000 to Brown Tide University of Kiel)has also produced the research projects from 1991-1996 and$57,000 in projects for first axenic(bacteria-free)culture of 1996-1997. Brown Tide,a major breakthrough. The following achievements are a result of[he SCOHS and Sea Grant research projects. Other Suffolk County Capital ProErarns • An immunofluorescent Brown Tide identification procedure which allows accurate, reliable, and Between 1997 and 1999, Suffolk County expeditious analysis of Brown Tide cell concentrations; appropriated$450,000 to support Brown The production of a laboratory culture of the Brown Tide monitoring and investigation efforts Tide organism which could be used for investigating (above and beyond historic appropriations the organism's chemical and physical requirements; of$400,000). The general criteria used to . Laboratory results bolstering the indication from select Suffolk County-funded projects monitoring data that conventional inorganic macro- included: nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, do not appear to trigger Brown Tide blooms; • Consistencywith the Brown Tide • The laboratory indication that micronutrients, such as Workplan; iron and selenium, may be important in bloom • Linkages with potential physical formation; management applications • Mathematical modeling indicating that Brown Tide (e.g.,nutrient reductions, blooms do not seem to be directly related to the structural changes to the concentrations of conventional nutrients; Shinnecock Canal locks,etc.); • Studies which indicate that Brown Tide may be stimulated by a relatively high ratio of available • Focus on collection and dissolved organic nitrogen, with respect to supply of application of actual field data dissolved inorganic nitrogen, (typically with the assistance of • Field verification of the decimation of eelgrass the SCDHS marine monitoring populations,possibly due, in pan, to the light shading crew); effects of Brown Tide;and • Development of data and products • Microzooplankton grazing experiments that strongly useful to the broader research and suggest that microzooplankton consume alternative management community; and phytoplankton and avoid Brown Tide cells. • Cost-effectiveness of proposals. Five projects have been funded with this$450,000,including the Brown Tide Monitoring Network (discussed above). The Suffolk County Capital Program moneys also support an investigation of the various constituents of dissolved organic nitrogen in Long Island waters(BNL/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute;LaRoche,Repeta,et al.),with the goal of eventual linkages to Brown Tide and other phytoplankton dynamics. Also prominent is a forthcoming study of the influence of various • groundwater constituents on Brown Tide(Taylor et al., SUNY MSRC). In addition, Suffolk County CHAPTER TWO 2-11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP field staff are assisting in the collection of samples for a Differential Phytoplankton Analysis project • (Lonsdale et al., SUNY MSRC). Finally,Tetra-Tech,Inc.will be calibrating and verifying a Shinnecock Bay model(coupled with the Peconic Estuary model),to test the hypothesis that reversal of the locks at the Shinnecock Canal will greatly improve Peconic Estuary flushing,potentially mitigating or preventing Brown Tide blooms. An additional$133,000 was appropriated for Brown Tide research by Suffolk County in 2000,and$150,000 per year has been authorized by Suffolk County for 2001 and following years. Brown Tide Research Initiative NOAA,through its Coastal Oceans Program(COP), is providing Brown Tide research funding totaling$3.0 million over six years. A Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI)committee,chaired by New York Sea Grant,was formed by the COP in consultation with the PEP to manage the research funding process. The BTRI committee includes representatives from the PEP,COP, South Shore Estuary Reserve, Suffolk County,citizens groups,and local government. The primary objectives of the BTRI are to: I Develop additional isolates and axenic cultures of the Brown Tide organism and methods for culture maintenance; I Identify the physical,chemical,and biological factors that initiate and sustain Brown Tide blooms; and I Identify factors leading to the cessation of Brown Tide blooms. A full list of the Brown Tide research projects being funded by NOAA can be found in Appendix E. Brown Tide Steering Committee and Workplan The Brown Tide Steering Committee(BTSC)was formed to broadly coordinate Brown Tide research efforts both inside and outside of New York through the development of a comprehensive Brown Tide research and management plan or Brown Tide Workplan. The BTSC includes representatives from various agencies and environmental groups as well as elected officials,commercial fishermen, and other interested parties. The BTSC is coordinated by Suffolk County. The Brown Tide Workplan will be implemented by the BTSC through the PEP,NOAA,and Sea Grant and in coordination with the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program,the Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program,the South Shore Estuary Reserve Program,the Delaware Inland and Maryland Coastal Bays Programs(to be included on committee)and other participants. The Brown Tide Workplan recommends Brown Tide research priorities for the next three years. Research priorities are based on a review of past and current research efforts as well as recommendations for research from the Brown Tide Summit. The Brown Tide Interim Workplan (BTSC, 1998)estimates that,over the next three years,$2.1 to$2.8 million will be necessary to conduct the high priority research efforts identified by the BTSC. The Interim Workplan has been approved by the BTSC and the PEP Management Committee and will be refined and updated periodically. A copy of the Interim Workplan can be found in Appendix F. • CHAPTER TWO 2-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMPs MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The Peconic Estuary Program recognizes the need to continue to better coordinate,focus,and expand Brown Tide research efforts. To this end,the PEP has worked to coordinate Brown Tide research and has prepared a comprehensive,regional Brown Tide research workplan. Further,the PEP recommended a commitment of significant additional funding to extend promising avenues of research and management. This funding is in addition to the funds allocated for the preparation/implementation of the PEP CCMP. Thus,comprehensive,regional Brown Tide research can take place on a separate,parallel course with the current Management Conference direction, which deals with conventional water quality and natural resource issues. The Brown Tide management action contained in this chapter reinforces the need for continued research and monitoring as well as the need for continued coordination of research efforts and information sharing. The Brown Tide management action,shown in the accompanying text box, is detailed below. The Brown Tide Management Action Summary Table(Table 2-1)includes information on the costs,status,and timeframe associated with the action. The table is located at the end of this chapter. Within the CCMP,some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities,as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources,because they are being undertaken through "base • programs"or with funding that has been committed. In other cases,in order to complete the priority actions,new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. In addition to Brown Tide research initiatives,the PEP has been involved in restoring those natural resources believed to be most impacted by Brown Tide: bay scallops and eelgrass. Many of these efforts have been funded by the PEP,the State, Suffolk County,and local towns. These initiatives and the associated management actions are found in the Habitat and Living Resources section of this CCMP(see Chapter 4). BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT ACTION B-1. Ensure Continued Brown Tide Monitoring,Research,Coordination, and Information Sharing. • CHAPTER TWO 2-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP aa B-1. Ensure Continued Brown Tide Monitoring,Research, Coordination, and • Information Sharing. Addresses Brown Tide Management Objectives 1 and 2. Since 1985,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)Office of Ecology has maintained a monitoring program,which has included the analysis of thousands of water samples for Brown Tide levels and for the chemical and physical characterization of the estuary. This program has been important for a number of reasons, including the determination of the timing and spatial extent of Brown Tide blooms;the determination of physical and chemical parameters associated with the blooms;and the generation of data supporting numerous research and management efforts. The joint SCDHS/BNL project(the Brown Tide Monitoring Network)also contains a much-needed Brown Tide monitoring component. Continued research on Brown Tide depends on continued funding. Historically,most of the Brown Tide research was funded by NY Sea Grant and Suffolk County. In 1995,several additional avenues of Brown Tide research were opened through the NOAA funding initiative. Additional research continues to be funded by the PEP, Suffolk County,NOAA,and Sea Grant. Steps B-1.1 Ensure that the SCDHS water quality monitoring program continues to provide information needed for analysis and research related to Brown Tide. B-1.2 Include Brown Tide monitoring as a component of the long-term monitoring program of the PEP. B-1.3 Continue research efforts by BNL and Suffolk County under the Brown Tide Monitoring Network and BNL hind-casting and autoecological investigations,as well as other monitoring and investigation projects funded by the Suffolk County Capital Program. B-1.4 Support continued funding for NOAA-funded Brown Tide research and management Priority projects,cooperation among researchers,and dissemination of information on progress and results under the Brown Tide Research Initiative. B-1.5 Identify potential funding sources to implement the Brown Tide Workplan and secure Priority funding for Workplan priorities. B-1.6 Assign agency staff members to coordinate Brown Tide research. B-1.7 Coordinate Brown Tide Steering Committee activities to periodically update the Brown Priority Tide Workplan with necessary research and management projects. • 2-14 CHAPTER TWO Peconic Estuary Program CCMP , • Responsible Entities B-1.1 Suffolk County Department of Health Services(lead),PEP B-1.2 Suffolk County Department of Health Services(lead),PEP B-1.3 BNL and Suffolk County(co-leads) B-1.4 NY Sea Grant(lead),NOAH,BTRI Steering Committee,PEP B-1.5 Suffolk County(lead),Brown Tide Steering Committee,and various agencies funding Brown Tide research B-1.6 PEP(lead) B-1.7 Suffolk County(coordination),PEP,EPA,NOAH, Sea Grant, SUNY Marine Sciences Research Center, local government,New York State,and other estuary programs (Buzzards,Narragansett, Barnegat Bays,and South Shore Estuary Reserve Program) BENEFITS OF THE BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS • Successful management actions,which prevent Brown Tide blooms,lessen their severity,cause blooms to subside,or otherwise mitigate impacts,are vital to the restoration and protection of the once economically important Peconic bay scallop industry. Other important shellfish that will benefit from successful Brown Tide management include blue mussels,hard clams,and oysters. The reduction or control of Brown Tide will be helpful in protecting eelgrass,which serves as an important habitat for fmfish as well as shellfish. There is also evidence that the Peconic Estuary is important as a nursery and spawning ground for a variety of marine organisms,including weakfish and other commercially valuable finfish. Although the dockside value of commercial fishery landings is significant,it is much smaller than actual revenues generated by other water-related activities, including marinas,restaurants,and other businesses and institutions which cater to sports fishermen,boaters,bathers,and tourists who utilize the Peconic system. An economic assessment conducted by the PEP has shown that there are over one thousand business establishments that are estuarine-dependent(21 percent of the total businesses in the Peconic Estuary study area). Gross revenues for these establishments total$442 million/year,and they employ over 7,000 individuals. COSTS OF THE BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS At this time,the long-term costs of identifying the causes of the onset and persistence of Brown Tide blooms,and of developing measures to control and minimize those blooms,are unknown. As of 1997,Brown Tide-specific and related research totaled approximately$1.2 million(excluding NOAA funds). As mentioned previously,NOAA has committed$3 million over six years to conduct Brown Tide research,beginning in 1996, and BNL and Suffolk County have committed a combined total of $200,000 in equipment and services for Brown Tide research. The County will continue to monitor the waters of the Peconic Estuary for Brown Tide and other constituents of concern. Between 1997 and 2000,Suffolk County appropriated$583,000 of Capital • Program funds for Brown Tide research. Suffolk County has also authorized$150,000 each year for CHAPTER TWO 2-15 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP the next three years(2001-2003)from the Capital Budget. Suffolk County also has requested that$1 • million in NY Clear Water/Clean Air Bond Act funds be dedicated to Brown Tide investigations. The Brown Tide Steering Committee has identified short-term Brown Tide research and management needs in the form of a workplan. These needs are currently estimated to be$2.1 to 2.8 million over the next two to three years. Additional funding may be needed to extend promising new avenues of research,and may be requested in the future,based on the recommendations of the Committee. The total cost of all actions proposed for Brown Tide management is $3.25 million in new one-time costs. (See"Action Costs"in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) BROWN TIDE ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 2-1 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" • require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities;"N"indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE"is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTER TWO 2-16 x bTable 2 1. Brown Tide Management Actions. Action Responslltle Entity Timeframe Cost Status did- p B-1.1 Ensure that the SCDHS water SCDHS(lead),PEP Ongoing Minimum grant commitment of C/O quality monitoring program $120,000/yr to satisfy EPA local continues to provide information match requirements. As with prior needed for analysis and research years,costs likely to be substantially related to Brown Tide. higher than EPA grants. (See Environmental Monitoring Plan B-1.2 Include Brown Tide monitoring as SCDHS(lead),PEP Ongoing Included in Action B-1.1 C/O a component of the long-term monitoring program of the PEP. B-1.3 Continue research efforts by BNL BNL,Suffolk County Ongoing (Between 1997 and 2000,$583,000 C/O and Suffolk County under the (co-leads) Suffolk County Capital Program Brown Tide Monitoring Network funds. Suffolk County has and BNL hind-casting and auto- authorized$150,000 each year for ecological investigations;as well the next three years(2001-2003) b as other monitoring and from the Capital Budget.) investigation projects funded by the Suffolk County Capital Pro am. B-1.4 Support continued funding for NY Sea Grant(lead), 1996-2001 $3,000,000 C/O NOAA-funded Brown Tide NOAA,BTRI Steering ti Priority research and management projects, Committee,PEP cooperation among researchers, a and dissemination of information on progress and results under the n Brown Tide Research Initiative. Table continued on next page N J \) N Table 2-1 Brown Tide Management Actions. continued $ Action • , - ;Respousi6le$q �ty Timeframe Cost` Status B-1.5 Identify potential funding sources Suffolk County(lead), Ongoing Identify funding: C/O b Priority to implement the Brown Tide Brown Tide Steering n Workplan and secure funding for Committee,and various Secure funding: R 3 Workplan priorities. agencies funding Brown Tide research The necessary workplan research is y' estimated to require an additional $2.1-2.8 million over 2 to 3 years. ,a Funds obligated:None. Potential o sources:NYS Environmental Protection Fund or Clean 3 Water/Clean Air Bond($1 million n requested); Suffolk County Capital b funds $450,OOOrequested) B-1.6 Assign agency staff members to PEP(lead) Ongoing EPA—0.1 FTE/yr C/O coordinate Brown Tide research. NYSDEC—0.05 FTE/yr SCDHS—0.1 FTE/yr B-1.7 Coordinate Brown Tide Steering Suffolk County Ongoing;Interim SCDHS—0.2 FTE/yr C/O Priority Committee activities to (coordination),PEP,EPA, Workplan last periodically update the Brown Tide NOAA,Sea Grant,SUNY updated in Feb. Workplan with necessary research Marine Sciences Research 1998;workplan and management projects. Center,local government, to be updated New York State,and other annually as estuary programs(Buzzards, necessary Narragansett,Bamegat, Delaware Inland,and Maryland Coastal Bays,and n South Shore Estuary x Reserve Program) a ro m � I H 0 Peconic Estuary Program 0 CHAPTER THREE NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT PLAN To facilitate viewing the many figures that accompany this chapter,all figures have been placed at the end of this chapter. OBJECTIVES 1) No net increase in western estuary. Immediately prevent net increases in nitrogen • loading to the surface waters of the western estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay)to prevent worsening of current dissolved oxygen(DO)stresses in the marine surface waters of the area. 2) Lone-term reductions in western estuary. Develop and implement a long-term nitrogen load reduction strategy to the western estuary,to optimize surface water conditions for dissolved oxygen,with ancillary consideration of potential benefits to submerged aquatic vegetation(especially eelgrass)habitat. 3) Eelerass habitat optimization in shallow water. Maintain and,where cost-effective, improve conditions with respect to nitrogen(and related chlorophyll-a,light extinction, and possibly other parameters)in shallow waters(less than three meters)to optimize eelgrass habitat. 4) Water qualittypreservation in eastern waters. Implement a"water quality preservation" policy in eastern estuary waters(east of Flanders Bay)to prevent degradation which could adversely impact the high quality of those surface waters. 5) Subwatershed management. Focus on characterization of peripheral creeks and embayments and management of their subwatersheds;optimize surface water quality in these areas,which are often highly productive but poorly flushed and subject to environmental stresses. 6) Load allocation in the entire watershed. Develop and implement a load allocation strategy for point and nonpoint sources in the entire estuary,which accomplishes the above objectives. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS • The PEP's measurable goals with respect to nutrients include: • Decrease the total nitrogen concentrations in the western estuary to a summer mean of no more than 0.45 mg/1(based on 1994-96 model verification conditions,and measured by surface water nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines). [See Actions N-4,N-5,N-10] • Improve the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the western estuary to ensure that the New York State dissolved oxygen standard(currently 5.0 mg/I)is not violated(measured by surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). [See Actions N-1,N-10] • Ensure that the total nitrogen levels in shallow waters remain at or below 0.4 mgfl to help optimize water clarity,maintaining and potentially improving conditions for eelgrass beds,a critical habitat(based on 1994-96 model verification conditions,and measured by light extinction coefficients as compared to the recommended eelgrass habitat optimization goal of at or below 0.75 t 0.05 m"). [See Actions N-1,N-4,N-5,N-10] • Ensure that the existing total nitrogen and dissolved oxygen levels are maintained or improved in waters east of Flanders Bay (i.e.,do not increase TN nor decrease DO) (measured by surface water total nitrogen concentrations as compared to the PEP nitrogen guidelines and surface and bottom dissolved oxygen levels as compared to the New York State dissolved oxygen standard). [See Actions N-1,N-2,N-4,N-5,N-10] • • Develop a quantitative total nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary(measured by development of a strategy and timely endorsement by local and State agencies). Preliminary work group estimates,and work performed by other programs,indicate that a 10- 25 percent fertilizer reduction goal is a reasonable first order target for existing residential and agricultural fertilizing programs. [See Action N-3] • Implement a quantitative nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary(measured by attaining the PEP recommendations including the implementation of the recommended Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)program as well as other recommendations which may include fertilizer reduction programs,sanitary system upgrade programs,point source controls,etc.,as well as monitoring for the impacts on measurable groundwater quality parameters). [See Actions N-3,N-4,N-5,N-101 • Ensure that there is no substantial net increase in nitrogen loading to areas east of Flanders Bay and reductions in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay region so that an increase in new development would be offset by reductions in loads from pre-existing uses. The nitrogen work groups will develop means of attaining this goal,which may include groundwater performance standards(e.g.,nitrogen concentrations in groundwater resulting from post- development dischargelrecharge),implementing fertilizer and clearing restrictions,and zoning. [See Actions N-3,N4,N-5,N-6,N-10] • Continue sponsoring and coordinating research and information gathering(measured by funding appropriated and research conducted,relative to PEP recommendations). [See Actions N-7,N-8,N-9] • Continue and expand open space acquisition programs(measured by funding appropriated and acres acquired in target areas). [See Action N-6] • CHAPTERTHREE 3-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • INTRODUCTION Nutrients are critical for sustaining the marine ecosystem,but can be harmful to an estuary at excessive levels. "Cultural eutrophication"is the process by which estuaries can become overenriched with nutrients and associated organic carbon,due to human inputs. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients that can impact water quality. Micronutrients, salts,metals,and organic solids can also contribute to the nutrification of an estuary. Nitrogen is the primary nutrient of concern in the marine waters of the Peconic Estuary during critical summer conditions when environmental stresses are greatest. /n the Peconics, excessive levels of nutrients can harm ¢¢!grass, a critical When nutrients are introduced to the estuary at higher than habitat, due to algal light shading normal rates from runoff,groundwater inflow,atmospheric stimulation of epiphytes (plants which deposition,or point source discharges,the excess nutrients live on eelgrass), and, possibly; direct stimulate aquatic plant growth, including production of adverse metabolic impacts. One theory microscopic algae(microscopic plants that live in surface also holds that Brown Tide may 6e waters). Algae photosynthesize in the da producing oxygen, related to levels of dissolved organic g P Yn y'P g yg nitrogen (DON) in relation to the supply which is released into the water column. At night,they of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). undergo respiration,consuming dissolved oxygen(DO)in the This, however, is one of several water column. This respiration can result in short-term hypotheses, many of which do not dissolved oxygen depression,which is known as"diurnal" implicate nutrients as a causal factor. dissolved oxygen variation. In the Peconic Estuary,which is • generally a shallow,well-mixed estuary,chronic dissolved oxygen problems due to"stratification"(a deeper layer of water which can experience sustained DO depression)are usually not a problem, as they are in deeper systems such as Long Island Sound. Increased aquatic plant productivity adds organic material to the system,which eventually dies and decays. The decaying organic matter settles to the bottom and Sediment Nutrient Flux depletes oxygen levels in the water which are needed by aquatic organisms in what is known as"sediment oxygen demand" Sediment Flux (i.e., exchange of (SOD). From sediments,nutrients can be recycled back into the chemicals, such as nutrients, system("sediment nutrient flux"),further exacerbating the between the sediment and water column due to geochemical and pollution problem with nitrogen contributions. bacterial processes) is an internal (recycled) nitrogen source that Processes such as diurnal DO depression, sediment oxygen reflects current and historic demand,and sediment nutrient flux can result in dissolved anthropogenic pollution inputs. It is oxygen levels which are low enough to be harmful to marine greater than any other individual life. Factors and processes which govern oxygen levels are source of point or nonpoint complex,and include temperature, light availability,wind I pollution. mixing,localized water column stratification(such as the salt wedge which occurs in the Peconic River area),zooplankton grazing,submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)dynamics,and bio-geochemical and bacterial processes. Low DO levels adversely affect marine life,potentially resulting in mortality and in behavioral and physiological effects on individual species and communities. The increased production of microscopic algae caused by increased nutrient enrichment results not only in dissolved oxygen problems but also discolors the water,decreases water clarity and diminishes the amount of light received by rooted aquatic plants. Submerged aquatic vegetation that are at a species'depth limit for clear water conditions would be expected to decline due to the lack of • sufficient light energy in turbid waters. Eutrophication will also promote the growth of epiphytes on CHAPTERTHREE 3-3 +.� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP eelgrass blades, again shading the plant itself and hindering production. Furthermore,species such as • red or green macroalgae,which adsorb nutrients more quickly than eelgrass,may competitively exclude eelgrass plants. Eutrophication may also impact eelgrass as a result of this species' high nitrate uptake efficiency. Eelgrass lacks a mechanism to terminate nitrate uptake. It is thought that excess nitrate in eelgrass impairs carbohydrate metabolism,resulting in impaired plant health and a decline in shoot production (Cashin Associates, 1996). Because SAV beds are prime habitat for bay scallops and juvenile fish,the loss of SAV can have repercussions throughout the food chain. SAV beds also provide numerous other functions including a food source,bottom stabilization,and nutrient cycling all that are further discussed in Chapter 4. Nitrogen levels may also be linked to the Brown Tide. One hypothesis is that Brown Tide conditions may be favorable when dissolved organic nitrogen(DON)is elevated in relation to dissolved inorganic nitrogen(DIN)supply. Brown Tide bloom conditions may thus be most favorable in a dry year(LaRoche, 1997;USGS, 1998),where there is a low DIN supply as a result of low groundwater inputs. This may be particularly significant when the dry year follows a wet year,which results in elevated DON levels. Because inorganic nitrogen levels in groundwater appear to have risen substantially,the levels of DON(DIN is"converted"to DON in the marine environment)in surface waters may,too,have become elevated. Ecosystem impacts due to excessive nutrient inputs are often long-term and difficult to measure. Nitrogen may be having subtle effects on species abundance and distribution in the system. • Moreover,nitrogen is often associated with other pollutants, such as organic carbon,and can be considered as one"indicator"measurement of human degradation. Because major, short-term, nitrogen-induced impacts have not been demonstrated in the Peconic Estuary,the PEP is faced with the difficult task of establishing rational,cost-effective preservation policies to prevent impacts which have generally not yet occurred. No major eelgrass beds exist west of Shelter For most Peconic Estuary waters,the PEP goal is to Island (except Bullhead Bay), possibly due in establish rational and implementable preservation part to nitrogen enrichment (see Figure 3-1). targets prior to degradation and occurrences of use Also, sediment flux studies and other characterizations suggest eutrophication impairments. In the absence of detailed ecosystem pressures on the "central estuary" (Great and data,the PEP was faced with the major challenge of Little Peconic Bays). Finally, recent research characterizing water segments with respect to indicates that elevated levels of nitrogen in nitrogen and dissolved oxygen quality. As part of groundwater input may be one causal factor this characterization process,numerous discrete related to Brown Tide onset. studies were performed to examine issues such as land use,groundwater,and sediment nutrient flux. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ESTUARY SYSTEM Characterization Studies Numerous characterization studies have been completed and others are ongoing to determine the sources,loadings,and impacts of nutrients to the estuary system. The work of past programs,such as the L.I.208 Study(1978)and BTCAMP(1992),have been refined and expanded with a more comprehensive surface water monitoring program,detailed land use data,and improved sediment 34 CHAPTER THREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP t%°, • characterizations. A habitat linkage was added with a submerged aquatic vegetation study,and a state-of-the-art model was developed to integrate and use the data. One overall goal of this characterization process was to bring the amount of information available on the eastern estuary waters(east of Flanders Bay)and watershed(see Figure 3-2)to the level of the western estuary,which had been analyzed in great detail in prior studies. The PEP also committed to detailed studies of subwatersheds for peripheral creeks and embayments, such as Meetinghouse Creek, Sag Harbor,and West Neck Bay. The water and sediment quality technical characterization framework is illustrated, in simplified schematic form, in Figure 3-3. Within the watershed,the PEP sought to characterize not only direct loads,such as point source discharges,but also land use and land cover,which greatly affect the nature of nonpoint source loadings. Groundwater quality and quantitative input rates were also the subject of major investigations. Finally,atmospheric(airshed)and direct(e.g.,point source)loads to surface waters were evaluated. In the estuary itself,surface water monitoring and modeling were major initiatives. Sediment quality and dynamics were also the foci of major studies,including sediment toxics, sediment nutrient flux,and sediment accretion. The size of the data sets is tremendous. For example,the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)has collected over 8,000 surface water samples,analyzed for a comprehensive array of physical and chemical parameters(including Brown Tide and coliform bacteria), at 39 routine surface water monitoring stations and 10 routine point source monitoring stations. Also,the . Suffolk County Planning Department has developed precise,field-verified land use data for each tax map parcel in the 110,000-acre watershed. Thousands of SCDHS groundwater quality samples were analyzed in conjunction with the U.S.Geological Survey's groundwater budgets and subwatershed models. This characterization process is discussed in great detail in several characterization reports available from the Peconic Estuary Program Office. Key findings from characterization studies have been used to formulate the proposed nutrient actions in this CCMP. Some of these findings are shown in the accompanying text box. PEP Hydrodynamic and Eutrophicatlon Model The PEP Hydrodynamic and Eutrophication Model will serve as a tool for evaluating main bays water quality,as well as water quality for embayments such as Sag Harbor, West Neck Bay,and Meetinghouse Creek. The model is a three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model with a predictive sediment submodel. It is the only known model to be run for a continuous eight-year simulation robustly,with no intermediate forcings or corrections to the sediment processes. Model results are still under review by the Peconic Estuary Program Management Conference,and its advisory panel,the Model Evaluation Group. When the model is approved for evaluating preliminary management alternatives,several realistic best-case,worst-case,and intermediate management alternatives will be examined. Economic estimates of various management measures will be developed by a consultant,and costs of various management strategies can be weighed against benefits(e.g.,attainment of guidelines and criteria discussed below). Through this process,feasible and quantitative subregional loading targets can be developed,and costs and timeframes for implementation mechanisms can be established. The goal is to make this powerful management tool CHAPTERTHREE 3-5 a"` Peconic Estuary Program CCMP available in the near future(calendar year 2001)and to develop an implementable load allocation • strategy for the entire watershed. Specific functions of the PEP water quality model include the following abilities: • Simulate historic water quality conditions based on data collected since 1988; • Predict future water quality conditions if present trends continue; • Predict future water quality conditions in the estuary as a result of management actions; • Simulate responses of water quality and sediment processes to point and nonpoint source control actions; • Perform both short-term(seasonal)and long-tern(multi-year)simulations; • Determine the effect of localized management actions in peripheral embayments;and, • Determine the response time of the estuary to management actions. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Key Findings Related to Nutrients in the Estuary System • Overall,the Peconic Estuary main bays and monitored embayments generally have"excellent"water quality with respect to dissolved oxygen(DO),with less than three percent of the area of the estuary exceeding the recommended total nitrogen(TN)guideline for DO attainment purposes(the DO standard is 5.0 mg/l,at all times)(see Figures 34 and 3-5). Similarly,most of the estuary attains light extinction properties optimal to eelgrass,at least in non-Brown Tide years(see Figure 3-6). However, the westernmost estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay)and several small embayments violate TN guidelines and exhibit DO stresses(see Figures 3-7 and 3-8,discussed further in Table 3-2). Also, several studies suggest eutrophic stresses in the"central estuary"(Great and Little Peconic Bay); • Nitrogen loadings appear to be at an all-time high(see Figure 3-9),showing an increase of greater than 200 percent since the 1950s due to increasing residential land use and more pervasive use of highly soluble fertilizers; • In the early to mid-1900's,western estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay)nutrient inputs were dominated by point source duck farm discharges. The decline in duck farming has been more than offset by an increase in nonpoint source nitrogen loading,primarily attributable to residential fertilizer and sanitary systems,coupled with agricultural fertilizers. Water quality trends probably reflect these loading patterns:dramatic improvements in water quality in western estuary creeks and embayments once affected by duck farms,and gradual increases in eutrophication stresses for the waters east of Flanders Bay; • Fully 40 percent of the study area is still subject to development,posing a substantial potential threat to water quality in the main bays as well as in the embayments(see Figure 3-10); • • On a regional basis,over 80 percent of the existing total nitrogen load comes from developed lands and farmland(see Figure 3-11). Thus,for existing land uses,on a regional basis,management of residential and agricultural lands is an obvious priority. For medium density residential lands,sanitary waste and fertilizers contribute comparable amounts of nitrogen. At lower densities,fertilizer loadings become more prominent; • New residential development is the major concern on an estuary-wide basis,particularly in the western estuary and on the South Fork. Under a scenario in which 100 percent of farmland is preserved and developable land is developed,nitrogen loading could increase substantially in every major region of the estuary(see Figures 3-12 and 3-13). This scenario is considered"worst case"because farmland has a higher nitrogen loading rate than most other allowable uses on developable lands. Overall,a total nitrogen increase for the estuary study area would be near 40 percent(about 41 percent in eastern estuary,and 34 percent in western estuary). In the eastern estuary,the increase on the South Fork would be most profound(over 60 percent); • New industrial and commercial development is an issue prominent mainly in the western estuary, particularly in Riverhead Town. Overall,over 90 percent of the developable industrial acreage in the study area,and almost one-half of the developable commercial acreage,is in Riverhead Town; • Open space acquisition and preservation programs have been tremendously successful in averting potential nitrogen loading increases(see Figure 3-14); • Widespread areas of groundwater are enriched with total nitrogen on about an order of magnitude higher than native groundwater(see Figure 3-15). Most of the groundwater entering the estuary system is contributed from the western estuary and South Fork(see Figure 3-16);and, • Low DO levels can adversely affect the feeding,growth,and survival of living marine resources. DO levels tend to be lowest during the summer,unfortunately when the abundance of many finfish and invertebrate species,including eggs,larvae,and juveniles are at their greatest. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP SOURCES AND LOADINGS OF NUTRIENTS IN THE SYSTEM • Many sources contribute nutrients to the Peconic Estuary System, including sediments, groundwater, direct rainfall to surface waters,point source discharges(such as discharges from the Riverhead sewage treatment plant),and stormwater runoff. Sediments contribute nutrients to the estuary system through a process called sediment flux. Sediment nutrient flux is an internal, recycled source of nitrogen where sediments release nitrogen into the water column. Sediment flux is related to point and nonpoint source nitrogen inputs. Reductions in human nutrient inputs will eventually be reflected in lowered sediment flux rates. The annual sediment flux to the estuary,at about 14,000 pounds per day, is overwhelmingly the largest source of nitrogen to the estuary. This source comprises 51 percent of the total nitrogen loading to the estuary. Groundwater is one of the largest external sources of nitrogen to the estuary(21 percent of total nitrogen load or about 7,560 pounds/day). It integrates nitrogen from fertilizer,sanitary system waste,and other sources. Atmospheric deposition(to surface waters)contributes substantial nitrogen (26 percent of total load). The remaining load to the estuary,only about 2 percent,is from stormwater runoff and sewage treatment plants. Although these sources represent a small percentage of total nitrogen loading,they may have localized effects. In the early to mid-1900s,western estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay)nutrient inputs were dominated by point source duck farm discharges. The decline in duck farming has been more than • offset by an increase in nonpoint source nitrogen loading,primarily attributable to residential fertilizer and sanitary systems,coupled with agricultural fertilizers. The water quality of the Peconic Estuary,on a regional basis,is primarily nonpoint-source impacted. However,point sources such as the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant and Meetinghouse Creek(which integrates the Corwin Duck Farm and other upstream sources)are very significant locally due to their direct,concentrated discharge to poorly flushed and stressed areas of the estuary. The Sag Harbor sewage treatment plant, although a relatively small facility,may also have localized effects in Sag Harbor Cove. Stormwater runoff in the overall western study area is almost negligible from a nitrogen perspective, but may still be significant for water quality in specific embayments. In the far western portions of the estuary,total nitrogen loads may have increased substantially due to nonpoint source loadings from fertilizers and sanitary systems(LaRoche, 1996). This suggests that central main bays water quality may slowly be becoming more enriched with nutrients,via direct contributions from groundwater and indirect recycling from sediment nutrient flux,although this is certainly a"most probable scenario'assessment,in the absence of long-term monitoring data. For the eastern estuary, sediment flux is,by far,the greatest quantitative source. The only other major,externally controllable source in the eastern estuary is groundwater,which still has significant degradation potential. Point sources and stormwater runoff in the overall eastern study area are minor nitrogen sources,but both may still be significant for water quality in specific embayments. Nonpoint source nitrogen loading to the estuary appears to be at an all time high. The nature of nonpoint source management is complex and challenging,as it deals with relatively small but extremely pervasive contributions from sanitary systems,fertilizers,and other sources. CHAPTERTHREE 3-8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ey r 7N VT • Existing nitrogen loads to the estuary are shown in Table 3-1,and in Figures 3-17 and 3-18. These estimates are derived directly from characterization studies conducted by the PEP and others and are discussed in detail in the SCDHS report,Point and Nonpoint Source Loading Overview(1998). ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES The Clean Water Act(CWA)mandates two types of approaches to meeting water quality standards: technology-based and water quality-based approaches. Section 301 of the Clean Water Act requires the application of technology-based criteria to point source discharges,so that effluent will meet specific effluent limits for the given discharge class. This can be considered a"minimum requirement"for all point source discharges to surface waters. However, if technology-based standards are not sufficient to achieve water quality standards,then additional pollution control measures may be required of point sources to ensure attainment of the water quality standards. The water quality-based approach under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act results in specific limits applied to discharges so that waterbodies meet standards. The Clean Water Act requirements are reflected in the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR). 6 NYCRR 754.1(a)(I)sets forth the requirement that limitations(more stringent than technology-based limitations)shall be included in State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)permits where necessary to meet water quality standards or to implement total maximum • daily loads(TMDLs). Dissolved Oxygen Low dissolved oxygen(DO)levels can adversely affect the feeding,growth,and survival of the Peconic Estuary's living marine resources. Dissolved oxygen levels tend to be lowest in the Peconic Estuary during the summer,which is also when the abundance of many finfish and invertebrate species are at their greatest. Additionally, summer-time is when the eggs, larvae,and juveniles of many marine species are also at their greatest concentrations following the adult spawning events in the spring and summer months. These early life history stages are also known to have increased susceptibility to the effects of low DO concentrations. New York State has a water quality standard for DO of no less than 5.0 mg/1 for all class SA,class SB,and class SC waters(see 6 NYCRR Part 703.3). All of the waters in the Peconic River and Flanders Bay drainage basins fall within the SA,SB,or SC classifications(see 6 NYCRR 921). In addition to the 5.0 mg/I DO standard,which has regulatory significance,there are other technical "benchmarks"which are used to evaluate surface water quality with respect to DO. This is because 5 mg/I is considered extremely protective,and scientists believe that levels slightly below 5 mg/I can be sustained without harming marine life. For example,the Long Island Sound Study(LISS),a research and management project funded by the National Estuary Program,has developed the following benchmarks: 5.0 mg/I to be fully protective;3.5 mg/I(one day average)to be protective of most species;and 2.0 mg/I(all times)to prevent major loss. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 3-1. Peconic Estuary Program Total Nitrogen Loading Estimates(Annual Average). • West . 0 antlers Ba Ob/day) (°foWest)� (Ib1da ) I (°luEast) (Iblde ) (0/a Total) NONPOINT SOURCES Sediment Flux 250 12 13,600 54 13,850 S/ Groundwater 3 1320 61 4,500 18 5,820 21 Atmospheric Dep. 160 7 6,900 28 7,060 26 Stormwater Runoff 30 1 100 0 130 0 TOTAL NONPOINT 1,760 81 25,100 100 26,900 98 POINT SOURCES Peconic River 140 6 -- — 140 1 Riverhead STP 170 8 --- — 170 1 Meetinghouse Creek 110 5 -- — 110 0 Sag Harbor STP 9 -- — 14 0 14 0 SI Heights STP — 3 0 3 0 TOTAL POINT 420 19 20 0 440 2 TOTAL POINT& 2,200 25,100 27,300 NONPOINT Note:Preliminary analysis of historical duck farm data in the western estuary indicates that duck farms may have • discharged 1,400 pounds/day or more for decades through the early 1970s. Discharge dropped to about 500 poundstday in mid-70s,and 400 pounds/day in early-mid 1980s. In 1988,the last duck farm(Corwin Duck Farm on Meetinghouse Creek)stopped surface water discharge. Z Summer sediment flux rates: 120pounds/day west, 16,200pounds/day east. r Groundwater underflow estimates: Area cfd(per USGS m N IbIday N North Fork 3,800,000 9 2130 South Fork 11,000,000 3 2060 Shelter Island 1,700,000 3 320 Peconic River e/o gauge:20.8 cfs 6 mgt]N,670pounds/day N North Flanders:8.8 cfs 9 m N,430pounds/day N South Flanders: 13.8 cfs,3 m I N,220pounds/day N Uses 6.06 mg/m=/day,after Tetra-Tech. Areas: 12.1 km=for west,522 IaW for east. Eastern study area estimates are for sediment flux analysis study area,including part of Block Island Sound. The modeler will spread the loading rate over the surface area accordingly. 5 Load is taken from Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment&Management Program for west;eastern study area loadings are rough estimates only. Estimates will be refined using land use data e Peconic River based on 37 cfs mean from 1942-%),0.7 mg/l. r Based on Riverhead STP Discharger Monitoring Report DMR data for Jan-June 1997. s Meetinghouse Creek: 1.4 cfs, 15 m 9 DMR data for 6/96-5/97:0.083 m d,20 m I TN. 10 DMR data for 6/96-5/97:0.033 mgd,9.2 mg/1 IN. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP INZ • The results of the LISS experiments have shown that short-term exposure to DO levels below 2.0 mg/I can have adverse effects on growth and survival during the larval and juvenile stages of development. The studies also demonstrated that short-term exposure(24 hr)to DO levels in the range of 5.0-3.5 mg/1 can affect their growth and survival in the larval and juvenile stages. The LISS studies also showed that exposure to DO levels in the range of 5.0-3.5 mg/1 for 24 hours significantly reduced the growth of larval marsh grass shrimp(Palaemonetes vulgaris),larval longnose spider crab (Libinia dubia) and larval sheepshead minnow(Cyprinodon variegates) by 20 percent, 10 percent,and 10 percent, respectively. Additionally,at these DO levels, larval Atlantic rock crab(Cancer irroraturs)displayed a 10 percent decrease in survival. Oxygen levels between 3.5 and 2.0 mg/I resulted in a 50 percent reduction in the survival and growth of larval rock crabs and grass shrimp and a 30 percent reduction in the growth of larval sheepshead minnow. Furthermore, exposure to dissolved oxygen levels in this range reduced the growth rates of juvenile grass shrimp by 50 percent and juvenile summer flounder(Paralichthys dentatus)by 30 percent. Short-term exposure to dissolved Pollutant Loadings oxygen levels below 2.0 mg/I resulted Under the Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d), states in the greatest effects to marine finfish develop a list of waterbodies not meeting water quality and invertebrate survival. The standards after the implementation of technology-based following species experienced a 50 limitations and must develop Total Maximum Daily Loads percent reduction in survival during (TMDLs) to reduce point and nonpoint sources of • the juvenile stage: silverside(Menidia pollutants to those waterbodies that do not meet their beryllina), winter flounder designated uses. TMDLs are detailed technical water (Pleuronectes americanus), scup quality assessments which determine the maximum amount (Stenotomus Chrysops),Atlantic of a given pollutant a waterbody can assimilate while still meeting water quality standards and designated uses. menhaden(Brevoortia tyrannus), summer flounder, sand(Crangon A TMDL with waste load allocations and loading septemspinosa) and grass shrimp, allocations prescribing total nitrogen (TiV) load reductions tautog(Tautoga onitis),windowpane to meet the 0.45 mg/!IN guideline and allow attainment of flounder(Scoptalmus aquosus),and the DO standard of 5.0 mg/l is recommended for the entire fourspine stickleback(Apeltes Peconic River/Flanders Bay watershed (including quadratus). subwatersheds for Meetinghouse and East Creek/Riverhead). The PEP will ultimately develop very While the organisms tested in the detailed, waterbody-specific load control strategies for the LISS experiments are representative remainder of the estuary to ensure that existing high water of those found in the Peconic Estuary, I quality is preserved species such as the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) and bay anchovy(Anchoa mitchilli)were not specifically studied. These species are known to be of significant ecological and commercial importance to the Peconic Estuary. Nevertheless,the LISS experiments examined a wide range of finfish and invertebrate species known to occur throughout the Peconics and can,therefore,be used as a guideline to assess the impacts of low DO concentrations to the living resources of the Peconic Estuary. Nitrogen New York State has not adopted a general water quality standard for nitrogen. However,to mitigate adverse impacts of dissolved oxygen depletion in marine surface waters,regulatory entities, including CHAPTERTHREE 3-11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC),control nitrogen • discharges from point sources. This is based on the well-documented relationship between nitrogen loading and dissolved oxygen stresses in marine surface waters. In addition,the NYSDEC has adopted a marine surface water total nitrogen guideline for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay of 0.5 mg/I based on 1988-90 conditions. (See the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program and PEP Action Plan.) This guideline supports the"no net increase"discharge policy for point sources of nitrogen in the western estuary. For dissolved oxygen management,this Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV) Management Plan recommends SAV provides critical habitat for shellfish and finfish as well modification of the NYSDEC's total as numerous other functions,such as bottom stabilization and nitrogen guideline to 0.45 mg/I,based on nutrient cycling. In the Peconic Estuary, eelgrass is 1994-96 data. The SCDHS PEP data generally considered to be the most valuable SAV species, analysis,based mainly on the 1994-96 due largely to its high habitat value. It is a rooted plant and expanded monitoring program, suggests has a vascular system. Other SAV that are present in the that the mean TN guideline of 0.45 mg/I estuary include widgeon grass (present in relatively small for summer conditions(July-September), areas), which is also rooted and vascular. The presence and as a benchmark based on 1994-96 extent of rooted aquatic plants is a quantitative measure of ecosystem health. Rooted aquatic plants generally are conditions,may be a valuable sensitive to conditions of water clarity and associated management tool to minimize the risk of nutrient concentrations (which result in algal light shading) DO depression below the 5.0 mg/l New and suspended particulate levels.Also, research suggests that York State dissolved oxygen standard. elevated levels of nutrients may have direct adverse This recommendation is based mainly on metabolic impacts on eelgrass. correlating surface water TN levels with the frequency of DO standard violations, Macroalgae are also considered SAV, but they are not rooted using SCDHS data from daytime(non- or vascular. Rather, they are algal colonies, visible to the worst case)conditions(see Figures 3-19 eye, and sometimes attached to the bay bottom. They and 3-20). The 1994-96 database was generally have lower habitat value and are, in some cases, considered indicators ofenvironmental degradation used in the empirical analyses because it provided the extensive shallow water and Excess nutrients may result in the displacement of eelgrass by Peripheral bays data necessary to assess macroalgae (see Figure 3-21). In the western and central the relationship between TN and DO,as estuaries (Flanders and Great/Little Peconic Bays), with the well as light extinction and chlorophyll- exception of Bullhead Bay, there are no known significant a,within a temporally consistent beds of eelgrass present. timeframe of synoptic sampling events. This proposed guideline will be used to empirically assess relative spatial variations in water quality in given waterbodies over a given time period and to establish modeling benchmarks against which impacts of future load allocations can be assessed. Thus,the proposed guideline is an assessment tool and a vehicle for setting rational load allocations,rather than a standard in the regulatory sense. To optimize eelgrass habitat and preserve water quality in eelgrass habitat areas,a more stringent total nitrogen criterion of 0.4 mg/i is recommended for shallow estuary waters(three meters or less). This recommendation is based on the relationships between mean summer nitrogen,chlorophyll-a, and light extinction(Kd)for the 1994-96 period of the"expanded"SCDHS monitoring program and model verification period,coupled with an analysis of water quality in relation to SAV beds delineated in a 1994 survey(Cashin Associates). Other recommended habitat criteria include Kd (0.75 +/-0.05 m'i),and chlorophyll-a(5.5+/-0.5 µg/1),which are modest refinements to guidelines recommended in the LISS. A detailed discussion of the methodology and conclusions of the SAV • CHAPTERTHREE 3-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • evaluation are contained in the SCDHS Peconic Estuary Surface Water Quality(1998)report. The SAV analysis also provided preliminary guidance to PEP natural resources programs,such as the SAV Long-Term Monitoring Program(Cornell Cooperative Extension)and the Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study(EEA,Inc., 1999),which is providing more detailed guidance on SAV habitat criteria. These proposed criteria are based on the fact that lower nutrient levels clearly relate to greater water column light penetration,an important factor for eelgrass,which needs adequate light to survive. For the time being, these criteria are being proposed as"interim"criteria because the scientific community has not come to consensus regarding the causal factors related to eelgrass decline. Substantial additional data from ongoing studies will be available soon. When coupled with the expanded SCDHS monitoring program,with additional sites at eelgrass beds and additional years of data,a more exhaustive analysis will be performed for developing SAV habitat criteria. OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS Based on the recommended total nitrogen guideline of 0.45 mg/l,the PEP Management Conference has developed a water quality hierarchy to describe use impairments and recommend management measures for waterbodies within the Peconic Estuary System(see Table 3-2). This hierarchy includes"mitigation priority"waters,"stressed/threatened"waters,and"preservation priority" waters. The water quality hierarchy can be used to better channel resources for best management practices and other land use and pollution control programs and can assist in review and prioritization • of potential implementation projects. It can also be used in numerous other programs, such as the State Environmental Quality Review Act,whereby all applications to undertake,fund,or approve an action must undergo rigorous environmental review prior to approval. The PEP Management Conference's adoption of the hierarchy has important implications. However, the hierarchy does not imply prioritization among categories. That is,funding for mitigation for Flanders Bay is not presumptively a higher priority than preservation efforts in eastern waters. Mitigation Priority Waters In relatively small areas of the estuary,particularly the tidal Peconic River and Flanders Bay(the "western estuary"),Meetinghouse Creek,and East Creek/Riverhead,nitrogen levels need to be reduced to optimize DO conditions. These waters are characterized by substantial violations of the proposed total nitrogen guideline for mean summer conditions. There are also frequent and sometimes"serious"DO standard violations in surface samples. These are extremely small areas, making up far less than one percent of the estuary's surface waters(see Table 3-2). Management considerations for these waters include mitigation to alleviate these frequent and sometimes serious DO problems. TMDLs are prescribed by Section 303(d)of the Clean Water Act for surface waters not attaining water quality standards. Based on the conditions in mitigation priority waters,a Clean Water Act Section 303(d)listing based on not achieving the state dissolved oxygen standard and a TMDL should be considered for the entire Peconic River/Flanders Bay watershed(including subwatersheds for Meetinghouse Creek and East Creek/Riverhead). • CHAPTERTHREE 3-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP zC' Table 3-2. Surface Water Characterization and Management Hierarchy. • M1HgatTotrPrTor7jatenc SfressedF4JrreatfaeQ=' �i�reservattonPriorlry `Wafers (Waters Waterbodies *Tidal Peconic *Flanders Bay *Presumptively all other River/westem Flanders Bay (Central/East) waters *Meetinghouse Creek *West Neck Bay *East Creek/Riverhead *Sag Harbor *East Creek complex/Southold *Town Creek complex *Northwest Creek TN Guideline "Extreme"exceedances Exceedances(not Compliance Attainment (>0.6 mg/l TN) "extreme") DO Standard Frequent violations Frequent(>20%)or No more than one Violation (>20%of samples) occasional(2-5%) violation Frequency violations for some stations;depressed mean DO for all others. DO Standard Several"serious"violations Not"serious" No"serious"violations Violation Severity (below 3.5&2 mg/1) (no DO<3.5 mg/1) Management Total Maximum Daily TN load controls prevent Rational load control Implications** Loads;load reductions*** substantial additional targets*** loads*** * Based on nitrogen and DO concerns. ** Does not imply management prioritization among three categories. *** Based on total nitrogen guidelines,modeling results,and cost-effectiveness analysis. Stressed/Threatened Waters A small class of waters exists that exhibit marginally"stressed"or"threatened"characteristics with respect to nitrogen and dissolved oxygen concentrations. These waters include: • West Neck Bay • Central/Eastern Flanders Bay • East Creek complex/Southold • Town Creek complex • Sag Harbor • Northwest Creek These waters are characterized by modest violations of the proposed total nitrogen guideline for mean summer conditions,and"occasional"but no"serious"DO standard violations for surface samples for many of the stations(see Table 3-2). • CHAPTERTHREE 3-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Management considerations include mitigation to reduce nitrogen and ensure optimal DO conditions, and nitrogen reduction controls should be considered and implemented where cost-effective. Neither a Clean Water Act 303(d)listing nor a TMDL establishment is recommended for these waters at this time. However,the subwatersheds to the waterbodies should be the particular focus of load control strategies,with specific load targets developed. Preservation Priority Waters Preservation priority waters include all waters of the Peconic Estuary System not listed as mitigation priority or stressed/threatened waters above. These waters are in compliance with total nitrogen guidelines and exhibit no more than one DO violation and have no"serious"DO violations. Because surface water quality conditions with respect to DO(and related nitrogen)are generally excellent in the Peconic Estuary,much of the estuary falls within this classification. The New York State DO standard of five mg/I is consistently attained in greater than 97 percent of the estuary(see Table 3-2). Recommended management considerations for these waters are that mitigation and nitrogen reduction controls are appropriate where demonstrated to be cost-effective,especially when multiple benefits will accrue(coliforms,toxics,habitat,etc.). Cost-effective preservation also is needed to prevent degradation so that nitrogen levels are maintained at their current levels. In these"preservation priority"waters,model results will be especially critical in evaluating results of best-case and worst- case management scenarios,as well as very discrete management plans. Even though some of the estuary's waterbody segments are clearly more enriched than others with respect to nitrogen,most have not demonstrated obvious and acute impairments with respect to conventional dissolved oxygen, such as fish kills. This does not mean,of course,that subtle, long- term ecosystem changes have not occurred due to nitrogen enrichment. MANAGEMENT STRATEGY An overarching PEP management principle is to support management decisions based on comprehensive,site-specific studies(monitoring,modeling,land use,etc.)for the main bays and main watershed,as well as in subwatersheds such as West Neck Bay, Sag Harbor,and Meetinghouse Creek. Increasing emphasis is also being placed on linkages with living resource issues,such as submerged aquatic vegetation. Already,a point source total nitrogen freeze has been implemented for the western estuary(Peconic River and Flanders Bay). Major sewage treatment plant upgrades at Riverhead and Sag Harbor have been funded,in large part,by New York State,two examples of numerous demonstration and early implementation actions. Overall,the PEP management strategy is based on three distinct,but related,approaches: • Optimize pre-existing and emerging management programs; • Provide additional local characterizations,applying water quality and pollutant load assessments;and, • Utilize the surface water model and economic valuation and financing tools to develop • and implement a total nitrogen load allocation strategy for the entire estuary. CHAPTERTHREE 3-15 i Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The load control strategy includes a recommendation to pursue a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) • listing and a TMDL for the Peconic River and Flanders Bay,and a non-regulatory total nitrogen load allocation for the areas east of Flanders Bay. The load reductions targeted for the western estuary appear feasible for nonpoint sources(the primary nitrogen inputs), since only modest increases in the western estuary are likely(13 percent increase maximum)under full build-out over a manageable area. The need for"water quality preservation'in the eastern estuary is highlighted,since greater nitrogen load increases are likely(greater than 20 percent increase)over a much larger area at full build-out. These approaches are designed to achieve the following goals(based on 1994-96 model calibration conditions): • Attain 0.45 mg/1 TN guideline in all waters,to ensure that the New York State DO standard(5 mg/1)is maintained at all times,thereby minimizing potential adverse impacts to marine life; • Attain 0.4 mg/I shallow water TN criterion,where feasible and cost-effective,to optimize water clarity,maintaining and potentially improving conditions for eelgrass beds,a critical habitat; and, • Implement the"preservation policy"in waters east of Flanders Bay,to prevent degradation and maintain nitrogen levels at their current concentrations,where water quality meets or exceeds established standards,criteria,or guidelines. Existing and Emerging Management Programs In addition to the programs noted above, including sewage treatment plant upgrades and a point source nitrogen freeze update,several other programs are critical to nitrogen management. As discussed above,perhaps the most prominent is open space preservation,which continues to protect not only drinking water,but also estuarine water quality(see Figure 3-14). Funding available for open space acquisition and farmland preservation along the East End has risen dramatically in recent years. A substantial part of a pool of funding totaling$361 million could be available, largely for the Suffolk County East End(see Chapter 9). Aggressive continuation of open space programs will be a critical aspect of CCMP implementation. Important regulatory programs discussed in this chapter include the Pine Barrens Program,the East Hampton Harbor Protection Overlay District,the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), and the Suffolk County Planning Commission review process. The Pine Barrens Program has resulted in ensuring the preservation of over 2,000 acres in the Peconic River corridor in their natural state. Were it not for this program,potential additional nitrogen loading to the estuary would be substantial. A program which occurred during the formative years of the PEP is the Harbor Protection Overlay District in East Hampton Town. This program has instituted several key land management and pollution control measures in areas contributing groundwater and stormwater runoff from all coastal properties in the Town of East Hampton. These include sanitary system upgrades,clearing restrictions,and stormwater containment requirements for structures and driveways. • 3-16 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 1 • The SEQRA requires special environmental assessments prior to undertaking, funding,or approving certain types of actions. Most new development and pollution control actions are subject to SEQRA. PEP recommendations and actions will be important factors for State and local agencies that undertake,fund, and review projects. The Suffolk County Planning Commission is a regional commission that reviews several types of land development applications and plans, including those occurring within 500 feet of the shoreline. An adverse determination by the Commission can only be overridden by a supermajority of the approving town board. Thus,consideration of PEP recommendations and actions by the Commission is an excellent mechanism for CCMP implementation for nearshore areas. Several other programs with nitrogen implications are ongoing. These include river and wetlands preservation programs including the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers statute and regulations (6 NYCRR Part 666),the Freshwater Wetlands regulations(6 NYCRR Part 663),the Tidal Wetlands Land Use regulations(6 NYCRR Part 661),and the Protection of Waters regulations(6 NYCRR Part 608). These regulations can mitigate nitrogen loads by minimizing stormwater runoff and improving denitrification and uptake. With regard to local government,upzoning efforts,wetland restrictions, In addition to future funding for proposed and sleazing restrictions,and clustering requirements have ongoing management programs, a total of over resulted in a much lower pollutant loading potential, gll million in Federal and State funds has already been dedicated to performing 55 Numerous non-regulatory efforts also have been priority demonstration/implementation projects targeted at nitrogen controls. Perhaps the most identified by the PEP. Early nutrient action prominent of these are public education and outreach projects include sewage treatment facility initiatives directed at stakeholders such as residential upgrades in Riverhead and Sag Harbor and homeowners,tourists,youth groups, and small improved waste treatment systems at the business owners. These efforts are described in the Corwin Duck Farm. Public education and Public Education and Outreach chapter of this outreach initiatives, an Agricultural Management Plan. Best management practices Environmental Management (AEA) Initiative, (BMPs)are yet another important component of the and Clean water Act Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Management Program) projects are PEP approach. With respect to residences and also key components of the management commercial and industrial uses,the PEP has developed program- a draft Nonpoint Source Inventory of local programs, which is being translated into management actions. A large part of the process is review and implementation of Section 6217(g)management measures and practices identified as part of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Additional Planning and Management Based on PEP Characterizations The characterization-based management strategies are discussed in the preceding sections. These include a marine surface water total nitrogen(TN)"guideline"(0.45 mg/1)for DO management purposes. Based on that guideline,this CCMP identifies a surface water quality"hierarchy"which can immediately be used in resource allocation and planning efforts and in other programs involving environmental review. The PEP is recommending a presumptively even split for funding of preservation and mitigation efforts(50 percent for preservation, 50 percent for mitigation). An even more stringent"shallow water criterion"of 0.4 mg/l TN is proposed for the shallow waters (waters three meters deep or less)of the estuary to optimize eelgrass habitat. This is an interim • CHAPTERTHREE 3-17 # Peconic Estuary Program CCM4P ; criterion, subject to interpretation of ongoing modeling efforts and submerged aquatic vegetation • studies. Based on nitrogen loading evaluations,the PEP has determined that management of existing residential and agricultural lands is a priority. Sanitary system and fertilizer actions are emphasized accordingly. For proposed new development,residential development is the major concern on an estuary-wide basis, particularly in the western estuary and on the South Fork. New industrial and commercial development is an issue prominent mainly in the western estuary,particularly in Riverhead Town. Modeling and Nitrogen Loading Workgroups Based on the overall TN guideline,the TN shallow water criterion,and water quality preservation policy,the PEP will establish a total nitrogen loading goal for the entire watershed,based in large part on the results of state-of-the-art surface water modeling of various management alternatives. This model will allow evaluation of future water quality conditions,as compared with current conditions and recommended guidelines and criteria. Economic consultant data on resource benefits,implementation costs,and financing will be important components of the process. Subwatersheds for stressed/threatened waterbodies will also be the focus of particular planning attention. Because of the need to accelerate the quantitative nitrogen management process,a short-term,focused set of work groups is recommended,as shown in Figure 3-22. These work groups are addressing • priority management issues by applying PEP modeling and assessment tools in relation to existing and emerging programs. The goal is to set quantitative loading targets and detailed plans for load management(timing,costs,parties,etc.). Work group members include representatives from the PEP Management Conference as well as Federal, state,and local agency representatives. The work groups convened in September 1999. Each work group will produce a strategy that will lay out the steps and timeframe for setting nitrogen load controls Lead parties for the work groups will be integrally involved in PEP activities. Therefore,there will be close coordination with other efforts,such as critical natural resource area management and monitoring. The work group leaders will be in close contact with each other,so that all initiatives are coordinated. The Agricultural Work Group is charged with refining existing agricultural nitrogen loading estimates and developing an implementation plan for regional nitrogen load reductions. This effort includes expanding the Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)Initiative and considering"Purchase of Development Rights"links to farm management plans. To date,the Agricultural Work Group has made significant progress towards their goals, including producing agricultural use GIS maps,and determining the nitrogen loading rates and estimates of potential reductions for specific crops. The Work Group has produced an Agricultural Environmental Management Strategy, located in Appendix H. An ambitious Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)Initiative program has been piloted in the Peconic Estuary. Using the AEM approach,a comprehensive inventory and analysis was conducted for all farms within one sub-watershed to assess the potential impact the farms may have on that part of the Peconic Estuary and shallow aquifer. Plans were developed for a total of 13 farms • 3-18 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • within the sub-watershed and high priority BMPs were implemented. This program will be a model for agricultural environmental management at farms throughout the study area. The focus of the Non-Agricultural Work Group includes both existing and prospective nitrogen loading. For In the Agricultural Environmental Management existing loads,the emphasis is on residential uses and Strategy, the Agricultural Work Group strongly recommends that the following tasks be BMPs as well as other programs(primarily dealing with pursued: fertilizer and sanitary waste). For prospective loads,the Non-Agricultural Work Group will focus on residential Task I Develop a Long Island component to uses. Efforts will be directed at land management the New York State Agricultural strategies, including zoning,clustering,clearing Environmental Management (AE* restrictions,and model ordinances. This group will program; address nutrient loadings on publicly held land as well as Task II Identify potential pilot projects to on private/commercial properties,such as golf courses. demonstrate Best Management Practices and test them,where appropriate, The West Estuary TMDL Work Group is addressing the Task III Investigate the creation of a farm TMDL process. This process includes refining the insurance plan; loading analysis for the western Peconic River and will Task IV Provide funding for increased local consider the costs and benefits of developing a separate AEM development and implementation; model for the freshwater portion of the river. Finally, industrial and commercial planning analysis for the Task V Investigate and implement innovative/ Peconic River watershed will be a crucial component of alternative finance mechanisms for the work group's efforts. education and outreach and other tasks • noted above;and, Each of the work groups will be developing and Task VI Gather and analyze economic data on evaluating a range of options and considering costs and a regular basis and continue to promote benefits. The surface water model will be used to help and integrate economic analyses and support mechanisms into the AEM assess benefits of the management actions. initiatives. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS A number of important completed actions and accepted policies,as well as new proposed solutions to nutrient-related issues,are included in the nutrients action plan. These include adoption of the water quality hierarchy,endorsement of the nitrogen management work group process,and early commitments to freeze point source nitrogen loading to the western estuary. The actions also reflect major commitments to sewage treatment plant upgrades at Riverhead Town(approximately 85 percent of a$7 million project to be funded through NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond)and Sag Harbor(at least$500,000 in NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act funds for a$2 million project),as well as wastewater treatment enhancements at the Corwin Duck Farm(more than$270,000 in EPA and NYSDEC funding). The following actions include only the key PEP management recommendations and actions which require additional follow-up attention,commitments, actions,or time to complete. Within the CCMP,some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources,because they are being undertaken through "base programs"or with funding that has been committed. In other cases,in order to complete the priority • actions,new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. CHAPTERTHREE 3-19 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP To minimize actions that require tracking,the PEP has not placed"completed"actions accomplished • in early implementation actions in the following discussion and table. NUTRIENTS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS N-l. Continue to Use and Refine Water Quality Standards and Guidelines. N-2. Preserve Water Quality East of Flanders Bay. N-3. Implement a Quantitative Nitrogen Load Allocation Strategy for the Entire Estuary. N4. Control Point Source Discharges from STPs and Other Dischargers. N-5. Implement Nonpoint Source Control Plans. N-6. Use Land Use Planning to Control Nitrogen Loading Associated with New Development. N-7. Ensure that Funding Is Distributed Evenly Between Preservation and Mitigation Projects. • N-8. Integrate PEP Recommendations into Other Programs. N-9. Sponsor and Coordinate Research and Information Gathering. N-10. Monitor Conditions within the Estuary System to Determine the Effectiveness of Management Strategies. • 3-20 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • N-1. Continue to Use and Refine Water Quality Standards and Guidelines. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 1,2,3 and 6. New York State has not adopted a general water quality standard for nitrogen. However,the NYSDEC has adopted a marine surface water total nitrogen guideline for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay of 0.5 mg/I based on 1988-90 conditions. This guideline forms the basis for the"no net increase" discharge policy for point sources of nitrogen in the western estuary. One basis for the nitrogen criteria is achieving State dissolved oxygen standards. EPA is revising its criteria recommendations for dissolved oxygen in marine waters. The State and PEP will be evaluating EPA's criteria once proposed and issued. Any revision to the State standard for dissolved oxygen may affect future PEP recommendations for total nitrogen criteria. For dissolved oxygen management,this action recommends evaluation of a modification of the NYSDEC's total nitrogen guideline to 0.45 mg/l,based on 1994-96 data. This guideline is exceeded in tidal portions of the Peconic River and western and central Flanders Bay and a few peripheral embayments. The total nitrogen guideline will be used as an assessment tool to screen relative water quality in various bays in relation to dissolved oxygen conditions for a given time period,a benchmark against which to evaluate model management alternative runs,and to evaluate the need to • develop a TMDL under the Clean Water Act. To optimize eelgrass habitat and preserve water quality in eelgrass habitat areas,a more stringent total nitrogen criterion of 0.4 mg/I is recommended for shallow estuary waters(three meters or less). The LISS eelgrass habitat criteria values were provisionally adopted as working guidelines for developing this criterion. A preliminary SCDHS analysis of mean seasonal water quality parameters and light extinction(Kd)with respect to existing SAV beds further refined the LISS parameters for the Peconic Estuary. Based on this analysis,the following criteria are proposed as working criteria for optimizing eelgrass habitat: Kd: 0.75 t 0.05 (m"); chlorophyll-a: 5.5 t 0.5 (µg/I); and TN: 0.4 (mg/1)(for"shallow waters,"three meters deep or less). These proposed criteria are based on the fact that lower nutrient levels clearly relate to greater water column light penetration,an important factor for eelgrass,which needs adequate light to survive. The shallow water criteria are particularly important for the eastern estuary,due to the potential for optimizing eelgrass habitat,as well as the opportunity for preservation of water quality in those areas. The costs and benefits of nitrogen reductions for the relatively small areas that exceed the more stringent 0.4 mg/1 TN criterion will be carefully examined based on the results of ongoing studies. For the time being,the shallow water criteria are being proposed as"interim"criteria because the scientific community has not come to consensus regarding the causal factors related to eelgrass decline. Substantial additional data from the SAV Long-Term Monitoring Program(Cornell Cooperative Extension)and the Eelgrass Habitat Criteria Study(EEA,Inc., 1999)will be synthesized shortly. When coupled with the expanded SCDHS monitoring program,with additional sites at eelgrass beds and additional years of data, a more exhaustive analysis will be performed to refine the "interim"criteria. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-21 QTk Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Steps • N-1.1 Integrate monitoring and modeling data, studies,and reports to evaluate the application Priority of the 0.45 mg/l total nitrogen guideline to the Peconic Estuary as a means of attaining and maintaining dissolved oxygen standards and for use in developing regional load allocation strategies,a CWA Section 303(d)listing,and TMDL establishment,to attain and maintain the dissolved oxygen standard. N-1.2 Integrate monitoring and modeling data, studies,and reports to evaluate the use of the Priority recommended 0.4 mg/I total nitrogen guideline for the shallow waters of the estuary to optimize eelgrass habitats and for use in developing regional load allocation strategies,a CWA Section 303(d)listing,and TMDL establishment. N-1.3 Review and revise as appropriate the marine dissolved oxygen standards based on LISS efforts to develop area-specific dissolved oxygen targets and EPA efforts to develop dissolved oxygen criteria for marine waters. Responsible Entities N-1.1 PEP Management Conference(lead),NYSDEC, SCDHS, and Contractor Tetra-Tech, Inc. N-1.2 PEP Management Conference(lead),NYSDEC, SCDHS, and Contractor Tetra-Tech, • Inc. N-1.3 NYSDEC • 3-22 CHAPTER THREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ._ • N-2 Preserve Water Quality East of Flanders Bay. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 4 and 6. Eastern estuary waters(east of Flanders Bay)are of high quality. Preservation plans are needed to prevent degradation so these waters are maintained at their current high level of water quality. Therefore, in areas east of Flanders Bay,including embayments,water quality that meets or exceeds water quality standards,criteria,or guidelines should be maintained. Preservation plans will be developed based on the nitrogen criteria guidelines discussed above and the recommendations of the nitrogen loading work groups. Steps N-2.1 Develop and implement water quality preservation plans to protect existing water quality Priority for waters east of Flanders Bay where water quality meets or exceeds established standards,criteria,or guidelines. Plans should address potential point and nonpoint pollutant sources as well as strategies for preventing and/or mitigating impacts. Responsible Entities N-2.1 NYSDEC, SCDHS(co-leads),EPA, SCPD,PEP Management Conference,and Towns • CHAPTERTHREE 3-23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP N-3 Implement a Quantitative Nitrogen Load Allocation Strategy for the Entire • Estuary. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 1,2,4,5 and 6. Under the Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d),States must estimate load allocations for point and nonpoint source pollutants for waterbodies that do not meet their designated uses. TMDLs are detailed technical water quality assessments,which determine the maximum amount of a given pollutant a waterbody can assimilate while still meeting water quality standards for designated uses. The State will be evaluating data to determine waters of the Peconic system that should be included on the State's 2002 303(d)list submittal for violations/exceedances of the New York State dissolved oxygen criterion. The State will establish a schedule for the development of TMDLs for waterbody segments,if any, included on that list. This schedule will take into account the status of the PEP water quality computer model and any revisions to the State's water quality standard for dissolved oxygen(see Action N-1.1). The computer model,once calibrated and verified,will be used to evaluate management alternatives for point source and nonpoint source controls. The State will then develop a TMDL for any waterbodies listed on the 303(d)list and associated wasteload allocations for point sources and loading allocations for nonpoint sources. A formal regulatory TMDL is not recommended for waters not included on the 303(d)list at this time. However, in the future,the PEP will establish a total nitrogen loading goal for the entire watershed,based on modeling results and nitrogen guidelines. A variety of computer modeling exercises can be used to determine appropriate management actions for the estuary. For example,the PEP Hydrodynamic and Eutrophication Model will be a key tool in developing a nitrogen load control target for the overall estuary. The surface water computer model can be used to evaluate management alternatives for land use and pollution control. The approach is to initially run"coarse"(best and worst-case runs)management alternatives. The results will be evaluated against the water quality guidelines currently in use. More detailed management alternatives will be developed to provide more specific guidance for regional load targets. These will include land use and pollution control alternatives and other management measures,such as reversing the Shinnecock Canal flow regimen. Once completed,options for load reductions,such as advanced treatment and outfall relocation in the case of a STP,can be evaluated, as well as the significance of atmospheric deposition as a source of nitrogen to the estuary. United States Geological Survey(USGS)embayment modeling for West Neck Bay, Sag Harbor,and Meetinghouse Creek is complete,and the USGS is performing a North Fork modeling study. USGS seismic reflection work for Flanders Bay was completed this past summer and they are currently analyzing the data. A Camp,Dresser and McKee regional groundwater model,which will include the North and South Forks and Shelter Island, is ongoing. Results from these modeling efforts will need to be incorporated in PEP characterization,modeling, and management activities. • 3-24 CHAPTER THREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP z§ • Steps N-3.1 Initiate the development of load allocation targets and implementation strategies for Priority nitrogen loading to the entire estuary,with particular emphasis on subwatersheds for peripheral creeks and embayments(e.g.,Meetinghouse Creek,West Neck Bay,and Sag Harbor). Any subsequent Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listing and Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)established for the"western estuary,"the Peconic River/Flanders Bay area(see following actions)can incorporate these interim steps. These load allocation targets will be based on surface water nitrogen guideline attainment. In addition,the appropriate Nitrogen Management Work Groups and the Management Committee,will evaluate nonpoint source pollution effects on groundwater quality, coupled with groundwater impacts on the surface water nitrogen guideline,and will thereby consider the viability of subregional groundwater quality targets as a means to protect surface water quality. N-3.2 Review all PEP data to identify water segments to be included in New York State's Priority 2002 303(d)list. N-3.3 Establish schedule for development of TMDL for Peconic River/Flanders Bay segments Priority included on 303(d)list based on completion of water quality model and adoption of revised dissolved oxygen standard. • N-3.4 Complete calibration and verification of hydrodynamic and eutrophication models to evaluate management alternatives for TMDL land use and pollution control. N-3.5 Use PEP hydrodynamic and eutrophication models to evaluate management alternatives. N-3.6 Develop, as appropriate,TMDUwasteload allocation and load allocation for Peconic River and Flanders Bay watershed. N-3.7 Evaluate the need for additional assessment and modeling to evaluate issues such as sedimentary denitrification. Responsible Entities N-3.1 Suffolk County with NYSDEC,Towns,and Nitrogen Management Work Groups N-3.2 NYSDEC N-3.3 NYSDEC N-3.4 PEP N-3.5 PEP N-3.6 NYSDEC N-3.7 PEP • CHAPTERTHREE 3-25 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP N-4 Control Point Source Discharges from STPs and Other Dischargers. • Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 1,2,and 6. Any new or incremental increases in point source nitrogen loading to surface waters should be prohibited if the discharge is to surface waters in the environmentally stressed region of the tidal Peconic River and western Flanders Bay. The surface water point source nitrogen freeze applies to all facilities, including the sewage treatment plants at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the former Grumman plant. Throughout the entire Peconic River groundwater-contributing area,any substantial new or incremental point source nitrogen loading should be limited if it discharges to surface waters. Substantial groundwater degradation,which adversely affects surface waters,should also be limited. This means that new groundwater-discharging sewage treatment plants in the Peconic River groundwater-contributing area generally should be carefully scrutinized. As a long-range management goal, upgrades to the Riverhead STP(above and beyond those funded by the NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act)should be evaluated with respect to attainment of the surface water quality total nitrogen guideline of 0.45 mg/l. Such evaluations can be performed through modeling and nitrogen management work group assessments. Long-range Riverhead STP upgrades could be in the form of a groundwater discharge(10 mg/l total nitrogen,using conventional denitrification), a relocated surface water discharge at central or eastern Flanders Bay(approximately 25 mg/I total nitrogen,the current discharge concentration), or a surface • water discharge at the existing location(approximately four mg/1 total nitrogen,using advanced denitrification); environmental impacts of these and other alternatives would require assessment before selection. Beneficial reuse of treated wastewater(i.e.,application on agricultural land,golf courses,or soccer fields, including seasonal application)should also be evaluated. Recommendations and actions regarding groundwater discharges and the Riverhead STP will be consistent with any TMDL work and Clean Water Act section 303(d)listing(see Action N-3). Steps N4.1 Evaluate the appropriateness of applying for a"Discharge Restriction Category"to prevent new nitrogen discharges from point sources in the Peconic River and the western portion of the Peconic Estuary. N4.2 Ensure continued implementation of the"no-net increase"policy for nitrogen loading from point sources to surface waters of the western estuary. N4.3 Determine the necessity of decreasing nitrogen loads from the Riverhead STP and other permitted discharges and develop nitrogen loading limits as needed to meet the site- specific nitrogen guideline and to protect against DO standard violations,based on TMDL work. (See Action N-3.5.) • 3-26 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • N-4.4 Consider a groundwater application of the point source nitrogen freeze in the Peconic River/Flanders Bay watershed,(currently applied only to surface water discharges),based upon Nitrogen Management Work Group recommendations and TMDL work. (See Actions N-3.1 and N-3.5.) N-4.5 Upgrade the Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant and continue to monitor and model Sag Harbor Cove to assess impacts and track effectiveness of implementation. N4.6 Evaluate and consider implementing a beneficial reuse program where reclaimed STP water and/or sludge could be used on selected golf courses,playing fields,and farms. Responsible Entities N4.1 SCDHS(lead for nomination)and PEP N4.2 NYSDEC(lead)and PEP N4.3 NYSDEC(lead)and PEP Management Conference N4.4 PEP(lead) ® N4.5 Sag Harbor Village,NYSDEC(co-leads), SCDHS(lead for monitoring),and PEP N4.6 SCDHS and NYSDEC(co-leads) • CHAPTERTHREE 3-27 At Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 1 N-5 Implement Nonpoint Source Control Plans. • Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 2,4,and 6. Many nonpoint sources contribute nutrients to the estuary system, including on-site disposal systems (cesspools or septic systems),domestic fertilizer use, agricultural fertilizer applications,and stormwater runoff. Section 6217(8)of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)requires States to develop management measures to address nonpoint sources of pollutants in coastal areas. In accordance with Section 6217(g),the PEP should ensure that appropriate nonpoint source control plans are developed for each nonpoint source category that the PEP identifies as contributing significantly to adverse ecosystem impacts(marinas/boating are addressed in the pathogens module). The control plan will include,but will not be limited to,identification and assessment of management practices and ways to implement the appropriate practices. In addition, the plan will determine whether the control measures are adequate to solve water quality problems and will identify additional control measures that may be necessary. The PEP will utilize the Base Program Analysis,Nonpoint Source Management Plan Inventory(PEP, 1995),in conjunction with the nitrogen management work group process to complete this action. Substantial degradation of existing groundwater quality should be prevented,especially in the Peconic River area. On-site disposal systems or sanitary systems/cesspools,along with fertilizer applications,contribute most of the locally derived anthropogenic nitrogen load to the Peconic • estuary. A number of BMPs,restrictions,and incentives can be used to target nitrogen reduction from these nonpoint sources. Mechanisms for sanitary system management may include: • Tax credits(such as for upgrades)and other incentive programs; • Mandatory system upgrades within defined districts on property transfers or on issuance of building permits for expansion; • Use of innovative and alternative systems; • General sanitary system regulation reviews to evaluate possible areas for improvement; • Best management practices such as the proper and periodic maintenance of sanitary systems;and, • Use of wastewater management districts or utilities. The SCDHS already has policies that establish thresholds as to when existing sanitary systems should be upgraded or completely relocated(e.g.,when additional habitable area is being added to an existing dwelling as is the case with new bedrooms). In addition,the NYSDEC Region 1 Tidal Wetlands permitting program also applies similar strategies to existing sanitary systems. Consideration should be given to formalizing such policies at all levels of government for programs relevant to the Peconic Estuary. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-28 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP e,' • Mechanisms for fertilizer management may include: • Tax credits(such as for using native plants in landscaping)and other incentives; • Restrictions on the sale and/or use of some products(e.g., liquid fertilizers); • Land use management measures; • Best management practices,such as low maintenance lawns, slow-release fertilizers, modification of fertilizer application rates;and, • Organic and/or slow-release fertilizers(via a tax on inorganic fertilizers,public relation endorsements of"good"products,educational campaigns for retailers and consumers, etc.). Agriculture also is a major nonpoint source of nitrogen to the estuary. The Agricultural Work Group has been charged with refining existing agricultural nitrogen loading estimates and developing an implementation plan for regional nitrogen load reductions. This effort will include: • Expanding the Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)Initiative; • Considering"Purchase of Development Rights"links to farm management plans; and, • Promoting organic farming methods. • Under the ambitious AEM Initiative program piloted in the Peconic Estuary,a comprehensive inventory and analysis was conducted for all the farms within one sub-watershed to assess the potential impact the farms may have on the Peconic Estuary and shallow aquifer. Plans were developed for the 13 farms and high priority BMPs were implemented. This program will be a model for agricultural environmental management at farms throughout the study area. A recent SCDHS study investigating groundwater impacts entitled Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY (1999)has found that the golf courses examined were not having major,adverse environmental impacts with respect to nutrient loading,particularly as compared with traditional row crop farms. The 1999 report documented the testing of 31 wells at 18 Long Island golf courses and found that the average nitrate concentration was 4.3 mg/I(the median nitrate concentration was 2.6 mg/I),which is the equivalent of a housing density of less than one residence per acre. At agricultural sites,the 1999 study found an average nitrate concentration of 11.7 mg/l and the SCDHS 1996 study entitled Nitrate and Pesticide Impacts of Agriculture on Groundwater Quality Suffolk County, NY found a 20 year nitrate average of 11.3 mg/l. Turf management practices at golf courses do effectively limit nitrogen inputs,however,monitoring should continue,as should aggressive golf course BMP implementation. The SCDHS has done a follow-up study this year with an expanded list of analytes and with new monitoring wells at five more golf courses in the county, including Shinnecock,National,and Maidstone. Preliminary data suggest that nitrogen is generally relatively well controlled. The NYSDEC has been funding the monitoring program for three years at about$100,000 per year. The NYSDEC recently agreed to a three-year one million-dollar commitment with the SCDHS to expand the monitoring program. Stormwater,although not one of the most significant inputs on a regular basis,may be locally important. Therefore,subwatershed management practices should also consider the management of • stormwater nitrogen loads. CHAPTERTHREE 3-29 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Steps • N-5.1 Ensure that the Section 6217(g)management measures of CZARA are appropriately implemented, in support of the overall nitrogen management plan. N-5.2 Investigate feasible implementation mechanisms and develop a plan to prevent Priority increases and encourage decreases in nitrogen in groundwater underflow due to domestic fertilizer use. N-5.3 Investigate feasible implementation mechanisms and develop a plan to prevent Priority increases and encourage decreases in nitrogen in groundwater underflow due to on-site disposal systems(sanitary systems). N-5.4 Develop a regional implementation plan for agricultural nitrogen load reductions Priority which would include promoting agricultural best management practices,expanding agricultural environmental management(AEM)strategies, and promoting organic farming among other initiatives. N-5.5 Manage stormwater runoff on a subwatershed basis to control nitrogen inputs. Responsible Entities N-5.1 NYDOS(lead),PEP,EPA,NOAA,and Nitrogen Management Work Groups • N-5.2 PEP Management Conference and Nitrogen Management Work Groups N-5.3 PEP Management Conference and Nitrogen Management Work Groups N-5.4 Nitrogen Management Work Groups, SCSWCD(co-leads),Cornell Cooperative Extension,and NYSDEC N-5.5 PEP Management Conference(lead),Consultant Horsley and Witten,Inc., SCDHS, SCPD,and SCSWCD • 3-30 CHAPTER THREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4r . • N-6 Use Land Use Planning to Control Nitrogen Loading Associated with New Development. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 2,3,and 4. Fully 40 percent of the Peconic Estuary is still subject to development,posing a substantial potential threat to water quality in the main bays as well as in the embayments. For proposed new development,residential development is the major concern on an estuary-wide basis,particularly in the western estuary and on the South Fork. Under a scenario in which 100 percent of farmland is also preserved,nitrogen loading could increase substantially in every major region of the estuary(see Figures 3-12 and 3-13). Overall,a total nitrogen increase for the estuary study area would be near 40 percent(about 41 percent in eastern estuary,and 34 percent in western estuary). In the eastern estuary,the increase on the South Fork would be most profound(over 60 percent). A number of land use planning measures can be used to minimize surface water quality degradation related to nitrogen loading,including zoning restrictions,development plan review,open space preservation,and use of model ordinances. The Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment Management Plan and the Peconic Estuary Program Action Plan recommended that undeveloped land in unsewered areas of the Peconic River groundwater-contributing area should be upzoned to a minimum of two acres per unit(or its • commercial, industrial,or institutional equivalent)where feasible,subject to exceptions where necessary,to attain even more substantial regional nitrogen controls(e.g.,`receiving area"and "Compatible Growth Area"parcels necessary to implement the Pine Barrens Land Use Plan). Additional natural resources benefits can be attained by even more stringent land use controls. The Nitrogen Management Work Groups will review coordination between the PEP and the Pine Barrens Plan and will evaluate the degree to which PEP Action Plan recommendations have been implemented. Funding available for open space acquisition and farmland preservation along the East End has risen dramatically in recent years. A substantial part of a pool of funding totaling$361 million could be available, largely for the Suffolk County East End. These funding sources will be invaluable in open space acquisition,which will have important pollution prevention implications. The public is extremely supportive of farmland preservation,as evidenced by the recent voter- approved farmland preservation programs. Also,the PEP Economic Value Assessment study found that the public was willing to pay more for farmland preservation than several other environmental programs. Thus,the PEP operates under the presumption that farmland preservation goals will be met,and deals with nitrogen loading issues associated with farmland through the Agricultural Nitrogen Management Work Group. Several model ordinances,such as the Harbor Protection Overlay District and model stormwater runoff ordinances,exist and can be applied to the watershed. Such ordinances need to be coordinated on an interjurisdictional basis to maximize benefits to the estuary. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-31 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Q I Steps • N-6.1 Continue and expand aggressive open space preservation programs that protect habitat and living resources,as well as groundwater and surface water quality(see Chapter 7 for a description of how nitrogen stressed subwatersheds are factored into recommendations). N-6.2 Evaluate the degree to which the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment Management Plan and Peconic Estuary Program Action Plan land use and zoning recommendations have been implemented. N-6.3 Encourage evaluation of design alternatives for Pine Barrens credit"receiving area" parcels,(e.g., clustering away from the river,clearing limits,turf area restrictions, xeriscaping,etc.),where feasible to minimize nitrogen loading. (Subject to and recognizing the overarching provisions of the Pine Barrens Land Use Plan and New York State Environmental Conservation Law[ECL]Article 57.) N-6.4 Review the Pine Barrens Land Use Plan"guidelines"(non-binding)for development in the Compatible Growth Area and develop proposals for additional"standards"(binding) for development based on Peconic River water quality protection goals. N-6.5 Evaluate nitrogen loading impacts when reviewing Core Preservation Area hardship applications. N-6.6 Ensure that the public acquisition of private,vacant lands in Core Preservation Areas • within the Peconic River ground watershed is given high priority. N-6.7 Utilize the strictest practicable standards when reviewing Peconic River Development Plans(e.g.,require open space dedications,maximum practicable setbacks from the river, and natural landscaping to eliminate or minimize fertilizer use). N-6.8 Evaluate the application of model ordinances such as the Harbor Protection Overlay District and model stormwater runoff ordinances. Responsible Entities N-6.1 Local governments, Suffolk County,and New York State N-6.2 SCDHS(lead),NYSDEC, SCPD,PEP Management Conference,and local governments (to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.3 SCDHS,NYSDEC, SCPD,PEP Management Conference,and local governments(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.4 SCDHS,NYSDEC, SCPD,PEP Management Conference,and local governments(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.5 SCDHS,NYSDEC, SCPD,PEP Management Conference,and local governments(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) • 3-32 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • N-6.6 SCDHS,NYSDEC, SCPD,local governments(co-leads),and PEP Management Conference(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.7 SCDHS,NYSDEC, SCPD, local governments(co-leads),and PEP Management Conference(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.8 PEP Management Conference and Local Government Committee • • CHAPTERTHREE 3-33 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP FN-77=Ensure Funding is Distributed Evenly Between Preservation and • Mitigation Projects. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 2,3,and 4. The PEP is recommending a presumptively even split for funding of preservation and mitigation efforts(50 percent for preservation, 50 percent for mitigation). This is subject to feasibility within given programs, and would apply in the absence of detailed cost-benefit analyses,which would indicate other appropriate allocations. Steps N-7.1 Evaluate programs in which a 50/50 split for funding of preservation and mitigation Priority efforts can be applied(e.g., Section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation;NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act)and determine mechanisms for its implementation. Responsible Entity N-7.1 PEP Management Conference • • CHAPTERTHREE 3-34 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i • N-8 Integrate PEP Recommendations into Other Programs. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 1,2,3,4,and 5. Many regulatory and nonregulatory programs, such as the Pine Barrens Program,the East Hampton Harbor Protection Overlay District,the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA),and the Suffolk County Planning Commission review process may be important mechanisms for implementation of PEP recommendations. Some of these programs may need to be reviewed to ensure smooth coordination and determine whether any programmatic changes are needed to improve management of the Peconic Estuary. Steps N-8.1 Integrate PEP recommendations into existing land use and regulatory programs, Priority including the SEQRA regulations(6NYCRR Part 617),Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Suffolk County Water Quality Coordinating Committee, Suffolk County Planning Commission and Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality reviews,the Southold Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy,the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers statute and regulations(6NYCRR Part 666),the Freshwater Wetlands regulations(6 NYCRR Part 663),the Tidal Wetlands Land Use regulations(6 NYCRR Part 661),and the Protection of Waters regulations(6 NYCRR Part 608). Responsible Entities N-8.1 PEP Management Conference(lead),Nitrogen Management Work Groups, Suffolk County Planning Commission,and NYSDEC • CHAPTERTHREE 3-35 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP �Q-4 N-9 Sponsor and Coordinate Research and Information Gathering. • Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 2,3,4,and 5. The National Estuary Program is designed to develop effective management plans based on available or readily obtainable data, using measurable performance indicators such as ambient nitrogen levels, dissolved oxygen and light extinction. However,continued research and information gathering will be needed to evaluate the status of the estuary's water and sediment quality and ecology/living resources,to track the effectiveness of proposed actions,and to run computer modeling programs. Therefore,the PEP long-term monitoring and assessment effort will continue in a coordinated fashion with several other programs. The Brown Tide Research Initiative(see Chapter 2)is one key program that will be extremely useful with respect to ecosystem dynamics and nutrient budgets(e.g, sediment nutrient flux). Another program sponsored or supported by the PEP includes the Living Resources Research and Monitoring Plan. Efforts such as this one will help to develop a strategy for assessing linkages between submerged aquatic vegetation habitat criteria and other water quality issues. They will also provide the long-term data necessary to assess subtle individual and synergistic ecosystem impacts,at various trophic levels. The PEP also supports efforts by the Suffolk County Planning Department and others to maintain up to date land use and land cover databases for use in continuing water quality and habitattliving resources assessments. These databases can be used to document trends in land use and land cover and characterize habitat types and pollution loading potential. Also,PEP modeling has been focused on the estuary. However,the Peconic River itself is a • significant freshwater resource well worth investigating and managing. Biological resources and processes,physical modifications(dams),and sedimentation(and possibility for dredgingtremoval) are all important and related topics. Integrated investigations of the river(nutrients,toxics, radionuclides,etc.)and modeling should be pursued. The PEP will continue to leverage its resources with respect to the River,where possible(e.g., toxic monitoring),and other programs and sources of funding should be sought to expand freshwater investigations and management. Steps N-9.1 Continue to sponsor and coordinate research efforts addressing nutrient-related issues. N-9.2 Establish a PEP land cover initiative to assist in nutrient loading analyses. N-9.3 Update the land use database on a regular basis and prepare a proposal outlining the Priority objectives and needs for a long-term monitoring program. N-9.4 Continue to integrate atmospheric deposition data into PEP modeling and management activities. Assess how reductions in atmospheric sources through the Clean Air Act will affect nitrogen loadings in the Peconic System. N-9.5 Continue to incorporate groundwater information in PEP characterization,modeling,and management activities. This includes ongoing groundwater monitoring programs,as well as improvements to modeling. • 3-36 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • N-9.6 Continue to incorporate PEP TAC and external peer review in the modeling development and application process,which includes dependent analyses of water quality and pollution input studies. As the model process is completed,continue to solicit and use TAC and external peer review in developing programs and interpreting and applying data. Responsible Entities N-9.1 PEP Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)(lead) N-9.2 PEP Management Conference through contractor(lead)and NYSDOS N-9.3 SCPD(lead)and PEP Management Conference N-9.4 PEP(lead)and EPA N-9.5 PEP Management Conference(lead) N-9.6 Model Evaluation Group and PEP TAC(co-lead) • • CHAPTERTHREE 3-37 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP N-10 Monitor Conditions Within the Estuary System to Determine the • Effectiveness of Management Strategies. Addresses Nutrients Management Objectives 2,3,4,and 5. Monitoring is critical for measuring water quality and determining the need for continued or expanded management efforts. A number of water monitoring efforts already exist within the Peconic Estuary. One such program monitors environmental conditions at Meetinghouse Creek. Continued monitoring at this site is needed to determine if and when remediation is technologically, economically,and environmentally feasible. The need for additional actions at the Corwin Duck Farm will be evaluated using modeling and nitrogen management work group assessments. Other efforts that are needed include a long-term surface water monitoring program, a triennial surface water quality report from the SCDHS,and the continuation of marine surface water quality monitoring. This last effort should be linked to other efforts,such as eelgrass monitoring. Steps N-10.1 Continue monitoring the effectiveness of remedial actions at the Corwin Duck Farm. N-10.2 Develop and conduct a long-term surface water monitoring program,with input from the PEP TAC. • N-10.3 Issue a biannual update to the SCDHS surface water quality report. N-10.4 Continue monitoring groundwater impacts of various land uses, such as residences, farms, and golf courses. Responsible Entities N-10.1 USDA-NRCS, SCSWCD(co-leads)and Nitrogen Management Work Groups N-10.2 SCDHS(lead)and PEP N-10.3 SCDHS(lead) N-10.4 SCDHS(lead) • 3-38 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP �j "4 BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Because the Peconic Estuary is generally of high quality with respect to dissolved oxygen,the chief benefit will be to prevent substantial degradation to surface water quality,thereby enhancing a healthy(oxygen-rich)marine habitat and promoting species abundance and diversity. Conditions in the stressed western estuary should be improved. Submerged aquatic vegetation habitat may be enhanced,and there could even be beneficial implications with respect to severity and frequency of future Brown Tide blooms. Surface water model results will be evaluated against the nitrogen guideline as one measure of "benefits,"and economic consultant input will be used to determine costs and financing methods. Programs for measuring ecosystem health and potential degradation with respect to submerged aquatic vegetation,benthic community structure,and other issues are being developed by the Habitat and Living Resources Plan. These are long-term programs,and may be helpful in better quantifying benefits of nutrient controls. However,useful results are not likely in the immediately foreseeable future. Moreover,documentation of severe and widespread adverse impacts due solely to nutrients is not likely. Therefore, immediate implementation of rational and cost-effective preservation policies and actions is critical,to avoid the need to document severe adverse impacts and implement more costly mitigation strategies. This is particularly critical,given the fact that about 40 percent of the watershed is subject to development,and development pressures are rapidly accelerating. • COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Because the Peconic Estuary is generally of high quality with respect to nutrients, many management actions are currently targeted at preservation. Many of these actions rely on optimizing the pre- existing and emerging regulatory and non-regulatory programs discussed above with no immediate additional costs projected. Costs of key individual management actions,such as sewage treatment plant upgrades and duck farm waste treatment systems,are included with individual management actions discussed in this chapter. Key implementation funding sources are also noted and are discussed in greater detail in the Financing Chapter. The most important element in developing and implementing regional nitrogen load controls is the nitrogen work group process,which will be integrally coupled with the completion of the surface water modeling and economic value assessment/finance plan efforts. The work group process will be conducted using existing PEP resources. Several detailed cost estimates could not be completed in time for inclusion. With respect to the Non- Agricultural Work Group,the costs and benefits of a wide variety of regulatory and incentive programs related to fertilizers and sanitary systems will be evaluated. Public input will be crucial in guiding these recommendations and actions. Open space targets and structural mitigation efforts also will be considered. The costs and benefits of additional modeling for the freshwater Peconic River will be evaluated. The total cost of all actions proposed for nutrient management is$767,500 in new one-time costs and $1,372,500 in new annual costs. This estimate does not include the full estimated costs of • CHAPTERTHREE 3-39 dux. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP implementing agricultural best management practices. (See"Action Costs"in Chapter 1 for an • explanation of how these costs were determined.) NUTRIENTS ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 3-3 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are"recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities;"N'indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion;implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. • Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP's best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. `Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed as dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE"is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits,and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. 3-40 CHAPTERTHREE xTable 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status'' H mt at►ttnLig e kuh to sddtideiiit (QbJeCr yes 3 3 altd 6) Y_z>.K m H N-1.1 Integrate monitoring and modeling data,studies,and PEP Management 2001 EPA—0.1 FTE CIN x reports to evaluate the application of the 0.45 mg/1 total Conference(lead), NYSDEC—0.1 FTE 7o Priority nitrogen guideline to the Peconic Estuary trf g g as a means of NYSDEC,SCDHS, SCDHS-0.1 FTE m attaining and maintaining DO standards and for use in Contractor Tetra-Tech, developing regional load allocation strategies,a CWA Inc. Section 303(d)listing,and TMDL establishment,to attain and maintain the dissolved oxygen standard. N-1.2 Integrate monitoring and modeling data,studies,and PEP Management 2001 Included in Step N-1.1 C/N reports to evaluate the use of the recommended 0.4 mg/I Conference(lead), Priority total nitrogen guideline for the shallow waters of the NYSDEC, SCDHS, estuary to optimize eelgrass habitats and for use in Contractor Tetra-Tech, developing regional load allocation strategies,a CWA Inc. Section 303(d)listing,and TMDL establishment. N-1.3 Review and revise as appropriate the marine DO NYSDEC Initiate after NYSDEC—0.1 FTE C/N standards based on LISS efforts to develop area-specific release of EPA DO targets and EPA efforts to develop DO criteria for criteria marine waters. p� }y ,P,`E1c.�' i9} IWO" T-F tot" 'L' i N-2.1 Develop and implement water quality preservation plans NYSDEC, SCDHS(co- December 2001 EPA—0.2 FTE C/N to protect existing water quality for waters east of leads),EPA,SCPD, NYSDEC—0.2 FTE Priority Flanders Bay where water quality meets or exceeds PEP Management SCDHS—0.2 FTE established standards,criteria,or guidelines. Plans Conference,Towns SCPD—0.2 FTE should address potential point and nonpoint pollutant Towns—0.2 FTE each of five towns c sources as well as strategies for preventing and/or mitigating impacts. o Table continued on next page O 1 D n n w W N Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) if Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status b tl N-3.1 Initiate the development of load allocation targets and Suffolk County with 2000-2001 Included in Actions N-1 and N-2. C/N Priority implementation strategies for nitrogen loading to the NYSDEC,Towns, (Nitrogen � entire estuary,with particular emphasis on Nitrogen Management Management o subwatersheds for peripheral creeks and embayment Workgroups Workgroups 2 (e.g.,Meetinghouse Creek,West Neck Bay,and Sag convene;2001 tib Harbor). Any subsequent Clean Water Act Section (strategy 303(d)listing and Total Maximum Daily Load produced) (TMDL)established for the"western estuary,"the n Peconic River/Flanders Bay area(see following n actions)can incorporate these interim steps. These b load allocation targets will be based on surface water nitrogen guideline attainment. In addition,the appropriate Nitrogen Management Work Groups and the Management Committee,will evaluate nonpoint source pollution effects on groundwater quality, coupled with groundwater impacts on the surface water nitrogen guideline,and will thereby consider the viability of subregional groundwater quality targets as a means to protect surface water quality. N-3.2 Review all PEP data to identify water segments to be NYSDEC 2001 NYSDEC—0.05 FTE ON Priority included in New York State's 2002 303(d)list. N-3.3 Establish schedule for development of TMDL for NYSDEC Develop schedule: Included in Step N-3.2 C/N n Priority Peconic River/Flanders Bay segments included on 2001 X 303(d)list based on completion of water quality model Complete TMDL: �u. and adoption of revised dissolved oxygen standard. December,2002 —i Implementation m schedule:To be ..l determined x Table continued on next page 7d tri to n Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) x a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ro _` N-3.4 Complete calibration and verification of PEP 2001 m hydrodynamic and eutro hication models to evaluate (Contractor—part of$225,000 C/O � P � contract) y management alternatives for TMDL land use and xPollution control. N-3.5 Use PEP by and eutrophication models to PEP _200—1 Included in Actions N-1 and N-2 C/O ,y evaluate management alternatives. N-3.6 Develop,as appropriate,TMDL/wasteload allocation NYSDEC Contingent upon Included in Action N-1 and Step N- C/N and load allocation for Peconic River and Flanders actions 3.2 Bay watershed. N-1.1,N-33,and N-3.4 N-3.7 Evaluate the need for additional assessment and PEP 2001 Included in Actions N-1 and N-2 C/O modeling to evaluate issues such as sedimentary denitrification. IY-t', C646,61ha-Ppint 50`"'cc fscg eisJrotg S Ps:sdd 0th'rDlsohar"ers. Ob ectives 1 �,and 6 N-4.1 Evaluate the appropriateness of applying for a SCDHS(lead for 2001 Included in Actions N-1 and N-3 R "Discharge Restriction Category"to prevent new nomination),PEP nitrogen discharges from point sources in the Peconic River and the western portion of the Peconic Estuary. N4.2 Ensure continued implementation of the"no-net NYSDEC(lead),PEP Ongoing Included in Actions N-1 and N-2 C/O increase"policy for nitrogen loading from point sources to surface waters of the western estuary. N-43 Determine the necessity of decreasing nitrogen loads NYSDEC(lead),PEP Contingent upon Included in Actions N-1 and N-3 C/N from the Riverhead STP and other permitted Management actions N-1.1,N- o discharges and develop nitrogen loading limits as Conference 3.3,and N-3.4 needed to meet the site-specific nitrogen guideline and to protect against DO standard violations,based on c TMDL work. See Action N-3.5. N4.4 Consider a groundwater application of the point PEP(lead) Contingent upon Included in Actions N-1 and N-3 R b source nitrogen freeze in the Peconic River/Flanders actions N-1.1,N- w Bay watershed,(currently applied only to surface 3.3,and N-3.4 water discharges),based upon Nitrogen Management n Work Group recommendations and TMDL work. n AL See Actions N-3.1 and N-3.5 v W Table continued on next page Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status N4.5 Upgrade the Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant and Sag Harbor Village, 2001 (Implementation:$2 million C/O continue to monitor and model Sag Harbor Cove to NYSDEC(co-leads), upgrade,using at least$500,000 in assess impacts and track effectiveness of SCDHS(lead for NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond o implementation. monitoring),PEP pct funds) ' Monitoring:Base Program N4.6 Evaluate and consider implementing a beneficial reuse SCDHS,NYSDEC 2001 NYSDEC—0.1 FTE R program where reclaimed STP water and/or sludge (co-leads) SCDHS-0.1 FTE could be used on selected golf courses,playing fields, $50,000 b and farms. "60- N-5.1 Ensure that the Section 6217(g)management measures NYDOS(lead),PEP, Ongoing EPA 0.1 FTE C/O n of CZARA are appropriately implemented,in support EPA,NOAA,Nitrogen NYSDEC—0.1 FTE n of the overall nitrogen management plan. Management Work SCDHS-0.1 FTE b Groups NYSDOS—0.1 FTE NOAA—0.1 FTE N-5.2 Investigate feasible implementation mechanisms and PEP Management Strategy:2001 Plan Development: C/N Priority develop a plan to prevent increases and encourage Conference,Nitrogen Implementation: EPA—0.2 FTE decreases in nitrogen in groundwater undertlow due to Management Work Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.2 FTE domestic fertilizer use. Groups SCDHS—0.2 FTE Implementation: To be determined N-5.3 Investigate feasible implementation mechanisms and PEP Management Strategy:2001 Included in Step N-5.2 C/N Priority develop a plan to prevent increases and encourage Conference,Nitrogen Implementation: decreases in nitrogen in groundwater underflow due to Management Work Post-CCMP on-site disposal systems(sanitary systems). Grou s n Table continued on next page x a b x H x M re 0 n Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) m Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status' 0 -3 N-5.4 Develop a regional implementation plan for Nitrogen Management Strategy: EPA—0.1 FTE C/N � Priority agricultural nitrogen load reductions which would Work Groups,SCSWCD December 2000 NYSDEC—0.1 FTE (Strategy) H include promoting agricultural best management (co-leads),Cornell Implementation: SCDHS-0.1 FTE R x practices,expanding agricultural environmental Cooperative Extension, Post-CCMP SCSWCD-$175,000/yr for (Imple- >' management(AEM)strategies,and promoting organic NYSDEC staff mentation) fanning among other initiatives. CCE-$175,000/yr for staff $250,000-$500,000 for program development $1 million annually for implementation,start u N-5.5 Manage stormwater runoff on a subwatershed basis to PEP Management Post-CCMP SCDHS—0.2 FTE R control nitrogen inputs. Conference(lead), SCPD—0.2 FTE Consultant Horsley and SCSWCD-0.2 FTE Witten,Inc.,SCDHS, (Contractor—Part of$191,600 SCPD,SCSWCD contract(Regional Stormwater Runoff Management Plan and Subwatershed Plan - d i$ "o Pia""tt"ftr ;" ii?T dadbi" ZA'iZ3undo . N-6.1 Continue and expand aggressive open space Local governments, Ongoing (Part of$361 million(sum of C/O preservation programs that protect habitat and living Suffolk County,New 1/4%sales tax,East End Land resources,as well as groundwater and surface water York State Bank,Greenway Fund,and quality(see Chapter 7 for a description of how Community Preservation Fund nitrogen stressed subwatersheds are factored into monies)) 3 recommendations). N-6.2 Evaluate the degree to which the Brown Tide SCDHS(lead), 2001 Included in Actions N-1,N-2, R Comprehensive Assessment Management Plan and NYSDEC,SCPD,PEP N-3,and N-5 a Peconic Estuary Program Action Plan land use and Management 2 zoning recommendations have been implemented. Conference, local o governments(to be coordinated with 3 Nitrogen Management n Work Group) JL Table continued on next page b Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions (continued) IL a, Anton I��spoosible Ehttty' TSmeframe Cost Status N-6.3 Encourage evaluation of design alternatives for Pine SCDHS,NYSDEC, Ongoing Included in Actions N-1,N-2,N-3, C/O Barrens credit`receiving area"parcels,(e.g.,clustering SCPD,PEP Management and N-5 y away from the river,clearing limits,turf area Conference,local n restrictions,xeriscaping,etc.),where feasible to governments(to be 3 minimize nitrogen loading Subject to and recognizing 8 g( J coordinated with � the overarching provisions of the Pine Barrens Land Nitrogen Management Use Plan and New York State Environmental Work Group) Z Conservation Law[ECLI Article 57). N-6.4 Review the Pine Barrens Land Use Plan"guidelines" SCDHS,NYSDEC, Post-CCMP EPA—0.1 FTE R (non-binding)for development in the Compatible SCPD,PEP Management NYSDEC—0.1 FTE Growth Area and develop proposals for additional Conference, local SCDHS—0.1 FTE "standards"(binding)for development based on governments(to be SCPD—0.1 FTE Peconic River water quality protection goals. coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.5 Evaluate nitrogen loading impacts when reviewing SCDHS,NYSDEC, Ongoing Included in Actions N-1 and N-2 C/O Core Preservation Area hardship applications. SCPD,PEP Management Conference,local governments(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) Table continued on next page A x a ro H M H x z m n Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) m Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ro rn N-6.6 Ensure that the public acquisition of private,vacant SCDHS,NYSDEC, Ongoing Included in Actions N-1 and N- R 7d lands in Core Preservation Areas within the Peconic SCPD, local 2,and Step N-6.1 River ground watershed are given high priority. governments(co-leads), x PEP Management m Conference(to be to coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) N-6.7 Utilize the strictest practicable standards when SCDHS,NYSDEC, Ongoing Included in Actions N-1,N-2, R reviewing Peconic River Development Plans(e.g., SCPD,local and N-3 require open space dedications,maximum practicable governments(co-leads), setbacks from the river,and natural landscaping to PEP Management eliminate or minimize fertilizer use). Conference(to be coordinated with Nitrogen Management Work Group) F7.1��t Evaluate the application of model ordinances such as PEP Management Post-COMP LGC—0.1 FTE for each town R the Harbor Protection Overlay District and model Conference, Local stormwater runoff ordinances. Government Committee rnsei otiou.and Mita ation Pr0 ectsi ` Ob ectltes 2_ a»tl4Evaluate programs in which a 50/50 split for funding of PEP Management Post-CCMP Base Program C/N preservation and mitigation efforts can be applied(e.g., Conference Section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation;NYS z Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act)and determine mechanisms for its implementation Table continued on next page n b t 0 n 3 n n w V I Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status -integrate 91 09 .1. N-8.IIntegrate PEP recommendations into existing land use PEP Management Post-CCMP No new FTEs R v Priority and regulatory programs,including the SEQRA Conference(lead), o regulations(6NYCRR Part 617),Article 8 of the Nitrogen Management a Environmental Conservation Law, Suffolk County Work Groups,Suffolk Water Quality Coordinating Committee,Suffolk County Planning � County Planning Commission reviews,the Southold Commission,NYSDEC Ground Watershed Protection and Water Supply Management Strategy,the Wild,Scenic and o w Recreational Rivers statute and regulations(6NYCRR c Part 666),the Freshwater Wetlands regulations(6 NYCRR Part 663),the Tidal Wetlands Land Use n regulations(6 NYCRR Part 661),and the Protection of Waters re lations 6 NYCRR Part 608). _ 4 ' ' E foraiatto -Gia a �? b ecdves" i�'.t<mtlS ' _ N-9.1 Continue to sponsor and coordinate research efforts PEP Technical Advisory Ongoing EPA—0.1 FTE C/N addressing nutrient-related issues. Committee(TAC)(lead) NYSDEC—0.1 FTE SCDHS—0.1 FTE N-9.2 Establish a PEP land cover initiative to assist in PEP Management Begun Fall 1999 ($75,000 initial effort) C/O nutrient loading analyses. Conference through contractor(lead), NYSDOS N-9.3 Update the land use database on a regular basis and SCPD(lead),PEP 2002 SCPD—0.2 FTE/yr R Priority prepare a proposal outlining the objectives and needs Management Conference for a long-term monitoring program. n N-9.4 Continue to integrate atmospheric deposition data into PEP(lead),EPA Ongoing EPA—0.1 FTE C/O PEP modeling and management activities. Assess how breductions in atmospheric sources through the Clean H Air Act will affect nitrogen loadings in the Peconic h7 System. Table continued on next page x tri z n Table 3-3. Nutrients Management Plan Actions. (continued) x > Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status 0 t N-9.5 Continue to incorporate groundwater information in PEP Management Ongoing SCDHS—0.1 FTE C/O 7y PEP characterization,modeling,and management Conference(lead) H activities. This includes ongoing groundwater x monitoring programs,as well as improvements to modeling. MN-9.6 Continue to incorporate PEP TAC and external peer Model Evaluation Ongoing Included in Actions N-I and N-3 C/O review in the modeling development and application Group,PEP TAC(co- process,which includes dependent analyses of water leads) quality and pollution input studies. As the model process is completed,continue to solicit and use TAC and external peer review in developing programs and interpretina and a I in data. N-10'- onitor Conditiods Witi the Estuary S stem to Determine the Effectiveness of Management Strategies. (Objectives 2 3 d,and S N-10.1 Continue monitoring the effectiveness of remedial USDA-NAGS, Ongoing USDA-NAGS—0.05 FTE C/O actions at the Corwin Duck Farm. SCSWCD(co-leads), SCS WCD—0.05 FTE Nitrogen Management Work Groups N-10.2 Develop and conduct a long-term surface water SCDHS(lead),PEP Post-CCMP See Environmental Monitoring C/O monitoring program,with input from the PEP TAC. Plan N-10.3 Issue a biannual update to the SCDHS surface water SCDHS(lead) Post-CCMP SCDHS—0.1 FTE/year R qualityreport. N-10.4 Continue monitoring groundwater impacts of various SCDHS(lead) Ongoing SCDHS—0.2 FTE C/O land uses,such as residences,farms,and golf courses. n°s 5 a } 0 00 } a n w b /0"N Pec_a_«Program c_ .�.® . � 2 | J ! » ,. • � ■ 9 * � ! q \ \ � % »§�� � ■�| ^ / WHOM � — � � k § § & � . f ■ § � § � ¢ k 2 2 ) . 9 Q 2 § % $ / 0 s| h k ■ ■ $ �� � � ' { § §� � , f�� ■ . . • | ~ �� � ■ . | \ ` ` �� , | j t . >f � l� ! �r#� ��■� �■ | . \ ■| ms - � �■ "| ■ . s��. !6 HIV i | BQ�■■ ��w�§�#ll�,�■ | Figure . LocationJ Eelgrass Beds& Routine MarineSurface w_Monitorings&n � CHAPTER THREE 3-50 \ � � ro SUFFOLKICOUNff D&WMBN70FHE4ffHSMVXM(&CO,H.Sj OWMGN OF MIRONMENTAL QUAUTY OffiCEOFECOIADGY MANAOWGAAEU Wistmeff MW PVCCNWMWEEr Oil PPA P CMMEWT ONO ra, F" FIANDIERMINNINOWN Is 1`84 PLANDIM IN 90M CWTRALMA611111NI tNc W llvm� I I LLA io IJ aFFFOIITFIfOFFl Ivillummolm COO" 00 SppVA El W AS OLD ISLAND SOUND IV (Im VqCADI1 0,,' 'OF IsIT Is UT etrovo n' 140XHAVEN-1 Iowa PECONICESTUARYPROGMA4 NOSC4LE REGJON4L PLANNINGAREA BOUNDARIES 4Q 'lqbl Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Water & Sediment Quality Technical Characterization Framework Atmospheric Loadings Direct Loadings Land Cover Surfac� ate1 �Vlont IVliiclelliii Groundwater' 1t t Water Column Sediment Figure 3-3. Water and Sediment Quality Technical Characterization Framework. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-52 x a .O n9MOORroNu MDA9101tlNG m,%w r>- Qom-"'• SUFFOLK COUNTYITEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES m-Maur yp m-cvrcx NAId OR• � m•aAEr cue2• DIVISION Of ENY(RONMENUL QUALITY nr-NoaxaA xArror ro � OFFICE OF ECOLOGYcuumL G me. l;MY C,1 1 m-N4AMMO bxxvONO A Or-GmffNpw HArror •-MAINJa Wr6ry�OMdfNnvnuroHE F W W:H4ttOW mY' AKMHmfOIFM�Y mwrBwm arrotaN --dxuu°e ruMArneBurE� �UA A M SAG WUMCHU.D, (SUM ERN v W-L1a HARIOr rD-m ffmr cxdlf• URLYAMAADD v-" num D, ID nr-NORtNNllf CrlB[• ANU'(•7M,B,f/A I6UND C W ACCAMONW AAAMON w m.tAKAGUEMAA OA' W L4ffAA4AMA(ONr"* 7 W.GLIBIN M W 4 rma:ACWOM oe'YO`x` ESYERN 6tUK ns IM-EprNmrUlrO Hi' W ..yo1 .138 III-d NAlMOUlaw.Of ml:rtm lGMNAM NFCE •IM •,�. rUIC UND BOUND Alm.mrsBLAND LIEI• p p UT .116 8 01r-NOG NCKMYWB7' 0600 108 Ln Wa° u D •n7 < 121 0 -• �j•068113 rZ EAI,H M A° ....»� 40 01 ..w.. a 36 7 . 70 130•' 0 30 3 IKFSITYwcvm O..n f� 0 s awn®wroan m d 148OUt �• rA-MNDBIr MY.— TO Q (M w 00 a ei r90-RWrtt'ONlC r1Y" r` C 1EES, n3-[I rlcGNK"y— C o' NIC FIBER Im m�p wdsr� y J ✓ d' �e Of ftif TE i°:N"wcrw o 3 1 NO MQr� rn-caxiaeurrDN• w AOM .-MnrAN wo wmw n4vc n OIStKNC •.rNnum-ss�nr�ivnnuracp � PECONICESTUARY PROGRAM(IEA) oucmmaAboEo)a ° ROUTINE MARINE SURFACE 1414TER MONITORING PROGRAM TRANSECT SCALE NOSCALE W Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Mean Summer Total Nitrogen (TN) Concentrations 0.70 (July-Sept., 1994-96) *z4o #-- Main Stem' 0.60 - 0.50 - Proposed .60 0.50Proposed TN A - 170 (0�45�q/IL X0.40 Z Proposed Shallow Water f 130114 TN Criterion(0.4 mg/1)113 0.30 ---- — ----- Flanders Bay Great Peconic Bay 116 0.20 -------- -------- ----- Note 0.10 *= Frequent or Occasional D.O. Std. Violations 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25. • Transect Distance from Mouth of Peconic River (miles) Figure 3-5. Mean Summer Total Nitrogen Concentrations. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-54 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • 0 o CC 6 77 17 a lot2 N , X too 2 d B'e8il�i96@!ifl , ;73 a �' z ; • ♦ / Q X � X AL uu • X pgi3`g � A o ii• oJ, O Figure 3-6. Average Summer Light Extinction Coefficients. CHAPTERTHREE 3-55 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Creek/Embayment Mean Summer TN Concentrations 0.70 �Main Stem 101 0.60 --- t North Fork —*—South Fork 0.50 *11927' 2V - --_-- Shelter Is. _ 131^ _ n E 0.40er 106 24 122 111 P eMilicz Arat Proposed T1 9 riterion(0.4 mgA HGuideline(fc DO) 111 133 134 0.30 0O 45 mgA) 132 135 Flanders Bay 3reat Peannic Bay 0.20 - Notes *=Frequent or Occasional D.O.Std.Violations; "=not above guideline for Mar-Nov; station 220'omitted(far above guideline); 0.10 data from Jul.-Sep., 1988-96 baseline for main stem stations, 199496 for other stations. • 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 4O.1 Transect Distance from Mouth of Peconic River (miles) J Figure 3-7. Creek Embayment Mean Summer Total Nitrogen Concentrations. is CHAPTERTHREE 3-56 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • o � y N � w bt d MIMI,�� -10 g..Q 0 A a ^ ll p If o g dna &0j bb r ° E16 r� y 5 o I y o P i y � 'lilt ;EU I;Will;<Wialiaaliiihikift E@ � Figure 3-8. Routine Marine Surface Water Monitoring Program Summer Dissolved Oxygen (DO)Conditions—Surface Samples. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-57 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP { • Peconic Estuary - Nitrogen Loading Trends* 5000 —♦— [hack Farrrs - Vllestern Estuary 4000 - - Ibtday �-- Nonpoint Source- 3000 Western Estuary Mean Total Non int Source- Nitrogen Loa i� 2000 Eastern Estuary -- (LWDay) ---- 1000 +1'400 -1,300 Ib/day Ib/da 0 • 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 •Esdanrrs amfor major regiorml muma only."Wafern Estuary"is PmoNe River A Flanders Bay. Amumed0yewlagfwgmundam imnryon of aanpoinimumm AO vdmatn arc prnlmLmry,and loading enim prior m 1960 am gr Figure 3-9. Nitrogen Loading Trends. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-58 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4 • Land Uses in Peconic Estuary Study Area (1995) Western Area Eastern Area 3teS��l,l3e.titl� �� C a � ,.ReS1S�f Vacant � t R 6k. Vacant 27% 41,200 Acres 87,100 Acres 40% Of Study Area Acreage is Subject to Development Figure 3-10. Land Uses in Peconic Estuary Study Area(1995). • CHAPTERTHREE 3-59 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Total Nitrogen (TN) Load by Land Use Acres/10 0 6000 -- - - _ p Fertilizer (Ib/day) a 5000 -- N []Sanitary (Ib/day) 4000 - g Othe r/aggre gated 000 .Other/aggregated 3000 __ (Ib/day) T M` 2000 - 1 u 0 1000 Z F O TN ACRES TN ACRES TN ACRES TN ACRES Residential Agriculture Vacant/Open Space Other TN Loads and Land Use Type Figure 3-11. Total Nitrogen Load by Land Use. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-60 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Estimated Groundwater Total Nitrogen (TN) Concentrations Worst-Case Conditions 12 ,0. +s%((+400 Iwd) ,, E Existing +40o 10 -9mg/1 - - Potential i al 6 -- — - Z 4.8 mg4, r +64%(+1,2001Wd) 4.4 mgA; +47% +1501b�d) 3n 3nW North Fork South Fork Shelter Island 'Full build-out, except no agricultural conversion. Regions shown in graph are all east of Flanders Bay 'i Figure 3-12. Estimated Groundwater Total Nitrogen Concentrations Worst-Case Conditions. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-61 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP iWestern Estuary - Potential Worst-Case Groundwater Degradation (Full build-Out, No Agricultural Conversion) 12 +1.3 mg11 Addition (+6011z/day) 10 -- -- --- - ---1 Existing 11- .. 8 rn E +0.9 mg4 I (+1001tVday) H 6 jmg4 +1.6 mg4 (+1201blday) 4 +2 (+ - 0 Peconic River Peconic River North Flanders South Flanders • W/0 Gauge East Bay Bay Figure 3-13. Western Estuary-Potential Worst-Case Groundwater Degradation. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-62 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Es—ti mated (No Open Space Total Nitrogen ( CondConcentrations ce trations 14 nS -and Full Budd-Out 12 - -- r.i ngn(+,9%) No Open Space 10 - 1.7mg/1(+19%) - , 8 -Existing L 6 9 mg/1 1.8 mg/1(+64%) 1.mg/1 -- 4 - 3.1 Mg/j(+10 g/I(+103%) (+117%) 2 3 mg/1 L— - - — --� - -- -1 - 3 mg/�� 0 • North Forkl South Fork Shelter Island Full buildout, except no agricultural conversion. Regions shown in graph are all east of Flanders Bay '.. All percentages are calculated in relation to existin99 roundwater Western estuary TN loading would increase 6Y with no open ace. �ens� Figure 3-14. Estimated Groundwater Total Nitrogen Concentrations No Open Space and Worst-Case Conditions. CHAPTERTHREE 3-63 w w a 37YX ON x A.Mfla 831YAWNAONO NNOID38 F NY890MANYM.93IN03M w F a 3qBrur C Nr 300 x M U ' 113AYHMOOtlB moi, 9 In > w a w OY3Htl3A ltl • I Www e nun F. D � W �r15X yAC ,VYww( � 0Xn05 OrY1Sl 10019 wi .ti U Nr►wt ® rn C 1 0NY1,51 p 4 fr, yn �8r1515aS�b/1N�5�,I�.y1�' N90MIN 1XIM AOO703310331dd0 0 v AU7771a7YLN3NNOYfAN3dO NOfSlA70 4 SHAM IUIWHdO 1WHIMMAIN170017OWN v ri Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Groundwater Inflow Budget Shelter I. (20cfs) Peconic River" (37 cfs) West Estuary* (54 cfs) 45°fo South For (127 cfs) North Fork (44 cfs) •Peconic River long-term mean flow as measured at USGS gauge. •'West Estuary is downstream of USGS gauge, and includes Flanders Bay&western Great Peconic Bay. cfs = cubic feet per second Figure 3-16. Groundwater Inflow Budget. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-65 i Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Total Nitrogen Loading to Peconic River & Flanders Bay 2000 1800 Runoff(30) 1600 Atmosphere 160 1400 Lb/Day 1200 Total N 1000 Groundwater(1,320) 800 (East of Peconic River USGS Gauge Station) 600 400 JT=g4r::�: 200 Sediment flux (260)0Peconic River(1 Point Nonpoint Figure 3-17. Total Nitrogen Loading to Peconic River and Flanders Bay. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-66 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ice.. • Peconic Estuary - Total Nitrogen Loading East of Flanders Bay 30000 25000 Stormwater Runoff(100) Atmosphere(6,900) 20000 Lb/Day Total N 15000 Groundwater(4,500) 10000 Sediment Flux(13,600) 5000 STPs (20) 0 Point Nonpoint Figure 3-18. Total Nitrogen Loading East of Flanders Bay. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-67 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Peconic Estuary Surface Water Monitoring Program Percentage of Stations with Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) Standard Violations vs TN Ranges (Surface Samples) I 100 - #= 3 #= 3 90 j. Freguency of a O.Standard j5 mg/f Violation- 80 ; ❑Infrequent(1 violation only) % 70 ®Occasional (2-5%of sanples) Station^ v oisih n'ts0 Frequent(>10%0 of samples)50 40 #= 11 30 20 10 I, 0 #=18 — + Lav TN Stations Transition TN Figh TN Stations Very Figh TN Stations Stations (<0.39 mg/1 TN) (0.39-0.47 mg/1 TN) (0.47-0.5 mg/I TN) (>0.65 mg/1 TN) Station Groups by Average Total Nitrogen (TN) Ranges (#--number of stations in each TN range;TN data averaged for 1994-96) Figure 3-19. Surface Water Monitoring Program Percentage of Stations with Dissolved Oxygen (DO)Standard Violations vs. Total Nitrogen (TN)Ranges. • CHAPTER THREE 3-68 Peconic Estuary Program CCW • Total Nitrogen (TN) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standard Violations 220(Me TN= CA) Summer Conditions " 5 o mgn (Sorted by Descending TN, and Divided by D.0. Standard Violation Categories) Q7 *Stations 107(Town Creak),126/127(Sag Harbor),&131 (Northwest Creek)are also recommended as mitigation QG Frequent or Infrequent or No DO priorities due to elevated TN&depressed mean D.O. %J Occasional Standard Violations TN DO Std.Viol. Q5 * 107.127 6 mg(I _ - - - 1131 045 --- - - - _ _ 04 ILI i 02 t 01 Monitoring Station Data Sorted by Descending Mean TN �*July through September data through 1996 (excl.Sta.220) Figure 3-20. Total Nitrogen(TN)and Dissolved Oxygen (DO)Standard Violations Summer Conditions. CHAPTERTHREE 3-69 W Y� O T SUFFDlKCOUNTYDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 0 DIVISLON OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OffICFOFECOLOGY F�SNCRS `S`pNo z a � c LUM ISLAND Z 00 0 G Wti N ��NO Sp�pp EL IAYYq BLO ISLAND SOUND b 01A \5 d S' N j KWIC f� w m EAST HAM N IP an � 1 Rlfl[ H A � Y OUT T , ulrrm � ® AKONICOIgATEpGAMRdD..Hq�01p10R1' I} M lEON'NYACp1WAE Plot mm4cn4LW Y ' w ■ aemlrngurcvacae ro H ® tu/EfltKlAAtIV m OCEAN p(LNNTIC FFCONICESTUARYPROGRAM(PEPI y SOW &C4SNAYASSOMM lOG{TR7N OFMACRlSALGAF(i39�) NO SCALE S h7 Iwllkwlwe�IrL1n �-N, h7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Peconic Estuary Program NITROGEN MANAGEMENT WORK GROUPS General Process and Charges • Timing 2000-2001 (initial meetings):2001 (strategy) • Leads: Office of the Suffolk County Executive(Agricultural Work Group);EPA(Non-Agricultural Work Group);SCDHS(West Estuary TMDL Work Group) • Start-up: Review PEP background&nitrogen management process Establish committee membership list,charges,and goals/timelines • Process/Charges: • Use existing PEP guidance/data(land use,water quality,pollution loading,model results,etc.) • Evaluate existing programs,as needed(land use and pollution control) • Develop strategy(including timeline,responsibilities,and cost evaluation)for setting and attaining loading targets and implementing load controls(considering alternatives,cost& benefits) • Coordinate management and monitoring with other efforts(e.g.,critical natural resource areas) (1) Agricultural Work Group(Leads:Office of Suffolk County Executive and PEP Citizens' Advisory Committee representative) Core Membership: • Cornell Coop.Ext.,SCSWCD/NRCS,CCE,L.I.Farm Bureau,NYS Dept.of Ag.&Markets • NYSSWCC • NYSDEC,EPA,SC,Town Reps • Also:Other interested MC,TAC,&CAC reps Specific Goals: • Refine agricultural total nitrogen(TN)loading estimates • Develop implementation plan for regional TN load reductions,and possibly other pollutants - Expand Agricultural Environmental Management Initiative - Consider"Purchase of Development Rights"link to farm management plans (2) Non-Agricultural (mainly residential)Work Group(Leads: EPA and Local Government Committee designee) Core Membership: • EPA,NYSDEC,SC,Town Reps • Also:Other interested MC,TAC,&CAC reps Specific Goals. • Develop implementation plan strategy for: - existing TN loading(primarily residential BMP-type abatement) - potential new development TN loading(primarily residential land use planning) - possibly other pollutants(toxics,coliforms,etc.) • May include recommendations on land use and pollution control,including model programs, zoning,clearing restrictions,clustering,fertilizer controls,etc. (3) West Estuary Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)Work Grroup(SCDHS lead) Core Membership: • SC,NYSDEC,EPA,Brookhaven,Riverhead,and Southampton Towns • Other interested MC,TAC,&CAC reps Specific Goals: • Refine TN loading estimates in westernmost Peconic Estuary • Develop strategy for setting and implementing regional TN load reductions - Provide support for including dissolved oxygen-impaired waters on the New York State 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)list and the establishment of a TMDL as a management tool; consider Peconic River(freshwater)model - Additional industrial/commercial land use/pollution control planning is required Figure 3-22. Proposed Nitrogen Management Work Groups. • CHAPTERTHREE 3-71 sk,3 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • This Page Intentionally Left Blank. • 3-72 CHAPTERTHREE Peconic Estuary Program CHAPTER FOUR HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES 1) Preserve and enhance the integrity of the ecosystems and natural resources present in the study area so that optimal quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitat and diversity of species can be assured and conservation and wise management of the consumable,renewable natural resources of the estuary are promoted and enhanced. 2) Protect and enhance biogeographical areas within the Peconic watershed with concentrations of high quality spawning,breeding, feeding,and wintering or seasonal habitat for shellfish,finfish, waterfowl,shorebirds, anadromous fish,and rare plant, animal, and natural communities. 3) Protect and enhance the ecosystems and the diversity of ecological communities and habitat complexes throughout the system,particularly tidal wetlands,eelgrass meadows, and beaches and dunes by preventing or minimizing loss,degradation,and fragmentation and by maintaining and restoring natural processes essential to the health of the estuary and its watershed. 4) Restore degraded habitats to maintain or increase native species and community diversity, provide connectivity of natural areas,and expand existing natural areas. 5) Foster recreational and commercial uses of the Peconic Estuary that are sustainable and compatible with protection of biodiversity. 6) Protect and enhance species which are endangered,threatened,or of special concern throughout the system by mitigating stresses to these species and ensuring essential habitats crucial for their survival. 7) Promote coordination and cooperation among Federal, state,and local governments and stakeholders to maximize protection,stewardship, and restoration of the Peconic Estuary. 8) Develop and carry out an estuary-wide research,monitoring,and assessment program to guide and evaluate management decisions concerning the estuary and to ensure • management and policy decisions are based on the best available information. CHAPTERFOUR 4-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS Priority living resource issues for the Peconic Estuary include submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish,finfish habitat,and"critical areas"(areas of particular ecological significance). The PEP has designated Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAs: geographically specific locations that have significant biodiversity)and has convened a Habitat Restoration Work Group to address the enhancement of existing resources and the restoration of habitats. While the list of threatened and impaired natural resources is extensive,the PEP has established management priorities focused on protecting existing resources,restoring damaged habitats,and enhancing the integrity of the ecosystem so that the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife can be assured. The PEP's measurable goals with respect to habitat and living resources include: • Protect the high quality habitats and concentrations of species in the Critical Natural Resource Areas(measured by acres of open space protected and development of model ordinances). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-6,HLR-10,HLR-I 1, HLR-13,HLR-14, HLR- 15,HLR-161 • Maintain current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reduce shoreline hardening structures by five percent(measured by the percent change of natural vs. hardened shorelines through GIS mapping). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-2, HLR-5, HLR-8,HLR-13,HLR-15] • Maintain current eelgrass acreage(2,100 acres in main stem of the estuary)and increase • acreage by ten percent over 10 years(measured by inter-annual aerial surveys with GIS and SCUBA assessments). [See Actions HLR-1, HLR-3, HLR-4,HLR-6, HLR-9,HLR- 10, HLR-15,HLR-16] • Maintain and increase current tidal and freshwater marsh acreage,and restore areas that have been degraded(e.g.,restricted flow,Phragmites australis dominated,hardened shoreline)(measured as number of acres of marsh with GIS). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR- 2,HLR-4,HLR-5, HLR-7, HLR-8] • Maintain a policy of no new mosquito ditches and not re-opening ditches that have filled- in by natural processes;and restore 10-15 percent of mosquito ditched marshes through Open Marsh Water Management(measured by the number of acres of restored tide marsh using Open Marsh Water Management). [See Actions HLR-1, HLR-2,HLR-5,HLR-7, HLR-81 • Increase the number of piping plover pairs to 115 with productivity at 1.5 (over a three- year average),distributed across the nesting sites in the Peconic Estuary(measured by annual piping plover surveys). [See Actions HLR-1, HLR-8, HLR-13,HLR-15,HLR- 16] • Develop recommendations and guidelines to reduce impacts to marine life from dredging-related activities(measured by amount of reduced dredging volumes and protected benthic habitat acreage). [See Actions HLR-1,HLR-3,HLR-5,HLR-6, HLR- 151 • Foster sustainable recreational and commercial finfish and shellfish uses of the Peconic Estuary that are compatible with biodiversity protection(measured by juvenile finfish trawl surveys, bay scallop landings, and identifying,protecting,and restoring key shellfish and finfish habitat). [See Action HLR-1,HLR-11,HLR-12] • CHAPTERFOUR 4-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 1 4 • • Enhance the shellfish resources available to harvesting through reseeding, creation of spawning sanctuaries and habitat enhancement(measured by scallop and clam abundance/landings). [See Actions HLR-4, HLR-7,HLR-8,HLR-9, HLR-10, HLR-12, HLR-16,HLR-17] • Link land usage with habitat quality in tidal creeks(measured by continued funding of benthic and water quality surveys to measure the quality/impacts to the habitats within selected tidal creeks). • Ensure that the existing and future aquaculture(shellfish and finfish)and transplanting activities are situated in ecologically low-productive areas of the estuary and that they are mutually beneficial to the aquaculture industry, natural resources,and water quality (measured by the extent and location of aquaculture/transplant facilities,water quality measures,and natural resource data). [See Actions HLR-1, HLR-3,HLR-4, HLR-6, HLR-10,HLR-15, HLR-17] • Annually initiate five percent of the projects identified in the Habitat Restoration Workgroup Plan for the Peconic Estuary(measured by the number of projects funded and implemented annually). [See Actions HLR-7, HLR-81 • • CHAPTERFOUR 4-3 Peconic Estuary Program COMP INTRODUCTION • The eastern end of Long Island,New York and the Peconic Estuary contain a large variety of natural communities, from dwarf pitch pine forests to soft-bottom benthos in the main bays;all of which are important to the ecology and productivity of this ecosystem. There is a larger percentage of undisturbed habitats and a greater diversity of natural communities within this watershed, on a per unit area basis, than anywhere else in the coastal zone of New York State. These communities are home to a number of species that are endangered or threatened globally,nationally,and locally. According to the New York State Natural Heritage Program,there are 11 I endangered, threatened, rare,or special concern terrestrial and freshwater species documented in the Peconic Estuary and its watershed— 13 insects,one freshwater fish,two amphibians,one reptile, 12 birds, and 82 vascular plants. There are a total of 553 separate,confirmed occurrences of these 111 species in the watershed. Another 45 rare species—one amphibian and the rest plants—have been historically reported in the Peconics but have not been documented recently. In addition to these,there are four species of endangered or threatened sea turtles and eight species of marine mammals(seals, porpoises,and whales)which are found in or migrate through the Peconic Estuary. Many economically important species spend all or part of their lives in the estuary. These species enhance the productivity of the estuary and its contiguous waters. The Peconic Estuary provides important habitat,as well as spawning and nursery grounds,to a wide variety of marine organisms— most notably shellfish,such as bay scallops, hard clams, and fish, such as bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, scup(also called porgy), summer flounder(also called fluke),winter flounder, windowpane flounder, weakfish(also called grey sea trout),and tautog(also called blackfish). One • of the most important underwater habitats of the estuary is the meadows of eelgrass found along the edges of the eastern end of the Peconic Estuary. These eelgrass beds provide food, shelter, and nursery grounds to many marine animals including worms, shrimp,scallops and other bivalves,crabs, and fish. Eelgrass beds stabilize the bay bottom and are also an important component of the nutrient cycle in the estuary. In addition to individual species,there are entire habitats or natural communities rarely found on the east coast of the United States and only found in this region of the State, such as the Pine Barrens. Some of these habitats are currently in danger of being reduced to remnants or of being lost completely. It is for these reasons that The Nature Conservancy designated the Peconic Bioreserve as one of the Last Great Places in the Western Hemisphere. HABITATS AND LIVING RESOURCES OF THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) identified species of"special emphasis" which are plants and animals that have been identified as Federal trust, endangered or threatened, State protected, natural heritage listed,and of commercial and recreational importance. For convenience in discussing the variety of habitats and species found in the Peconic Estuary System,this chapter has divided the estuary system into several zones. Each of these zones are discussed individually—first in terms of the habitat and living resources associated with the zone,and second in relation to observed impacts and impairments. These zones consist of the: 1)deep water; 2)shallow water(including embayments); 3)intertidal-shoreline;4)Peconic River,freshwater wetlands,and coastal ponds;and 5)terrestrial zones. A detailed description of the ecology of these • CHAPTERFOUR 44 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • areas has also been described in the separate Living Resources of the Peconic Estuary Characterization Report. Deep Water Zone The deep-water zone is defined for this program as that portion of the main stem of the estuary in which the water depth is greater than three meters(approximately 10 feet). These open waters of the Peconic Estuary include most of Flanders,Great Peconic,Little Peconic,Noyack, Southold, and Gardiners Bays;portions of Northwest and Orient Harbors;and Shelter Island Sound. This zone includes everything from the overlying water column to the bottom communities. Finish The deep, open waters contain a large portion of the adult finfish,which are harvested commercially or recreationally in the Peconic Estuary System. To assess the use of deep waters of the Peconic Estuary by juvenile finfish,the NYSDEC has conducted trawl surveys for juveniles in the open waters west of Shelter Island over the past decade. Results from these trawl surveys indicate that these waters contain juveniles of many species of finfishes and are an especially important nursery area for tautog,weakfish, scup,winter flounder,bay anchovy,Atlantic silversides, butterfish, bluefish, and northern puffer. Many of these species are found at locations throughout the estuary and may seasonally or diurnally move back and forth between the deep and shallow water zones. • Shellfish Natural populations of commercially and recreationally important shellfish species have never been abundant in the deep-water zone of the Peconic Estuary System according to NYSDEC shellfish surveys. Natural populations of hard clams in waters greater than approximately four feet(1.2 m), which were never very high,have declined in abundance as have the levels of other, non-commercial shellfish species. Fishermen have reported,though,that scallops are common in greater than ten feet of water. At one time,oysters were the most valuable commercial species in the Peconic Estuary System. The populations were not natural,but came from the seeding of bottom waters for grow-out (primarily in the deepwater zone). This practice has been discontinued,and oysters are rarely found in this zone. Other shellfish,which are found in the deep waters in relatively great abundance(in both surveys), include channeled and knobbed whelks(colloquially called conchs or winkles),slipper shells(locally called quarterdecks), blood arks,oyster drills,and jingle shells. Other Invertebrates The results of the NYSDEC juvenile finfish trawl survey and the PEP deep water shellfish survey have provided evidence of the presence of a large variety of other invertebrates inhabiting the system. Species found in this zone include green, lady,and blue crabs,spider crabs,horseshoe crabs,mantis shrimp,and long-finned squid. There are also areas of the bottom in which the sediment is completely bound up in dense mats of tubes built by amphipods and populations of polychaete and oligochaete worms, which are common members of benthic communities throughout the estuary. Birds The deep-water zone is used by a variety of birds for feeding,notably sea ducks such as red-breasted • mergansers,three species of scoters(Melanitta perspicillata,furca, and nigra),and common eiders. CHAPTERFOUR 4-5 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Sea ducks are so-called because they feed and rest in deep, open coastal waters and rarely, if ever, • come to shore while in the Peconics. The sea ducks do not breed and rear their young in the Peconic system but use it exclusively as an over-wintering site. These waterfowl are found in high concentrations during the early months of the year at a number of sites(see Figure 4-1). They feed primarily on shellfish such as blue mussels and benthic invertebrates. For example,diving ducks such as scaup and canvasbacks are found in 2-18 meters of water and feed on submerged aquatic vegetation, bivalves and hard clams. Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals Deep waters are the preferred habitat of the four species of sea turtles,two species of cetaceans, (whales,dolphins,and porpoises),and five species of pinnipeds(seals)that are found regularly in the estuary. All of these animals feed on a variety of marine organisms in the open waters. The most common species of pinnipeds are harbor seals and less common are the harp seals and grey seals. These seals are found in association with a number of haul-out areas around the eastern Peconics and Block Island Sound. The number of seals in the New York region has increased dramatically in the past decade,and these animals are now found year round in the Peconics instead of only in winter. Only two species of cetacean—the bottle-nosed dolphin and the harbor porpoise—have been sighted in the Peconics in recent history. Occurrences of these animals in New York waters also have increased greatly in the past decade. Occasionally,a right whale has been sighted in Block Island Sound and at the eastern end of Gardiners Bay. Three of the four sea turtle species found in the Peconics use the system extensively at the end of • April through October and a number are found in waters greater than 10 feet(three meters). Kemp's ridleys,the smallest and most endangered of all sea turtles, use the Peconics as juveniles for feeding on spider crabs. Loggerhead turtles and green sea turtles also feed in the system as juveniles and are found throughout the Peconics. Studies have found that the Peconic bays are important developmental habitat during the early life stages of Kemp's ridley and green turtles. Leatherback turtles are only occasionally found in the estuary. Shallow Water Zone This zone is defined as those waters in the main bays with a depth of less than three meters (approximately 10 feet)that remain submerged through the tidal cycle. This zone also includes subtidal portions of all tidal creeks,ponds,and large embayments in the Peconic Estuary. Finfish Many juvenile forms of finfish are found to feed in the shallow water zone. Some species of adult finfish move in close to shore to spawn and reproduce(e.g.,weakfish,winter flounder, and Atlantic silversides). Others spawn in the ocean and the larvae move inshore,metamorphose,and the juveniles feed in the shallow areas(i.e.,nursery areas)until they are large enough to migrate back offshore(e.g., bluefish, summer flounder). Because of these differential uses by a number of species, the entire shallow water zone appears to be crucial to local populations of breeding finfish. Past surveys have indicated that, for some species(e.g.,weakfish,winter flounder, and scup),the area from Great Peconic Bay to Montauk Point,both deep and shallow waters,appears to be much more productive than other estuaries and embayments around Long Island. • 4-6 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program COMP . • Shellfish A survey of shellfish in shallow, subtidal waters was performed by the PEP in summer 1997. Results of this study determined that although shallow water regions make up only 6.6 percent of the estuary, they contribute the majority of the commercial shellfish harvest. Both scallops and hard clams are harvested from the shallow water zone,although bay scallop populations are extremely susceptible to the recurring Brown Tide algae bloom. With the crash of the scallops in the 1980s due to the Brown Tide, East End fishermen began to harvest hard clams in greater numbers. There is also a thriving transplant industry in the Peconic Estuary System with private harvesters transferring thousands of hard clams from uncertified waters of Raritan Bay in New York Harbor to the Peconic Estuary for biological cleansing before later reharvest and sale. Despite greater numbers in shallow waters, PEP research has found an overall low abundance of clams, indicating the possibility of low recruitment, high mortality, and/or preferential harvesting of small size classes. Birds There are more birds feeding in the shallow water zone than in the deep-water zone. These birds consist of waders, such as herons and egrets,and waterfowl such as puddle and bay ducks. Puddle ducks(also called dabbling ducks)are usually found in shallow embayments and frequently feed on land as well as in the water. Black ducks and mallards are examples of puddle ducks. Bay ducks are similar to sea ducks in that they spend most of their time offshore in deep waters,although they remain in fairly sheltered embayments rather than the open ocean. Examples of bay ducks include greater and lesser scaup, canvasbacks,and redheads. Raptors such as osprey and shorebirds such as the terns(e.g., least tem and roseate tem)also depend on fish in these areas for food. Critical areas for puddle and bay ducks are shown in Figure 4-1. Wading birds are found throughout the estuary. Submereed Aquatic Veeetation Most of the beds of estuarine submerged aquatic vegetation are found in the shallow water zone according to a PEP study performed by Cashin Associates. Submerged aquatic vegetation is defined as beds of rooted vascular plants or macroalgae, both of which require complete immersion for all or most of the day to survive. Submerged aquatic vegetation,particularly eelgrass, is of great ecological importance in shallow environments. Eelgrass beds provide shelter and food for a variety of juvenile finfish and shellfish as well as many other invertebrates. Shelter is provided not only by the actual structure of the eelgrass blades but also by the fact that eelgrass beds dampen currents,resulting in a low velocity zone among the blades. Food for the resident species is provided by epiphytes and their associated grazers on grass blades as well as increased suspended material which falls to the bottom as a result of the slow currents within the beds. These rooted plants also stabilize the underlying substrate and prevent scouring and erosion. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-7 A # Peconic Estuary Program 00 nWaterfowl Breeding,Migration, o &Wintering Areas a C y A ' C JJ+�, WNIZ Y � r"'� ih •-.� SS 6o Y ® Sea Ducks ,.. Dabbling Ducks scale 1:360,000 O C Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Macroalgae beds are generally considered poorer habitat compared to eelgrass. Since macroalgae are not rooted,they do not stabilize soft bottoms. Rather,they are easily uprooted and can be carried some distance where they foul eelgrass beds, beaches,and bare bottoms. The most abundant species of rooted vascular plant in the shallow water zone is eelgrass,although some small areas of widgeon grass are also found in brackish waters. Eelgrass beds are found around Shelter Island and to the east along the fringes of Gardiners Bay and within a few small embayments and creeks(see Figure 4-2). Critical areas for eelgrass are currently considered to be all those areas where this species currently exists. More areas may be identified for restoration purposes after eelgrass habitat criteria studies have been completed. The macroalgae species that occur in greatest abundance throughout the system are green fleece,an invasive species,and sea lettuce. Fishermen have reported sets of scallops in areas of green fleece in the western portion of Peconic Bay. IntertidaMhoreline Zone As suggested by the name,this zone includes all areas around the edge of the estuary that are periodically inundated by tides or are found upland of the mean high tide line. This includes all tidal wetlands,mud and sand flats,beaches,and dunes. The location of tidal wetlands in the Peconics is shown in Figure 4-3. Data from the NYSDEC aerial photographs taken in 1974 indicate there were roughly 12,466 acres (5,049 hectares)of vegetated and unvegetated tidal wetlands in the Peconic Estuary. Approximately 3,898 acres of this is vegetated salt marsh of different types. According to the NYSDEC's tidal wetlands trends analysis program,approximately 33 acres of high marsh have been created in Great Peconic Bay when comparing the original 1974 inventory to present conditions. According to the USFWS,approximately 256 acres of all types of wetlands were lost between 1972 and 1994. The definitions for wetlands were different for both of these analyses. A comparison of these analyses is being conducted by NYSDEC. Because of tidal fluctuations, this zone is home to a wide variety of organisms,which are adapted to the twice-daily inundations of seawater. There is an entire invertebrate community,which is associated almost exclusively with the intertidal area. Organisms found only in these areas include several species of snails and bivalves, fiddler and other crabs,various species of polychaete and oligochaete worms,and a huge variety of microorganisms. Marshes Marshes play an important role in estuarine ecology. The vegetated areas stabilize the shoreline and protect small tidal ponds and creeks,which are ideal areas for juvenile fish and invertebrates to grow and reproduce. The vegetated areas are also prime nesting areas for some species of waterfowl and waterbirds,such as puddle ducks,which rely on the physical protection and abundant food sources provided by these areas. Marshes also provide food for large herbivores,such as deer,and omnivores,such as raccoons. Salt marshes are home to the diamondback terrapin,an exclusively estuarine reptile. These animals live in the marsh,but lay their eggs in soft sand,usually at the upper margins of the marsh and beaches. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-9 At ..2 O Peconic Estuary Program Eelgrass Beds j� 4 Eelgrass Beds 0 1� Scale 1:350,000 z a Peconic Estuary Program m Tidal Wetlands ' O G F a C '14 1 eL y r i 1994 Wetlands b Estuarine Intertidal Estuarine Subtidal Scale•1:350,000 ^p„ A 4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The marshes also play a role beyond that of habitat for birds and fishes and invertebrates. They • provide a hydrologic buffer zone that acts in two ways. These habitats are capable of filtering a large amount of surface runoff from land,buffering the estuarine waters from excess nutrients and contaminants that might be contained in stormwater runoff. Conversely,they can absorb a large amount of floodwater from the estuary during storm surges. In this way,they are vital as a transition zone between the estuary and the terrestrial environment. Mud and Sand Flats and Sandy Beaches Several species of commercially important bivalves are found on intertidal mudflats, including hard clams and soft clams. These areas are also used by finfish for spawning and nursery grounds with the adults, larvae, and juveniles moving on and off these unvegetated areas with the tides. The estuary margins are extremely important to birds. Wading birds and raptors feed over the mud and sand flats at high tide. Sandy beach strands are used for nesting by shorebirds, such as tems and plovers. The proximity to saltwater and a reliable food source are key for these species. Sandy beaches are found throughout the system. In addition to the endangered beach sand-nesting birds previously mentioned,beaches are home to a variety of rare plants that are exclusively adapted to these nutrient-poor environments. These are all found upland of the mean high tide and include various succulents and grasses,such as seabeach knotweed. Horseshoe crabs also actively use the sandy beaches. Coastal Bluffs and Islands • Another habitat found along open shorelines is coastal bluffs. This habitat is not as abundant around the Peconic Estuary System as on the northern shore of Long Island,but a few areas exist in the Peconic Estuary System. These habitats are vulnerable to erosion by wind and waves. Coastal bluffs can support some vegetation,which stabilizes them to some extent but are eventually eroded inland. There are few species adapted exclusively to these areas; erosion is of concern for areas immediately landward of the bluff. Bluffs are an important part of the beach system and are an excellent source of sand for the beaches. In addition to the edges of the estuary around the forks,there are several small coastal islands(exclusive of Gardiners and Robins Islands)which could be considered to fall within the intertidal/shoreline zone. Although not strictly within the PEP study area,they are included here because of their significance to the region. These small,rocky islands lie east of Plum Island. They serve as haul-out areas for marine pinnipeds, and support large colonies of terns(Great Gull Island in particular). Peconic River, Freshwater Wetlands, and Ponds This zone comprises the entire freshwater surface drainage of the Peconic Estuary including freshwater creeks and coastal ponds. The Peconic River and its basin make up the largest fraction of this zone in the study area. The freshwater environment is crucial to the Peconic system, because it is the influx of fresh water that makes the system estuarine. A mix of fresh and salt water is vital for the growth and development of many species,some of which cannot survive in highly saline seawater. As with salt marshes,freshwater swamps,bogs,and vernal ponds are also important as areas that absorb and filter stormwater runoff and support a variety of fish, invertebrate,and bird species. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • There are approximately 3,739 acres of freshwater wetlands in the Peconic Estuary System,which are hydrologically connected via permanent surface water to the estuary(as compared to those that are connected via groundwater or are ephemeral wetlands). Approximately 55 percent of these are associated with the Peconic River and its tributaries,comprising a total of 2,079 acres. There are also a number of small pockets of freshwater wetlands that do not connect to the Peconic River but are within the boundaries of the Peconic Estuary study area. These pocket wetlands contain many rare and endangered species and represent important habitats. Fresh water ponds connected to the Peconic River and the upper reaches of the river itself are home to a New York State listed"special concern"fish,the banded sunfish,found only in pine barren ponds in the eastern United States. There are also two species of rare amphibians found in the Peconic River basin,the tiger salamander,which requires quiet ponds with good water quality to reproduce, and the southern leopard frog. The river and a few other streams in the Peconic region continue to sustain runs of alewife,an anadromous fish. Although the Peconic River has been dammed,each spring these fish can be found at the base of the first dam,attempting to move upstream. A temporary fish ladder was installed in the spring of 2000 to provide fish passage above the first dam in downtown Riverhead. Puddle ducks are also found in abundance at several freshwater ponds around the eastern end of the Island. Terrestrial Zone Although this zone makes up the remainder of the habitats within the study area,a major focus in this Management Plan will be on natural terrestrial communities that are directly adjacent to or heavily influenced by the presence of the estuary. The terrestrial zone starts landward of habitats that are inundated by tides but not including the Peconic River,freshwater wetlands,and ponds. There are a number of characteristic plant communities,which occur in this upland coastal zone around the Peconic Estuary. Soil type, hydrology,and microclimates determine the occurrence of these communities. Forest types include maritime red cedar(found on the long, narrow peninsula of Orient State Park),maritime oak(found on the exposed bluffs of Jessups Neck and Mashomack Preserve),oak-holly(on the Montauk peninsula),and pitch-pine oak(the dominant community in the central Long Island Pine Barrens). The Peconic watershed may also contain significant examples of other communities such as the chestnut-oak forest. Other significant coastal upland communities include remnant maritime grasslands(found in the Peconics at Conscience Point,Montauk,and the Shinnecock Hills)and maritime heathlands(found at Montauk Mountain). These communities consist of tall grasses and shrubs and are notable for their lack of large trees and diversity of specialized plants and insects. All these plant communities contain insects, birds, and other organisms,which are specifically adapted to them. In recent years,nine of 13 insect species,two of 12 bird species,and many of the 82 vascular plants identified as threatened, endangered,or species of special concern have been documented in the terrestrial zone. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Ilk OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS • Impacts to most of the habitats and species in the estuary system are the result of either physical alteration of the land and seascape or chemical contamination of waterways from compounds deriving primarily from land-based sources. Examples of the former include channel dredging, filling of low- lying areas, hardening of the shoreline(e.g., bulkheads,docks,and groins)and clearing of land for human uses. Chemical contamination Environmental Criteria(Laws&Regulations) occurs when excessive amounts of natural compounds,elements,or toxic Since habitat and living organisms are resources to be anthropogenic compounds are released into protected rather than pollutants to be controlled and the system. discouraged, it is difficult to describe them in terms of standards or guidelines. There are numerous laws that regulate the human use of, or interaction with, these Invasive species are another threat to resources. They have been promulgated at Federal, State, habitat and living resources of the estuary County, and town levels. Most of these regulations are system. Non-indigenous species are of aimed at individual species or a particular habitat type or particular concern because these species natural community. An overview of these laws and often have no natural predators and,thus, regulations can be found in Appendix K. either parasitize and kill or out-compete the native species for food and space. Physical Alteration Physical alteration has occurred throughout the Peconic Estuary and its watershed. Low-lying marshes and swamps historically have been ditched and drained for mosquito control or filled for construction or agriculture. Dredging has been carried out on most of the inlets and navigation channels in the embayments and surrounding creeks. Bulkheads,rip-rap and other structures have been widely used to stabilize waterfront property throughout the estuary. These structures have altered shoreline erosion and accretion patterns and reduced the amount of natural shoreline available to living organisms. Roads have also disconnected and degraded many tidal wetland systems in the past. Although culverts have been installed to reconnect these wetlands,they are often poorly maintained and do not flush properly. Hence they often block migratory fish from spawning and further reduce habitat quality. Much of the uplands have been cleared,historically for agriculture and recently for residential developments. In this respect the Peconic Estuary is no different from other parts of the country,although such clearing has not occurred to the degree that it has around other estuaries in the region. Natural communities most affected by development include wetlands, beaches,grasslands,forests, and coastal ponds. In addition to direct impacts,development and land use have also led indirectly to the degradation of habitat and changes in natural communities. Filling for roads and railroads has cut off the flow of water to a number of tidal wetlands. Over time,the vegetation has changed(including invasion of nuisance species),and the marsh has either become a freshwater wetland or it has gradually filled in and become upland. Dams have been built on a number of the streams emptying into the Peconics, preventing the movement of anadromous fish into fresh water for spawning. It is believed that dredging has changed the current patterns in small embayments and creeks,which has led to changes in sediment distribution,suspended solids in the water column,and community composition. The use of hard structures along the shoreline has led to the loss of wetlands and beaches as well as the scouring of shallow areas with impacts to the shallow water benthic communities. In many cases,the changes associated with bulkheads may have been quite localized and subtle,with no apparent • CHAPTERFOUR 4-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F • impairment to human uses of the area. However,many small changes can lead to widespread cumulative damage of natural communities throughout the system. Chemical Contamination Chemical contamination can have a variety of effects. The addition of toxic substances can have an acute or chronic toxic effect on many species. Extensive contamination of the surface water in the Peconics with toxic substances,however,has been rare,and long-term impacts on populations of living organisms have probably been minimal(see Chapter 6). One of the most significant chemical contaminants in the Peconics has been excess nitrogen(see Chapter 3). Inputs of nitrogen can lead to phytoplankton blooms,the loss of rooted macrophytes,such as eelgrass,or hypoxic conditions that can kill sedentary benthic organisms and cause mobile species to relocate. Sediment loading may also be included in this category since many contaminants attach to particles. Such loading also results in siltation,which is a physical alteration. Resources most affected by chemical contamination include eelgrass beds,soft-bottom benthic communities,wetlands,and plankton communities. Invasive Species Invasive species can impact native plant and animal communities around the estuary. For example, Phragmites australis is an invasive species that forms monotypic stands in disturbed tidal wetland areas. While recent evidence suggest that Phragmites australis has some habitat value(e.g., fish and bird habitat),these stands have generally decreased the overall habitat value for native species,alter nutrient cycling regimes,and are a fire hazard. Non-indigenous plant and animal species,which have been either accidentally or purposefully introduced to Long Island,can also represent a threat. These species can out-compete indigenous populations,causing irreparable damage to the local ecosystem. There are already non-indigenous species in the Peconics(e.g.,the marine macroalgae Codium fragile or Green Fleece)whose impact on the environment is unknown. Green Fleece is abundant throughout the estuary. Because fishermen have reported sets of scallops in areas of Codium fragile in the western portion of Peconic Bay, its significance needs further evaluation. Deep Water Zone Water quality in the deep water zone east of Flanders Bay is generally excellent with respect to dissolved nutrients,oxygen,and suspended solids. There are no significant concentrations of toxic contaminants or pathogens found in this zone. The Brown Tide algae bloom was found in these areas and in shallow waters and enclosed embayments. The effects on finfish and benthic communities is unknown. Finish Populations of many species of finfish that inhabit the deep water zone of the Peconics have been greatly reduced in the past few decades. The major cause of this impairment is probably overfishing by both commercial and recreational participants on the entire Atlantic coast. Other causes may include the loss of feeding and reproductive habitat. Some fishermen believe that it might be juvenile mortality. With the data available, it is impossible to determine how much of the decline in finfish populations in the Peconic Estuary is due to habitat losses as compared to overfishing. It is not clear at all how previous activities such as commercial trawling,recreational fishing, oyster culturing, recreational boating,and dredging may have affected local populations through habitat disturbance • and modification in this zone. CHAPTERFOUR 4-15 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i Shellrish • A shellfish survey conducted in the deep water(greater than three meters)of the Peconic Estuary showed this zone to have a low abundance of commercially important species,despite supporting a rich benthic fauna overall. For example,a comparison between a 1979-80 open water shellfish survey conducted by the NYSDEC and a 1995 survey conducted by the PEP and the NYSDEC at the same sites show that natural populations of hard clams in waters greater than approximately four feet (1.2 m), which were never very high, have declined in abundance as have the levels of other, non- commercial shellfish species. It is not clear if these communities have changed or became impaired in recent years. A number of historical activities may have seriously affected these bottom communities, including trawling for fish and dredging of oysters. Boating activities and the use of lime for starfish control may also be responsible for bay bottom impacts. Commercial trawling for finfish existed in the estuary until L ters were originally the most the State imposed a ban on this activity ty in 1994. There is able commercial species in the anecdotal information that, in addition to soft bottoms, onic Estuary system. The populations trawling may have damaged or destroyed hard bottom e not natural, however, but came the seeding of bottom waters for substrates such as shell hash,along with the communities that -out (primarily in the deep water depend on them. Widespread oyster culturing in soft-bottom e). These cultivated populations areas also may have affected benthic communities. In this e the basis for the reputation q/ process,juvenile oysters were laid out in deep water areas onic Bay oysters in the past The and then dredged up,an activity that repeatedly rakes up the er industry began declining in the bottom. There are no data, however,on the impacts of these 0s due to the loss of seed in activities on benthic communities before, during,or after thenecticut, and by the 1980s, landings most intensive period of oyster aquaculture,trawling,or his species accounted for only all percentage of the shel fshboating activities in the Peconic Estuary. ested from the Peconic Estuary m. The 1979/1980 NYSDEC survey Most of the oyster grow-out activities and clam cleansing that ed no oysters; the 1995 PEP survey currently takes place in the estuary is done on trays or d only one. shellfish cages. The State-sponsored transplant program transfers hard clams from Raritan Bay in New York Harbor to deep water portions of the Peconics for cleansing before they are marketed. Most of the transplanted shellfish are not placed on the bottom for later dredging, but on racks or cages which are pulled up after a 21-day cleansing period. It is not clear how these ongoing activities are affecting benthic communities. Possible benefits could include spawning of naturally occurring populations and improved local water quality through the shellfish's natural seawater filtration process. Birds Sea ducks are found in the estuary primarily from November to April. They use the deep water portions of the estuary for feeding and resting. There are no obvious impairments to these populations aside from local impairments by either hunting,which is permitted at certain times of the year,or damage to their food supply(shellfish and other benthic invertebrates). Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals Marine mammal and sea turtle populations in the Peconics are increasing. The reasons for these increases are likely the result of the protection of these animals from hunting and, in the case of turtles,protection of their breeding grounds outside of the region. The main potential for impairment to these populations in the Peconic Estuary is damage to or loss of feeding grounds(in the case of all species of marine mammals and sea turtles)or loss of or damage to haul-out areas(in the case of • CHAPTERFOUR 4-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • seals). Since the sea turtles subsist on certain macrocrustacean species or macroalgae,damage or modification of their habitat or their food species could adversely or positively affect the species. Threats to individual animals include collisions with motorboats or possibly with trawls, entanglements,and attacks on hauled-out seals. Shallow Water Zone Shellfish Shellfish populations in the Peconics have fluctuated over time. Most of these fluctuations have been the result of natural variations in the environment. The algae bloom known as Brown Tide wiped out the scallop populations in the mid-1980s and again in the mid-1990s, but it is not known if anthropogenic factors played a role in the appearance of these recurring blooms(see Chapter 2). The scallop populations have never regained levels seen during pre-Brown Tide years. Aside from Brown Tide,the greatest limitation to shellfish harvesting in the shallow water zone at the current time is the closure of shellfish beds due to pathogen contamination. These closures may prevent over-harvesting of some species of shellfish and provide spawning sanctuaries for future stocks. Despite that, pathogens are a threat to human health and closures are an impairment to the shellfish industry. Submereed Aquatic Veeetation The PEP recognizes that some of the most important underwater habitats of the estuary are the • meadows of eelgrass found along the eastern end of the Peconic Estuary. These eelgrass beds provide food,shelter, and nursery grounds to many marine animals including the commercially important bay scallop. Eelgrass beds are also an important contributor to the detrital food web by providing carbon and nutrients to bacteria and fungi,which in tum are prey for numerous marine invertebrates and fish. Many of the eelgrass beds along the East Coast were wiped out by a mysterious"wasting disease" in the 1930s. It is believed now that the disease was caused by the slime mold Labyrinthula zosterae. The beds were extremely slow to recover and many areas have not been recolonized to this day. According to anecdotal information, eelgrass was once found throughout the estuary and may have been lost, in part,to effects from Brown Tide that first occurred in Peconic waters in 1985. The PEP study performed by Cashin Associates in 1996 confirmed a decline in eelgrass beds. The Cashin survey estimated that there are 8.5 square km of eelgrass in the estuary,while Dennison estimated in 1989 13.5 square km of eelgrass in Gardiners Bay alone. Cashin Associates also reported a decline in eelgrass beds from March to October 1994 that was unrelated to a Brown Tide bloom. Poor water quality, including high levels of nitrogen and suspended sediments,have been implicated as causes leading to declines in eelgrass beds in the Peconics as well as other estuaries along the Atlantic seaboard. In addition to these factors,which operate on relatively large scales,eelgrass beds can also be damaged by scallop dredging and motorboat traffic,both of which snag and uproot the plants. But according to fishermen, if a scallop dredge is catching eelgrass roots, it means it is not catching scallops and hence not worthwhile. Intertidaahoreline Zone The impairments to tidal wetlands, mudflats,and shoals are among the best documented and well known in the region. In an effort to improve and increase agricultural land,prevent local flooding, improve waterways for use by vessels, and control mosquitoes,these intertidal habitats have been dredged,filled,ditched,and diked. Considered for years to be"useless"property, it has only been in • CHAPTERFOUR 4-17 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP the last few decades that governments and the general public have come to realize the important role • that these habitats play in nurturing many of the estuarine species valued by humans. As discussed earlier in this chapter,actual loss of tidal wetlands in the Peconics has been close to zero in the past few decades. Unfortunately,there are few reliable estimates of the percentage of vegetated salt marsh loss prior to the 1970s, let alone any estimates of the loss of unvegetated intertidal habitats. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say that there was a significant loss of these habitats in certain locations around the estuary,particularly in those areas that have been occupied by humans for generations. Although wetland loss has been minimal in the past few decades, many areas of salt marsh have been degraded by adjacent land use practices. The State Tidal Wetlands Law and Federal Clean Water Act prohibit physical alteration of wetlands and require a permit for all activities in areas adjacent to the wetlands. If the activity will cause significant harm to the wetland,a permit may be modified or denied. Because this law allows development and dredging in areas adjacent to wetlands,there is the risk of habitat degradation over time. Even though these activities may not cause direct loss of wetlands,there is the danger that they will impair the ability of these habitats to function as they should. Therefore,while the extent of wetlands may not decrease in the future,the quality of those wetlands may become very poor. Such impaired marshes often appear to be functioning wetlands, but are, in fact, unable to support the extensive wildlife communities they once did,or to absorb and filter the same amount of water and contaminants in surface runoff. Fragmentation is also a problem where marshes are parsed into small pieces interrupted by filled areas, docks,roads,culverts or bulkheads. These small fragments are incapable of functioning the way larger tracts of marsh do, • although they may still provide habitat for a limited variety of organisms. Additionally, leaching of toxic chemicals from wood preservatives in bulkheads(e.g.,creosote,copper-chromium-arsenic)may have adverse effects on the biota of shallow-water habitats that are adjacent to these structures(see Chapter 6). Over the long term, it is estimated that the current laws protecting tidal wetlands will effectively protect only about 60 percent of the existing,privately-owned areas. The biggest long-term threat is the development of small waterfront lots(existing before the tidal wetlands law was taken into account when subdivision plans were approved). Under existing State law, if an owner is not able to build a structure on his/her property that is compatible with existing zoning due to the existence of wetlands,the State will either have to permit the filling of the marsh to accommodate the structure or compensate the owner for the property. The economically feasible choice in most cases is to allow filling rather than purchasing the property. The placement of bulkheads and other hard structures at the water line represents another long-term threat to the tidal wetlands fragmentation. If sea-level continues to rise,these structures will prevent the natural shoreward migration of the wetlands. In time,the wetlands will be submerged and cease to exist. Tidal wetlands around the Pec6nic Estuary System have also been adversely affected by the invasion of huge colonies of the common reed Phragmites australis. This plant can successfully colonize tidal marshes that have been disturbed,as well as areas that are undisturbed, replacing Spartina species. The addition of impervious areas such as roads,parking lots,and driveways increases stormwater runoff and can result in lowered salinity—a condition favored by this plant, which propagates in water with reduced salinity. Because Phragmites colonies are clonal(i.e.,they propagate as individual plants from a single rhizome root system),as long as part of a rhizome is in fresh or brackish water,a colony can propagate into higher salinity waters. This accounts for the presence of • CHAPTERFOUR 4-18 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • these plants in the salt marsh far from fresh water. Despite its invasive nature,researchers have found that tidal marsh invertebrates(e.g., snails, amphipods, and isopods),which are prey species for mummichogs,were common to abundant in reed grass-dominated regions,as well as in areas covered by typical tidal marsh vegetation along a salinity gradient of the lower Connecticut River. Therefore, the potential value of Phragmites also needs to be ascertained. Many species of birds are vulnerable to loss of intertidal habitat in the Peconic Estuary System. Puddle ducks,Canada geese,and black ducks use these areas for feeding,breeding,and rearing young,particularly since wetlands and tidal creeks have historically been reduced in size and physically altered. Loss of wetland and intertidal habitat has had the effect of concentrating overwintering ducks and geese into the remaining unaltered areas around the estuary. Increased concentrations of these birds in poorly flushed embayments may lead to increased loading of pathogen indicators into the waters,which may in tum result in closure of adjacent shellfish beds to harvesting(see Chapter 5). Beaches and dunes,as well as wetlands have been adversely impacted by human activities,primarily through direct or indirect physical alteration. Dunes act as barriers,which protect areas behind them from overwash and erosion by wind and storms;they are stabilized by vegetation adapted to the exposed environment. Dune habitats have been destroyed throughout the region as vegetation has been removed or when they have been irreparably damaged by pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Dunes also have been excavated to make way for parking lots and summer homes. Conversely,dunes migrate naturally,and over-stabilization of these land forms with non-indigenous vegetation or hard • structures such as fencing or groins,has also led to a loss of habitat. Species which use beaches or dunes for nesting,such as diamondback terrapins and shorebirds, have been forced to abandon many sites due to human disturbance(from foot traffic,off-road vehicles, boats and jet-skis in the shallow zones,and construction), as well as poaching and predation by gulls,crows,foxes,raccoons,and feral cats. Dredging and construction of bulkheads and jetties also have caused loss of beaches. These activities change current patterns,altering erosion and transport processes. In some cases, beaches have been nourished and maintained by dredging/placement operations. The protection from chemical degradation afforded to marshes and mudflats under the Tidal Wetlands Law is limited. Stormwater runoff from roads,private property, and marinas is a common problem around the Peconic Estuary. This flow can carry toxic substances such as motor oil,polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs)from engine exhaust,and heavy metals from tire and engine wear as well as lawn and garden herbicides, pesticides,and fertilizers. In addition,road sand and sediment from improperly-contained construction sites are washed into these low-lying areas. Regulations generally do not allow the direct discharge of this runoff into tidal wetlands,but indirect inputs are common. Peconic River,Freshwater Wetlands,and Ponds Threats to freshwater wetlands are potentially greater than to tidal wetlands because the laws protecting these habitats are weaker. Specifically,wetlands less than 12.4 acres in size are not protected under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)Article 24,the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Program,unless they are shown to be of local importance. This State law provides for the preservation and protection of freshwater marshes, swamps, sloughs,bogs and flats over 12.4 acres(five hectares)that support aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation. Smaller wetlands may also be protected if deemed to be of local importance. Additionally some local governments also • have regulations that protect freshwater wetlands. Permits are required for almost all activities within CHAPTERFOUR 4-19 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP V lb or adjacent to wetlands [within 100 R(30.5 m)of a wetland boundary]. Activities requiring permits • include: 1)construction of buildings, roadways, septic systems, bulkheads or dams;2)placement of fill,excavation or grading; 3)modification or restoration of existing structures;4)drainage; and 5) application of pesticides. All agricultural activities are exempted from this law. Most of the freshwater wetlands in the Peconic Estuary drainage basin are smaller than 12.4 acres, but they have all been designated as being of local importance and any activities in these areas require a State permit. Freshwater wetlands and ponds are threatened by the same activities as tidal wetlands and creeks, including sedimentation,hardening of the shoreline,and stormwater runoff,as well as groundwater draw-down and dams. Even wetlands in the Peconic River drainage basin,which are protected by being in parkland or in the Pine Barrens Core Preservation Area,are impaired due to erosion caused by vehicular and foot traffic,runoff, and groundwater draw-down by drinking water wells for nearby housing developments. The loss of these small wetlands would result in the extinction of local populations of organisms dependent on these swamps and ponds. These species include the banded sunfish,several species of amphibians, and a variety of aquatic plants and insects. Another potential threat to small freshwater ponds and wetlands is toxic contamination. These areas may receive this contamination from a variety of sources, including runoff and aerosol deposition from agricultural and residential application of pesticides and herbicides. Unlike the Tidal Wetlands Law, the Freshwater Wetlands Law does have a provision,which prevents the use of herbicides and pesticides in the vicinity of these areas as a protective measure for finfish. Unfortunately,the NYSDEC Division of Fish and Wildlife does not have the staff to enforce this provision except in cases of gross and obvious contamination. For this reason, low-level,chronic impacts from these toxic sources remain a threat to these habitats. Several stretches of the Peconic River have been designated as scenic or recreational under the State Wild, Scenic,and Recreational Rivers Act,which means that permits are required for activities that take place along the banks in those sections. These activities may be limited if they violate the scenic or recreational nature of the river. The Peconic River,however,has already been extensively modified in the past through damming, bulkheading and toxic contaminants from Brookhaven National Laboratory(see Chapter 6). Runoff and erosion have also caused some degradation in the water quality. Further indirect impacts to the upstream portion of the river from changes in land use should be minimized by the implementation of the Pine Barrens Plan,which will preserve land around the Peconic River. Terrestrial Zone The most significant threats to terrestrial communities are: 1)outright loss to agriculture or residential development;2)fragmentation of remaining communities; 3)fire suppression;and 4)invasive species. Larger continuous areas of terrestrial habitat are more biologically diverse and have higher densities of individuals. Reducing the size of natural areas or dividing them up into pieces with barriers such as roads or developments will result in fewer species and individuals living in the pieces,even if the total area is not reduced. Overall size and continuity are especially critical for species which are territorial, including many birds and mammals. Other species,such as neo-tropical warblers,require large tracts of woodland for successful reproduction. In the case of these birds, their small open nests are vulnerable to predation by foxes and domestic cats or parasitism by cowbirds. Because predators and cowbirds only penetrate woodlands to a certain distance, survival of viable • 4-20 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • populations of warblers depends on the existence of forests,which are large enough to exclude predator species and cowbirds from a significant portion of the habitat. The dwarf pitch pine forests in the Pine Barrens depend on fire for survival. Periodic burnings initiate germination in the pitch pine seeds and also destroy undergrowth species. Without fire,these trees and their associated plant and animal communities will not reproduce and will be replaced by scrub oaks. Grassland habitats also depend on fire to some extent. Successful long-term maintenance of these communities depends on periodic burnings to prevent plant succession to shrubs and trees. The native grasses are drought tolerant,so burning which destroys young trees only removes above- ground stems and shoots of these species,without damaging the deep root systems,and allows regeneration. All native plant communities around the estuary are threatened by the invasion of non-indigenous plant and animal species,which have been either accidentally or purposefully introduced to Long Island. Often these species have no natural predators and,thus,they either parasitize and kill or out- compete the native species for food and space. Although nuisance species are a problem in all environments,their impacts in terrestrial environments have been particularly well-documented. MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND ACTIONS The Peconic Estuary and its watershed are sites of human activity of all kinds. In addition to residential,commercial,and agricultural land uses,the area supports a significant tourism industry. • Fishing,shellfishing, boating, swimming,hiking,and hunting are only some of the recreational uses actively pursued in the estuary and surrounding watershed. Many of these activities depend on the existence of high quality water and healthy living resources. Shellfish,such as bay scallops and hard clams,and finfish,such as winter flounder and weakfish, support large groups of commercial and recreational enthusiasts. Upland habitats sustain many species that are recreationally important, such as deer and birds. Undisturbed habitat also provides aesthetic benefits,which add to the enjoyment of other activities. All these resources need to be conserved and enhanced as much as possible for these purposes and future,currently unforeseen uses of the system. It is also important to remember that living communities other than our own are valuable and necessary in their own right and not just as they are directly useful to humans. Humans are part of the overall ecology of the planet and need to conserve all components of our ecosystem. The PEP has tried to develop recommendations for the management of the estuary and its watershed that will foster recreational and commercial uses of the Peconic Estuary that are sustainable and compatible with protection of biodiversity. It is possible that through the implementation of these recommendations there will be an enhancement of economically and ecologically important species. Good water quality is extremely important for the protection and restoration of estuarine and maritime communities. However,since water quality is addressed through other chapters of this draft Management Plan,the management actions in this chapter will not focus on actions linked to the impacts of contaminants on habitat and living resources. The actions will be focused primarily on the impacts of habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation on living organisms, and the protection and restoration of natural communities in and around the estuary from causes other than poor water quality. Since the Peconic Estuary is in excellent health compared to neighboring estuaries,these actions are aimed at prevention of incremental and cumulative problems. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-21 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Critical Natural Resource Areas • Although it is clear that the entire estuary is ecologically important,the PEP has chosen to apply the concept of"critical natural resource areas"to focus protection efforts on the variety of species and natural communities that exist within the PEP study area. Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAs) are geographically-specific locations that currently have significant biodiversity and may require an extra level of protection(management and/or regulation)to preserve their unique characteristics. Many of these areas are presently threatened by development or uses that could degrade their quality. In March 1996,the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)Coastal Ecosystems Program generated a list of species and species habitats for the watershed(referred to as species of special emphasis). This list was reviewed by the PEP Natural Resources Committee and used as the basis for examining the waters and watershed of the Peconics. The list included USFWS trust species,threatened and endangered species,anadromous and migratory species,New York State Natural Heritage Program species and communities of concern,and important commercial and recreational species. The PEP,together with area stakeholders,followed a two-step process to identify potential CNRAs. First,the PEP and stakeholders identified 97"hot spots"in the system that represented(1)feeding, breeding,and over-wintering areas for species of special emphasis;(2)key reproductive areas (spawning, breeding colonies,nest sites)for species of special emphasis;(3)areas with significant concentrations and co-occurrence of species of special emphasis;and(4)imperiled natural communities or exemplary examples of common natural coastal communities. Once these hotspots were identified and mapped, larger CNRAs were delineated to encompass multiple proximate and overlapping hot spots. Through this process, 17 CNRAs have been defined which encompass most of the hot spots. These 17 CNRAs are roughly outlined in Figure 4-4. Now that these CNRAs have been very broadly delineated on a purely technical basis,additional personnel, including natural resource managers and planners from all levels of government will be consulted. Based on these discussions,recommendations and commitments for management and/or regulation of the CNRAs will be developed. In addition to management actions directed at CNRAs,the PEP is developing management actions, which are focused on specific habitats or species that exist throughout the estuarine system,whether they are contained in critical areas or not(i.e.,deep water and shallow water management zones). This approach recognizes the interconnected and interdependent nature of the estuary system. Therefore,there will be many areas in and around the estuary,which are worthy of protection and, more importantly,of restoration,which will not fall within one of the critical areas. It is not the intent of the PEP to protect only certain high-quality areas at the expense of areas with poorer quality habitat which have the potential to improve or which may yet serve important ecosystem functions. The management of habitats and living resources in the Peconics will require a blend of protecting existing natural areas and restoring or enhancing others in an effort to achieve the best natural, sustainable ecosystem possible. is CHAPTERFOUR 4-22 x a y Peconic Estuary Program m m , PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas 0 c � a �o A A ro !� M Kb Z ,tea �•�'�i'ti w 0 •s k *i�, , � � b J a t �YJI � �� rJ5'•;^ lam\ M1 Q N W A� .°meq. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Habitat Restoration Work Group . To address the enhancement of existing resources or restoration of habitats,which have been lost or degraded,the PEP has convened a Habitat Restoration Work Group(HRWG). The purpose of this group is to identify and prioritize the significant natural habitats of the system, develop overall habitat restoration goals, identify locations where these habitats can be restored, and develop, in conjunction with public and private landowners, specific restoration projects. The short-term goal of the HRWG is to identify specific habitat restoration projects within the Peconic Estuary and Peconic River and their watersheds,which are ready for immediate funding. The voters of New York, in November 1996,passed the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act,which has the restoration of aquatic habitats as one of it goals. This Act,which was pioneered by Governor George E. Pataki,provides$30 million jointly for the Peconic Estuary and South Shore Estuarine Reserve. It is the expectation of the PEP that a portion of those funds will be used for aquatic habitat restoration projects. The long-term(2-3 years)goal of the work group,to be carried out in parallel with the short-term goal, is to identify the natural habitats throughout these areas,which are most in need of restoration as well as to develop criteria for inclusion of projects in a prioritized restoration list. It is hoped that,eventually,the two goals will merge after a year so that projects which are submitted for Bond Act funding incorporate identified habitats and restoration criteria developed for the Peconic Estuary study area as a whole. The HRWG also will develop habitat-specific restoration criteria as well as criteria for monitoring restoration projects. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS • The designation of critical areas and the identification and prioritization of habitat restoration sites will be two of the most significant efforts carried out by the PEP. These efforts,although done separately and through different processes,are intended to compliment each other and, in some cases, will be done in coordination. The implementation of measures recommended by PEP to protect and restore natural habitats will be crucial in the management of the entire system. The actions listed below have been developed in consensus by the PEP Management Conference to meet the natural resources objectives listed at the beginning of this chapter. These proposed actions reflect the best measures that can be taken to preserve the habitats and living resources of the estuary. Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources,because they are being undertaken through "base programs"or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions,new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTIONS HLR-1 Use Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAs)to Develop and Implement Management Strategies to Protect High Quality Habitats and Concentrations of Species of Special Emphasis. HLR-2 Manage Shoreline Stabilization, Docks,Piers, and Flow Restriction Structures to Reduce or Prevent Additional Hardening and Encourage Restoration of Hardened Shorelines to a Natural State. HLR-3 Assess the Impacts of Dredging Activities on Habitat and Natural Resources and Develop Recommendations and Guidelines for Reducing those Impacts. HLR-4 Examine and Promote Methods of Shellfish Harvesting that are Most Compatible with Establishment and Growth of Eelgrass Beds and Vegetated Salt Marshes. HLR-5 Implement, Enforce,and Encourage the Continuation of Current Policies and Regulations Protective of Wetlands. HLR-6 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Current Policies in Preserving Eelgrass Habitat and Develop Ways to Provide Increased Protection for all Extant Eelgrass. • HLR-7 Develop and Implement an Estuary-Wide Habitat Restoration Plan(HRP). HLR-8 Develop and Implement Specific Restoration Projects. HLR-9 Monitor and Evaluate the Success of Restoration Efforts. HLR-10 Develop an Aquaculture Plan for the Peconic Estuary. HLR-I 1 Determine the Suitability of Artificial Reefs in the Peconic Estuary. HLR-12 Foster Sustainable Recreational and Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Uses of the Peconic Estuary that are Compatible with Biodiversity Protection. HLR-13 Protect Nesting and Feeding Habitat of Shorebirds. HLR-14 Protect Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. HLR-15 Utilize Land Use Planning,BMPs,and Other Management Measures to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Human Uses and Development on the Estuary System. HLR-16 Develop and Implement a Living Resources Research, Monitoring,and Assessment Program. HLR-17 Establish a Working Group to Examine the Role of Grazers and Filter Feeding Organisms in Influencing Water Quality and Productivity to Better Understand Food Web Dynamics and to Develop Management Applications. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-25 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-1 Use Critical Natural Resource Areas (CNRAs)to Develop and Implement • Management Strategies to Protect High Quality Habitats and Concentrations of Species of Special Emphasis. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,6,7,and 8. Delineate CNRAs There are many natural areas within the Peconics that are of very high ecological quality and provide important spawning, breeding,nursery,and feeding habitats for a diversity of rare, keystone,and commercially important species of fish,shellfish,birds, sea turtles,and sea mammals. Many of these areas are comprised of interconnected marine,estuarine,and upland systems. To further protect these existing high quality natural areas,CNRAs were delineated in two expert workshops and refined at meetings with the Towns. Known data sets were acquired and digitized using a geographic information system(GIS). Using these maps further,non-mapped data were collected by convening a scientific group meeting on March 26, 1996. Twenty-eight biologists with expertise in a wide variety of specialties used the USFWS species and species habitat list and the USFWS mapped natural resources GIS data and identified 97"hotspots"within the Peconics. Seventeen CNRAs were identified on July 30, 1996 by a second group of biologists who combined the already mapped data and the"hot spots"to delineate the"critical areas." These areas encompassed terrestrial,tidal,and subtidal lands and waters,and, in many cases, included protected areas within the watershed where Federal, State,town,and other organizations have acquired property for conservation purposes. The boundaries of the CNRAs also closely correlate to existing Federal, State,and town designations. Further meetings were conducted during the Spring of 1998 with town planners,conservation boards, and other interested officials from the Towns of East Hampton, Southampton,Riverhead, Southold, and Shelter Island to finalize the CNRAs. Adjustments were completed during the summer of 1998, and Arclnfo/GIS map files were created. Twenty-nine ArcInfo/GIS files containing CNRA data and maps are available on CD-ROM at the PEP Office. Most of these areas are undeveloped and primarily in public ownership, but there are developed areas within or adjacent to the CNRAs. Although the entire estuary is important to natural resources and many of the species found in the CNRAs are also found outside of the CNRAs, it is recognized that these high quality areas require special attention to prevent incremental and cumulative ecological degradation. The draft boundaries with assessment of each area need to be finalized(e.g.,benthic/underwater mapping). Analyses of existing data sets should be performed to identify any information gaps that need to be filled and to evaluate individual and cumulative threats to the CNRAs. Compilation of data sets is necessary to obtain a comprehensive inventory of information. These data sets include the USFWS Federal trust listings,Federally listed endangered and threatened species, State protected species,biological conservation statistics of the NY Natural Heritage Program,water quality data collected by SCDHS,NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats(SCFWH), land use data collected by the Suffolk County Planning Department(land use and change inventory, population and population saturation inventory,water dependent uses, land available for development)biological data collected by NYSDEC,and marine data collected in surveys for the • CHAPTERFOUR 4-26 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • PEP. GIS analyses will be used to integrate these data sets and evaluate impacts. This information will strengthen our understanding of the CNRAs and lay the groundwork for developing implementation strategies to manage and protect these areas. Protect CNRAs There are already a variety of programs in existence that seek to preserve, protect,restore,or call attention to coastal resources in conjunction with human activities around the Peconic Estuary System. These include the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans,the New York Open Space Conservation Plan,the Peconic Bioreserve,and others. Many of these efforts, however,are focused on specific habitats or communities or are very small in scope geographically. The CNRAs encompass whole ecosystems and include portions of the estuary as well as freshwater and terrestrial zones. The designated CNRAs will merge a variety of existing efforts into the management of large areas containing a range of valuable natural resources. Specific protection efforts for the CNRAs are emphasized, including zoning, land use planning, environmental review, land acquisition and other protection tools, limitations on marina construction and expansion, and installation of shoreline hardening structures. As part of the designation process for CNRAs,the PEP has identified and mapped(very broadly)the resources at these sites that require protection. Land in the Peconic watershed available for development has been mapped by the Suffolk County Planning Department based on current use and • zoning. Through these two efforts,specific parcels of land that contain significant habitats and species to be protected can be identified(see Chapter 7). Protection of open space should be a key component,although other zoning and land use controls should be applied. The most decisive means of protecting these resources is for a government or private conservation organizations to acquire the property and manage it for preservation purposes. Currently,the New York State Open Space Preservation Plan identifies priority parcels for acquisition by the State. Open space acquisition programs funded by local governments or other groups largely use this document to guide their acquisition decisions. The purchase of conservation easements is a less expensive alternative and may be equally protective of the resources. If direct acquisition or conservation easements are not possible, local governments should work with landowners and developers to create site plans that maximize protection of the resources while allowing suitable use of properties(see Chapter 7). Many current and potential activities within the CNRAs may affect their long-term viability. The following activities may have serious individual and potential cumulative impacts: docks, shoreline stabilization structures, dredging,marinas, artificial reefs,fish farms, fishing,pesticides, golf courses, jet skis, swimming pools, sewage treatment and disposal,building and adjacent upland development, and clearing of vegetation. As boundaries are finalized,additional threats may be recognized that need to be addressed. Coordinate CNRA Activities with the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program As part of the Coastal Zone Management Program,which is managed by the NYSDOS, Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats(SCFWH)were designated more than ten years ago. Many of • these sites overlap with or are contained within the large CNRAs identified by PEP. Narratives for CHAPTERFOUR 4-27 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP WT these sites are in the process of being updated with current natural resources information,and the designation and scoring of these sites are being revised on the basis of this new information. In order to foster consistency and coordination,the PEP,NYSDOS,and NYSDEC should work together to review updated Peconics region SCFWH designations,and to ensure that the CNRA initiative complements existing protection and management mechanisms, including the SCFWH and Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan programs. In addition,all governmental agencies should use the SCFWH guidelines to evaluate potential impacts that may occur when development and other activities are considered in these areas. Steps HLR-1.1 Collect and interpret natural resource,water quality,and land use data sets. Use GIS Priority technology to finalize a comprehensive inventory of species, natural communities and water quality,refine maps(including development of maps of each CNRA), and evaluate individual and cumulative threats within each CNRA. HLR-1.2 Finalize CNRA boundaries and adopt CNRAs by appropriate levels of government. Priority HLR-1.3 Develop management recommendations and plans to protect CNRAs in each town in Priority coordination with existing Federal, State,county,and municipal programs that address individual and potential cumulative impacts including,but not limited to,docks,shoreline stabilization structures,dredging,marinas, artificial reefs,fish farms,shellfish culture, • fishing,pesticides,golf courses,motorized personal watercraft,swimming pools,sewage treatment and disposal, building and adjacent upland development,and clearing of vegetation. HLR-1.4 Protect the CNRAs through land acquisition and other protection tools(e.g., clearing Priority restrictions, setback requirements,zoning, Transfer of Development Rights)principally within the areas themselves and including essential watershed buffers(see Chapter 7). HLR-1.5 Prohibit the installation of new shoreline hardening structures within CNRAs. Investigate ecologically enhancing, innovative designs to replace or use as an alternative to hard structures. HLR-1.6 Coordinate PEP recommendations for CNRAs with the NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program and Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan Programs. HLR-1.7 Encourage increased use of the NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program guidelines by appropriate Federal, State,county,and municipal agencies. HLR-1.8 Examine the possibility of establishing marine reserves(e.g.,protect eelgrass beds) within the CNRAs. HLR-1.9 Discourage expansion of existing marinas and the creation of new ones within the PEP CNRAs. The marina expansion and creation issue will be further evaluated as part of a comprehensive strategy dealing with shoreline hardening,marinas, docks,and public access(see HLR-1.3). • CHAPTERFOUR 4-28 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP , ...: Responsible Entities HLR-1.1 NYSDEC,The Nature Conservatory(TNC)(co-leads)with towns and USFWS assistance HLR-1.2 NYSDEC,The Nature Conservatory(co-leads); PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,Riverhead,and Brookhaven;NYSDEC;OPRHP; Suffolk County Parks Department;USFWS; and NYSDOS HLR-1.3 NYSDEC,and The Nature Conservatory(co-leads)to assist local governments in coordination with PEP Management Conference,EPA, SCDHS HLR-1.4 NYSDEC;NYS Office of Parks;Recreation and Historic Preservation; Suffolk County Planning Department;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, Riverhead,and Brookhaven HLR-1.5 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,Riverhead,villages,and NYSDEC,TNC, SCDHS, EPA,Peconic BayKeeper HLR-1.6 NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC,and PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee • HLR-1.7 NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC,towns,USACE,USFWS,and NMFS HLR-1.8 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee,EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS HLR-1.9 Contingent upon adoption of CNRAs(see HLR-1.2) • CHAPTERFOUR 4-29 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP E Manage Shoreline Stabilization,Docks,Piers,and Flow Restriction Structures to Reduce or Prevent Additional Hardening and Encourage Restoration of Hardened Shorelines to a Natural State. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,3,4,6,7,and 8. Hardened Shorelines and Physical Barriers Bulkheads can result in erosion or deposition of sediments up or downstream of the structure,which may result in the destabilization of the shoreline and encourage adjacent landowners to install hardening structures along the shoreline. The scour in front of hardened structures could also eliminate the productive and protective features of intertidal and shallow water areas. Loss of shallow-water habitats will negatively impact shellfish,forage and juvenile fish and other species that use these areas for spawning, feeding, or mating(e.g.,horseshoe crabs and birds). This"domino effect'of replacing natural shoreline with human-made structures in a relatively short period of time is increasing in some areas and resulting in considerable risk to remaining natural,vegetated shoreline. Furthermore,hardened shorelines prevent the natural shoreward migrations of salt marshes,which is particularly important to consider with respect to rising sea-level. In addition to the loss of beach and inter-tidal habitats,bulkheads can adversely impact the living resources from the leaching of toxins such as copper,chromium and arsenic that are used to treat lumber(see Chapter 6). • Past construction of physical barriers to tidal flow,such as tide gates,culverts,and dams,may have resulted in significant changes to hydrography, such as reduced flushing and decreased salinity in various bodies of water. Such structures also have blocked the passage of anadromous fish such as alewives, into creeks and the Peconic River. Decreased salinity can result in a change to the system from salt marsh to fresh or brackish wetlands or to conditions which favor the invasion of the nuisance species,Phragmites australis. Lower flow and exchange of water may lead to increased sedimentation and accumulation of toxic compounds, subsidence of the marsh surface,drying of marsh substrates, and increased erosion. Over the long term,these conditions may result in the conversion of the marsh to terrestrial habitat. Many of these restrictions have been in place for a considerable period of time and the surrounding habitats have adjusted to the new flow regime. In some cases,these equilibrations may have resulted in conversion of one type of habitat to another of equal value(e.g.,estuarine or brackish tidal marshes to nontidal freshwater wetlands),and removing the structure may not result in a gain in habitat. In other cases,the habitats upstream from the structure may have become severely degraded and may no longer support a biological community of comparable diversity and quality. An inventory of hardened shorelines and physical barriers is the first step to assess the impacts that these structures may have on local natural resources. An inventory of hardened shorelines will also establish a baseline from which estimates can be made regarding the rate at which natural shorelines are being replaced by hard structures. Such an inventory is currently underway for all shoreline hardening structures in the Peconic Estuary. Dams have already been mapped in the PEP Geographic Information System by the USFWS,but the status of other structures is unknown. All watershed creeks should be inventoried for physical barriers. This information can then be used in the development of site-specific recommendations for these practices. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-30 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The PEP CAC has recommended, "ideally,"a no net increase in hardened shoreline and no loss in habitat policy. State policy,while permitting hard structures under some circumstances, gives preference to non-structural measures where possible. East End local governments can further this policy through the adoption of local laws. A potential alternative is for the East End Towns to create and adopt local regulations that further control the installation of such structures in the Peconics. A recent example of how shoreline hardening structures can be managed by local governments is the Town of East Hampton's proposed Coastal regulations. The Town of East Hampton has developed different management zones for its coastlines to reduce impacts to natural resources resulting from shoreline hardening structures. If adopted,the proposed regulations would prohibit new shoreline hardening structures from being installed in certain zones,while other zones would require a natural resources permit from the town. Similar regulations could also be adopted by the other East End towns. In order to encourage property owners to remove existing structures, incentive programs should be developed under which owners would get some financial benefit for removing structures and replacing them with a natural shoreline. This program,coupled with a public education program on the benefits of natural shorelines and a program that disallows additional hardening in certain areas, could lead, in time,to restoration of habitats. Extensive legal research would be required to implement this action and may require legislation. Exploration of natural, softer-solution alternatives to shoreline protection are also encouraged. Possible incentives could include the following: • "Bulkhead removal districts"where groups of property-owners could have removal costs subsidized by local governments(alternatively,the cost to the municipality of removal could be reimbursed by land owners over a period of time through property taxes); • A local property tax reduction for a period of time to encourage property-owners to remove hard structures at their own expense; and, • A program for purchasing conservation easements on shorefront property(or that portion of properties within a certain distance of the water). Docks and Marinas Marinas provide a valuable service to the boating public and allow for a concentration of boats such that individual docks and mooring areas are not needed throughout the estuary. They also represent a significant portion of the economic value generated by the estuary. However,the structures and activities associated with marinas may cause damage or degradation to local water quality and living organisms. Improperly sited and designed marinas may also cause unnecessary damage to adjacent communities. The best management practices(BMPs)documented in the Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program(CZARA, Section 6217)are protective of natural communities and habitats while allowing the continued operation of marina facilities. The PEP has funded a demonstration project of a model marina,which implements a number of the CZARA BMPs. These BMPs should be implemented throughout the estuary in order to minimize the overall impacts of marina operations on the system. The cumulative impacts of docks will eventually contribute to the degradation of local water quality and natural communities through fragmentation of habitats,shading of submerged aquatic vegetation and other potential impacts. It is not clear just how many of these structures exist in the Peconics and • exactly where they are located. A concentrated effort to identify all of them and to assess the impacts CHAPTERFOUR 4-31 . Peconic Estuary Program CCMP w that they have had and are having on adjacent natural communities will help in the development of i recommendations on how to manage them in the future. Steps HLR-2.1 Quantify and map all hardened shoreline,docks and piers, and flow-restriction structures Priority in the Peconic Estuary and assess the overall impacts of stabilization structures on natural resources. Develop recommendations to promote alternative shoreline management and incentives for maintaining and restoring natural shorelines. HLR-2.2 Review existing regulations for shoreline hardening structures at all levels of government,encourage consistent policies and strengthen regulations where appropriate. HLR-2.3 Establish and enforce a policy of"no net increase"of hardened shoreline in the Peconic Priority Estuary and, if possible,a net decrease in hardened shoreline. Use HLR-1 and HLR-2 as a mechanism to establish this strategy. HLR-2.4 Develop a variety of financial incentives and programs to encourage property owners to Priority remove or modify hardened shoreline structures and replace them with natural vegetation and other vegetated(bioengineered)alternatives to restore the natural shoreline of the estuary. Responsible Entities HLR-2.1 Contract with Cornell and USFWS;NYSDEC, EPA, SCDHS,NYSDOS,Towns HLR-2.2 PEP Natural Resources subcommittee through contract HLR-2.3 PEP Management Conference(lead);NYSDEC;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,Riverhead;villages;NYSDOS;USACE; PEP; SCDHS; EPA HLR-2.4 Peconic BayKeeper(lead);Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead;villages; HRWG;NYSDEC; SCDHS; PEP • CHAPTERFOUR 4-32 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • HLR-3 Assess the Impacts of Dredging Activities on Habitat and Natural Resources and Develop Recommendations and Guidelines for Reducing those Impacts. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,6,and 7. The Suffolk County Department of Public Works(SCDPW)periodically dredges approximately 62 sites,with 12 of these dredged on a yearly basis. About 50,000 cubic yards of sediment are dredged by SCDPW in the Peconics every year(see: Suffolk County's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for dredging in the Peconic Estuary). All SCDPW dredging is done to maintain Federal, State,and town navigational channels. Permission for new dredging has not been granted for years; only maintenance dredging has been permitted. Dredging is usually done because of the accumulation of sediment that fills in channels and basins,effectively reducing the depth and the draft of vessels that can use these areas. Sediment accumulation at these sites may be the result of changes in the shoreline or in adjacent land uses,such as increases in impervious surfaces(and a corresponding increase in stormwater runoff); the loss of buffering vegetation along the shoreline; hardening of the shoreline by the replacement of natural vegetation with bulkheads and rip-rap; historical hydrological modifications from diking, draining,and filling of shoreline areas or creation of dredge spoil islands;and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation which would normally stabilize bottom sediments. These changes can alter currents and the effects of tides,allowing erosion or scouring and subsequent resuspension of particles. The need for repeated dredging may be reduced or eliminated in the long term if some of these problems are remediated. A variety of concerns have arisen over the years about the impacts of dredging on natural communities. One concern is that dredging disturbs habitat used by different species during various life stages, such as reproduction. For example, it is possible that the current window of time during which dredging is allowed may not be sufficiently protective of winter flounder,which spawn in mid- to late winter in shallow embayments and creeks and have demersal eggs. Endangered shorebirds, which nest on beaches from April through August,also are vulnerable to disturbance. Other possible impacts include damage to existing eelgrass beds or the creation of water quality conditions that are not favorable to eelgrass(high turbidity). The re-suspension of toxic chemicals, including metals, PAHs,PCBs,and pesticides,which tend to be found in association with particles in aquatic systems, is another concern. In the past,dredged material from the Peconic Estuary System has shown very little contamination;however,examination of sediments in the Peconic Estuary System by PEP contractors has shown that some chemicals can be found in a few sites at concentrations above background. For that reason,it may be useful to have newly-dredged material tested occasionally. The NYSDEC is drafting marine dredging and disposal protocols,which will provide guidance on testing requirements. In order to foster public discussion about dredging and its impacts,the PEP will sponsor a workshop for all interested parties to define specific concerns. The workshop should result in the production of a report containing consensus-based dredging recommendations and guidelines. The guidelines should be specific for each site dredged in the Peconic Estuary System and should include descriptions of each site and the natural resources of concern at each site, including endangered species. The guidelines should also include recommendations on timing,frequency,and equipment, as well as dredged material placement. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-33 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Steps • HLR-3.1 Hold a"Dredging Summit"for the Peconic Estuary System to address specific concerns Priority (i.e., impacts on shorebird nesting,demersal fish eggs,benthic communities,and the potential release of contaminants)and develop dredging guidance on an embayment- specifc basis and for identified CNRAs. Integrate dredging guidance into existing regulatory programs. HLR-3.2 Assess navigational dredging in tidal creeks and embayments(utilizing Suffolk County's Priority Generic Environmental Impact Statement)for damages or impacts to eelgrass beds and other habitats and develop permit conditions to minimize impacts that potentially could result in habitat loss and degradation. Determine if navigational dredging locally impairs water quality to the point of precluding restoration of eelgrass. HLR-3.3 Determine the need for frequency of maintenance dredging and develop recommendations to reduce runoff and erosion in creeks to reduce the need for maintenance dredging. Responsible Entities HLR-3.1 NYSDEC(lead)through contractor; USACE;NYSDOS; SCDPW;EPA; SCDHS;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead;and other interested stakeholders • HLR-3.2 PEP through contractor,NYSDEC,DOS, SCDHS HLR-33 Frequency of dredging: SCDPW(lead); Runoff recommendations:NYSDEC,NYSDOS (co-leads),PEP, SCDHS • CHAPTERFOUR 4-34 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP " • HLR-4 Examine and Promote Methods of Shellfish Harvesting that are Most Compatible with Establishment and Growth of Eelgrass Beds and Vegetated Salt Marshes. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,3,5,6,and 8. Eelgrass beds are the preferred habitat of bay scallops,and dredging for scallops is frequently done near the few remaining eelgrass beds in the estuary. Certain types of dredges or improper operation of dredges can result in uprooting or damaging the plants,which may,over time, lead to permanent damage to the beds. In other areas of the country,beds of seagrasses are frequently damaged and scarred by boat propellers,which become tangled in the seagrass when the boats are run at high speed through the beds. It is not clear if the potential damage caused by either scallop dredges or boat propellers from commercial and recreational vessels is significant in Peconic Estuary eelgrass beds. This issue should be investigated to determine if further recommendations should be made regarding types of equipment or methods of dredging,or recommendations regarding the speed and manner at which boats should be operated when over eelgrass beds. The Towns of Riverhead and Southampton permit the use of a method of shellfish harvesting known as propeller dredging. In this method,the propeller of a boat engine(either attached to a boat or not) is used to churn away soft sediments where soft clams are found. The New York State • Environmental Conservation Law allows for"churning"for soft clams only below the low tide mark. The method can be a faster, less labor-intensive method of removing sediment and finding the buried shellfish. Unfortunately,this method also disturbs much larger areas and may be more damaging to certain communities over the long term. Fishermen contend that churning is not done near eelgrass beds,only in mudflats and subtidal areas,where it is believed to increase productivity. Communities of particular concern include eelgrass beds, mudflats, and shallow subtidal areas adjacent to vegetated tidal wetlands. This potential for permanent damage to sensitive communities should be examined in comparison to disturbance and damage caused by other methods of harvesting shellfish before recommendations are developed regarding this method. The State permits the use of rakes and tongs on public bottom for hard clams while dredges are allowed on private lands. Hard clams, soft clams,and oysters are found in unvegetated mudflats(usually where mud and sand meet)and harvesters typically concentrate in these areas. In many cases, however, harvesters may work their way in the mudflats right up to the edge of the vegetated zone,where the salt marsh peat forms. These commercial species of shellfish are not found in the vegetated or peat areas. Digging for shellfish right at this edge destabilizes the vegetation and renders these areas vulnerable to erosion with subsequent loss of Spartina. This may contribute over time to loss of the vegetated wetlands. Therefore,this practice should be discouraged or banned. Steps HLR4.1 Examine methods of harvesting clams, scallops,and other shellfish and determine which are most compatible with eelgrass establishment and growth. Develop recommendations for harvesting methods,frequency, and timing,which will allow recovery of eelgrass throughout the estuary and enhance shellfish productivity. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-35 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F HLR-4.2 Discourage harvesting of shellfish at the edge of vegetated salt marshes and encourage • the use of methods that minimize impacts to vegetated habitats. Responsible Entities HLR-4.1 NYSDEC(lead)through contract HLR-4.2 NYSDEC (lead); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead; PEP Public Education and Outreach program; and shellfishermen • CHAPTER FOUR 4-36 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • E 5 Implement,Enforce,and Encourage the Continuation of Current Policies and Regulations Protective of Wetlands. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,4,6,and 7. The protection from draining, filling,and dredging of all wetlands by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and tidal wetlands by Article 25 of the NYS ECL has been very successful. It is important that no matter what additional preservation and restoration activities are undertaken to increase the quality and quantity of the wetland resources in the Peconic Estuary System,these existing programs must remain intact and continue to be supported by the public and elected officials. These programs represent the most fundamental level of protection that these habitats have. In the past,tidal wetlands were extensively ditched in order to facilitate the drainage of the wetlands at low tide. The purpose of this was to minimize the amount of standing water in the marsh,which could be used as mosquito breeding areas. However,these ditches caused excessive drainage of tidal wetlands at low tide,disturbing the natural functioning of the marsh,which supports a wide variety of other species in the standing pools of water which are left on the marsh at low tide. Although diminution of standing water was thought to reduce the populations of mosquitoes, it is now thought that the pools actually provide habitat for small finfish(killifish)which eat mosquito larvae. Over the past few years, Suffolk County Vector Control(SCVC)has discontinued its practice of creating new ditches and implementing Open Mash Water Management to restore marshes to their former State • and control mosquito populations. This policy should be supported. Additionally,the PEP encourages better coordination among SCVC and all other agencies and towns for maintenance of existing ditches and planning of mosquito control practices in wetlands. Steps HLR-5.1 Ensure continued protection of freshwater and tidal wetlands through the implementation and enforcement of current regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Wetlands Protection Programs, local government regulations and local land use practices. HLR-5.2 Review existing tidal wetlands protection policies to determine if they provide for maintenance of tidal wetlands with respect to future sea-level rise. HLR-5.3 Maintain and enforce the policy of creating no new mosquito ditches in tidal wetlands and establish a policy for not re-opening ditches that have filled-in by natural processes. HLR-5.4 Ensure that SCVC works cooperatively with all government agencies,East End towns and local conservation organizations in the planning of wetland mosquito ditch maintenance and pesticide spraying. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-37 ,fow"Nk Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • HLR-5.1 NYSDEC (lead),USACE,East End Towns HLR-5.2 PEP-Natural Resources Subcommittee through contractor HLR-5.3 SCVC (lead),NYSDEC,EPA, SCDHS,NYSDOS,East End Towns HLR-5.4 SCVC (lead), SCDHS, EPA,NYSDEC,East End Towns • • CHAPTERFOUR 4-38 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F • HLR-6 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Current Policies in Preserving Eelgrass Habitat and Develop Ways to Provide Increased Protection for all Extant Eelgrass. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,5,6,and 8. Eelgrass beds are an important marine habitat for finfish and invertebrates which use them for foraging, shelter and nursery areas. Unfortunately,many of the eelgrass beds in Peconic Estuary have been declining and the causal factors responsible for this decline remain somewhat elusive. The remaining eelgrass beds therefore,should be protected from direct human threats such as: propeller scarring and anchor dragging,while further research on the factors contributing to the health of eelgrass beds in the Peconics should be encouraged for future management recommendations. The NYS Tidal Wetlands Act(NYS ECL,Article 25)gives the NYSDEC authority over lands under tidal waters to a depth of six feet below mean low water. This means that eelgrass located in water of six feet or less are protected from activities such as excavation,dumping,erection of pilings or any other activity that may substantially impair or alter natural conditions. Eelgrass located at a depth of six feet below mean low water also are protected by NYS Use and Protection of Waters(NYS ECL, Article 15,Title 5)for activities involving excavation and placement of fill and docks and moorings. However,because eelgrass beds have not been thoroughly mapped and sometimes may not be visible with the naked eye,they could be overlooked during a permit application review. Steps HLR-6.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of current policies in preserving eelgrass habitat and Priority develop ways to provide increased protection for all extant eelgrass. HLR-6.2 Monitor and protect extant eelgrass(Zostera marina)beds, and restore degraded eelgrass beds. HLR-6.3 Evaluate anchor dragging, propeller scarring, dredging and other known impacts to extant eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary and develop recommendations to reduce them. HLR-6.4 Hold a workshop to evaluate the factors that regulate the health and extent of eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary and develop management recommendations based on these findings. Responsible Entities HLR-6.1 NYSDEC(lead)through contract HLR-6.2 NYSDEC(lead),Cornell Cooperative Extension,PEP-Natural Resources Subcommittee,and PEP HRWG HLR-6.3 NYSDEC and Habitat Restoration Workgroup(co-leads)through contract HLR-6.4 NYSDEC, PEP-NRSC,and PEP HRWG(co-leads) • CHAPTERFOUR 4-39 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-7 Develop and Implement an Estuary-Wide Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP). Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,4,and 7. Areas where resources are under stress or no longer exist need to be identified for restoration. To ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to restoration activities,the PEP advocates formulating an overall strategy for restoration: an estuary-wide Habitat Restoration Plan(HRP). The PEP has committed to the formation of a Habitat Restoration Work Group(HRWG)which will articulate the overall goals of restoration in the Peconic Estuary, identify and prioritize the types of habitats in need of restoration, identify the specific locations in the Peconic Estuary where restoration of these habitat types is feasible,and develop a process and criteria for project selection as well as prioritization of selected sites. Not all estuarine, intertidal,or terrestrial habitats found in the Peconic watershed are in need of restoration, are considered important to restore,or can be successfully restored given current levels of knowledge and technology. As the first step in developing the restoration plan,the HRWG will develop a list of the habitats it considers most important for restoration. A draft list has already been developed and will be discussed and reviewed prior to acceptance into the final plan. These habitats currently include: • Coastal Grasslands; • • Beaches and Dunes; • Riverine Migratory Corridors and Habitat; • Tidal Wetlands; • Non-tidal Freshwater Wetlands; • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation; • Estuarine Embayments; • Coastal Forest Communities; and, • Intertidal Flats. The next step in the development of an overall restoration plan is the assessment of the current quantity of identified priority habitats. Information collected for this inventory would include the quantity of habitat,the subjective condition in which it exists,whether it is in need of restoration,and what level of restoration can be achieved. In some cases,there have been inventories done on particular lands for certain types of habitat(e.g.,Town of Southampton-owned properties have been identified which once were estuarine wetlands and could be restored). The HRWG will compile inventories that have been done and will solicit additional site nominations from Federal, stats,and local governments and interest groups. The third step in the HRP creation process is the development of criteria for the selection of restoration sites. There are a number of factors which must be considered when selecting sites to be restored, including: 1)the general level of knowledge about the specific habitat type; 2)the history of success of restorations of each habitat type; and 3)historical information for each site, including • CHAPTERFOUR 4-40 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • causes of loss or degradation of the habitat and the current status of those stressors. Other factors to be considered in site selection are cost and ease of restoration,community acceptance of restoration, and surrounding land uses,all of which affect the likelihood of success. To assist in the final selection of restoration sites, information about ongoing and completed restoration projects needs to be compiled and assessed as to cost, success,and other parameters. Restoration projects that are completed or ongoing include tidal wetland restorations at a variety of locations, a freshwater wetland restoration in Southold(e.g.,Cassidy Preserve),and a maritime grassland restoration at Orient Point. The HRWG will encourage municipalities to develop plans for identified restoration opportunities and will assist municipalities who have completed restoration planning in obtaining funding and implementing their restoration projects. The PEP HRWG and its member agencies will develop the HRP and a variety of planning efforts associated with it,but it will be up to local governments and other groups to implement restoration projects through the NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and with other funds(e.g., Suffolk County 1/4%sales tax). Because projects that are eligible for NYS Bond Act funds must involve actual implementation of habitat restoration projects, Bond Act funds cannot be spent on planning or other activities done in preparation for implementation. Therefore,the NYSDOS has targeted the EPF funds over which it has jurisdiction towards inventory and planning projects in order to complement the Bond Act funds. Local governments that have the desire to restore habitats but have not yet developed plans may use these funds for that initial work. There are already existing habitat inventories and sites targeted for habitat restoration by groups participating in the PEP HRWG. If these efforts meet the criteria being developed by the HRWG, they should not be held up by the development of the entire Habitat Restoration Plan,but should be allowed to move forward for funding. These projects should be reviewed and discussed by the HRWG with regard to the priority habitat list and the monitoring criteria to be developed. Based on these discussions,recommendations for funding under the NYS Bond Act should be prepared for forwarding to NYSDEC Bond Act staff. Not all of these projects will be able to be funded through the Bond Act,so other sources of restoration funds should also be sought and application should be encouraged. Steps HLR-7.1 Develop and implement an estuary-wide Habitat Restoration Plan(HRP). Priority HLR-7.2 Identify and list priority habitat types for the HRP. HLR-7.3 Inventory and prioritize a list of restoration projects for which planning is underway and Priority recommend these for"fast-tracking"towards Bond Act funding. HLR-7.4 Inventory and list restoration opportunities in the PEP area and estimate costs. HLR-7.5 Develop and include in the HRP criteria for selection of restoration sites. HLR-7.6 Inventory and list completed,ongoing,and proposed restoration projects for inclusion in the HRP. Include all restoration sites on GIS maps. HLR-7.7 Develop and include in the HRP a list of funding sources available for habitat restoration • in the PEP area. CHAPTERFOUR 441 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-7.8 Develop model guidelines for habitat restoration planning for use by municipalities in ✓. applying for Environmental Protection Fund(EPF)monies. Responsible Entities HLR-7.1 PEP HRWG(lead) HLR-7.2 PEP HRWG(lead) HLR-7.3 NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC,and PEP HRWG HLR-7.4 PEP HRWG(lead)and East End Towns HLR-7.5 PEP HRWG(lead) HLR-7.6 PEP HRWG(lead) HLR-7.7 PEP HRWG(lead) HLR-7.8 NYSDEC and NYSDOS(co-leads); PEP HRWG;EPA;Towns; CCE • CHAPTERFOUR 442 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 3` • HLR-8 Develop and Implement Specific Restoration Projects. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,3,4,6, 7,and 8. Tidal wetlands, beaches, and submerged aquatic vegetation are three priority habitats designated for restoration by the PEP HRWG. A number of effective actions can be taken by the HRWG and others to ensure that restoration plans are created and implemented for these important habitats. Tidal wetlands have been altered by mosquito ditching and the growth of the invasive species Phragmites australis. Mosquito ditches cause excessive drainage of tidal wetlands at low tide. Although the diminution of standing water was thought to reduce the populations of mosquitoes, it is now thought that those pools actually provide habitat for small finfish which eat mosquito larvae. In addition,the ditches allowed pathogens contained in the water to enter the system and be taken up by shellfish. Damming or otherwise maintaining the water on the marsh allows time for the pathogens to die off before entering the estuary (see Chapter 5). These ditches should be dammed or modified, through a series of practices known as Open Marsh Water Management(OMWM), so as to restore the marshes to a condition similar to that which existed prior to ditching. Tidal wetlands and beaches have been negatively impacted by the construction of hard shoreline structures and the removal of native plants. Restoration of tidal wetlands and beaches could be • accomplished through the removal of hard shoreline structures and regrading and planting of the areas with wetland or beach plants. Eelgrass beds are declining in the Peconic Estuary. Exact causes are not known,but it is believed that the beds have been impacted by the effects of the Brown Tide as well as poor water quality conditions, including high levels of nitrogen and suspended sediment and possibly terrestrial applications of pesticides and herbicides. Actions to implement this additional goal of protecting, restoring,and enhancing eelgrass habitat supports the overall vision of what the CCMP hopes to achieve with water quality, habitat, and living resources. Not all habitat restoration projects require large amounts of funding and highly technical work plans in order to mitigate the impacts of stress and encourage the return of plant and animal communities. Many areas are only slightly degraded and can be restored with the aid of relatively untrained individuals. Examples include dune restoration through the planting of beach grasses;Phragmites australis and other exotic or nuisance species removal by physically cutting or digging out the plants in areas of minimal invasion and replanting with native species;or simply removing garbage and trash from beaches, wetlands,and clogged waterways. Some of these efforts have already been organized and, if possible, should be expanded. Citizen restoration projects should be identified and local groups should be encouraged to work with technical experts to implement restoration and post- restoration monitoring. This kind of effort not only saves money, but also fosters a sense of stewardship and caring for the environment in the public. Therefore, three steps should be taken: 1) identify simple restoration actions appropriate for local volunteers; 2) identify and contact appropriate local groups to participate; and 3)develop an outreach effort to solicit additional projects and volunteers. CHAPTERFOUR 4-43 Peconic Estuary Program CCAMP re .. Steps • HLR-8.I Encourage cooperation among governmental agencies to plan and implement Open Marsh Water Management(OMWM)to manage tidal wetlands with grid ditches for mosquito control with the goal of also restoring more natural conditions. HLR-8.2 Develop recommendations in the PEP Habitat Restoration Plan for control of Phragmites australis by restoration of natural processes such as removal or modification of flow- restriction devices, removal of hardened shorelines, and revegetation of bay and creek shorelines or by other means. HLR-8.3 Develop a quantitative goal for eelgrass restoration based on ongoing monitoring and Priority mapping efforts. HLR-8.4 Identify and prioritize locations where restoration of eelgrass is most feasible based on water quality and environmental criteria which are being developed for eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary System and elsewhere in its range. HLR-8.5 Develop and/or utilize cooperative programs with the public for simple, local habitat improvements and enhancements. Responsible Entities HLR-8.1 Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), SCVC, USFWS, East Hampton Department of Natural Resources,and NYSDEC(co-leads), PEP HLR-8.2 PEP HRWG(lead)through contractor HLR-8.3 PEP HRWG (lead),NYSDEC, SCDHS,CCE,DOS, Towns HLR-8.4 PEP HRWG(lead),PEP,NYSDEC, and NYSDOS HLR-8.5 PEP HRWG(lead),NY Sea Grant,and Cornell Cooperative Extension i CHAPTER FOUR 444 Peconfc Estuary Program CCMP ,�6`� • HLR-9 Monitor and Evaluate the Success of Restoration Efforts. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objective 8. Restoration activities have been conducted in the past which may not have actually resulted in a long- term recovery of the targeted habitat. These projects were frequently done with little or no follow-up monitoring, an activity that might have helped determine if the restored habitat was able to maintain itself or if the conditions causing loss or degradation of the habitat still existed, leading to the failure of the restoration. If restored areas are monitored, factors affecting the success of the project over the long term can be identified and steps can be taken to mitigate or"correct'the restoration so that the habitat can flourish. It is important to develop sets of criteria or guidelines for restoration monitoring for each priority habitat type that are relatively easy to measure, can be tailored to projects of differing conditions and goals, and employed by groups of various levels of technical expertise. The above facts have been recognized by the Habitat Restoration Committee of the Long Island Sound Study, by the NYSDOS Coastal Resources Program,and by the NYSDEC, particularly with respect to the NYS Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Aquatic Habitat Restoration projects to be funded. The PEP HRWG can work with all of these entities to develop a set of criteria for each habitat type. Monitoring data and other information collected from restoration projects are most useful if collected in a standardized fashion, stored in a central repository,and made accessible to managers, interested • groups, academic researchers,and other programs conducting and evaluating restoration. Project information not collected and stored in this manner may be lost over time as a result of staff turnover or student graduation, among other factors. Also, lack of access to information from prior projects may hinder regional planning efforts and result in the repetition of mistakes. Therefore, the PEP should develop an appropriate collection procedure and storage format for restoration project information,and identify a location for a long-tern repository of such information for the PEP area. Steps HLR-9.1 Develop and implement procedures to track and evaluate restoration efforts using success criteria and monitoring protocols in the PEP area. HLR-9.2 Develop procedures for the management and storage of habitat restoration project and monitoring information for the Peconic Estuary. HLR-9.3 Identify a regional set of reference sites to assist in habitat restoration evaluation and monitoring and provide a framework for long-term habitat and living resources research and monitoring. Responsible Entities HLR-9.1 PEP HRWG (lead) HLR-9.2 PEP HRWG (lead)and PEP HLR-9.3 PEP HRWG and PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee • CHAPTERFOUR 4-45 w, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-10 Develop an Aquaculture Plan for the Peconic Estuary. • Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,5,6,7,and 8. Historically, the Peconic Estuary has supported successful shellfish aquaculture. Aquaculture activities can vary widely in scale and therefore, in the potential impacts they may have on the environment. In an estuarine system such as the Peconic Estuary, which is relatively shallow and fairly enclosed,especially west of Shelter Island, it is important to determine the amount and type of aquaculture that should be permitted without causing adverse impacts to the entire estuary or to local embayments. An estuary-wide aquaculture plan could be used to develop guidelines and criteria for aquaculture operations, identify suitable areas where aquaculturing can be employed, develop monitoring protocols,and control the commercial culture of non-indigenous and imported species. The NYSDEC has responsibility for developing and enforcing State-wide aquaculture policy, however, Suffolk County has been given certain specific rights to develop such policies in the Peconic Estuary. An overall plan has not yet been developed, but could be facilitated through input from the PEP and other interested groups. For this reason, it is important to begin to develop a comprehensive aquaculture policy for the Peconic Estuary Program by sponsoring a workshop to which all interested parties are invited so that all of the concerns can be discussed and incorporated into the estuary-wide aquaculture plan. At this workshop,the development of guidelines or criteria for aquaculture can be initiated based on the different kinds of operations which currently exist and which may be proposed for this body of water. These criteria will include scale of operation, methods of culturing, amount and type of inputs into the environment, genotypes and species used, location, and amount and type of artificial structure to be used. Depending on the nature, scale,and intensity of the operation,aquaculture activities in natural waters can have a significant impact on local water quality, living resources, and habitats. For example, small-scale shellfish culturing, which is a common type of culturing that exists in the Peconic Estuary, is probably associated with lesser impacts to the estuary than large-scale fish farms. Shellfish culturing can also be beneficial to water quality through their filtering of particles, however, they should not be located in naturally productive shellfish or finfish areas (e.g., eelgrass beds, finfish spawning/nursery areas,etc.). In order to ensure that neither water quality nor the natural communities of organisms will be adversely impacted, aquaculture sites should be carefully selected, the use of culture stocks should be regulated, and water quality monitoring should be conducted for a variety of parameters. Location of Facilities The habitat,food sources,and general health and behavior of species such as sea turtles and marine mammals,and habitats that are important to the recruitment of natural stocks of finfish and shellfish could be impacted by aquaculture facilities. Based on existing information on the ways in which species of concern use the estuary system, it should be possible to identify embayments or other areas where large-scale culturing or grow-out operations and associated activities may be detrimental to these species and therefore, avoided. For example, one concern is the potential impact of culturing operations, such as fish pens, on the interaction between spider crabs populations and sea turtles. Kemp's ridley sea turtles feed primarily on spider crabs. If either spider crabs or sea turtles are attracted to aquaculture operations,there is a potential for adverse interactions between the cultured organisms, the structure or materials of the operation,and the species of concern. Conversely, if 4-46 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'L • spider crabs are driven from an area by the presence of aquaculture activities,this could potentially have either an adverse or positive impact on the turtles. Seals are another concern. Seals may be attracted to fish pens because of the proximity to their haul-out areas and because of their attraction to concentrations of finfish. If this happens, there is the potential for adverse interactions between the structure and materials associated with the aquaculture and these animals. To date,there have been no known or reported takes of marine mammals at the net pens located off Plum Island; whereas at net pens off the coast of Washington and British Columbia there have been major incidents. The impacts of the presence of net pens off Plum Island are not known on the population dynamics of marine mammals. The CNRAs identified by the PEP need to be surveyed to assess potential impacts to marine organisms and habitats from existing and future aquaculture activities. Culture Stocks Research has been done on the genetic differences between local populations and stocks of the same species. Often, local populations are better adapted to local conditions and prey species which makes them better able to function in the local ecosystem. In order to minimize concerns about the impact of culture stocks on natural waters and maximize their successful culture,all aquaculture operations should try to use culture stock taken from the Peconic Estuary rather than from other areas of the country. This is the case for certain shellfish seeding operations. Other stock may be necessary if the Peconic Estuary System stock is not available. However, a State importation permit is required of all products used for aquaculture that are brought in from another State. Shellfish stock only from certain locations north of New York are acceptable for importation into New York. Another concern about importing organisms into the Peconic Estuary System for the purpose of culturing them commercially is the parasites or diseases that may be brought in with them. These pests may be transmitted to wild populations if not detected in the cultured animals soon enough. As part of developing an aquaculture plan for the entire system, a plan of action for dealing with unforeseen outbreaks should be developed. NYSDEC should maintain the policy of not allowing the importation of southern shellfish. The transplanting of shellfish into Peconic Estuary waters for cleansing presents a similar concern. New York's shellfish transplant program has been administered by the NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources, Shellfisheries Section since 1964. The primary goals of the transplant program are to protect public health and provide a long-term opportunity for utilization of shellfish resources which are presently unusable due to coliform contamination (see Chapter 5). In this program, shellfish are placed in certified waters for cleansing and reharvested after 21 days. Some of these transfers are carried out within the estuary itself, but a large segment of the New York transplant program involves the transfer of hard clams from Raritan Bay in New York Harbor to the clean near shore waters of the Peconic Estuary System. It is generally believed that the potential difference between shellfish in both bodies of water in terms of genetics,disease, or parasites is negligible;therefore, no monitoring of the harvested shellfish is done. Also,there have been no reported diseases or parasites in hard clams in New York waters. With the occurrence of oyster diseases such as Perkinsus marina(dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni(MSX) in other waters, however, it may be useful to monitor for these and other known parasites in oysters in order to determine if they may be transferred to the Peconic Estuary should a transplant program for oysters commence(although dermo has already been documented in the Peconics [summer 1997] and MSX may already exist there as well). • CHAPTERFOUR 447 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Non-Indigenous Species • There are many documented cases of non-indigenous species(finfish, shellfish,ad other invertebrates) introduced into natural waters for culturing and subsequently released either accidentally or intentionally beyond the culturing facility(though, there are no documented cases in New York). In many of these cases, the species quickly outcompete and outnumber indigenous populations, causing irreparable damage to the local ecosystem. There are already non-indigenous species in the Peconic Estuary System (e.g., the marine macroalga Codium fragile)whose impact on the environment is unknown. The NYSDEC does not permit the importation or introduction of non- indigenous species for aquaculture whether they are proposed to be maintained in an upland facility or in marine waters. It is important that NYSDEC continue to prohibit the introduction of exotic species and require indigenous genotypes for aquaculture. If non-indigenous species are maintained on land in tanks, measures should be taken to prevent the introduction of these species into the wild as well as into surface water discharges containing waste or disease. Monitoring Reduction of water quality associated with culturing, particularly that of large-scale finfish culture, has been documented in other areas throughout the world. In order to maintain high water quality in the Peconic Estuary, ambient monitoring(by the permittee or by others) should be implemented when aquaculture permits are granted. Examples of water quality parameters which have been incorporated in these permits include dissolved oxygen, nitrogen compounds, total suspended solids,and chemicals found in conjunction with food for the cultured organisms(e.g., antibiotics). Biological • parameters which are measured include chlorophyll a, changes in adjacent benthic populations and interactions with turtles, marine mammals, finfish, and large mobile epifauna(e.g.,crabs, whelks). A protocol for monitoring of aquaculture sites should be matched to the scale, location and type of culturing operation(e.g., finfish vs. shellfish). For example,the one net pen finfish operation off Plum Island does have a water and sediment quality monitoring program and a marine mammal and avian reporting requirement. This net pen operation also conducts daily monitoring of dissolved oxygen inside and outside the pens to ensure good water quality for the caged farm fish. Complementary monitoring by an independent agency or entity could be conducted if funded. Steps HLR-10.1 Assist in the development and implementation of an estuary-wide aquaculture plan. Priority Include criteria regarding scale, location, assessment,monitoring, and methodologies of shellfish and finfish aquaculture which would be ecologically beneficial and would help sustain aquaculture as a beneficial estuarine use when performed in a manner that is sensitive to the natural conditions,productivity and ecology of the Peconic Estuary. HLR-10.2 Identify suitable areas for shellfish and finfish aquaculture activities that are compatible with the water quality and habitat protection objectives in the CCMP to ensure that a balance is maintained between cultivated and wild stocks, and include in the estuary-wide aquaculture plan. HLR-10.3 Investigate the need to require monitoring of imported cultured organisms and intrastate transplant of shellfish for disease and parasites and determine if a requirement should be established to certify that they are disease free. • 448 CHAPTER FOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °'""`'y, S,s • HLR-10.4 Continue to support the prohibition of commercial culture or introduction of non- indigenous species in New York's waters and require that all aquaculture operations in the estuary use indigenous genotypes. HLR-10.5 Develop water quality and natural resource monitoring protocols for existing and future shellfish and finfish aquaculture projects Responsible Entities HLR-10.1 Organize workshop: Suffolk County Planning Department; SCDHS (co-leads); NYSDEC; PEP -Natural Resources Subcommittee;NYSDOS;NY Sea Grant; NYSOGS; USAGE; EPA;NOAA/NMFS; Suffolk County;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Cornell Cooperative Extension; fish farmers; other groups; and individuals interested in aquaculture; Aquaculture Plan: Suffolk County with input from PEP and other stakeholders(NYSDEC, Long Island Sound Study,and New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program) HLR-10.2 Suffolk County Planning Department, SCDHS,NYSDEC (co-leads),NYSDOS, USACE, USFWS, PEP-Natural Resources Subcommittee, and Suffolk County Planning Department • HLR-10.3 Monitoring assessment: NYSDEC (lead); Disease and parasite screening: PEP; NYSDEC;NYSDOS;NYSOGS; USACE; EPA;NOAA/NMFS; Suffolk County; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; Cornell Cooperative Extension; other groups; and individuals interested in aquaculture (co-leads) HLR-10.4 NYSDEC (lead)to implement legislation and NYS legislature HLR-10.5 SCDHS,NYSDEC (co-leads), USACE,NYSDOS,NYSOGS, USFWS, PEP,NOAA, and fish farmers(permittees) CHAPTERFOUR 4-49 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F r HLR-11 Determine the Suitability of Artificial Reefs in the Peconic Estuary. • Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,3,4,6,and 8. Unintentional artificial reefs have existed as long as humans have used seagoing vessels and lost them at sea. The deliberate placement of structures in the water for the purpose of attracting finfish is a more recent phenomenon. It is clear from anecdotal and more rigorous,quantitative research that these areas of relief do indeed attract finfish, some of which use the structures as refuges from predators or for breeding and feeding. What is less clear are the impacts of these structures on local benthic populations and regional finfish populations. Topics that need further investigation, either through literature research or actual studies, include the following: • Benefits of the structure beyond attracting finfish and providing"good fishing;" • Effects on finfish stocks(i.e., Do the reefs concentrate fish into a small area and then cause them to be depleted through fishing or render them more vulnerable to predators, or do they provide additional refuge and feeding areas,thus increasing populations over time? Does the concentration of finfish at reef sites result in a decrease in the populations elsewhere or result in a shift in finfish community structure?); • Specific effects of artificial reefs on sea turtle, marine mammals, shark, and other large marine species populations; • The potential for and extent of habitat and species displacement and a determination of how many reefs could be supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects such as those mentioned above;and • A definition of areas where artificial reefs should not be located due to the presence of sensitive species or habitats of concern, and areas that may be suitable for reef structures (i.e., are consistent with the water quality and habitat objectives in the CCMP). The NYSDEC Artificial Reef Plan and GEIS was prepared in the late 1980s and approved through a public process in 1991. Since that time, marine mammal use of the system has been increasing. Since all artificial reef sites require a full evaluation (including public input and the collection of relevant information)prior to decision making, special attention should be given to marine mammal and sea turtle issues and addressed in a pre-placement/siting monitoring program. The Reef Plan outlines the process for this decision making. One concern related to sea turtles is the potential impact of artificial reefs on populations of spider crabs. Kemp's ridley sea turtles feed primarily on spider crabs. If either spider crabs or sea turtles are attracted to artificial reefs,there is a potential for adverse interactions between the reef structure or materials and these organisms. Conversely, if spider crabs are driven from an area by the presence of a reef, this could have an adverse impact on the turtles. Seals are another concern. Seals may be attracted to reefs in the eastern end of the Peconics because of the proximity to their haul-out areas and because of their attraction to concentrations of finfish. If this happens,there is the potential for adverse interactions between the reef structure and materials or fishermen and these animals. Locations where these interactions might occur have been identified by some researchers and these 4-50 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i� is sites should be avoided for the placement of artificial reefs, but this information needs to be documented. These potential sites include: • Orient Harbor; • Waters off Plum Island and Great Gull Island; • Waters off Jessups Neck, within three-quarters of a mile around the entire peninsula; and • Waters off shore from Three Mile Harbor to Accabonac Harbor, including those embayments. At least one site recommended for reefs in the Peconics is located in a prime feeding area for Kemp's ridley sea turtles(Orient Harbor). Presently, an evaluation for placement of a demonstration reef is proceeding in areas to the cast(where there is an unverified wreck)and the west (where there is a known wreck)off Robin's Island. The information developed from this evaluation and others should be used to evaluate potential sites. Sea turtle and marine mammal monitoring is recommended for known wrecks and natural reef areas and where artificial reefs are sited. Steps HLR-1 I.1 Evaluate the use of natural reefs, wrecks, artificial reefs, and aquaculture facilities by finfish, sea turtles, diving birds, marine mammals, and other estuarine organisms. • Develop recommendations to minimize the impact on resources by these structures. HLR-11.2 Determine environmental and habitat criteria(e.g., productivity,etc.)for site selection of different reef structures. and evaluate the potential for the extent of habitat and species displacement and the number of reefs that could be supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects. fILR-11.3 Evaluate the potential placement of artificial reefs in known sea turtle and marine mammal feeding areas as part of the siting process outlined in the NYSDEC Artificial Reef Plan. Responsible Entities HLR-11.1 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)(long-term research plan)through contractor HLR-11.2 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and NYSDEC (co-leads) HLR-11.3 NYSDEC (lead); and Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, and Southold • CHAPTERFOUR 4-51 IPeconic Estuary Program CCMP F HLR-12 Foster Sustainable Recreational and Commercial Finfish and Shellfish • Uses of the Peconic Estuary that are Compatible with Biodiversity Protection. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,5,6,7,and 8. Habitat degradation, pollution, overfishing, and improper fishing practices can all lead to depletions of commercial and recreational fish and shellfish populations. Data collection on stocks and harvests, regulation of fishing and shellfish harvesting practices, habitat protection, and pollution prevention are all needed to ensure the sustainable use of these stocks by humans. Data Collection New York is one of 23 partners in the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. The goal of this program is to cooperatively collect, manage, and disseminate fishery statistical data. Data on commercial fishing are compiled by NMFS. A certain amount of information is also periodically compiled and analyzed by NYSDEC fisheries staff. In fact, new State reporting requirements have been developed which will require commercial fishermen to report on all species caught. As long as this commercial data continues to be collected at the estuary level,this increased information should prove useful for better understanding the volume and distribution of landings for finfish and certain crustacean(lobster)and shellfish (squid)species in the Peconic Estuary. For recreational fishing, • there is extensive data on catch, harvest, and discard for New York, but it is not available specific to the Peconics. Better information on both of these types of fishing at the estuary level would enable better understanding and ultimately, better management of the resources. Fisheries for bait and for shellfish, such as conch, have existed for a long time. Although reliable statistics on most of these species are unavailable, scientific research on a few species indicates that they may be in some danger of being depleted. To ascertain the stocks of bait fish, a multi-gear and temporal study of bait fish populations should be performed on a variety of tributaries, and regulations should be developed to prevent overfishing of these populations. For horseshoe crabs, NYSDEC has collected harvest data informally from lobster fishermen,juvenile anadromous fish seine surveys, and the Peconic Trawl Survey. This information will be collected under the proposed Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program and incorporated into the Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management Plan(FMP)(approved in October 1998). Based on the recommendations in the FMP, NYSDEC will develop appropriate regulations for horseshoe crabs. Recently adopted regulations for horseshoe crabs include a 25 percent reduction of current landings coastwide and the recommendation that additional harvest control measures be considered for future reductions. Regulation and Management Overfishing of finfish stocks that are highly desirable has been a concern for decades. Both commercial and recreational fishermen contribute to this problem. Fishery management plans and fishery regulations have been designed to allow for sustainable use of these stocks by humans. State and Federal agencies, including NYSDEC and NMFS, are responsible for developing plans for managing coastal migratory finfish stocks, which are then implemented by individual States. The PEP has recognized the fact that many of the species of finfish taken in the Peconic Estuary System that are commercially and recreationally valuable are migratory in nature and,therefore, cannot be • 4-52 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP J O" F# • managed by efforts exclusive to the Peconic Estuary. Regulations on the taking of these fishes are promulgated at the Federal and State level and must be implemented over large areas by the appropriate government entities. Therefore,the best way that the PEP can hope to protect from overfishing the coastal, migratory species of finfish which use the estuary is for all members of the Management Conference, notjust the NYSDEC,to support these management plans and regulations. This support would include consistent enforcement of regulations, public education and outreach regarding fishery regulations and management practices,and development of new regulations when necessary to protect the sustainable use of a fishery resource. New regulations and management practices may be warranted to protect water quality and to protect species in the estuary system from injury, death, and overfishing. Four issues proposed for action include management of fishing gear, implementation of BMPs regarding fish waste, regulations for fish used as bait,horseshoe crabs, and whelks, and identification and regulation of spawner sanctuaries. Fishing gear can result in permanent injury or death to unintended species. For example, fishing gear which is lost in the estuary may continue to"ghost fish" for a long period of time. Pots, traps, fishing lines, and nets lost during storms or due to cut lines may remain in the water column or on the bottom in a functional form. Finfish and other organisms that are caught by this gear may be permanently injured trying to escape or may not escape and will eventually die. In addition, certain types of gear may be very effective at catching not only the target species but other, non-target species which may be injured or die before the gear is retrieved and they can be released. Regulations and management • measures should be implemented that will reduce injury and death to non-target species. The waste generated by fishermen from cleaning fish is often discarded back into the water in the mistaken belief that, because it is biodegradable and came from the estuary, it is acceptable to return it there. In fact,this material attracts scavengers, both aquatic and terrestrial, and adds to the organic matter already decaying in the sheltered embayments where marinas are usually located. A number of simple practices can be implemented to minimize this problem, including: • Establishing fish-cleaning areas with proper waste receptacles; • Developing and implementing rules governing the conduct and location of fish-cleaning stations; • Implementing fish composting where appropriate; and • Educating boaters and fishermen regarding the importance of proper fish-cleaning procedures. Research on hard clams in the Great South Bay of Long Island has indicated that the hydrographic regime associated with certain tributaries provides prime habitat for shellfish reproduction. These areas usually contain concentrations of coliform bacteria introduced from stormwater runoff and are uncertified for shellfish harvesting due to coliform contamination. Because shellfish in these areas are not routinely harvested,the populations are often larger and the reproductive output higher than in other areas of the estuary system. Thus,these areas may be supplying a disproportionate share of larval hard clams to the Great South Bay. It is not clear if there are any areas in the Peconic Estuary system which function similarly. This should be studied because if similar de facto spawner sanctuaries exist in the Peconic Estuary, some harvesting restrictions should be considered, particularly if efforts to improve water quality and reduce pathogen contamination are successful and • these areas could be re-opened to shellfishing. Certified areas should also be examined for potential CHAPTERFOUR 4-53 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP designations as spawner sanctuaries. Spawner sanctuaries for scallops are viewed by NYSDEC as • having more potential to succeed in the Peconic Estuary System. Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention A variety of habitats are important to different finfish species that use the Peconic Estuary System. A number of coastal migratory species use the system as spawning, nursery, or feeding grounds. These include weakfish,tautog,winter flounder, scup, bluefish, butterfish, and summer flounder. Habitats which are of importance to these species for a variety of reasons include shallow subtidal areas, both vegetated(eelgrass)and unvegetated, deep subtidal areas(sandy and muddy substrate), and intertidal salt marshes(feeding over both vegetated Spartina beds and unvegetated flats). These habitats should be identified,protected, and restored to enhance shellfish and fish stocks. Principal threats to these include: physical and chemical impacts from shoreline hardening structures; physical and chemical inputs from runoff; and physical, chemical and biological impacts to eelgrass beds. Steps HLR-12.1 Collect better statistical data on commercial and recreational fishing landings and by- Priority catch specific to the Peconic Estuary System. HLR-12.2 Identify, protect, and restore key shellfish and finfish spawning, nursery, and feeding Priority habitats in the Peconic Estuary to enhance shellfish and fish stocks and incorporate this data into the on-going Essential Fish Habitat work being conducted under the Atlantic , States Marine Fisheries Commission(ASMFC). HLR-12.3 Support the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. HLR-12.4 Support the fishery management plans which have been and are being developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council(MAFMC) and the ASMFC. HLR-12.5 Ensure the enforcement of existing regulations on both commercial and recreational fisheries. HLR-12.6 Support NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Designations within the Peconic Estuary. HLR-12.7 Develop a public education program about the value of fish and fishing and the importance of commercial and recreational fishing regulations and compliance with the regulations. HLR-12.8 Support the prevention, or at least minimization, of the effects on finfish and non-target species by lost or incorrectly-designed fishing gear. Measures to be supported include: (1)developing a program to encourage commercial and recreational fishermen to retrieve and properly dispose of fishing line,nets,traps, pots, and other gear;(2) work with the AMI to develop a campaign for dockside recovery and recycling programs; (3)support implementation of fishery regulations requiring escape vents and degradable panels in fish and lobster pots; (4) implementing fishery regulations requiring minimum mesh size for gill,tyke, and otter trawl nets; and(5)promoting the use of fishing gears that minimize by-catch and discard(e.g.,pound nets). i 4-54 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP41-54 • HLR-12.9 Implement CZARA section 6217 BMPs regarding fish waste at marinas and on docks. Develop public education materials for distribution at marinas, bait and tackle shops, and other related businesses detailing these BMPs. HLR-12.10 Expand the monitoring and analysis of the NYSDEC finfish trawl survey to the east of Shelter island and coordinate with PEP Living Resources Research, Monitoring, Assessment Plan. HLR-12.11 Examine the role of areas uncertified for shellfishing as"spawner sanctuaries" for shellfish species. HER-12.12 On a biennial cycle, perform deep-and shallow-water shellfish abundance surveys. Responsible Entities HLR-12.1 NOAA/NMFS and NYSDEC (co-leads) HLR-12.2 PEP,NOAA/NMFS, ASMFC,New York Sea Grant Institute,NYSDEC, and local universities and colleges HLR-12.3 NMFS,NYSDEC,and PEP(co-leads) HLR-12.4 NYSDEC, PEP (co-leads), ASMFC,NMFS, and MAFMC HER-12.5 NYSDEC Division of Law Enforcement(lead), Suffolk County Marine Police, and town bay constables HER-12.6 PEP-MC,NYSDEC, and NMFS. HER-12.7 PEP Public Education and Outreach program(lead),NYSDEC, Sea Grant, CCE - Marine Program, AMI,and marina and fishing business-owners HLR-12.8 NMFS,NYSDEC,NYS Sea Grant(co-leads),CCE, AMI, and commercial and recreational fishing community HLR-12.9 PEP Public Education and Outreach program (lead),AMI, marina owners, other business owners,NYSDEC, Sea Grant,and CCE- Marine Program HER-12.10 NYSDEC (lead) and PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee HLR-12.11 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead),NYSDEC, and CCE HER-12.12 PEP through contractor • CHAPTERFOUR 4-55 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-13 Protect Nesting and Feeding Habitat of Shorebirds. • Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,6,7,and 8. Shorebird nests and chicks on open beaches are vulnerable to disturbance, injury,and death from vehicles, humans, and unleashed dogs, predators such as foxes, crows, raccoons, gulls, and cats, and flooding. However, many of these impacts can be reduced through careful habitat management and public education. For example, research and monitoring has shown that shorebird chicks and eggs are extremely vulnerable to off-road vehicles and noise from motorized watercraft near or within their nesting and feeding habitat. Vehicular disturbance can lead to abandonment of nests, injury or death of eggs and chicks, or reduced ability to feed, leading to malnourishment. Seasonally restricting the use of vehicles and watercraft on or in the vicinity of nesting and feeding shorebirds can aid in the recovery of these species. Therefore,the current county and town practice of selling beach-driving permits may not be compatible with a management goal of protecting critical nesting and feeding habitat of rare shorebirds. Plovers and tems are so vulnerable to disturbance that they need annual management. Since it is unreasonable to ban the public from beaches, signs and fences should be placed around nesting and feeding habitat to protect the birds during the breeding season. Since the plovers begin nesting in mid to late April, every effort should be made to find and fence each pair's early season nest to ensure a high rate of fledglings before the Fourth of July. Fencing and posting also protects the landowner from a"taking" under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Terns that are protected by New York State need their nesting habitat protected from mid-May to mid-August. Existing state and local programs generally are underfunded and understaffed to carry out the recommended fencing and monitoring. The USFWS has developed guidelines to manage recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat. Compliance with these guidelines will assist in the recovery of threatened and endangered species and conservation of other coastal species. Implementing these guidelines will also ensure that violations of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act are avoided. The guidelines provide a variety of management options intended to prevent mortality, harm, and/or harassment of piping plovers and their eggs due to recreational activities. Management is best accomplished when the cause for bird mortality is known and qualified with documentation so that the management actions can be targeted to site specific threats. Therefore, intensive monitoring and threat documentation is very important. Steps HLR-13.1 Strengthen existing municipal shorebird(terns and plovers)management programs to Priority ensure timely fencing and erection of enclosures,adequate monitoring and reporting, and management of recreation and other activities within nesting and feeding habitat. Implement the 1997 Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Piping Plover Protection Program and the NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife 1998 Action Plan for Piping Plover Conservation in New York. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-56 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 41-14 • HLR-13.2 Restrict the use of off-road vehicles and small watercraft in shorebird nesting areas during breeding season(April—August). HLR-13.3 Consult with the USFWS to comply with Federal guidelines for managing recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat. HLR-13.4 Document threats to nesting shorebirds(plovers and terns)such as off-road vehicles, predation, and recreation,and develop and implement measures that lead to higher productivity and larger nesting populations. Responsible Entities HLR-13.1 NYSDEC; Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages;Trustees; The Nature Conservancy; and USFWS (co-leads) HLR-13.2 OPRHP, Suffolk County Parks Department; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; villages; and NYSDEC for DEC-owned properties(co-leads) HLR-13.3 Beach managers including Federal (USFWS), State, Suffolk County,towns,and property owners(co-leads) • HLR-13.4 East End towns and NYSDEC • CHAPTERFOUR 4-57 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP IF WL -14 Protect Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. • Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,3,4,6, 7,and 8. The Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles use the Peconic Estuary as important developmental habitat when they are juveniles. Leatherback turtles are found to a much lesser extent in the estuary. All of these species of turtles are Federally-listed as either endangered or threatened. Therefore, any activities that kill, injure,or significantly disturb the behavior of these organisms are of concern. Sea turtles are most frequently sighted in Southold Bay, Orient Harbor,Noyack Bays, the waters from Accabonac Harbor to Napeague Harbor, including the embayments, and the waters off Plum Island, Great Gull Island, Gardiners Island,and Jessup's Neck. Current activities that may directly or indirectly kill, injure,or disturb turtles include boating and dredging. Activities in the system which are not of concern yet, but which have the potential to expand and result in more frequent turtle encounters, are large-scale, intensive aquaculture projects or relatively large-scale, poorly-designed artificial reefs. All the current activities and all proposed activities in these areas should be reviewed with the impact on sea turtles in mind. Under New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 11, Section 0107, it is illegal to injure or cause the death of harbor seals. It is also illegal under this law to buy, sell,transport, or have possession of these animals. The law was implemented a number of years ago when the harbor seal • was the only species of pinniped found in New York waters. Currently, there are five species of seals that are found in these waters,of which three have become fairly common. In order to protect these species, as well as other marine mammals, such as the bottlenose dolphin and the harbor porpoise, this law should be expanded. Steps HLR-14.1 Review uses of areas which have been identified as sea turtle and marine mammal feeding areas and consider what restrictions may be necessary to be more protective of these species and their food resources. HLR-14.2 Evaluate the expansion of existing laws to ensure that all species of seals as well as other marine mammals are protected from intentional injury or death. HLR-14.3 Expand New York State law protecting harbor seals(ECL Article 11, Section 0107)to include all species of seals in NYS marine waters. Responsible Entities HLR-14.1 NYS agencies(e.g., NYSDEC,NYSDOS,NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,NYS Office of General Services)(co-leads), Suffolk County,and Towns HLR-14.2 NYS agencies(e.g.,NYSDEC,NYSDOS,NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation,NYS Office of General Services)(co-leads), SCDHS,and towns HLR-14.3 New York State Legislature and NYSDEC (co-leads) • CHAPTERFOUR 4-58 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP J INF r • HLR-15 Utilize Land Use Planning, BMPs, and Other Management Measures to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Human Uses and Development on the Estuary System. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,4,6,7,and 8. Measures are needed to counteract the effects of increasing human populations and development of the lands and waters of the watershed surrounding the estuary. The pressure on the natural system, if not controlled or mitigated, will result in replacement or loss of natural habitats(conversion to lawns and gardens, hardening of the shoreline resulting in lost wetlands, increased siltation and lowered salinity from runoff); increased introduction of toxic chemicals and excess nutrients to surface and ground waters as a result of increases in impervious surface areas and other inputs(pesticides, herbicides, household chemicals, septic systems, fertilizers); and displacement of wildlife(shorebirds, diamondback terrapins, small mammals, indigenous plant communities). With proper planning and management, residents and visitors will be able to continue to use and enjoy the many resources the estuary has to offer for generations to come; the finfishery and shellfishery resources of the estuary can also be sustained and improve as viable economic resources. Otherwise,the estuary risks becoming unproductive ecologically and economically. Planning • Coordinated land use planning and comprehensive planning on a local level can be used to ensure protection of natural resources and habitats from cumulative impacts. A master plan, especially when developed in conjunction with those of other towns, is a powerful tool for managing the way in which an area is developed. The East End of Long Island is under increasing pressure for development. It will require careful planning and uniform implementation to ensure that increases in population do not overwhelm the natural resources that make the East End such a desirable place to live. The development of a master plan in each town and minimization of variances allowed are good measures for achieving such control. Towards this action,the Towns of East Hampton, Southold,and Southampton are in the process of developing Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans. The Villages of Greenport and Sag Harbor have already adopted such plans. These types of plans can be used to address the need for public access and the impacts associated with public demands for open space. Providing well-sited and well-planned public access points protects habitat and meets the public's demand while building a constituency for enhanced protection of natural habitat and species populations. Planning is needed to ensure that access points are coupled with the right kind of space to accommodate different uses: places to fish, places to swim, places close to wildlife habitat for observation, safe places for boating including support facilities, and places to walk along the water. People must be able to enjoy and appreciate a clean estuary for there to be continuing support for further investments to improve water quality and coastal habitats. PEP supports maintaining a balance between the needs and opportunities for public access and the requirements for sustaining living resources. One local plan that has been used successfully in the estuary is the Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD). The Town of East Hampton created the HPOD to address developments on waterfront property. The HPOD imposes restrictions on newly-developed or redeveloped waterfront property. A number of these restrictions are particularly useful in the protection of living resources, such as • CHAPTERFOUR 4-59 ,w Peconic Estuary Program CCMP requirements that the shoreline be maintained with a natural buffer made up of native vegetation. The • PEP encourages other towns to adopt similar planning measures. Regulations already exist that protect natural resources of the estuary from human impacts(e.g.,NYS freshwater and tidal wetland regulations that require minimum setbacks for house and sanitary systems and vegetated buffer zones). Statewide plans are also useful tools for protecting estuary resources. New York has developed a State Coastal Nonpoint Management Plan in response to CZARA Section 6217. This plan addresses all of the categories of nonpoint source pollution which have been identified as being of concern in the Peconic Estuary System and recommends BMPs or management measures for controlling sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Many of these BMPs are protective of habitat and living resources. The PEP should work with local governments and other agencies to implement BMPs and encourage or require land owners to adopt BMPs. Another plan that is protective of the Peconic Estuary is the Areawide Contingency Plan for dealing with large oil spills. This plan,which was developed by the U.S. Coast Guard(USCG), in conjunction with other Federal and State agencies, is periodically revised and updated. The review period provides an opportunity for the PEP to contribute information with regard to critical areas and species of concern in the estuary such as waterfowl (ducks and geese), waterbirds(herons, terns,etc.), sea turtles, and marine mammals. In addition,this plan could be a conduit for including PEP stakeholders in clean-up efforts for large spills. At this time,there are no trained wildlife rehabilitators to care for the species most at risk from a large-scale oil spill. In order to be prepared for this contingency, local rehabilitators should be encouraged to take training in handling oiled wildlife. The NYSDEC and USCG could then include them in the clean-up effort for a large spill. The use of town councils or planning boards for reviewing actions that affect public lands and open space is another tool for minimizing cumulative impacts of development and population growth. Currently,the Town of Southampton has a Conservation Advisory Board;the Towns of East Hampton, Southold,and Shelter Island have Conservation Advisory Councils. State legislation exists which enables towns to increase the status of these councils in order to provide them with a role in reviewing Town Board actions. Any action that may be taken by a Board, which would have an effect on the overall open space of a town, is reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Board and appropriate recommendations are made. Such reviews may provide the Town Board with important information on the impacts of individual actions on the entire inventory of open space and its management in the town. AI I of these planning and management efforts will not be successful if they are not conducted in a coordinated manner. One way to ensure that these protection and conservation efforts are implemented in a coordinated manner is to develop a group such as the Protected Lands Council, which has been established for the management of the Pine Barrens. The Council includes all groups that manage the Pine Barrens for preservation and ensure that uses are managed equitably. The Council fosters communication and cooperation among the managers in order to use staff and financial resources more efficiently. It may be possible to expand this group to include the management of lands throughout the Peconic River and estuary watershed. Alternatively, it may be more feasible to establish a similar group for the estuary that includes different entities, since the PEP CCMP and the Pine Barrens Plan have different goals. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-60 Peconic Estuary Program CCMPt°S"�"'a.. 4 1 • Steps FILR-15.1 Each town should develop a master or comprehensive management plan, coordinated Priority with plans of other towns that increases the level of protection of natural resources and habitats and accounts for cumulative impacts. HLR-15.2 Increase public access to the estuary consistent with other ecosystem objectives. Priority HLR-15.3 Develop and implement a Harbor Protection Overlay District such as that developed by the Town of East Hampton and include it in the master plan for each town. HLR-15.4 Develop implementation mechanisms for all measures required by Section 6217(g)of CZARA that are applicable to the Peconic Estuary. These measures would include BMPs for the use of natural vegetation, minimization of impervious surfaces, safe and reasonable use of lawn, garden,and household chemicals, and minimization of stormwater runoff. Incorporate these BMPs into the site plan requirements for all newly- developed and redeveloped property, particularly along the shoreline. HLR-15.5 Use the Protected Lands Council of the Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a model for developing a similar coalition of public agencies and conservation organizations to address common issues of concern throughout the estuary. HLR-15.6 Encourage towns with existing Conservation Advisory Councils or planning staff,to be given the responsibility as Conservation Advisory or Planning Boards to review proposed Town Board actions as they affect public lands and open space concerns. HLR-15.7 Review and provide comments to NYSDEC on any revisions to the Statewide Oil Spill Areawide Contingency Plan for the Peconic Estuary relating to waterfowl, marine mammals, and sea turtles and their rehabilitation if oiled. Develop and distribute information on reporting and responding to small-scale spills. HLR-15.8 Develop regulations for new marinas or expansion of existing marinas which include the following(from CZARA section 6217): (1)assessment of water quality conditions during and after construction; (2)site and design such that tides and/or currents will aid in the flushing of the site or renew its water regularly; (3) site and design to protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources,wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designated by local, State, or Federal governments; (4)designate and enforce no-wake zones and ensure that shoreline areas are stabilized effectively by vegetative means;and(5)require effective stormwater runoff control measures to reduce sediment and toxic inputs. Responsible Entities HLR-15.1 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; and NYSDOS (co-leads); EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS HLR-15.2 All Federal, state, and local governmental agencies in the PEP watershed (co-leads); NYSDEC • CHAPTERFOUR 4-61 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-15.3 NYSDOS(lead);Towns of Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead • HLR-15.4 NYSDEC,NYSDOS, PEP Education and Outreach Program(co-leads), Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District, SCDHS, USDA NRCS, CCE,NY Sea Grant, Peconic BayKeeper, SCDHS HLR-15.5 PEP and Pine Barrens Commission and Protected Lands Council (co-leads); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, Riverhead;NYSDEC; SCDHS HLR-15.6 Towns of East Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead (co-leads) HLR-15.7 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with the USCG,NYSDEC, USFWS (co-leads); Rehabilitation: local wildlife rehabilitators(licensed); Education: PEP Public Education and Outreach program in conjunction with the USCF,NYSDEC, and USFWS; BMPs: NYSDOS; AMI; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island; and Riverhead; and villages HLR-15.8 NYSDEC (lead); SCDHS; EPA; PEP; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; AMI; and private marina owners • CHAPTERFOUR 4-62 Peconfc Estuary Program COMP j° 'N 4 • HLR-16 Develop and Implement a Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Program. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,5,6, 7,and 8. Although humans have lived around and worked in the Peconic Estuary for thousands of years, a relatively small amount of scientific research has been performed on the living resources of this system. To understand the impacts of humans and their activities on this system, there must be a better understanding of how the estuary functions ecologically. This understanding can only be achieved through a focused research, monitoring,and assessment effort(RM&A). Monitoring involves the multi-year collection of data on living resources and water quality to understand natural variability of populations overtime as well as changes in those populations which result from human influences. Monitoring certain sensitive species or communities as overall indicators of ecosystem health can be a valuable tool in keeping track of conditions which may stress a system. Data from monitoring programs can provide an "early warning"about the declining health of the estuary. Monitoring living resources is needed for the estuary system. As part of the process of developing this CCMP, the PEP identified and performed a number of priority characterization projects. Many of the important questions about the system could not be answered, however,due to time and funding constraints. The PEP now needs to identify and • prioritize all of the remaining research and monitoring needs and develop an RM&A Program. The RM&A Program will define the critical research questions that need to be answered, facilitate coordination among various new and ongoing research, monitoring, and assessment programs, and identify private and public sources of funding. The RM&A Program would outline monitoring needs, agencies, and organizations responsible for conducting monitoring activities, funding sources, and methods for coordination with ongoing programs. The development of integrated water quality and living resource indicators should also be included in the RM&A Program. The PEP sponsored a workshop in 1998 involving scientists and participants of the PEP Management Conference to develop a framework for the RM&A Program. Topics already identified by the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee for inclusion in the Program poses questions regarding finfish spawning, larval development, and recruitment to the fishery; population dynamics of the benthic communities of the system; distribution, abundance, and growth, including habitat use and preference, by juvenile and forage fish; and the links among these different components of the food web. One of the monitoring needs identified by the PEP includes monitoring eelgrass by aerial photographic interpretation, appropriate groundtruthing, periodic mapping, and other surveillance techniques to adequately assess trends in eelgrass distribution, abundance and overall health. Given the recent decline in eelgrass beds over the last decade, a long-term commitment to eelgrass monitoring is essential to provide adequate management, preservation, and restoration measures. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-63 aat Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F Additional research, monitoring,and assessment needs identified by the PEP include the following: • 1) impacts of macroalgae and toxic contaminants on eelgrass distribution and abundance; 2) distribution,abundance, habitat preferences, and life stage requirements of forage fish species, horseshoe crabs, slipper shells, bay scallops and hard clams; 3) critical spawning habitats for local populations of winter founder; 4) basic food web ecology; 5) benthic habitat mapping; 6) assessing and monitoring the impacts of shoreline hardening on habitat and living resources; and, 7) effects of sea level rise on saltmarsh distributions and shallow water habitats. Information sharing, coordination of research and monitoring efforts, and funding and incentives for increased research and monitoring are needed to ensure that research, monitoring, and assessment activities within the Peconic Estuary System are successful. Dissemination of research and monitoring information is essential to evaluate progress made in restoration and conservation efforts and develop improved methods for research, monitoring,and stewardship of our important natural resources. A biennial conference would provide an opportunity for scientists to meet together with managers and the public to review and discuss findings. By creating an accessible database of natural resources,data would be available in a standard, • meaningful format that could be used by managers, researchers,and stewards of the Peconic Estuary. Although the Peconic Bays are an excellent estuarine laboratory for basic and applied research by universities(e.g., SUNY Stony Brook),colleges(e.g., LIU-Southampton College), institutions (e.g., Brookhaven National Laboratory), and public and private schools, very little basic and applied research takes place here. Necessary incentives to encourage researchers to focus their scientific inquiries here need to be identified, developed, and promoted. Establishing a research center/scientific platform and targeting funding are two incentives which can support cutting edge marine research and monitoring. Other National Estuary Programs have embarked on research projects,which have resulted in significant findings about marine systems that are applicable to many estuaries. The PEP should participate in coordinated research and information exchange with other National Estuary Programs. Steps HLR-16.1 Develop and implement a research program for the Peconic Estuary and its watershed to Priority investigate natural processes, impairments,and links to water quality, maintenance of systems and species, and effects of recreation and pollution on biodiversity, among other research needs. Investigate and seek funding sources for supporting implementation of the program(e.g., National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems) • CHAPTERFOUR 4-64 Peconic F,stuary Program CCAIP • HLR-16.2 Develop a long-term program for monitoring and assessment of living resources in the Priority Peconic Estuary that is coordinated with the development of a research plan and ongoing research and monitoring efforts. HLR-16.3 Support research on the interactions between eelgrass and the dominant macroalgae species in the Peconic Estuary to determine impacts of macroalgae on eelgrass distribution and abundance. HLR-16.4 Perform research and monitoring of forage fish species, horseshoe crabs, and conch in the Peconic Estuary to understand their distribution(temporal and spatial), abundance, habitat preferences, and different life stage requirements to develop management strategies. HLR-16.5 Perform research on the ecology of food sources of sea turtles to evaluate the importance of the Peconic Estuary to them and potential threats to these endangered and threatened species. HER-16.6 Research the lethal, sublethal, and synergistic effects of elevated nutrients,toxic chemicals, and Brown Tide on the reproduction and behavior of finfish and invertebrate species. HLR-16.7 Determine the effects of navigational dredging on shallow water communities and the recovery time of benthic communities exposed to dredging. HLR-16.8 Ensure implementation of adequate mapping and monitoring programs to track trends in the extent and quality of eelgrass, and to evaluate progress towards reaching restoration goals. HLR-16.9 Establish a scientific panel to review research, monitoring, and assessment data, and to offer guidance in management of the habitats and living resources in the Peconics. HLR-16.10 Organize an annual or biennial conference to report research, monitoring, and assessment results to the public and guide management decisions. HLR-16.11 Establish and maintain an accessible database of natural resources in the Peconic Estuary. HLR-16.12 Promote research and monitoring opportunities in the Peconic Estuary to local schools, colleges, universities, and institutes by establishing funding and scientific platforms and other incentives to facilitate basic and applied marine research. HLR-16.13 Seek opportunities to link research and monitoring in the Peconic Estuary System to related estuaries and regional studies. HER-16.14 Support priorities listed in the Living Resources Research, Monitoring, and Assessment Plan including research on ecosystem productivity and ecosystem structure, bioindicators,and effects of global climate change on wetlands. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-65 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • HLR-16.1 Plan development and coordination: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner(co-leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference,NYSDEC,NYSDOS,New York Sea Grant Institute, and SCDHS (co-leads) HLR-16.2 Monitoring plan: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and Marine Conservation Planner(co-leads) in conjunction with NYSDEC; SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Plan implementation: PEP in conjunction with NYSDEC (co-leads); SCDHS; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; Cornell Cooperative Extension; local universities and colleges; and NY Sea Grant HLR-16.3 Plan development: PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Marine Conservation Planner(co-leads) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference, NYSDEC,NYSDOS,New York Sea Grant Institute, and SCDHS (co-leads) HLR-16.4 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee,NYSDEC, Marine Conservation Planner(co- leads),and technical experts through the PEP long-term research plan HLR-16.5 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)and technical experts through the PEP long- term research plan HLR-16.6 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)and technical experts through the PEP long- term research plan,NY Sea Grant HLR-16.7 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)and technical experts to define specific research questions, USACE, SCDPW,and NYSDEC HLR-16.8 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)and PEP Management Council (co-leads) HLR-16.9 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead) HLR-16.10 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee in conjunction with EPA,NYSDEC (co-leads), SCDHS, and local universities and colleges HLR-16.11 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead) HLR-16.12 PEP,NY Sea Grant,EPA(co-leads),NOAA,NYS Marine Educators Association (MEA),and Cornell Cooperative Extension -Marine Program HLR-16.13 Association ofNEPs, EPA, PEP(co-leads),NY Sea Grant, and NOAA HLR-16.14 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee • 4-66 CHAPTERFOUR Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • HLR-17 Establish a Working Group to Examine the Role of Grazers and Filter Feeding Organisms in Influencing Water Quality and Productivity,and to Better Understand the Food Web Dynamics and to Develop Management Applications. Addresses Habitat and Living Resources Management Objectives 1,2,3,4,and 8. Grazer and filter-feeding organisms, such as zooplankton, clams, scallops, menhaden, and sponges, are vital to the estuary ecosystem. Filter feeders, particularly shellfish, filter large volumes of bay water over relatively short time periods. They can affect water quality and exert significant influence on the size, type, and abundance of phytoplankton. Conversely, changes in phytoplankton species composition can affect the diversity and abundance of grazers and filter-feeders. For example, preliminary Brown Tide research findings by Caron and Lonsdale have resulted in a working hypothesis that reduced shellfish populations prior to the first Brown Tide in the Peconics may have led to significant reduction in grazing pressure on phytoplankton,thereby allowing the onset of Brown Tide. Brown Tide, changes in the nutrient regime, and harvesting of shellfish and finfish can shift the abundance,diversity, and temporal and spatial distribution of grazers and filter-feeders. Understanding the food web dynamics and"top-down"control of productivity can therefore, be equally important to the management of the Peconic Estuary as that of nutrient cycling("bottom-up"). A working group is needed to examine these issues more closely and evaluate the relationship between filter-feeders and water quality, as well as to link other PEP efforts and to identify potential management applications. The work group should include Brown Tide researchers, shellfish and fishery scientists, marine ecologists,baymen, aquaculturists, water quality modelers,resource managers and regulators. Issues: 1) Understanding the relationship of grazer and filter-feeder diversity and abundance with phytoplankton diversity and abundance; 2) How to enhance shellfish and finfish stocks to accommodate harvesting while also maintaining sufficient populations that are adequate to fulfill ecological functions; and 3) Need for collaboration between related Peconic Estuary efforts, such as the Brown Tide Research Initiative(BTRI),water quality modeling, estuary-wide aquaculture plan work group, and finfish monitoring. Steps HLR-17.1 Review appropriate scientific literature, identify information gaps, and develop research recommendations regarding how shellfish, finfish and other"top-down"predators influence water quality and the planktonic community. HLR-17.2 Develop research, monitoring, and assessment needs for quantifying food web dynamics. HLR-17.3 Develop food web sub-models to be included in the nutrient model to evaluate the sensitivity of productivity to anthropogenic changes in nutrient supply. CHAPTERFOUR 4-67 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP HLR-17.4 Consult with the BTRI and the estuary-wide aquaculture plan work group to develop • management recommendations for"top-down" regulation of water quality and Brown Tide in the Peconic Estuary. HLR-17.5 Facilitate communication among BTRI, water quality managers and the estuary-wide aquaculture plan work group. Responsible Entities HLR-17.1 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)through contractor HLR-17.2 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)and marine conservation planner HLR-17.3 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee through contractor(lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts HLR-17.4 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead)in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts;NYSDEC,NYSDOS,New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell,and commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics HLR-17.5 PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(lead) in consultation with other members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts;NYSDEC,NYSDOS,New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook, Cornell, and commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics BENEFITS OF THE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Implementation of these management actions will greatly benefit the Peconic Estuary by protecting rare and endangered species,enhancing ecological communities throughout the system, restoring degraded habitats to increase biodiversity,protecting high quality areas where there are concentrations of exemplary examples of natural communities, improving our understanding and assessment of impacts on natural resources,and providing sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries. These management recommendations also include important actions that can be taken to mitigate stress by minimizing impacts to living resources and habitats crucial to their survival. The estuary is on the brink of being seriously impacted by overuse. By setting management actions that foster commercial and recreational use that is sustainable and compatible with protection of biodiversity, stakeholders can ensure an important balance between preservation and the wise use of the bays'natural resources. EAI's Economic Value Assessment and Finance Plan may contain quantifiable benefits to highlight these claims. • 4-68 CHAPTERFOUR Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP Y F COSTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The individual cost for each management action is provided in Table 4-1. The total cost of all new actions proposed for the Habitat and Living Resources management in this chapter is $9,088,750 in one-time costs and$1,881,250 annually. (See "Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 4-1 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Priority Habitat and Living Resources steps are also identified in the table. These priorities were decided by the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an "R"for"Recommendation"or a"C" for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O" refers to ongoing . activities; "N" indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP's best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs" description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides a expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTERFOUR 4-69 a Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. o p Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status '1 HLR- Use Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAS)to Develop and Implement Management Strategies to Protect High Quality Habitats and Concentrations of Species of Spec! I Emu hasis. Objectives 1 2,3,6, 7,and 8 0 HLR-I.I Collect and interpret natural NYSDEC,The Nature Post-CCMP $150,000 for contractorR n Priority resource, water quality, and land use Conservatory(co-leads)with assistance data sets. Use GIS technology to towns and USFWS assistance NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE M finalize a comprehensive inventory TNC— 1.0 FTE r of species,natural communities and —0.1 FTE Towns water quality,refine maps ToTo ns —0.2 FTE z (including development of maps of each CNRA), and evaluate d individual and cumulative threats within each CNRA. n, HLR-1.2 Finalize CNRA boundaries and NYSDEC; The Nature Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.3 FTE R Priority adopt CNRAs by appropriate levels Conservancy(co-leads); PEP SCDHS—0.3 FTE of government. Natural Resources PEP—0.3 FTE Subcommittee;Towns of TNC—0.3 FTE East Hampton, Southampton, USFWS—0.3 FTE Southold, Shelter Island, Towns—0.2 FTE each Riverhead,and Brookhaven; SC Parks—0.3 FTE NYSDEC;OPRHP; Suffolk County Parks Department; USFWS;NYSDOS Table continued next page n S a ,a m x 0 c A x Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ro M HLR-1.3 Develop management NYSDEC, The Nature Post-Completion of EPA—0.05 FTE R Priority recommendations and plans to Conservancy(co-leads)to HLR-1.1 and HLR-1.2 NYSDEC—0.9 FTE protect CNRAs in each town in assist local governments in SCDHS—0.5 FTE C coordination with existing Federal, coordination with PEP TNC—0.5 FTE ;y State,county,and municipal Management Conference, Towns— 1.0 FTE each programs that address individual EPA, SCDHS and potential cumulative impacts including but not limited to docks, shoreline stabilization structures, dredging,marinas,artificial reefs, fish farms,shellfish culture, fishing, pesticides,golf courses,motorized personal watercraft,swimming pools, sewage treatment and disposal,building and adjacent upland development, and clearing of vegetation. HLR-1.4 Protect the CNRAs through land NYSDEC;NYS Office of Ongoing (Significant funding has been C/O Priority acquisition and other protection Parks, Recreation and allocated for acquisition tools(e.g., clearing restrictions, Historic Preservation; Suffolk estuary-wide. See setback requirements, zoning, County Planning Department; Chapters 7 and 9. °a Transfer of Development Rights) Towns of East Hampton, principally within the areas Southampton, Southold, themselves and including essential Shelter Island, Riverhead, ° watershed buffers(see and Brookhaven Chapter 7). O Table continued next page n n 4 ' a Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) �1I N Action Responsible Entity Timeframe CostStatus 0 HLR-1.5 Prohibit the installation of new Prohibit installation: Towns Subsequent to completion of Prohibit installation: Base R +�- shoreline hardening structures within of East Hampton, HLR-1.2 Program; Investigate new CNRAs. Investigate ecologically Southampton, Southold, designs: $50,000 enhancing, innovative designs to Shelter Island,Riverhead, EPA—0.] FTE $ replace or use as an alternative to hard villages,NYSDEC; NYSDEC-0.8 FTE structures. Investigate new designs: SCDHS—0.5 FTE n NYSDEC,TNC,EPA, TNC—0.5 FTE SCDHS, Peconic Bay Keeper Towns—0.5 FTE each b Peconic BayKeeper—0.2 FTE o -ER 1-6 Coordinate PEP recommendations for NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC, Fall 1999 NYSDEC-0.1 FTE C/O CNRAs with the NYSDOS Significant PEP Natural Resources PEP—0.I FTE n Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Subcommittee NYSDOS—0.2 FTE Program and Local Waterfront 't Revitalization Plan Programs. HLR-1.7 Encourage increased use of the NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC, Ongoing NYSDOS—0.2 FTE C/O NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Towns, USACE, USFWS, NYSDEC—0.1 FTE Wildlife Habitat Program guidelines NMFS by appropriate Federal, State,county, and munici alagencies. r-1 8Examine the possibility of establPEP Natural Resources Post-cGMP EPA-0.05 FTE R marine reserves(e.g.,protect eelgrass Subcommittee, EPA, NYSDEC—0.05 FTE beds)within the CNRAs. NYSDEC, SCDHS SCDHS—0.05 FTE PEP—0.05 FTE HLR-1.9 Discourage expansion of existing Contingent upon adoption of Post-completion of Base Program R marinas and the creation of new ones CNRAs(see HLR-1.2) HLR-1.2 n within the PEP CNRAs. The marina S expansion and creation issue will be y further evaluated as part of a 'Tt comprehensive strategy dealing with shoreline hardening, marinas, docks, A and public access see HLR-1.3 . Table continued on next page C C T Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) vAction Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M HLR-2 Manage Shoreline Stabilization,Docks,Piers,and Flow Restriction Structures to Reduce or Prevent Additional Hardening and Encourage Restoration of Hardened Shorelines to a Natural State. (Objectives 1,3,4, 6, 7,and 8 HLR-2.1 Quantify and map all hardened Contract with Cornell and Due: Spring 2001 ($65,000 NEP funds C/O Priority shoreline, docks and piers,and USFWS Post-CCMP allocated) flow-restriction structures in the Peconic Estuary and assess the Develop recommendations: Develop recommendations: R overall impacts of stabilization NYSDEC, EPA, SCDHS, NYSDEC-0.2 FTE structures on natural resources. NYSDOS, Towns EPA—0.1 FTE Develop recommendations to SCDHS-0.1 FTE promote alternative shoreline NYSDOS—0.2 FTE management and incentives for Towns—0.1 FTE each maintaining and restoring natural shorelines. HLR-2.2 Review existing regulations for PEP-Natural Resources Post-CCMP $50,000 R shoreline hardening structures at all subcommittee through levels of government, encourage contractor consistent policies and strengthen regulations where appropriate. HLR-2.3 Establish and enforce a policy of PEP Management Post-CCMP Establishing the policy could R Priority "no net increase"of hardened Conference(lead);NYSDEC; be done with Base program shoreline in the Peconic Estuary Towns of East Hampton, funds but implementation of and, if possible, a net decrease in Southampton, Southold, such a policy could be 3 hardened shoreline. Use HLR-1 and Shelter Island, Riverhead; substantial HLR-2 as a mechanism to establish villages;NYSDOS;USACE; EPA—0.3 FTE c this strategy. PEP, SCDHS, EPA NYSDEC—0.3 FTE � SCDHS—0.3FTE b PEP-0.3 FTE Towns—0.3 FTE c NYSDOS—0.3FTE 3 Table continued next page n a J W .\ X a Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions.(continued) �r a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ° HLR-2.4 Develop a variety of financial Peconic BayKeeper(lead); Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.1 FTE R Priority incentives and programs to Towns of East Hampton, SCDHS-0.1 FTE encourage property owners to Southampton, Southold, PEP—0.1 FTE b remove or modify hardened Shelter Island, Riverhead; Towns—0.2 FTE each shoreline structures and replace villages; HRWG;NYSDEC; Peconic BayKeeper-0.3 them with natural vegetation and SCDHS; PEP FTE y other vegetated(bioengineered) o alternatives to restore the natural shoreline of the estuary. HLR-3 Assess the Impacts of Dredging Activities on Habitat and Natural Resources and Develop Recommendations and Guidelines for Reducing d those Impacts. (Objectives I,2,3, 1 .and 7 g HLR-3.1 Hold a"Dredging Summit'for the NYSDEC(lead)through Post-CCMP Dredging Summit: $15,000 R nj Priority Peconic Estuary System to address contractor; USACE; Develop Guidance: R specific concerns(i.e., impacts on NYSDOS; SCDPW; EPA; NYSDEC—0.4 FTE shorebird nesting,demersal fish SCDHS; Towns of East NYSDOS—0.2 FTE eggs, benthic communities,and the Hampton, Southampton, SCDHS—0.2 FTE potential release of contaminants) Southold, Shelter Island, EPA—0.1 FTE and develop dredging guidance on Riverhead;other interested an embayment-specific basis and for stakeholders identified CNRAs. Integrate dredging guidance into existing regulatoa programs. Table continued next page f7 �I a b m z 0 c r • • C Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status b m HLR-3.2 Assess navigational dredging in PEP through contractor, Post-CCMP Assessment: $50,000 R Priority tidal creeks and embayments NYSDEC, DOS, SCDHS Determination: R (utilizing Suffolk County's Generic NYSDEC—0.2 FTE 0 Environmental Impact Statement) NYSDOS-0.2 FTE C for damages or impacts to eelgrass SCDHS—0.2 FTE beds and other habitats and develop permit conditions to minimize impacts that potentially could result in habitat loss and degradation. Determine if navigational dredging locally impairs water quality to the point of precluding restoration of eelgrass. HLR-3.3 Determine the need for frequency of Frequency of dredging: Post-CCMP Frequency of dredging: Base R maintenance dredging and develop SCDPW(lead); Program recommendations to reduce runoff Runoff recommendations: Runoff recommendation: R and erosion in creeks to reduce the NYSDEC,NYSDOS NYSDEC—0.1 FTE need for maintenance dredging. (co-leads); PEP, SCDHS SCDHS-0.1 FTE PEP—0.2 FTE Table continued on next page 0 m e 4 O OC a 3 n n J N X Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A Al rn Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status , HLR-4 Examine and Promote Methods of Shellfish Harvesting that are Most Compatible with Establishment and Growth of Eelgrass Beds and " Vegetated Salt Marshes. Ob ectives 1,3,5,6,and 8 b HLR-4.1 Examine methods of harvesting NYSDEC(lead)through Post-CCMP $50,000 for contractor R n clams, scallops,and other shellfish contract support 3 �. and determine which are most compatible with eelgrass NYSDEC—0.3 FTE establishment and growth. Develop recommendations for harvesting methods, frequency,and timing o which will allow recovery of 4 eelgrass throughout the estuary and enhance shellfish productivity. n HLR-4.2 Discourage harvesting of shellfish at NYSDEC(lead);Towns of Post-CCMP Base program and $10,000 R b the edge of vegetated salt marshes East Hampton, Southampton, for education and outreach and encourage the use of methods Southold, Shelter Island, that minimize impacts to vegetated Riverhead;PEP Public NYSDEC—0.2 FTE habitats. Education and Outreach PEP—0.2 FTE program;shellfishermen HLR-5 Implement,Enforce,and Encourage the Continuation of Current Policies and Regulations Protective of Wetlands. Objectives 1,2,3,4, 6,and 7 HLR-5.1 Ensure continued protection of NYSDEC(lead),ACOE, Ongoing Base program C/O freshwater and tidal wetlands East End Towns through the implementation and Enhance existing programs R enforcement of current regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act NYSDEC—2.0 FTE/yr and the State Wetlands Protection n Programs, local government S regulations and local land use y practices. ro Table continued on next page y M x 0 C z s Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status -o –1 M HLR-5.2 Review existing tidal wetlands PEP—Natural Resources Post-CCMP $25,000 R protection policies to determine if Subcommittee through they provide for maintenance of contractor C tidal wetlands with respect to future � sea-level rise. HLR-5.3 Maintain and enforce the policy of SCVC(lead),NYSDEC, Ongoing EPA-0.1 FTE C/O creating no new mosquito ditches in EPA, SCDHS,NYSDOS, NYSDEC-0.2 FTE tidal wetlands and establish a policy East End Towns SCDHS-0.2 FTE for not re-opening ditches that have PEP-0.2 FTE filled-in by natural processes. SCVC-0.3 FTE Towns-0.1 FTE each HLR-5.4 Ensure that SCVC works SCVC(lead), SCDHS, Post-CCMP EPA-0.1 FTE R cooperatively with all government NYSDOS, EPA,NYSDEC, NYSDEC-0.1 FTE agencies, East End towns and local East End Towns SCDHS-0.1 FTE conservation organizations in the PEP-0.1 FTE planning of wetland mosquito ditch SCVC-0.1 FTE maintenance and pesticide spraying. HLR-6 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Current Policies in Preserving Eelgrass Habitat and Develop Ways to Provide Increased Protection for all Extant Eelgrass. (Objectives 1,2,3,5, 6,and 8 HLR-6.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of current NYSDEC(lead)through Ongoing $25,000 R Priority policies in preserving eelgrass contract o habitat and develop ways to provide ? n' increased protection for all extant M eelgrass. HLR-6.2 Monitor and protect extant eelgrass NYSDEC,(lead),Cornell Ongoing (Monitor: $75,000 biennially, C/O (Zostera marina) beds,and restore Cooperative Extension, PEP- included in Environmental degraded eelgrass beds. Natural Resources Monitoring Plan.) Subcommittee PEP-HRWG Protect and Restore: to be R o determined Table continued on next page A Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) "N; Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status k HLR-6.3 Evaluate anchor dragging,propeller NYSDEC, Habitat Post-CCMP Evaluation through R ro scarring,dredging and other known Restoration Workgroup(co- contractor: $50,000 impacts to extant eelgrass beds in leads)through contract °a the Peconic Estuary and develop Develop recommendations: recommendations to reduce them. NYSDEC—0.2 FTE HLR-6.4 Hold a workshop to evaluate the NYSDEC,PEP-NRSC, PEP Post-CCMP Workshop costs: $10,000 R factors that regulate the health and HRWG (co-leads) b extent of eelgrass beds in the Develop recommendations: R Peconic Estuary and develop NYSDEC—0.4 FTE q management recommendations 3 based on these 6ndin s. n HLR-7 Develop and Implement an Estuar, -Wide Habitat Restoration Plan(HRP). (Objectives 1,2,4,and 7 HLR-7.1 Develop and implement an estuary- PEP HRWG(lead) Initiate in Fall 1998, Costs for implementation in C/O Priority wide Habitat Restoration Plan complete in 2001 PEP Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP). NYSDEC-0.1 FTE/yr SCDHS-0.1 FTE/yr PEP—0.1 FTE/yr Towns—0.1 FTE each/yr Cornell—0.2 FTE/yr NYSDOS—0.2 FTE/yr HLR-7.2 Identify and list priority habitat PEP HRWG(lead) Completed Included in HLR-7.1 C/O es for the HRP. HLR-7.3 Inventory and prioritize a list of NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC, Annually,prior to Spring Included in HLR-7.1 C/O Priority restoration projects for which PEP HRWG announcement of available planning is underway and funds n recommend these for"fast-tracking" S towards Bond Act funding. Y [7-7.4 1 Inventory and list restoration PEP HRWG(lead), East End Completed Included in HLR-7.1 C/O ° opportunities in the PEP area and Towns m estimate costs. ;a Table continued on next page �n O C n Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) x Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m HLR-7.5 Develop and include in the HRP PEP HRWG (lead) Completed Included in HLR-7.1 C/O criteria for selection of restoration sites. � HLR-7.6 Inventory and list completed, PEP HRWG(lead) Completed Included in HLR-7.1 C/O A ongoing,and proposed restoration projects for inclusion in the HRP. Include all restoration sites on GIS maps. HLR-7.7 Develop and include in the HRP a PEP HRWG (lead) Completed Included in HLR-7.1 C/O list of funding sources available for habitat restoration in the PEP area. HLR-7.8 Develop model guidelines for NYSDOS,NYSDEC(co- 2001 EPA—0.1 FTE C N habitat restoration planning for use leads), PEP HRWG, EPA, PEP—0.1 FTE by municipalities in applying for Towns,CCE Towns—0.1 FTE each EPF monies. Cornell—0.2 FTE NYSDOS—0.2 FTE HLR-8 Develop and Implement Specific Restoration Projects. Ob'eclives 1,3,4, 6, 7,and 8 HLR-8.1 Encourage cooperation among Cornell Cooperative Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.1 FTE R governmental agencies to plan and Extension, SCVC, USFWS, PEP—0.1 FTE Implement Open Marsh Water East Hampton Department of Cornell—0.3 FTE Management(OMWM)to Natural Resources,NYSDEC SCVC-0.3FTE o manage tidal wetlands with grid (co-leads),PEP USFWS—0.3 FTE ? ditches for mosquito control with Towns—0.2 FTE each the goal of also restoring more natural conditions. Table continued on next page 0 x e a 3 n n 2z v Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A o Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status �j 5 HLR-8.2 Develop recommendations in the PEP HRWG (lead)through 2001 Base Program and$10,000 C " PEP Habitat Restoration Plan for contractor for contractor control of Phragmites australis by restoration of natural processes such 3 as removal or modification of flow- restriction devices,removal of rn hardened shorelines, and revegetation of bay and creek 2 shorelines or by other means. a HLR-8.3 Develop a quantitative PEP HRWG(lead), 2001 NYSDEC—0.05 FTE C/N Priority goal for eelgrass restoration based NYSDEC, SCDHS,CCE, SCDHS—0.05 FTE on ongoing monitoring and DOS, Towns PEP—0.1 FTE mapping efforts. Towns—0.05 FTE each b Cornell—0.2 FTE NYSDOS—0.2 FTE HLR-8.4 Identify and prioritize locations PEP HRWG(lead), PEP, 2001 Included in HLR-8.3 C/N where restoration of eelgrass is most NYSDEC,NYSDOS feasible based on water quality and environmental criteria which are being developed for eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary System and elsewhere in its range. HLR-8.5 Develop and/or utilize cooperative PEP HRWG (lead),NY Sea Post- CMP $25,000 per year R programs with the public for simple, Grant,Come[]Cooperative local habitat improvements and Extension enhancements. n HLR-9 Monitor and Evaluate the Success of Restoration Efforts. Ob'ective 8 HLR-9.1 Develop and implement procedures PEP HRWG(lead) Post-CCMP HRWG—0.2 FTE R y to track and evaluate restoration ti efforts using success criteria and mmonitoring protocols in the PEP area. Table continued on next page O G 7� n Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) x b Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ..I m HLR-9.2 Develop procedures for the PEP HRWG (lead), PEP HRWG—0.2 FTE R management and storage of habitat restoration project and monitoring C information for the Peconic Estuary. A HLR-9.3 Identify a regional set of reference PEP HRWG,PEP Natural 2001 Included in HLR-8.3 C/N sites to assist in habitat restoration Resources Subcommittee evaluation and monitoring and provide a framework for long-term habitat and living resources research and monitoring. HLR-10 Develop an Aquaculture Plan for the Peconic Estuary. Objectives 1,2, 5,6, 7,and 8 HLR- Assist in the development and Organize workshop: Suffolk Post-CCMP Workshop: $5,000 R 10.1 implementation of an estuary-wide County Planning Department; Plan: within one year of Plan: Priority aquaculture plan. Include criteria SCDHS workshop EPA—0.2 FTE regarding scale, location, (co-leads);NYSDEC; NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE assessment, monitoring, and PEP—Natural Resources S.C.— 1.0 FTE methodologies of shellfish and Subcommittee;NYSDOS; NY finfish aquaculture which would Sea Grant;NYSOGS; USACE; be ecologically beneficial and EPA;NOAA/NMFS; Suffolk would help sustain aquaculture as County; Towns of East a beneficial estuarine use when Hampton, Southampton, performed in a manner that is Southold, Shelter Island, sensitive to the natural conditions, Riverhead;villages;Cornell productivity and ecology of the Cooperative Extension;fish Peconic Estuary. farmers; other groups and individuals interested in aquaculture; Aquaculture Plan: Suffolk County with input from a PEP and other stakeholders (NYSDEC, Long Island Sound n Study,New York-New Jersey a Harbor Estuary Program) o, Table continued on next page a Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) n00., Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status A 44 °i 3 HLR-10.2 Identify suitable areas for shellfish Suffolk County Planning Post-CCMP $500,000 for a survey R and finfish aquaculture activities Department, SCDHS, that are compatible with the water NYSDECco-leads , ( ) Enhance existing programs: R quality and habitat protection NYSDOS, USACE, NYSDEC—0.5 FTE/yr objectives in the CCMP to ensure USFWS, PEP-Natural SCDHS—0.5 FTE/yr that a balance is maintained Resources Subcommittee between cultivated and wild stocks o and include in the estuary-wide 2 aquaculture plan. ? c HLR-10.3 Investigate the need to require Monitoring assessment: Post-CCMP $50,000 per year R c monitoring of imported cultured NYSDEC(lead); Disease 3 organisms and intrastate transplant and parasite screening: PEP; Enhance existing programs: R n of shellfish for disease and NYSDEC;NYSDOS; NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr parasites and determine if NYSOGS; USACE; EPA; requirement should be established NOAA/NMFS; Suffolk to certify that they are disease free. County,Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, Riverhead;villages,Cornell Cooperative Extension; other groups and individuals interested in aquaculture co-leads) HLR-10.4 Continue to support the prohibition NYSDEC(lead)to Ongoing Base Program C/O of commercial culture or implement legislation,NYS introduction of non-indigenous legislature Enhance existing programs: R species in New York's waters and NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr require that all aquaculture y operations in the estuary use 10 indigenous enol es. y m Table continued on next page �n O G A xTable 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) bAction Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status .j m HLR-10.5 Develop water quality and natural SCDHS,NYSDEC Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R resource monitoring protocols for (co-leads),USACE, NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE existing and future shellfish and NYSDOS,NYSOGS, SCDHS— 1.0 FTE OC finfish aquaculture projects. USFWS, PEP,NOAA, fish X farmers(permittees) RLR-11 Determine the suitability of Artificial Reefs in the Peconic Estuar . Ob ectives 1,3,4,6, and 8 HLR-11.1 Evaluate the use of natural reefs, PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $100,000 through contractor R wrecks, artificial reefs,and Subcommittee(lead)(long- aquaculture facilities by finfish, sea term research plan)through turtles, diving birds, marine contractor mammals,and other estuarine organisms. Develop recommendations to minimize the impact on resources by these structures. HLR-11.2 Determine environmental and PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $100,000 through contractor R habitat criteria(e.g., productivity, Subcommittee&NYSDEC etc.)for site selection of different (co-leads) reef structures,and evaluate the potential for the extent of habitat and species displacement and the number of reefs that could be °s supported in the estuary without causing adverse effects. y' tt HLR-11.3 Evaluate the potential placement of NYSDEC(lead); Towns of Post-CCMP $50,000 through contractor R artificial reefs in known sea turtle East Hampton, Southampton, and marine mammal feeding areas Southold as part of the siting process outlined a in the NYSDEC Artificial Reef g Plan. n n Table continued on next page A /' h 00 "1 w �� Table 41. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A a Action Responsible Entity TimeframeFthat 7with ; HLR-12 Foster Sustainable Recreational and Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Uses of the Peconic EstpatiBiodiversit Protection. Ob ecdf 1,1,3,5,6, 7,and 8HLR-12.1 Collect better statistical data on NOAA/NMFS,NYSDECPost-cGMP progrPriority commercial and recreational (co-leads) TE/yfishing landings and by-catch specific to the Peconic Estuary S stem. HLR-12.2 Identify protect,and restore key PEP,NOAA/NMFS, Post-CCMP Priority shellfish and finfish spawning, ASMFC,New York Sea o nursery,and feeding habitats in the Grant Institute,NYSDEC, 4 Peconic Estuary to enhance local universities and 3 shellfish and fish stocks and colleges n incorporate this data into the on- going Essential Fish Habitat work being conducted under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission(ASMFC). HLR-12.3 Support the Atlantic Coastal NMFS,NYSDEC, PEP Ongoing Base Programs C/N Cooperative Statistics Program. (co-leads) HLR-12.4 Support the fishery management NYSDEC, PEP(co-leads), Ongoing Base Programs C/O plans which have been and are ASMFC,NMFS, MAFMC being developed by the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council(MAFMC)and the ASMFC. HLR-12.5 Ensure the enforcement of existing NYSDEC Division of Law Ongoing Base Program C/O n regulations on both commercial Enforcement(lead), Suffolk R x and recreational fisheries. County Marine Police,town Enhance existing programs: D bay constables NYSDEC–2.0 FTE/ r ti HLR-12.6 Support NMFS Essential Fish PEP—MC,NYSDEC, Ongoing Base Program C/O t; Habitat Designations within the NMFS NYSDEC–0.1 FTE/yr Peconic Estuary, OTable continued on next page C 7� n Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) x a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ro '-1 ra HLR-12.7 Develop a public education program PEP Public Education and Post-CCMP $15,000 R about the value of fish and fishing Outreach program(lead), and the importance of commercial NYSDEC,Sea Grant,Cornell and recreational fishing regulations Cooperative Extension - C and compliance with the Marine Program,AMI, regulations. marina and fishing business- owners HLR-12.8 Support the prevention,or at least NMFS,NYSDEC,NYS Sea Post-CCMP Base Program and additional CN minimization,of effects on finfish Grant(co-leads), CCE,AMI, funding(to be determined) and non-target species by lost or commercial and recreational for outreach and education incorrectly designed fishing gear. fishing community Enhance existing programs: R Measures to be supported include: NYSDEC—2.0 FTE/yr (1)developing a program to Comell-0.1 FTE/yr encourage commercial and recreational fishermen to retrieve and properly dispose of fishing line, nets,traps,pots,and other gear;(2) work with the AMI to develop a campaign for dockside recovery and recycling programs;(3)support b implementation of fishery regulations requiring escape vents ? and degradable panels in fish and m lobster pots;(4) implementing e fishery regulations requiring minimum mesh size for gill,tyke, and otter trawl nets; and(5) promoting the use of fishing gears 3 that minimize by-catch and discard (e.&,pound nets). n Table continued on next page U Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cos[ Status HLR-12.9 Implement CZARA Section 6217 PEP Public Education and Post-CCMP $15,000 for education and R ^ BMPs regarding fish waste at Outreach program(lead), outreach materials marinas and on docks. Develop AMI,marina owners,other � public education materials for business owners,NYSDEC, 3 distribution at marinas, bait and Sea Grant,Cornell tackle shops,and other related Cooperative Extension— 5 businesses detailing these BMPs. Marine Prolzrant a HLR-12.10 Expand the monitoring and analysis NYSDEC(lead), PEP Post-CCMP (Included in Environmental R b of the NYSDEC finfish trawl survey Natural Resources Monitoring Plan: p'oo to the east of Shelter Island and Subcommittee Start-up: $500,000 a coordinate with the PEP Living Annually: $300,000 Resources Research,Monitoring, n and Assessment Plan, HLR-12.11 Examine the role of areas PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $50,000 R uncertified for shellfishing as Subcommittee(lead), "spawner sanctuaries" for shellfish NYSDEC, Comell species. Coo erative Extension HLR-12.12 On a biennial cycle,perform deep- PEP through contractor Post-CCMP $150,000 R and shallow-water shellfish abundance surveys. Table continued next page n x a V -a m O C A ry Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) vAction Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status '-1 to HLR-13 Protect Nesting and Feeding Habitat of Shorebirds. (Objectives 1,2,3 6, 7,and 8 HLR-13.1 Strengthen existing municipal NYSDEC; Suffolk County Ongoing and Post-CCMP Base Program C/O -n Priority shorebird(terns and plovers) Parks Department;Towns of management programs to ensure East Hampton, Southampton, Enhance existing programs: R timely fencing and erection of Southold, Shelter Island,and NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr enclosures, adequate monitoring and Riverhead; villages;Trustees; TNC— 1.0 FTE/yr reporting, and management of The Nature Conservancy; Towns—0.3 FTE each/yr recreation and other activities within USFWS(co-leads) nesting and feeding habitat. Implement the 1997 Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Piping Plover Protection Program and the NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife 1998 Action Plan for Piping Plover Conservation in New York. HLR-13.2 Restrict the use of off-road vehicles OPRHP; Suffolk County Ongoing and Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R and small watercraft in shorebird Parks Department;Towns of nesting areas during breeding season East Hampton, Southampton, Towns—03 each/yr (April—August). Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead;villages; b NYSDEC for DEC-owned z ro erties(co-leads) HLR-13.3 Consult with the USFWS to comply Beach managers including Ongoing and PosbCCMP Base Program C/O � with Federal guidelines for Federal (USFWS), state, USFWS-0.2 FTE/yr o managing recreational activities in Suffolk County,the towns, � pipinlover breeding habitat. property owners(co-leads Table continued next page o 3 n n �q$ge J X�" a Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) �q o Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ° 5LR-13.4 Document threats to nesting East End towns and Post-COMP $10,000 R shorebirds(plovers and tems)such NYSDEC(co-leads) as off-road vehicles,predation,and recreation,and develop and $ implement measures that lead to � higher productivity and larger y nesting populations. 4 HLR-14 Protect Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals. ONectives 1,3,4, 6, 7,and 8 5 HLR-14.1 Review uses of areas which have NYS agencies(e.g., Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R been identified as sea turtle NYSDEC,NYSDOS,NYS NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE o feeding and marine mammal areas Office of Parks, Recreation NYSDOS—0.2 FTE and consider what restrictions may and Historic Preservation, Parks—0.2 FTE n be necessary to be more protective NYS Office of General SCDHS—0.2 FTE b of these species and their food Services)(co-leads), Towns—0.1 FTE each resources. Suffolk County,towns HLR-14.2 Evaluate the expansion of existing NYS agencies Post-CCMP Included in HLR-14.1 R laws to ensure that all species of (e.g.,NYSDEC,NYSDOS, seals as well as other marine NYS Office of Parks, mammals are protected from Recreation and Historic intentional injury or death. Preservation,NYS Office of General Services) co-leads), SCDHS,towns HLR-14.3 Expand New York State law New York State Legislature, Post-CCMP Included in HLR-14.1 R protecting harbor seals(ECL NYSDEC(co-leads) Article 11, section 0107 to include all species of seals in NYS marine n waters. 12 Table continued on next page D v m O C 7y • t i • i n Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) x Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status b M HLR-15 Utilize Land Use Planning,BMPs,and Other Management Measures to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Human Uses and Development on the Estuary System. Ob'ectives 1,2,3,4,6, 7,and 8 OHLR-15.1 Each town should develop a master Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R C Priority or comprehensive management plan, Southampton, Southold, NYSDEC—0.1 FTE coordinated with plans of other Shelter Island,Riverhead; EPA—0.1 FTE towns that increases the level of NYSDOS(co-leads), EPA, SCDHS—0.1 FTE protection of natural resources and NYSDEC, SCDHS Towns— 1.0 FTE each habitats and accounts for cumulative impacts. HLR-15.2 Increase public access to the estuary All Federal,state,and local Past-CCMP Base Program and site- C/N Priority consistent with other ecosystem governmental agencies in the specific costs for each access objectives. PEP watershed opportunity to be determined (co-leads);NYSDEC Enhance existing programs: R NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr HLR-15.3 Develop and implement a Harbor NYSDOS(lead);Towns of Post-CCMP $50,000 per town R Protection Overlay District such as Southampton, Southold, that developed by the Town of East Shelter Island,and Riverhead Towns— 1.0 FTE each Hampton and include it in the master plan for each town. Table continued on next page o z n' 5 Y- a b z e 3 n i A w � S Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A o Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status 'y $ HLR-15.4 Develop implementation NYSDEC,NYSDOS, PEP Post-CCMP Base Program C/N ^ # mechanisms for all measures Education and Outreach required by Section 6217(g)of Program (co-leads), Suffolk Enhance existing programs: R CZARA that are applicable to the County Soil and Water NYSDEC—0.1 FTE z Peconic Estuary. These measures Conservation District, SCDHS-0.1 FTE m would include BMPs for the use of SCDHS,USDA NRCS, PEP—0.1 FTE natural vegetation, minimization of Cornell Cooperative o impervious surfaces, safe and Extension,NY Sea Grant, reasonable use of lawn,garden,and Peconic BayKeeper, SCDHS o household chemicals,and minimization of stormwater runoff. 3 Incorporate these BMPs into the site plan requirements for all newly- developed and redeveloped property,particularly along the shoreline. HLR-15.5 Use the Protected Lands Council of PEP; Pine Barrens Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.05 FTE/yr C the Central Pine Barrens Commission and Protected SCDHS—0.05 FTE/yr Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a Lands Council(co-leads); R model for developing a similar Towns of East Hampton, Enhance existing programs: coalition of public agencies and Southampton, Southold, Towns—0.5 FTE each/yr conservation organizations to Shelter Island, and address common issues of concern Riverhead;NYSDEC; throughout the estuary. SCDHS HLR-15.6 Encourage towns with existing Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R Conservation Advisory Councils or Southold, Shelter Island,and Towns—0.5 FTE each/yr planning staff,to be given the Riverhead(co-leads) n responsibility as Conservation yAdvisory or Planning Boards to ^o review proposed Town Board .-I actions as they affect public lands m and open sace concerns. �n Table continued on next page O C x Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) ,ad Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M HLR-15.7 Review and provide comments to PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP Base Program R X NYSDEC on any revisions to the Subcommittee in NYSDEC—0.05 FTE/yr Statewide Oil Spill Areawide conjunction with the USCG, SCDHS—0.05 FTE/yr C Contingency Plan for the Peconic NYSDEC, USFWS PEP—0.05 FTE/yr Estuary relating to waterfowl, (co-leads); Rehabilitation: marine mammals,and sea turtles local wildlife rehabilitators and their rehabilitation if oiled. (licensed); Education: PEP Develop and distribute information Public Education and on reporting and responding to Outreach program in small-scale spills. conjunction with the USCF, NYSDEC,USFWS; BMPs: NYSDO; AMI;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead;villa es Table continued on next page c 3 A is C O >0 a 3 n v .P o lk) Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A �I N N Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR-15.8 Develop regulations for new NYSDEC(lead); Suffolk Post-CCMP EPA—0.3 FTE R marinas or expansion of existing County; DHS;EPA;PEP; NYSDEC—0.5 FTE marinas which include the Towns of East Hampton, SCDHS—0.3 FTE f0 following(from CZARA section Southampton, Southold, PEP—0.3 FTE °s 6217): (1)assessment of water Shelter Island,and quality conditions during and after Riverhead; AMI;private Enhanced Programs: R y construction;(2)site and design marina owners. NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr a such that tides and/or currents will aid in the flushing of the site or renew its water regularly;(3)site 4 and design to protect against 3 adverse effects on shellfish n resources, wetlands,submerged b aquatic vegetation,or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designated by local, State,or Federal governments; (4)designate and enforce no-wake zones and ensure that shoreline areas are stabilized effectively by vegetative means; and,(5)require effective stormwater runoff control measures to reduce sediment and toxic inputs. f1 Table continued on next page x a ro --I m ^n O C Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status —7 H m LR-16 Develop and Implement a LivingResources Research Monitorin ,and Assessment Program. Objectives 1,2,3,S, 6, 7,and 8 A HLR-16.1 Develop and implement a research Plan development and Plan development and peer- Plan development: Base Plan Dev.: Priority program for the Peconic Estuary coordination: PEP Natural review: 2001 Program C/N; C and its watershed to investigate Resources Subcommittee natural processes, impairments, and the Marine Plan implementation: After Plan implementation: $3 Implement.: and links to water quality, Conservation Planner the plan is developed, million over 3 to 5 years R maintenance of systems and (co-leads) in consultation adopted,and funding is NYSDEC—0.2 FTE/yr species,and effects of recreation with other members of the allocated. SCDHS—0.05 FTE/yr and pollution on biodiversity, PEP Management TNC—0.7 FTE/yr among other research needs. Conference and technical Investigate and seek funding experts; Plan sources for supporting implementation: PEP implementation of the program Management Conference, (e.g.,National Estuarine Research NYSDEC,NYSDOS, New Reserve Systems), York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS co-leads Table continued on next page m 0 3 n' M c O l O Z a 3 n n W •� Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status HLR-16.2 Develop a tong-term program for Monitoring and assessment Plan development and peer- Plan development: Base C/N Priority monitoring and assessment of plan: PEP Natural reviewed: By 2001 Program living resources in the Peconic Resources Subcommittee Estuary that is coordinated with the and Marine Conservation Plan implementation: After Plan implementation: To be R development of a research plan and Planner the plan is developed, determined. Included in m ongoing research and monitoring (co-leads) in conjunction adopted,and funding is HLR-16.1 efforts. with NYSDEC; SCDHS; allocated Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, o Shelter Island,and o Riverhead; Plan 3 implementation: PEP in n conjunction with NYSDEC (co-leads); SCDHS;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island,and Riverhead;Cornell Cooperative Extension; local universities and colle es;NY Sea Grant Table continued on next page n S a b H Cil F `h O C F zTable 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) ay Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m IiLR-16.3 Support research on the Plan development: PEP Post-CCMP $150,000(estimate) R 70 interactions between eelgrass and Natural Resources the dominant macroalgae species Subcommittee and the in the Peconic Estuary to Marine Conservation determine impacts of macroalgae Planner(co-leads) in on eelgrass distribution and consultation with other abundance. members of the PEP Management Conference and technical experts; Plan implementation: PEP Management Conference, NYSDEC,NYSDOS, New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS co-leads HLR-16.4 Perform research and monitoring PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP and adoption of $500,000(estimate) R of forage fish species, horseshoe Subcommittee,NYSDEC, HLR-16.1 crabs,and conch in the Peconic Marine Conservation Estuary to understand their Planner(co-leads),technical distribution(temporal and spatial), experts through the PEP abundance,habitat preferences, long-term research plan and different life stage requirements to develop management strategies. HLR-16.5 Perform research on the ecology of PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP and adoption of $75,000 through contractor R n' food sources of sea turtles to Subcommittee(lead)and HLA-16.1 evaluate the importance of the technical experts through Peconic Estuary to them and the PEP long-term research o potential threats to these plan a endan ered and threatened species. 3 Table continued next page n � 3� Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) A a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status °t HLR-16.6 Research the lethal,sublethal,and PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP and adoption of To be determined R synergistic effects of elevated Subcommittee(lead)and HLR-16.1 b nutrients,toxic chemicals, and technical experts through Brown Tide on the reproduction and the PEP long-term research 3 behavior of finfish and invertebrate plan,NY Sea Grant s ecies. HLR-16.7 Determine the effects of navigational PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP and adoption of To be determined R dredging on shallow water Subcommittee(lead)and HLR-16.1 communities and the recovery time technical experts to define of benthic communities exposed to specific research questions, q dredging. USACE, Suffolk County 3 SCDPW,NYSDEC n HLR-16.8 Ensure implementation of adequate PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $45,000 per year R mapping and monitoring programs Subcommittee, PEP to track trends in the extent and Management Council(co- quality of eelgrass, and to evaluate leads) progress toward reaching restoration goals. HLR-16.9 Establish a scientific panel to review PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP and adoption of To be determined R research, monitoring and assessment Subcommittee(lead) HLR-16.1 data, and to offer guidance in management of the habitats and living resources in the Peconics. HLR- Organize an annual or biennial PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP;Biennial $10,000 per conference R 16.10 conference to report research, Subcommittee in monitoring,and assessment results conjunction with EPA, n to the public and guide management NYSDEC(co-leads), x decisions. SCDHS, local universities y and colleges a HLR- Establish and maintain an accessible PEP Natural Resources Ongoing NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr C/O -i 16.11 database of natural resources in the Subcommittee(lead) SCDHS—0.05 FTE/yr rn Peconic Estuary. PEP—0.1 FTE/yr ey Enhance existing programs: O NYSDEC—0.5 FTE/ r Table continued on next page A x y Table 4-1. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) ro -3 Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M X HLR- Promote research and monitoring PEP,NY Sea Grant, EPA Post-CCMP Funding needs for research R 'y 16.12 opportunities in the Peconic p PP (co-leads),NOAA,NYS center/scientific platform to C Estuary to local schools,colleges, Marine Educators be determined 77 universities,and institutes by Association(MEA), Cornell establishing funding and scientific Cooperative Extension- platforms and other incentives to Marine Program facilitate basic and applied marine research. HLR- Seek opportunities to link research Association of NEPs, EPA, Post-CCMP NYSDEC-0.2 FTE/yr R 16.13 and monitoring in the Peconic PEP(co-leads),NY Sea EPA-0.1 FTE/yr Estuary Program to related Grant,NOAA PEP-0.1 FTE/yr estuaries and regional studies. HLR- Support priorities listed in the PEP Natural Resources Ongoing Base Programs C/O 16.14 Living Resources Research, Subcommittee Monitoring, and Assessment Plan including research on ecosystem productivity and ecosystem structure, bioindicators,and effects of global climate change on wetlands. HLR-17 Establish a Working Group to Examine the Role of Grazers and Filter Feeding Organisms in Influencing Water Quality and 3 Productivity,and to Better Understand the Food Web Dynamic and to Develop Management Applications. Objectives 1, 2,3,4,and 8 m HLR-17.1 Review appropriate scientific PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $50,000 for review R literature, identify information Subcommittee(lead) gaps,and develop research through contractor recommendations regarding how shellfish, finfish and other"top- o down"predators influence water quality and the planktonic community. ,a Table continued on next page - a Table 41. Habitat and Living Resources Management Plan Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status } HLR- Develop research, monitoring and PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP NYSDEC—0.1 FTE _R 17.2 assessment needs for quantifying Subcommittee(lead)and TNC—0.5 FTE food web dynamics. marine conservation planner PEP—0.2 FTE HLR- Develop food web sub-models to PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP $100,000 for model R 17.3 be included in the nutrient model Subcommittee through development to evaluate the sensitivity of contractor(lead) in consultation productivity to anthropogenic with other members of the PEP a changes in nutrient supply. Management Conference and b technical experts o HLR- Consult with the BTRI and the PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP Enhance existing programs: R 17.4 estuary-wide aquaculture plan Subcommittee(lead)in work group to develop consultation with other NYSDEC—0.2 FTE cnj management recommendations members of the PEP EPA—0.2 FTE for"top-down"regulation of Management Conference and SCDHS—0.2 FTE water quality and Brown Tide in technical experts;NYSDEC, the Peconic Estuary. NYSDOS,New York Sea Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony Brook,Cornell,commercial aquaculture facilities in the Peconics HLR- Facilitate communication among PEP Natural Resources Post-CCMP Included in HLR-17.4 R 17.5 BTRI,water quality managers Subcommittee(lead) in and the estuary-wideaquaculture consultation with other plan work group, members of the PEP Management Conference and n technical experts;NYSDEC, x NYSDOS,New York Sea > Grant Institute, SCDHS, BTRI researchers, SUNY Stony m Brook,Cornell,and z commercial aquaculture �n facilities in the Peconics O C Peconic Estuary Program • CHAPTER FIVE PATHOGENS MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES 1) To minimize heath risks due to human consumption of shellfish. 2) To promote, to the maximum practicable extent,the social and economic benefits which have been associated with the Peconic Estuary system. • 3) To maintain the current status of certified(seasonally and year-round) shellfish beds and re-open uncertified beds by eliminating or reducing pathogen (indicator) inputs to the Peconic Estuary System. 4) To minimize the closure of bathing beaches in the Peconic Estuary while adequately protecting human health. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-1 4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP R MEASURABLE GOALS The PEP'S measurable goals for pathogens include: • Maintain current level of bottom lands available to shellfish harvesting, with the ultimate aim of re-opening lands currently closed to harvesting(measured through coliform levels and numbers of acres of shellfish beds available to harvest). [See Actions P-1,P-2, P-3,P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15] • Maintain and improve water quality of the estuary through a reduction of overall stormwater runoff,particularly key areas identified through the Regional Stormwater Runoff Study (measured through the number of stormwater remediation projects implemented). [See Actions P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-12, P-13, P-14] • Eliminate all vessel waste discharges to the estuary (measured by the adoption/ implementation of a Vessel Waste No Discharge Area in the Peconic Estuary,the number of pump-out facilities and the volume of waste pumped annually). [See Actions P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9] • Attain a zero discharge of stormwater runoff in new subdivisions(measured by site plans for new developments that achieve this goal and the development of new ordinances and Habitat Protection Overlay Districts). [See Actions P-1,P-2, P-3, P-41 • • CHAPTER FIVE 5-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °"�"L �"s r • INTRODUCTION Pathogens are viruses, bacteria, algae, and protozoans that cause diseases in humans, plants, and other animals. Pathogens that may be found in marine waters in the United States include those causing gastroenteritis, salmonellosis, and hepatitis A. Pathogens can enter marine waters in untreated or partially treated human sewage and in wild and domestic animal waste. Humans may encounter the pathogens through direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated water or by eating raw or partially cooked bivalve shellfish harvested from contaminated waters. Pathogen loadings to the Peconic Estuary System are of The only significant non-human concern because of the potential health risks associated with pathogen known in the Pe conics is consumption of contaminated shellfish, health risks wasting disease in eelgross, Zostera associated with direct water contact and/or ingestion, and marina, caused by the slime mold, the economic losses associated with the closure of shellfish Labyrinthula zosterae. This has been a beds and beaches. problem in the Peconics in the past and continues to be a concern. This pathogen In order to protect shellfish consumers and beach goers from is discussed further in Chapter 4. the human health risks associated with pathogens,the State of New York regularly monitors water quality in the marine waters of New York State and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)monitors for pathogen indicators at public beaches. When water quality parameters fail to meet the established human health criteria,beaches and shellfish beds are closed. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA It is difficult to directly measure the concentration of specific pathogens in seawater due to the variable nature of their occurrence. Instead,the potential for the presence of human pathogens in the water is measured using bacterial indicator species. Fecal indicator bacteria originate in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. They are easily measured, and their presence in the water indicates that the wastes of a warm-blooded animal, which may contain pathogens, has entered the water. The most commonly used indicators for human sewage and animal waste are total and fecal coliform bacteria. Each State adopts an established uniform water quality standard for total and fecal coliforms that indicate the safety of the water for bathing and for consumption of bivalve shellfish. These guidelines are based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)recommendations and guidelines developed by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)evaluates State programs annually to ensure that recommended guidelines are uniformly applied. For the Peconic Estuary, monitoring of bathing beaches is conducted by the SCDHS; monitoring and classification of shellfish growing areas is conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Shellfish Sanitation Unit. The standard utilized for bathing beaches in the Peconic Estuary is based on Section 6-2.15(1)of the New York State Sanitary Code: "the total number of organisms of the coliform group shall not exceed a logarithmic mean of 2400/100 ml for a series of five or more samples in any 30-day period, nor shall 20 percent of total samples during the period exceed 5000/100 ml." The SCDHS, however, also requests closure of a beach if the fecal coliform level exceeds 400/100 ml, which almost always occurs before the total coliform standard is exceeded. CHAPTER FIVE 5-3 jPeconic Estuary Program CCMP `F • Shellfish Bed Closures The NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program classifies shellfish growing areas using two methods: water quality based closures and administrative closures. WATER QUALITY based closures are determined when a growing area fails to meet the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)criteria for(open) certified shellfish growing areas. There are three categories of water quality based closures:year-round,conditional,and seasonal closures. Year-round closures are areas that do not meet the NSSP criteria for any portion of the year and are closed to shellfish harvesting. Conditional closures apply to shellfish growing areas that fail to meet the certified criteria following rainfall events. The historic water quality database has documented that conditional areas can be open for shellfish harvesting under a restricted rainfall 'trigger amount" during the cold weather months (usually December through April). The 'trigger amount"for each conditional area varies and is based on historical water quality data. All conditional areas are evaluated annually prior to the start of the conditional program. Seasonal closures are used when a shellfish growing area fails to meet the certified criteria for a portion of the year. In general, a majority of the seasonal areas are open for harvesting during the cold weather months(November through April)and are closed for the warm weather months(May through October). Temporary Emergency Rainfall Closures are put into effect when shellfish growing areas are affected by greater than three (3) inches of rainfall in a continuous thirty-six hour period The Shellfish Sanitation Program uses these closures to protect public health by temporarily closing the affected areas to shellfish harvesting based on historical water quality data which documents that rainfall events of this magnitude degrade water quality below the acceptable criteria for shellfish harvesting. These temporary closures are rescinded when the laboratory analysis of the samples collected during the closure determine that water quality has returned to certified criteria. ADMINISTRATIVE closures are used in shellfish growing areas as buffer zones around known potential sources of pathogens such as sewage treatment plant (STP) outfalls, marinas and mooring areas. For example, administrative closures result from the potential for an unpredictable release ofpathogens from insufficient treatment at a STP, or from the discharge of untreated waste from marine sanitation devices. Since the start of the Peconic Estuary Program, several shellfish beds have been upgraded in classification to year-round or seasonally certified for harvesting. Some of these areas include all, or a portion of, East Creek, Fish Cove, North Sea Harbor, Wooley Pond, Accabonac Harbor, Shelter Island Sound near Stirling Basin, and Hashamomuck Pond These changes came about primarily as a result of increased water quality sampling in these areas, which was done cooperatively between the NYS Shellfish Sanitation Program and East End towns. Several towns (e.g., Southampton and Southold)have conducted stormwater remediation work to improve water quality by installing catch basins adjacent to shellfish growing areas. It is important to note that only shellfish beds closed due to water quality violations have the potential to be re-opened due to remediation efforts. Administrative closures are mandated on the basis of potential contamination and will not be reduced or eliminated based on remediation efforts. CHAPTER FIVE 54 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Shellfish may be harvested for direct human consumption in areas where the median or geometric mean total coliform most probable numbers (MPN)do not exceed 70 per 100 milliliters(70/100 ml) of water with not more than 10 percent of the samples exceeding an MPN value of 230/100 ml (5- tube test)or 330/100 ml (3-tube test), or the fecal coliform median or geometric mean MPN does not exceed 14/100 ml,with not more than 10 percent of the samples exceeding an MPN of 43/100 ml (5- tube test)or 49/100 ml (3-tube test). This determination is based on a minimum of 15 samples collected under adverse pollution conditions. Adverse pollution conditions are defined as the collection of water samples on an ebbing tide within 96 hours of a rainfall event of 0.25 to 3.00 inches in a given 24-hour period. These criteria are defined in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guideline for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. In January 1997,the NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Unit modified its Routine Water Quality Monitoring Program from Adverse Pollution Condition(APC) Sampling to Systematic Random Sampling(SRS). APC focuses sampling efforts exclusively on rainfall events during an ebbing tide. SRS sampling is also done on ebbing tide, but sampling runs are scheduled randomly in advance. Sampling runs are preplanned throughout the year to develop a historic database that includes a mixture of warm and cold weather as well as wet and dry conditions. Because SRS is conducted under various hydrographic conditions(dry conditions and runoff conditions),thirty(30) sets of water quality data are statistically analyzed to determine water quality. QUALITYAMPAIRMENTS Beach Closures Excessive quantities of coliform bacteria are generally found in areas where the water exchange or flushing is significantly limited and runoff from the surrounding land is high. For a variety of reasons, beaches are typically not situated in areas with these characteristics. Only one bathing beach in the Peconics,which is in such an area, has been closed due to excessive coliform values—the East Hampton town beach on the south end of Lake Montauk. Samples taken in the water just off the beach by the SCDHS have frequently indicated exceedences of the State standard for bathing beaches. Several possible sources of this contamination have been suggested, including waterfowl and other wildlife,as well as overflow from the shallow sanitary systems in the Ditch Plains community south of the Lake. These systems sit on top of a clay lens,which may not allow sufficient filtration of the waste. The Town of East Hampton has obtained funds for a project to remediate this potential source of contamination. Under this project, stormwater runoff will be directed through a series of ditches and freshwater wetlands for filtration before being discharged into the embayment. In order to minimize the possibility of pathogens getting into south Lake Montauk in the future,the Town of East Hampton has constructed public restrooms at the beach,which compost waste material rather than discharging it to a conventional septic system. Over time, it is hoped that this facility will demonstrate the feasibility of using such systems and result in the construction of other such facilities at public locations near bodies of water that are particularly sensitive to pathogen contamination. Shellfish Bed Closures Closure of shellfish beds due to pathogens is a problem in the Peconics. In the Peconics, including Gardiners Bay, 121,390 acres of bottom are available for shellfishing. Just over four percent(5,172 acres)are closed to shellfishing. Of these 5,172 acres, 1,960 acres are seasonally certified or open • only during the winter, and 3,212 acres are closed year-round. CHAPTER FIVE 5-5 ,4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Although only about four percent of the total bottom area is closed to shellfishing, a much greater • percentage of the total productive shellfishing acreage is closed. Based on the NYS Shellfish Sanitation Program estimates, 121,390 acres of bay bottom are technically available for shellfishing. Of these, only 20,880 acres are estimated to be as productive shellfishing areas. Within this productive area, 2,952 acres(14 percent)are closed to shellfishing. These beds are closed because water quality fails to meet the criteria established for certified shellfish growing areas by the NSSP and New York State Regulations. Most shellfishing in the Peconics is not done in deep waters. In fact, shellfish surveys done by the NYSDEC in 1979-1980 and again through the Peconic Estuary Program in the fall of 1995 have shown that the deep,open waters of the Peconics that were surveyed contain very low numbers of hard clams or any other commercially and recreationally important shellfish species. An assessment of shellfish growing area classifications in the Peconic Estuary from 1970 to 1995 indicates that,over time,there has been a net increase in shellfish bed closures every year (Figure 5-1). The greatest increase in uncertified acreage occurred from 1980 to 1992. The increase in shellfish growing area closures is most likely a result of increased water quality monitoring of the Peconic Estuary following the expansion of the NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program in the late 1980s. During this time, the number of uncertified acres increased by an average of 151 acres per year. However,from 1992 to 1995, the rate of increase decreased to 39 acres per year. The most probable reason for the deceleration in new closures is that many of the shallow,relatively enclosed areas in the Peconic Estuary,which tend to be the most poorly flushed and heavily impacted by pathogens, have already been restricted for shellfish harvesting. At present,the percentage of"productive" shellfish beds closed in the Peconics is relatively low in comparison to other bodies of water in the New York marine district. For example, in the early 1990s, 75 percent of the productive beds in New York waters of the Long Island Sound were restricted to shellfish harvesting(year-round and seasonal); currently, 100 percent of the bottom in the New York-New Jersey Harbor core area is closed to the direct harvesting of shellfish, although transplants are permitted out of this area(see the PEP Pathogens Characterization Report for more details on the transplant program). Without further action to reduce pathogen loading to the estuary, additional shellfish beds in the Peconics may be closed to harvesting each year. • CHAPTER FIV E 5-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'iko" r 5 2000 5 1500 mm v 4 Q 0 v 3 1000 � d c � c t � t 2 rn o c ~ 500 U •� 0 1 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 ACREAGE * CHANGE IN UNCERTIFIED ACREAGE Figure 5-1. Uncertified Shellfish Growing Area Acreage in the Peconic Estuary System, 1970-1996. Harmful Algal Blooms Paralytic Shellfish Poisonime Paralytic shellfish poisoning(PSP)caused by the organism Alexandrium tamarense has been a problem mainly in the northern New England states. The organism produces a neurotoxin that can be concentrated by shellfish which, when consumed by humans(or other mammals),can result in PSP and could be lethal. In a four-year monitoring study, from 1986 to 1989,the SCDHS found that a spring bloom of A. tamarense consistently occurred in Reeves Bay and also noted blooms in Terry's and East Creeks in 1989,the one year in which they were investigated. No other stations in the Peconic Estuary were sampled. Although A. tamarense has been detected on the north and south shores of Long Island and the East End bays,PSP is not believed to be a significant human health threat in Suffolk County. However, the SCDHS believes the presence of A. tamarense in our waters merits further screening, and has requested $35,000 from Suffolk County Capital Funds for PSP organism investigations this year (2000). This investigation will be limited to nine sites in the Peconic Estuary,with other areas of the county being investigated in future years. Water samples will be analyzed for phytoplankton, and mussels will be deployed and later analyzed for PSP toxins. i CHAPTER FIVE 5-7 j4i Peconic Estuary Program CCMP P iesteria In the summer of 1999,the NYSDEC and the Nassau and Suffolk County Health Departments and the Town of Hempstead undertook a comprehensive monitoring effort to assess the marine waters of the State for the presence of Pfiesteria cells. Pfresteria piscicida is a complex microorganism that lives in brackish coastal waters and has been associated with fish kills and possibly with human health effects in other states. The exact conditions to trigger toxin production by Pfresteria are poorly understood. Pfiesteria normally occurs in non-toxic forms unless triggered to develop into a toxic form. In a preliminary 1998 screening survey by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Pfiesteria was present in a few water samples. The test, using a molecular probe in the laboratory, detects the presence of Pfiesteria but not the toxicity. Water samples are shipped to Dr. Parke Rublee of the University of North Carolina where they are analyzed for Pfiesteria. In 1999, water samples were collected for Pfieseria and at the same stations dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity were also measured. In Peconic Estuary, Suffolk County also analyzed for a full suite of water quality parameters, including nutrients,total suspended solids and chlorophyll a. Stations were sampled from one to three times starting in July. Table 5-1 lists the areas sampled for the presence of Pfiesteria in the PEP. Table 5-1. Areas Sampled for the Presence of Pfiesteria in the PEP.* Test 1998 Sites Results • Meetinghouse Creek + River Avenue Reeves Bay + 1999 Sites Reeves Bay Meetinghouse Creek Three Mile Harbor + Northwest Creek + Sag Harbor cove North Sea Harbor Mill Creek Hashamomuck Pond East Creek in Cutchogue East Creek in South Jamesport Peconic River +=Positive Test *Additional sampling is planned in 2000. • 5-8 CHAPTER FIVE Peconic Estuary Program COMP 4- SOURCES SOURCES OF PATHOGENS IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM Both point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution contribute pathogens to the Peconic Estuary system. Point sources are discrete, easily identifiable sources of pollution, such as a discharge from a STP. Point sources that may contribute pathogens to the estuary include sewage treatment plant discharges and discharge from the Corwin Duck Farm on Meetinghouse Creek. Nonpoint sources refer to diffuse sources of pollution which are spread throughout the watershed and which have no easily discernable source or point of discharge or consist of many discrete sources. Stormwater runoff, which carries a multitude of pollutants from developed land, is the largest contributor of pathogens to the Peconic Estuary System. Nonpoint Sources of Pathogen Contamination Monitoring and research done as part of the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (1978),the Long Island segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(1982), and the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Plan(1992)have shown that the major sources of pathogens to marine waters of the Peconic Estuary are nonpoint in nature. The largest nonpoint source is stormwater runoff from roads and open areas, including undeveloped land and farmland. Pathogen contributions to stormwater are dependent upon the characteristics of the land over which the water flows. Fecal coliforms running off undeveloped land are likely to have originated from wildlife(including waterfowl)while those from developed areas may be due to domestic animals and/or poorly-functioning on-site disposal systems (OSDS), including septic tanks and cesspools. In addition to stormwater runoff, another small but possibly locally significant nonpoint source of pathogens is waste from boats, particularly in the enclosed waters around marinas and mooring areas. Boater waste includes raw or inadequately treated sewage from boat waste receptacles. Concerns about boater waste disposal in enclosed waters has led to seasonal administrative closures of shellfish beds and temporary closures of beds during times of particularly high use(i.e., holiday weekends in the summer). An agreement has been reached by the East End towns,New York State and the Marine Industries for designating the entire Peconic Estuary a Vessel Waste No Discharge Area, and will be adopted in the near future. On-site Disposal Systems Properly functioning on-site disposal systems(OSDS)collect solid domestic wastes in a septic tank where they are decomposed by microbial activity. The liquid overflows into a cesspool and then leaches through the soil, which filters out any pathogens that might be present. Older systems may consist of only a cesspool with no septic tank. If OSDS are poorly constructed or are not maintained and the leaching field is compromised, effluent can contribute pathogens to groundwater or break through the surface and contribute pathogens directly to runoff. Studies done in the early 1980s showed that groundwater samples from around Long Island did not contain numbers of coliform bacteria exceeding State drinking water standards. Therefore, it is assumed that groundwater in general,except perhaps in some highly localized situations, is not a significant source of pathogen contamination to marine surface waters. Localized contamination most often occurs if sanitary systems have not been properly sited, and there is not an adequate separation between the leaching pool and the groundwater. While current standards for separation distances between OSDS and groundwater and surface waters are believed to be adequate with respect to protection from bacterial CHAPTER FIVE 5-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP contamination, historic, improper siting of OSDS may result in pathogen loadings to the estuary • system. Stormwater Runoff The PEP has funded a regional stormwater management project to establish a comprehensive, coordinated, intergovernmental stormwater strategy. This project,which began in the summer of 2000, will capitalize on previous efforts and construct a framework for continuing management. The goal is to evaluate the entire watershed,with a very high level of detail afforded to a few key sub- watersheds. Some of the primary outputs from the project will include: • Characterization of stormwater inputs, identification of areas impacted by stormwater runoff, and assessment of the extent of those impacts; • Several high-quality GIS overlays and a report which will serve as a continuing management resource; • Identification of areas in need of preservation; • Identification of mitigation priorities based on cost-effectiveness; • Production of a regional stormwater strategy; • Recommendations for additional monitoring, investigations, and demonstrations; and, • Development of inputs to the PEP computer models,and recommendations for additional investigations. • • 5-10 CHAPTER FIVE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP '9 1%4 • BMPs for Controlling Stormwater Runoff Best Management Practices Because of its nature, nonpoint Numerous Best Management Practices, or BMPs, can be used to source pollution is not easy to minimize and treat stormwater runoff before it reaches a receiving body of water. Some of the ongoing projects in the Peconics are detailed quantify or control. Often, it is below. difficult to collect and treat stormwater runoff due to space Grass Filter Strip. Runoff may enter a stream or bay as a direct restrictions and the high costs dischargefrom a pipe collecting drainage from a nearby road. Often this associated with remediation discharge is very intense during rainfall events and can act as a projects. OSDS problems are significant source of coliforms. In addition, such a powerful discharge difficult to track and remediate can erode streambanks and add to the sediment load of a body of waterdue to the cost and the lack of Filter strips are areas of natural vegetation between the road and the enforceable requirements for water, which are designed to slow flow and allow time for infiltration of operation and maintenance. the runoff before it reaches the stream. There are many spots in the Peconics where stormwater runoff from roads enters bays and streams Boater waste is equally forcefully, carrying high levels of coliforms. A filter strip, such as the one difficult to document and constructed at Gardiners Creek on Shelter Island, may be the best prevent. Nevertheless, solution in such areas. protecting human health as well as maintaining the Artificial Wetlands. These constructed areas of natural vegetation may remaining certified shellfish be used to filter effluent from concentrated animal feeding operations, as beds and re-opening those is being demonstrated at the Corwin Duck Farm in Riverhead Artificial currently closed will depend on wetlands also may be effective in treating stormwater moving into the the identification and • estuary. As with the grass filter strip, these wetlands act to capture and implementation of effective filter runoff and slow the flow of water, which also eases erosion. measures to control these Open Marsh Water Management. Tidal wetlands around the Peconics sources of pathogens. A were extensively ditched for mosquito control in the last century. Since number of projects aimed at mosquitoes breed in standing water, it was thought that ditching marshes minimizing or treating to facilitate drainage would result in less standing water at low tide. stormwater runoff have been However, it is now believed that the increased drainage has allowed implemented throughout the stormwater runoff coming into the marsh to enter the main bodies of Peconics, including a grass water without adequate detention time, resulting in high loading of filter strip,artificial wetlands, coliform bacteria to subtidal shellfish beds. Diking the mosquito ditches and Open Marsh Water will result in the retention of a greater amount of runoff. Greater Management. retention times will result in fewer live pathogens reaching the shallow- subtida( regions of the estuary. In this way, the impacts of stormwater runoff with respect to pathogen contamination will be minimized. Demonstrations of this technique, known as Open Marsh Water Point Sources of Pathogen Management (OMWM), are being carried out by Cornell Cooperative Contamination Extension in cooperation with the Town of East Hampton. In addition, the NYSDEC has received a grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Point sources of pathogens in (USFWS) National Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program for the Peconics include STPs, as implementation of OMWM on state-owned tidal wetlands in the Town of well as one duck farm in the Southold watershed that may discharge effluent directly into Meetinghouse Creek. The Corwin duck farm's NYSDEC SPDES permit allows the facility to discharge to surface waters only in the event of an extraordinary rainfall (e.g., "ten-year storm"). The effluent from the sewage treatment plants is treated year-round to kill pathogens. The need for and extent of disinfection of the effluent is determined by the classification of the waters into which the effluent is discharged (Table 5-2). All of the sewage treatment plants in the Peconics are required to employ year-round CHAPTER FIVE 5-11 f Peconic Estuary Program CCMP disinfection. The total coliform most probable number(MPN) limit on effluent discharged by these • plants is 700 coliforms/100 ml. The average monthly MPN limit on fecal coliforms discharged in effluent from Peconic STPs is 200 coliforms/100 ml, and the maximum MPN concentration is 400 coliforms/100 ml. Table 5-2. Sewage Treatment Plants in the Peconic Estuary System. Receiving Sewage Treatment Plant Waterbody Surface Water Classification and Description' Brookhaven National Lab Headwaters of Class C—Best usage is fishing. These waters shall be the Peconic suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water River quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation,although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. Riverhead Tidal Peconic Class SC—Best usage is fishing. These waters shall be River suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation,although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. Shelter Island Heights Shelter Island Class SA—Best usages are shellfishing for market Sound purposes,primary and secondary contact recreation,and Sag Harbor Sag Harbor fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish propagation • and survival. Plum Island Gardiners Bay Calvenon(former Grumman Headwaters of Class C Best usage is fishing. These waters shall be Facility) the Peconic suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water River quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation,although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. These classifications are for general usage and not for the harvest of shellfish,e.g.,portions of Shelter Island Sound,Sag Harbor,and Gardiners Bay are closed to shellfish harvesting. Chlorination has traditionally been the disinfection method used by STPs to treat effluent because it has always been assumed that pathogens, like coliform bacteria, are killed by chlorination. There is evidence, however, that viruses are not effectively eliminated by exposure to chlorine. A second concern related to the use of chlorine is the toxicity of chlorine to marine life. For this reason,there are limits set on the concentration of chlorine discharged in effluent from STPs. The Brookhaven National Lab(BNL)and the Plum Island STPs now uses an ultraviolet(UV)disinfection process. UV has been proposed for use at Riverhead and Sag Harbor and was being pilot tested in Shelter Island Heights. The discharge of duck waste from the Corwin Duck Farm is also considered a point source and the farm is required to have a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. In an attempt to lower the levels of coliforms in the effluent, a freshwater wetland was constructed on-site at the duck farm and is being used to filter the effluent prior to discharge. Studies elsewhere have shown that the CHAPTER FIVE 5-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,tR r • sediment/plant associations of There are a number of alternatives that STPs can pursue in freshwater wetlands are effective in an effort to alleviate the concern over chlorination. One removing contaminants from runoff as alternative is to use a different, non-chemical disinfectant. it flows across and through them. It is The Peconic Estuary Program is demonstrating the use of believed that the system acts as a filter ultraviolet light for pathogen removal from STP effluent. that captures pathogens and retains Research has shown this treatment to be deadly to viruses as them until they die rather than allowing well as bacteria and it leaves no residue in the effluent. This [hem to move into a body of water study is being conducted at the Shelter Island Heights STP. This demonstration project hopes to show that ultraviolet along with the runoff. treatment can serve as a safe and effective replacement for, or as an adjunct to, chlorination. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The actions in this chapter are categorized by point sources and nonpoint sources of pathogen contamination. Of these two,the vast majority of the actions are directed at nonpoint sources. Point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution contribute many harmful materials other than pathogens to the estuary. For this reason, the approach of the Peconic Estuary Program in formulating these actions has involved research on a variety of topics, including water quality modeling, sediment accretion and flux dynamics, and groundwater underflow and discharge determinations. So, while the actions in this chapter are primarily designed to minimize or prevent the movement of waste material and pathogen indicators into the estuary, many of the actions will also serve to reduce other forms of pollution. • The most significant sources of pathogens are stormwater runoff from roads and open land, on-site disposal systems, and domestic and wild animal waste. Another small but possibly locally significant source of pathogens is waste from boats. Actions to mitigate stormwater runoff include best management practices in construction,road-building, and storm drain construction and maintenance. Measures to mitigate waste from on-site disposal systems include tracking and upgrading failing systems and best management practices for siting, construction,and maintenance of new systems. Mitigation of pathogen input from animal waste can be addressed through best management practices for stormwater runoff. Boater waste will be addressed through the construction of pump-outs and through designation and implementation of vessel waste no discharge areas at locations throughout the estuary. Public education about boater waste,on-site disposal systems, animal waste,and other types of nonpoint source pollution is an extremely important tool for reducing pathogens entering the estuary. The Public Education and Outreach chapter of this Plan includes actions that will address the need for education regarding the control and reduction of pathogen loadings to the estuary. The Pathogen Management Actions are listed and discussed in the pages that follow. Additional information on costs and implementing entities is contained in Table 5-5 at the end of this chapter. Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing, commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through "base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions, new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. • CHAPTERFIVE 5-13 j�N. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • PATHOGENS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Stormwater Runoff P-1. Use Existing or Implement New Stormwater Management Regulations to Control Pathogen Loading and Other Forms of Nonpoint Source Pollution. P-2. Develop Land Use Regulations that Eliminate or Minimize New Sources of Stormwater Runoff. P-3. Use Construction Site Guidelines which Eliminate or Minimize Stormwater Runoff. P-4. Demonstrate and Implement Technologies to Remediate Stormwater Runoff. On-site Disposal Systems P-5. Enhance Existing Septic System Controls and Implement New Best Management Practices. Assess and Manage Vessel Wastes and Marinas P-6. Provide Pumpout Facilities and Encourage Their Use. P-7. Establish Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas. P-8. Use Administrative and Regulatory Measures to Control Pollution from Boaters and Marinas. P-9. Promote the Use of Best Management Practices to Control Pathogen Loadings from Marinas, Mooring Areas,and Boatyards. Point Sources P-10. Ensure Adequate Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. P-11. Monitor Effluent from the Corwin Duck Farm. Assess and Manage Nonpoint Sources P-12. Identify Sources and Loadings of Nonpoint Sources of Pathogens. P-13. Develop and Implement Nonpoint Source Control Plans for Pathogens. P-14. Obtain Funding to Address Stormwater Runoff. Water Quality Monitoring P-15. Conduct Water Quality Monitoring. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 11G • P-1. Use Existing or Implement New Stormwater Management Regulations to Control Pathogen Loading and Other Forms of Nonpoint Source Pollution. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requires certain activities obtain authorization(via a permit)to discharge pollutants via stormwater runoff to surface waterways. In New York, this requirement is covered under two General Stormwater Permits through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)program. One permit covers activities associated with construction activities(> five acres in size)and the second covers the remaining activities listed in the NPDES regulations. Unless covered by a separate individual SPDES permit, the only other alternative for dischargers that need a permit is one of the general permits. The general permit requires the development and implementation of a program with the goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The program must include municipal staff training on pollution prevention measures and techniques(e.g., regular street sweeping, reduction in use of pesticides or street salt, or frequent catch-basin cleaning). The plan need not be submitted to the NYSDEC unless asked, but must be kept on-site and continually updated. The NYSDEC may request to see these plans and may require changes in practices if adverse impacts on receiving waters have, or may have occur(red). Significant fines for violations face violators. Phase II of the EPA Stormwater regulations were finalized in October 1999. This set of regulations contains important changes and requirements for construction activities and certain municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations less than 100,000 and construction activities that disturb areas between one and five acres. These regulations will potentially have a significant impact on stormwater management in the Peconic Estuary. NYSDEC is currently evaluating the program changes necessary to comply with the new regulations. Steps P-1.1 Continue to implement general stormwater permit programs to control the discharge of stormwater from industrial,construction,and municipal activities. P-1.2 Determine if general stormwater permits adequately regulate pollution from activities subject to national stormwater regulations. P-1.3 Investigate the need to regulate, for general stormwater management, communities with populations less than 100,000 in the Peconic Estuary watershed in order to control coliform discharges. Responsible Entities P-1.1 NYSDEC(lead)and EPA (data management system) P-1.2 PEP(lead for assessment)and NYSDEC (permit issuance) P-1.3 NYSDEC (lead) CHAPTER FIVE 5-15 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 1 44 P-2. Develop Land Use Regulations that Eliminate or Minimize New Sources of • Stormwater Runoff. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Much of the runoff to the estuary from private property enters from land directly adjacent to the water. Commercial operations along the waterfront may require a large area of hard surfaces such as parking lots, which often result in the removal of natural vegetation. These conditions can result in increased stormwater runoff. The impact of this runoff in terms of erosion and pathogens can be mitigated by permit conditions(e.g., Articles 24 and 25,NYSDEC wetland regulations),use restrictions, or other controls on activities taking place on waterfront property. Controlling stormwater runoff from non-waterfront property and vacant lands can be accomplished through a variety of land use regulations, such as protective zoning,transfer of development rights to limit density, and standards for stormwater discharges from lands developed or redeveloped in the future. Local legislation that is highly protective of the coastal zone, such as the East Hampton Harbor Protection Overlay District(HPOD),has proven very effective on a relatively discrete,enclosed body of water entirely within local jurisdiction. However, in order for such a measure to be protective of a regional body of water such as the entire Peconic Estuary,this type of legislation must be enacted on a system-wide basis. Steps P-2.1 Evaluate existing,and develop model land use regulations that eliminate or minimize new Priority sources of stormwater runoff. P-2.2 Review the East Hampton HPOD legislation and the results of its implementation; adopt similar regulations for other East End towns and villages. P-2.3 Adopt land use regulations that eliminate or minimize new sources of stormwater runoff. P-2.4 Control the impacts of waterfront development through a prohibition on all new non-water- dependent commercial development. Responsible Entities P-2.1 PEP(lead)through contractor P-2.2 PEP(lead)with contractor assistance,and towns and villages P-2.3 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Brookhaven;and incorporated villages P-2.4 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead; and NYSDOS • CHAPTERFIVE 5-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP , • P-3. Use Construction Site Guidelines which Eliminate or Minimize Stormwater Runoff. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 2 and 3. Construction sites of all types and sizes can be significant sources of pollutants to stormwater runoff because the natural vegetation and land forms which would normally slow and absorb runoff have been removed. The Clean Water Act requires stormwater permits for construction activities on sites involving soil disturbances of five acres or more. However,the threshold will be reduced to one or more acres of disturbance in March 2003. These permits contain a requirement for the permittee to develop a sediment and erosion control plan for the project. Developing official guidelines for sediment and erosion control plans would ensure that construction sites of all sizes would have access to information about appropriate BMPs for controlling runoff. These guidelines could be incorporated into recommendations for stormwater plans required for General Stormwater permits or they could be required by town planning boards for incorporation into site plans. State Building Codes could also be expanded to include provisions for sediment and erosion control measures. Steps P-3.1 Require the use of BMPs to control stormwater runoff and sediment erosion at construction Priority sites. P-3.2 Pursue the expansion of the State Building Code to include provisions for stormwater runoff control practices and erosion and sediment control for all construction activities. P-3.3 Implement standards for building permits and subdivision approvals that will require new developments to retain and treat all stormwater runoff on the property to the extent practicable. P-3.4 Continue,through Federal programs (Clean Water Act, section 404)and State programs (the Tidal Wetlands Regulatory Program,Article 25,the Freshwater Wetlands Program, Article 24, and the Protection of Waters Program,Article 15),to regulate all construction projects to ensure that they prevent or minimize impacts to wetlands and other natural resources from stormwater runoff and septic system leakage. P-3.5 Require sediment and erosion control and stormwater runoff pollution prevention plans for new development greater than five acres,as well as to areas of disturbance that are one acre or more,effective in March 2003. P-3.6 Review the Suffolk County contractor licensing process for effectiveness and amend regulations to provide for fines and revocation where repeated violations of land use and site plan laws are committed by contractors. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-17 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • P-3.1 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and Brookhaven; and incorporated villages P-3.2 NYSDOS and NYSDEC (co-leads) P-3.3 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and Brookhaven and incorporated villages P-3.4 USACE(Federal lead),NYSDEC(state lead),EPA and NMFS P-3.5 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead; and incorporated villages P-3.6 PEP(lead for review)and Suffolk County(lead for making amendments), SCDHS, NYSDEC,EPA i • CHAPTER FIVE 5-18 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • P-4. Demonstrate and Implement Technologies to Remediate Stormwater Runoff. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 2,3,and 4. One way to reduce pathogen loadings to the estuary system is to remediate stormwater runoff. A number of projects aimed at minimizing or treating stormwater runoff have been implemented throughout the Peconics. For example,the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)has committed millions of dollars for mitigation of runoff from State roads and is working with the towns to identify the priority sites for remediation. The Town of Southampton has already developed and implemented a comprehensive program financed through a$2 million bond act that was passed in 1994. The New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act also provides funding for stormwater remediation in the Peconic Estuary. An example is the remediation of highway stormwater discharge to Hashamomuck Pond in the Town of Southold($600,000 State and $600,000 local match). Other towns have identified some priority locations and will remediate them as funds are made available. Examples of specific remediation projects include a grass filter strip on Shelter Island($10,000 in Near Coastal Waters funds), artificial wetlands at several locations in Southold($10,000 FY 1995 Action Plan Demonstration Project funds), and Open Marsh Water Management in both East Hampton and Southold($11,000 Near Coastal Waters fund for Northwest and Accobonac Harbors, $236,000 USFWS funds for Long Beach Bay). SIn addition to general recommendations regarding remediation,two of the actions below highlight ongoing projects in the Peconics which have been designed to mitigate coliform contamination. The effectiveness of existing and new remediation projects needs to be assessed through water quality monitoring both before and after project implementation. The Peconic Estuary Program is also funding a Regional Stormwater Management Plan. For related actions, see P-13 and P-14. Steps P-4.1 Demonstrate a variety of different technologies to remediate stormwater runoff and determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the technologies in various settings around the estuary. P-4.2 Ensure that information on ongoing, successful stormwater remediation projects is shared among the NYSDOT, Suffolk County Department of Public Works, and towns and villages in a timely fashion. P-43 Ensure that the NYSDEC and the SCDHS continue to work cooperatively with East End towns on stormwater remediation projects by providing monitoring support following the implementation of management actions, providing ambient coliform loading data, helping to evaluate sources of coliform bacteria, and assessing localized impacts of runoff, particularly on shellfish beds and bathing beaches. P-4.4 Implement the Town of East Hampton Ditch Plains Oceanside Drainage Project to restore • the water quality of South Lake Montauk. C H A P T E R F I V E 5-19 � Peconic Estuary Program CCMP P-4.5 Conduct a pilot project to construct and operate a composting waste toilet facility at the • East Hampton Town Beach on Lake Montauk. Evaluate the effectiveness of such a facility and determine if there are other locations around the estuary where this type of toilet could be installed for public use. P-4.6 Develop a"Regional Stormwater Management Plan'to evaluate and recommend Priority technologies to remediate stormwater runoff in the estuary. Responsible Entities P-4.1 PEP(lead) P-4.2 PEP(lead)through contract with Cornell Cooperative Extension P-4.3 NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program and SCDHS Office of Ecology(co-leads) P-4.4 Town of East Hampton(lead)and Cornell Cooperative Extension P-4.5 Town of East Hampton P-4.6 PEP(lead)through contractor and Peconic Baykeeper, EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS 0 • CHAPTER FI VE 5-20 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP r�' P-5. Enhance Existing Septic System Controls and Implement New Best Management Practices. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Wastewater treatment for most of the residences, businesses, and institutions of the watershed of the Peconics is serviced by on-site disposal systems(OSDS), such as septic tanks or cesspools. In some areas,these systems are decades old and have not been properly maintained. Systems that have not had the solids pumped regularly and whose leaching fields have been compromised by clogging may eventually release inadequately filtered fluids that contain high concentrations of pathogens. Once released to the surface,these fluids can be carried into the estuary via stormwater. One of the simplest and most effective methods of pinpointing septic system leakage is through the placement of dye in the toilets of the suspected system. The appearance of the dye in nearby surface waters after a period of time will indicate a compromise of the leaching field. However,these tests can only be done with the cooperation of the homeowner,and it is often difficult to obtain permission to run the tests since a positive result may end in a requirement for the homeowner to repair, upgrade, or replace the entire system. Providing a means to obtain funding for repairing and upgrading OSDS might result in fewer failing systems. • Because current inspections by government agencies and voluntary dye-testing may not be effective at identifying and remediating all substandard or malfunctioning OSDS in the Peconic area, it may be necessary to mandate inspections and repair/replacement of OSDS under certain circumstances. For related actions, see Public Outreach and Education POE-3.3, POE-5.5, POE-5.6, and N-5. Steps P-5.1 Implement existing programs that identify failing septic systems and work with property owners to have the systems repaired or replaced. Regular inspection and testing could be done by local agencies, particularly in older communities,to ensure that problems are detected and addressed in a timely manner. For those municipalities with existing inspection regulations,those regulations should be enforced. P-5.2 Work with waterfront residents to conduct voluntary dye tests on their septic systems to Priority determine if there are significant leakage problems. P-5.3 Develop and implement a requirement for inspection and certification of OSDS at specified intervals or upon transfer of property. If a system does not meet current standards,the homeowners would be required to repair or replace the system. P-5.4 Investigate the need for and feasibility of establishing an OSDS(septic system)district(s) to provide homeowners access to low-interest loans available through the State Revolving Fund to repair and upgrade malfunctioning OSDS. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-21 8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ?:r P-5.5 Conduct a workshop with appropriate State, Suffolk County, and town officials to review • and evaluate existing septic system controls(including system monitoring, required maintenance, and repair and replacement of failing systems)and current BMPs for septic systems. P-5.6 Implement OSDS BMPs contained in NYSDEC guidance for new developments. Responsible Entities P-5.1 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and Brookhaven; and SCDHS P-5.2 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and Brookhaven; and SCDHS P-5.3 PEP(lead); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and Brookhaven;and SCDHS P-5.4 PEP(lead), State Environmental Facilities Corporation, towns, SCDHS P-5.5 PEP P-5.6 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, and • Brookhaven; and SCDHS • 5-22 CHAPTER FIVE Peconic Estuary Program COMP VIP P-6. Provide Pumpout Facilities and Encourage Their Use. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. One of the ways to reduce the potential for pathogen loading in marina and mooring areas from human sewage is to minimize boater discharges. Boats on which people stay for extended periods of time represent a particular concern because of the amount of waste generated on these vessels. There is currently legislation that requires that marinas, which dock houseboats/barges, have a functioning pumpout station. This law needs to be rigorously enforced. The use of shoreside restrooms and the use of Type III marine sanitation devices(MSD)on boats(which have holding tanks), combined with pumpout facilities at marinas,would minimize the potential for release of pathogens into the water through untreated wastes and wastes from boats with Types I and II marine sanitation devices. The Federal Clean Vessel Act(CVA)provides money to the States to develop a plan for siting and constructing pumpout facilities at docks and marinas in an effort to reduce the potential contamination of coastal waters with human sewage from boats. The Act also provides grant money to be administered by the States for subsidizing the construction of these facilities once the need has been identified at specific sites. Currently funded projects are listed in Table 5-3. All funds from the CVA have currently been obligated; it is not anticipated that additional funding will be available through this legislation. For related actions, see Public Outreach and Education POE-3.4 and POE-3.5. Steps P-6.1 Continue to provide boaters with incentives to use pumpout stations, such as providing pumpout stations that are easy to use, clean, quick, free(or low-cost),and land-based or mobile. P-6.2 Conduct a survey of recreational vessels and pumpout stations in the Peconic Estuary, and prepare a plan for the construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of pumpouts and waste reception facilities sufficient to qualify all or parts of the Peconics for designation as a vessel waste no discharge area. (See P-7 for related action.) P-6.3 Administer Statewide Clean Vessel Act(CVA)grants(and any other similar grants)for the construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of pumpout and waste reception facilities pursuant to the State Clean Vessel Act Plan developed by NYSDOS. P-6.4 Promote the use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on boats, and pumpout stations, especially in areas of heavy boat traffic or environmentally sensitive areas. Marinas should encourage their patrons to use shore toilet facilities when berthed at a dock, particularly if they remain overnight. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4 P-6.5 Ensure strict enforcement of the Suffolk County Article 12 requirement that marinas which • facilitate overnight docking of houseboats or housebarges maintain a waste pumpout facility. Responsible Entities P-6.1 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead; and private marina owners P-6.2 NYSDOS (lead),NYSDEC and PEP No-Discharge Area(NDA)Committee,EPA P-6.3 NYSDEC (administers the plan in New York State for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which is responsible for the CVA)and municipal and private marina owners P-6.4 NY Sea Grant Extension Service Pumpout Education Program(lead),Association of Marine Industries, local governments,NYSDEC, and NYSDOS P-6.5 SCDHS • CHAPTER FIVE 5-24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 5-3. Clean Vessel Act Grants in the Peconics. Location Town Amount Requested Sag Harbor Pumpout Boat Southampton—Sag Harbor $25,000 Peconic Bays Pumpout Boat Southampton—all others $25,000 Shagwong Marina East Hampton—Three Mile Harbor $6,145 Strong's Marina Southold—Great Peconic Bay $7,500 Montauk Sportsman's Dock East Hampton—Lake Montauk $6,214 Game Fishing Marina East Hampton—Lake Montauk $7,166 Larry's Lighthouse Marina Riverhead—Meetinghouse Creek $ 8,111 Marine Park Docks Village of Sag Harbor $5,250 East Creek Marina Southold—East Creek $11,250 Cutchogue Harbor Marina Southold—Cutchogue Harbor $13,183 New Suffolk Shipyard Southold—Cutchogue Harbor $24,366 Gateway Marina Southampton—Flanders Bay $4,939 East Hampton Point Marina East Hampton—Three Mile Harbor $3,675 Coecles Harbor Marina and Boatyard Shelter Island—Coecles Harbor $13,856 Albertson Marine Southold—Budds Pond $4,650 Downtown Riverhead Pumpout Station Riverhead $14,930 Star Island Pumpout Facility East Hampton—Lake Montauk $25,000 Claudio's Marina Southold--Greenport Harbor $6,952 Great Peconic Bay Marina Riverhead—Kings Creek $12,926 • CHAPTER FIVE 5-25 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP E Establish Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. Through the Clean Water Act,waterbodies may be designated as"Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas (or Zones)." The discharge of untreated vessel waste is prohibited within the three-mile jurisdiction of Sate coastal waters and navigably connected waters. However,treated waste from approved Marine Sanitation Devices(MSDs)can be discharged in these waters. Within no discharge areas, vessels are prohibited from discharging both treated and untreated waste into surface waters. Local governments may submit No Discharge Area(NDA)petitions through NYSDEC seeking the Federal NDA designation,which is administered by EPA. The EPA will approve state designation of waterbodies as No Discharge Areas when the petitioner can demonstrate that there is a need for greater protection of the resources and there are sufficient pumpout facilities to service the number of boats using the waterbody. In addition, the petition includes information on enforcement and public education. In an effort to advance the idea of a NDA in the Peconics,a committee was formed made up of representatives from the Peconic Estuary Program,New York State, Association of Marine Industries, • and the Peconic BayKeeper. The group reached an agreement that supports the recommendation of designating the entire estuary as a NDA. The Peconic Baykeeper has met with the five East End Towns and asked for their support in designating the entire estuary a NDA. All five towns are in support and expressed their willingness to act as partners in the application process. Officials from the NYS Department of State with assistance from the BayKeeper are currently preparing the petition on the Municipalities behalf. The draft petition is nearing completion and is expected to be provided to the Towns and reviewing agencies so it can be implemented for the 2001 boating season. Steps P-7.1 Develop agreement on Peconic Estuary Program Vessel Waste No Discharge Area. P-7.2 Develop and submit an appropriate application for a vessel waste no discharge area based Priority on recommendations provided by the committee in P-7.1. P-7.3 Implement and enforce a vessel waste no discharge area throughout the estuary. Priority • CHAPTER FIVE 5-26 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Responsible Entities P-7.1 PEP CAC Chair and ANTI representative(co-leads);NYSDOS; PEP; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead; AMI; and Peconic Baykeeper P-7.2 Application development and submission: NYSDEC and NYSDOS (co-leads), in conjunction with Towns; determination of adequacy of pumpout and treatment facilities and approval of NYSDEC designation: EPA(lead); enforcement of no discharge area: local enforcement agencies(lead), USCG, and NYSDEC. P-7.3 NYSDOS, Peconic Baykeeper(implementation),NYSDEC, U.S. Coast Guard, and Town Bay constables(enforcement) • CHAPTER FIVE 5-27 ,g Peconic Estuary Program CCMP FP-8. Use Administrative and Regulatory Measures to Control Pollution from B • oaters and Marinas. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. There is an existing law in Suffolk County mandating the investigation of reported nuisances at marinas. This law may be broadly interpreted to include problems resulting in pollution of surface waters such as stormwater runoff, malfunctioning septic systems at shoreside restrooms,and improper use of pumpout facilities. Currently,enforcement of this law is in response to complaints. Pollution problems may be addressed under this law through some provision for routine inspection of marinas and shore facilities. Steps P-8.1 Investigate the administrative, regulatory, and programmatic elements of the Suffolk County Law to investigate reported nuisances at marinas in order to determine if this law could be applied to evaluate and manage pollution from marinas and other sources. P-8.2 Examine existing site plan review process and special permit legislation and amend to accommodate close scrutiny of marinas and all waterfront projects to address pathogen sources. Responsible Entities P-8.1 SCDHS P-8.2 SCDHS(lead), with stormwater contractor assistance(see P-12);and Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead • CHAPTERFIVE 5-28 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP e� i _r P-9. Promote the Use of Best Management Practices to Control Pathogen Loadings from Marinas, Mooring Areas, and Boatyards. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. In addition to BMPs for boat waste,the Coastal Nonpoint Source Program Guidance for CZARA section 6217 also lists recommendations for minimizing pollution from marinas and boatyards from runoff and septic system leakage. These BMPs could be codified and required as permit conditions for the construction of new marinas and boatyards or the expansion of existing ones. Steps P-9.1 Select and promote the use of BMPs to control pathogen loadings from new and existing marinas, mooring areas, and boatyards in accordance with section 6217 of CZARA. P-9.2 Include BMPs in accordance with section 6217 of CZARA to permit conditions for new marinas, mooring areas,and boatyards. Responsible Entities P-9.1 NYSDOS(lead); Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, and Riverhead; and NYSDEC P-9.2 Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Southold, Shelter Island, and Riverhead; and NYSDEC;NYSDOS • CHAPTER FIVE 5-29 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4 P-10. Ensure Adequate Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Disinfection of effluent from sewage treatment plants is essential to prevent the spread of disease. Disinfection can be accomplished by a variety of methods, all of which have been proven effective under specific conditions. There are concerns about the use of chlorine as a disinfectant because chlorine may not effectively eliminate certain viruses from effluent. In addition, chlorine may have toxic effects on living organisms when it becomes complexed in seawater with organic compounds. Steps P-10.1 Ensure that adequate disinfection at sewage treatment plants continues. P-10.2 Encourage all sewage treatment plants to use ultraviolet disinfection. Responsible Entities P-10.1 NYSDEC (lead); and operators of the Town of Riverhead, Shelter Island Heights, BNL, NWIRP, Village of Sag Harbor,and Plum Island Disease Control Center STPs P-10.2 PEP(lead) • CHAPTER FIVE 5-30 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP °�' • P-11. Monitor Effluent from the Corwin Duck Farm. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. Meetinghouse Creek in the Town of Riverhead has been identified as being significantly contaminated with coliform bacteria. In the past, duck waste was diluted,filtered, and allowed to discharge into the creek. In an attempt to lower the levels of coliforms in the effluent, a freshwater wetland was constructed on-site to capture and retain pathogens until they die rather than allowing them to move into a body of water along with the runoff. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the artificial wetland treatment system. Steps P-11.1 Monitor Meetinghouse Creek receiving waters to determine efficacy of the wetland treatment system installed to treat effluent from the Corwin Duck Farm. Responsible Entities P-11.1 USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)(lead)and Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District CHAPTER FIVE 5-31 4"4" Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ?`r P-12. Identify Sources and Loadings of Nonpoint Sources of Pathogens. • Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Knowing the sources of pathogens in the estuary as well as the total loadings of pathogens to various embayments is a crucial first step in designing remedial activities. A reliable, first-order quantification of pathogen sources in the estuary would aid in determining the most cost-effective management and remedial actions that would result in lowered coliform levels and, ultimately, reopened shellfish beds. The PEP has funded a"Regional Stormwater Management'project to establish a comprehensive stormwater strategy. This project,which will begin in the summer of 2000, will include a system-wide stormwater inventory, an integrated characterization effort, and a stormwater management strategy. Pollutant loadings can be estimated using land use data and land cover information. Land cover information is available from a variety of sources including the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program(C—CAP)which derives its data from satellite imagery. These data have been acquired by the NYSDOS and have been ground-truthed with existing aerial photographs for the New York coastal region. A land use analysis for the study area has been conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Planning, and a preliminary stormwater contributing area map has been developed from the stormwater data collecated by the Towns, County and State. Steps P-12.1 Identify and assess the major nonpoint source and stormwater inputs and quantify loadings of pathogens to local harbors in the Peconic Estuary System. P-12.2 Develop a DNA "library"of coliform bacteria isolated from feces of animals, including humans. See related Puhlic Outreach and Education Action POE-3.1. P-12.3 Pilot the use of DNA library to assess coliform sources in selected embayments. This knowledge can potentially be used to identify loading pathways and,thus,the means by which to remediate those loadings. P-12.4 Perform land cover analyses for the study area which can be used to determine stormwater runoff loadings. Include tabulation and mapping of existing land cover types and analysis of land cover changes over time. Responsible Entities P-12.1 PEP(lead)with contractor assistance; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead,and Brookhaven; villages;NYSDEC; SCDHS; EPA P-12.2 Cornell Cooperative Extension(lead) in cooperation with PEP P-12.3 Cornell Cooperative Extension(lead) in cooperation with PEP P-12.4 PEP through contract with NYSDOS (lead) CHAPTER FIVE 5-32 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP P-13. Develop and Implement Nonpoint Source Control Plans for Pathogens. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Comprehensive planning involving multiple levels of government is required to address a pathogen- contaminated waterbody, particularly since contamination is often due to a variety of sources, including stormwater runoff, septic systems(cesspools), vessel wastes and even wildlife and domestic animal wastes. This action recognizes the need for the plans to be developed for specific waterbodies, as well as the need to secure funding for pathogen management through the Suffolk County Water Quality Coordinating Committee. Steps P-13.1 Develop nonpoint source control plans for specific embayments for each nonpoint source Priority category associated with potential pathogen contamination (such as stormwater runoff, on- site disposal systems, and marinas/boating)through the "Regional Stormwater • Management Plan"and sub-watershed management pilot projects for each town(see Action P-12). P-13.2 Continue to promote nonpoint source management of pathogens through the Suffolk County Water Quality Coordinating Committee(SCWQCC), and coordinate Committee activities with the PEP. (The SCWQCC is comprised of agencies [including the NYSDEC and SCDHS] which have a stake in improving water quality of the Peconic Estuary System.) Responsible Entities P-13.1 PEP(lead), with contractor assistance in concert with state and local governments; SCDHS; NYSDEC; EPA; SCDPW; NYSDOT P-13.2 SCWQCC, chaired by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District(lead), and PEP • CHAPTER FIVE 5-33 ter" Peconic Estuary Program CCMP P-14. Obtain Funding to Address Stormwater Runoff. Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,2,3,and 4. Some actions in this chapter can be implemented without additional outside funding. For example, the local highway or public works departments in many municipalities already have the appropriate equipment and trained personnel for carrying out many of the BMPs for stormwater runoff remediation. Several towns incorporate funds every year into their highway or public works department budgets specifically for this purpose. Other actions will require additional funding. State funds are available through the New York Department of Transportation as well as the NYSDEC from the Bond Act. The members of the Peconic Estuary Program have been very successful at applying for and receiving Federal funds under the Clean Water Act. Projects funded since the inception of the PEP in 1993 are contained in Table 5-4. Steps P-14.1 Include an annual amount in the highway operating budget specifically for the correction of existing road runoff problems. Implementation of this action would support the effort • described in Action P-4. P-14.2 Identify projects in the Peconic Estuary watershed that are fundable under the Transportation Efficiency Act and NYSDOT capital budget that will improve water quality by preventing or remediating road runoff. P-14.3 Identify projects in the Peconic Estuary watershed under the New York Clean Water/ Priority Clean Air Bond Act that will improve water quality by preventing or remediating road runoff. Responsible Entities P-14.1 Suffolk County DPW; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead,and Brookhaven; and incorporated villages; PEP P-14.2 Suffolk County DPW; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead,and Brookhaven; incorporated villages; PEP HRWG;NYSDOT; SCDPW P-14.3 Suffolk County; Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead,and Brookhaven; incorporated villages; and PEP HRWG,NYSDEC • CHAPTERFIVE 5-34 Peconic Estuary Program CC'MP "s i • Table 5-4. Peconic Estuary Demonstration/Implementation Projects —Pathogen Mitigation. Project Title FederaUState Funding Near Coastal Waters Grants Filter Strip Project/Stormwater Abatement $ 10,000 Open Marsh Water Management Project $ 246,385' "Saving the Bay" Poster/Pamphlet Project $ 5,000 Corwin Duck Farm Constructed Wetlands $ 68,000 FY94 Action Plan Demonstration Projects Composting Waste Public Restroom Facility $ 18,730 Wetland Restoration Project $ 36,970' Ultraviolet Disinfection/Shelter Island Heights STP $ 6,800 FY95 Action Plan Demonstration Projects Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention/Coecles Harbor Marina $ 47,359' Stormwater Quality Management("Stormtreat") $ 12,650 Shallow Wetland/Biofiltration $ 19,500 Ozone Treatment of Stormwater Runoff $ 18,850 Storm Drain Outfall(Ecoboom) $ 20,000 Stormwater Education/Outreach $ 4,000 aFY96 Action Plan Demonstration Projects Nonpoint Source/Boat Ramps $17,000 Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants° Town of East Hampton Surface Water Pollution Abatement $ 34,500 Stormwater Mitigation at Goose Creek $ 15,000 Hashamomuck Point Stormwater Remediation $ 39,000 Stormwater Vac-Con Sewer Cleaning Machine $ 180,000 Bay Avenue Drainage Improvements $ 50,000 East Creek Stormwater Retention/Biofilter $ 62,000 '$11,385 Near Coastal Water grant;project expanded with$235,000 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service grant to NYSDFC '$9,970 FY94 APDP grant;project expanded with$27,000 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service grant to NYSDFC 'Funded in part with C WA section 319 Nonpoint Source grant($16,409) 'Clean Water Act section 319 grants are through NYSDFC CHAPTER FIVE 5-35 �F Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Conduct Water Quality Monitoring. • Addresses Pathogen Management Objectives 1,3,and 4. In order to accurately assess the levels of pathogen indicators in the system, routine water quality sampling is critical. The NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program is the primary entity that carries out this activity for the purpose of protecting human health from the consumption of shellfish contaminated with pathogens. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) is the lead entity for the purpose of protecting human health from pathogens at bathing beaches. SCDHS also analyzes water samples for coliforms as part of a larger program to assess overall quality of the waters in the Peconic system. In order to determine the impact of control measures on pathogen indicator concentrations in the water, it is important that these monitoring programs be maintained. Water quality monitoring is required for assessing the status of all shellfish beds. There are a number of small, shallow embayments in the Peconics that are closed to shellfishing as a result of coliform contamination. The towns are interested in reopening these areas on a conditional or seasonal basis to access the shellfish resources that exist there. More intensive water quality sampling(increased frequency and number of stations)by the State Shellfish Sanitation Program may result in more detailed assessments of the amount,timing, and sources of contamination in these bodies of water. This additional information may result in upgrading the classification of some sections of these embayments to shellfishing for at least part of the year. In 1998, several New York marine surface water samples were analyzed for Pfiesteria piscicida; some of the samples from Peconic Estuary waters contained Pfiesteria piscicida. Pfiesteria is a microscopic organism that has a complex life cycle that includes toxin-producing stages. The exact conditions that are necessary to trigger toxin production by Pfiesteria piscicida are poorly understood, but it is believed these conditions do not commonly occur in New York coastal waters. The New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health are working with county health departments to complete comprehensive sampling for Pfiesteria and developing plans for responding to possible toxic Pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks. Steps P-15.1 Maintain the water quality sampling programs run by the NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program and the SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources in order to monitor pathogens in shellfish beds and public beaches and to assess the results of mitigation measures, respectively. P-15.2 Conduct Pfiesteria piscicida sampling effort to characterize embayments with respect to this organism. Responsible Entities P-15.1 NYSDEC and SCDHS(co-leads) P-15.2 NYSDEC and SCDHS (co-leads),NYSDOH, and NYS Pfiesteria workgroups CHAPTER FIVE 5-36 Peconrc Estuary Program COMP • BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Successful implementation of the actions in this chapter will result in environmental benefits, human health benefits, and economic benefits to the estuary system by ensuring cleaner water and continued or increased availability of shellfish lands for harvesting. Although these benefits have not been quantified in monetary terms, their value is potentially quite high. Ensuring open beaches for tourists and clean water for recreational users supports a variety of local businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, and shops. The re-opening of shellfish beds to harvesting would have the benefit of increasing the revenue generated from this fishery. The value of this increased revenue would depend on the abundance per unit area of shellfish (primarily hard clams) in the closed beds and the market price at the time of re-opening. Finally, it is worthwhile to note that actions to reduce pathogen loadings also will often reduce inputs of sediment particles and nutrients into the system. COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Estimated costs for each of the pathogen management actions are provided in Table 5-5. As shown in the table, for some actions, costs can not be estimated due to the variables involved. Other actions rely on implementation using current levels of effort and funding. Many of the actions have secondary or indirect costs that also are difficult to measure. For these reasons, it is not possible to estimate the total cost of implementing the proposed pathogen management actions. • For example, in order to re-open shellfish beds to reharvesting,the sources of pollution in each separate growing area would have to be identified. Then the cost of remediating each separate source could be estimated. A conservative estimate would involve locating the point at which each stormwater discharge enters an embayment and determining the cost of remediating each of those discharges. Sources of leachate from on-site disposal systems could be determined through dye tests done in conjunction with each individual residence or business. Those septic systems that are shown to contribute substantial quantities of pathogens would need to be replaced or upgraded, and this cost would be added to the total. Suspected vessel discharges could be monitored and enforcement of laws prohibiting discharge of raw sewage could be increased. The increased expense of monitoring and enforcement for any designated vessel waste no discharge area would also have to be added in. If wildfowl are determined to be a significant source, some action might have to be taken regarding these populations, including a public education campaign on not feeding them, and this would require an additional cost. The cost of implementing all of these actions could run into the millions of dollars and would have to be compared to the increased value of the harvest to be taken out of the estuary as well as the values placed on cleaner water, reduced human health risks, and better recreational opportunities. The total cost of all new actions for the pathogens management in the chapter is$1,718,750 in one- time costs and $1,530,000 annually. (See "Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) • CHAPTER FIVE 5-37 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP PATHOGENS ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 5-5 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an "R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities; "N" indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action i implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter I and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTER FIVE 5-38 Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. Do Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ca P-1 Use Existing or Implement New Stormwater Management Regulations to Control Pathogen Loading and Other Forms of Nonpoint W Source Pollution. Objectives 1 3,and 4 - P-1.1 Continue to implement general NYSDEC(lead),EPA(data Ongoing Base Program C/O < stormwater permit programs to management system) m control the discharge of stormwater Enhanced Program: R from industrial,construction,and NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE/yr municipal activities. P-1.2 Determine if general stormwater PEP(lead for assessment), Post-CCMP NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE R permits adequately regulate NYSDEC(permit issuance) PEP—1.0 FTE pollution from activities subject to national stormwater regulations. P-1.3 Investigate the need to regulate, for NYSDEC(lead) Following EPA issuance of NYSDEC— 1.0 FTE R general stormwater management, new stormwater regulations communities with populations less than 100,000 in the Peconic Estuary watershed in order to control coliform discharges. P-2 Develop Land Use Regulations that Eliminate or Minimize New Sources of Stormwater Runoff. (Objectives 1,2,3,and 4 P-2.1 Evaluate existing and develop PEP(lead)through Post-CCMP $50,000 R Priority model land use regulations that contractor eliminate or minimize new sources of stormwater runoff. °a P-2.2 Review the East Hampton HPOD PEP(lead)with contractor Post-CCMP $50,000 R legislation and the results of its assistance, and towns and implementation,adopt similar villages PEP—0.2 FTE regulations in other East End Towns—0.5 FTE each towns and villages. o P-2.3 Adopt land use regulations that Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Towns—0.5 FTE each R o eliminate or minimize new sources Riverhead, Southampton, of stormwater runoff. Shelter Island, Southold, n and Brookhaven;and Inco orated villages Table continued on next page v' Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status[j P-2.4 Control the impacts of waterfront Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Towns—0.5 FTE each R development through a prohibition Southampton, Southold, on all new non-water-dependent Shelter Island,and o commercial development. Riverhead;NYSDOS; s NYSDEC y P-3 Use Construction Site Guidelines which Eliminate or Minimize Stormwater Runoff. Ob ectives 2 and 3 c P-3.1 Require the use of BMPs to control Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Towns—0.5 FTE each/yr R Priority stormwater runoff and sediment Riverhead,Southampton, o erosion at construction sites. Southold, Shelter Island, and Brookhaven;and 3 incorporated villa es 7 P-3.2 Pursue the expansion of the State NYSDOS and NYSDEC OngoingNYSDEC—0.5 FTE R Building Code to include (co-leads) NYSDOS—0.5 FTE provisions for stormwater runoff control practices and erosion and sediment control for all construction activities. P-3.3 Implement standards for building Towns of East Hampton, Following completion of Towns 0.5 FTE each R permits and subdivision approvals Southampton, Southold, Action P-3.2 or that will require new developments Shelter Island, Riverhead, development of local to retain and treat all stormwater and Brookhaven; and standards runoff on the property to the extent incorporated villages practicable. Table continued on next page n x a b H h7 � 7� 17 n Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) x D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ^o P-3.4 Continue,through Federal USACE(Federal lead), Ongoing Base Programs C/O programs(Clean Water Act, EPA,NMFS;NYSDEC section 404)and State programs (state lead) C (the Tidal Wetlands Regulatory M Program,Article 25,the Freshwater Wetlands Program, Article 24,and the Protection of Waters Program,Article 15),to regulate all construction projects to ensure that they prevent or minimize impacts to wetlands and other natural resources from stormwater runoff and septic system leakage. P-3.5 Require sediment and erosion Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP Base Programs R control and stormwater runoff Southampton, Shelter pollution prevention plans for new Island, Southold,and development greater than five Riverhead; incorporated acres,as well as to areas of villages disturbance that are one acre or more, effective in March 2003. b P-3.6 Review the Suffolk County PEP(lead for review), Post-CCMP EPA-0.2 FTE R o contractor licensing process for Suffolk County(lead for NYSDEC—0.2 FTE s effectiveness and amend making amendments), SCDHS—0.3 FTE n regulations to provide for fines and SCDHS, EPA,NYSDEC PEP—0.2 FTE revocation where repeated violations of land use and site plan b laws are committed by contractors. Table continued on next page a 3 n n NTable 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status P-4 Demonstrate and Implement Technolo ies to Remediate Stormwater Runoff Ob ecdYes$,3,and 4 b P-4.1 Demonstrate a variety of different PEP(lead) Ongoing g g (Grass filter strip— C/O n technologies to remediate stormwater $10,000 Near Coastal runoff and determine the Waters funds;artificial effectiveness and appropriateness of wetlands and retention rings the technologies in various settings —$10,000 FY95 Action around the estuary. Plan Demonstration Project funds;OMWM—$11,000 Near Coastal Waters fund o for Northwest and 3 Accabonac Harbors; n $235,000 USFWS funds to b NYSDEC for Long Beach Bay) PEP-0.1 FTE P-4.2 Ensure that information on ongoing, PEP(lead)through contract Spring 2000 ($10,000) C/O successful stormwater remediation with Connell Cooperative projects is shared among the Extension PEP–0.1 FTE NYSDOT, SCDPW,and towns and villages in a timely fashion. P-4.3 Ensure that the NYSDEC and the NYSDEC Shellfish Ongoing Base Program C/O SCDHS continue to work Sanitation Program, SCDHS cooperatively with East End towns on Office of Ecology(co-leads) stormwater remediation projects by providing monitoring support following the implementation of n management actions,providing ambient coliform loading data, Y helping to evaluate sources of ro coliform bacteria,and assessing rn localized impacts of runoff, particularly on shellfish beds and " bathing beaches. < Table continued on next page m n Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) z D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status 'v —' P-4.4 Implement the Town of East Town of East Hampton 2 ears once started M P P y ($65,000 East Hampton; C/O v Hampton Ditch Plains Oceanside (lead), Comell Cooperative $175,000 ISTEA) -n Drainage Project to restore the Extension water quality of South Lake m Montauk. P-4.5 Conduct a pilot project to construct Town of East Hampton Construction completed; ($23,270 Town of East C/O and operate a composting waste operation to commence in Hampton; $18,730 PEP toilet facility at the East Hampton 1999;evaluation in 2000 FY94 APDP funds) Town Beach on Lake Montauk. Evaluate the effectiveness of such a facility and determine if there are other locations around the estuary where this type of toilet could be installed for public use. P-4.6 Develop a"Regional Stormwater PEP(lead)through Summer 2000 ($45,000 PEP FY98; C/N Priority Management Plan'to evaluate and contractor and Peconic $65,100 Clean Water Act recommend technologies to Baykeeper, EPA,NYSDEC, funds) remediate stormwater runoff in the SCDHS EPA—0.1 FTE estuary. NYSDEC-0.1 FTE SCDHS—0.1 FTE P-5 Enhance Existing Septic S stem Controls and Implement New Best Management Practices. Objectives 1,2, 3, and 4 P-5.1 Implement existing programs that Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP SCDHS— 1.0 FTE R identify failing septic systems and Southampton, Shelter Towns—0.5 FTE each/yr ? work with property owners to have Island, Southold, Riverhead, m the systems repaired or replaced. and Brookhaven; SCDHS Regular inspection and testing could be done by local agencies, particularly in older communities, to ensure that problems are a detected and addressed in a timely manner. For those municipalities n with existing inspection b a regulations,those regulations should be enforced. C Table continued on next page , Table 5-5. Pathogens Mana ement Actions. continued 4. Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status P-5.2 Work with waterfront residents to Towns of East Hampton, Post-COMP Relatively inexpensive for R Priority conduct voluntary dye tests on Southampton, Southold, test and time spent;may be their septic systems to determine if Shelter Island, Riverhead, considerable for there are significant leakage and Brookhaven; SCDHS homeowners if septic o problems. system is found to be malfunctioning e SCDHS— 1.0 FTE/yr P-5.3 Develop and implement a PEP(lead); Towns of East Post-CCMP SCDHS— LO FTE R requirement for inspection and Hampton, Southampton, Towns—0.25 FTE each w° certification of OSDS at specified Southold, Shelter Island, intervals or upon transfer of Riverhead,and Brookhaven; n property. If a system does not SCDHS meet current standards,the i homeowners would be required to repair or replace the system. P-5.4 Investigate the need for and PEP(lead), State Post-CCMP SCDHS—0.3 FTE R feasibility of establishing an OSDS Environmental Facilities PEP—0.2 FTE (septic system)district(s)to Corporation,Towns, Towns—0.1 FTE each provide homeowners access to SCDHS low-interest loans available through the State Revolving fund to repair and upgrade malfunctioning OSDS. P-5.5 Conduct a workshop with PEP Fall 2000 $10,000 R appropriate State, Suffolk County, and town officials to review and PEP—0.1 FTE n evaluate existing septic system x controls(including system y monitoring,required maintenance, 'b and repair and replacement of q failing systems)and current BMPs m m for septic systems. Table continued on next page M n Table 5-5. Pathogens Mana ement Actions. continued S Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status D -o P-5.6 Implement OSDS BMPs contained Towns of East Hampton, Post-CCMP SCDHS—2.0 FTE/yr R m in NYSDEC guidance for new Southampton, Shelter Towns— 1.0 FTE/yr developments. Island,Southold,Riverhead, and Brookhaven; SCDHS < P-6 Provide Pum out Facilities and Encourage Their Use. Objectives 1,3,and 4 m P-6.1 Continue to provide boaters with Towns of East Hampton, Ongoing Base Programs C/O incentives to use pumpout stations, Southampton, Shelter such as providing pumpout stations Island, Southold, and that are easy to use,clean, quick, Riverhead;private marina free(or low-cost), and land-based owners or mobile. P-6.2 Conduct a survey of recreational NYSDOS(lead),NYSDEC, Survey: completed EPA—0.1 FTE C vessels and pumpout stations in the PEP NDA Committee, EPA Plan: Spring 2000 NYSDEC—0.2 FTE Peconic Estuary,and prepare a PEP—0.1 FTE plan for the construction, DOS—0.5 FTE installation, maintenance,and repair of pumpouts and waste reception facilities sufficient to qualify all or parts of the Peconics for designation as a vessel waste no discharge area(See P-7 for related action. P-6.3 Administer Statewide Clean Vessel NYSDEC(administers the 1993-2004 Base Programs C/O a Act(CVA)grants(and any other plan in NY State for the n' similar grants)for the construction, USFWS which is installation,maintenance, and responsible for the CVA), o repair of pumpout and waste municipal and private 2 reception facilities pursuant to the marina owners State CVA Plan developed by a NYSDOS. 3 Table continued on next page n Y Table 5-5. Pathogens Mana ement Actions. continued Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status P-6.4 Promote the use of shore-based NY Sea Grant Extension Ongoing Base Programs C/O toilets,holding tanks on boats,and Service Pumpout Education pumpout stations,especially in Program(lead),AMI, local b areas of heavy boat traffic or governments,NYSDEC, environmentally sensitive areas. NYSDOS 3 Marinas should encourage their patrons to use shore toilet facilities when berthed at a dock, particularly if they remain b overnight. P-6.5 Ensure strict enforcement of the SCDHS Ongoing SCDHS— 1.0 FTE R ° Suffolk County Article 12 3 requirement that marinas which n facilitate overnight docking of b houseboats or house barges maintain a waste pumpout facility. P-7 Establish Vessel Waste No Dischar a Areas. (Objectives 13,and 4 P-7.1 Develop agreement on Peconic PEP CAC Chair and AMI Fall 1999 Base Program C/O Estuary Program Vessel Waste representative(co-leads); No Discharge Area. NYSDOS; PEP;Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold,and Riverhead; AMI; Peconic Ba kee er Table continued on next page n x a m m n Table 5-5. Pathogens Mana ement Actions. continued z Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status a b -� P-7.2 Develop and submit an appropriate Application development Spring 2000 Application and approval: CM m Priority application for a vessel waste and submission:NYSDEC Included in Action P-6.2 7' no discharge area based on and NYSDOS(co-leads) in (Estimated cost for private recommendations provided by the conjunction with Towns; boat owners to retrofit the < committee in P-7.1. determination of adequacy cost to install Type 111 to of pumpout and treatment devices on vessels currently facilities and approval of having Type I or 11 devices NYSDEC designation: EPA is estimated at$2,000 per (lead);enforcement of vessel. It has been vessel waste no discharge estimated that there are area: local enforcement approximately 500 vessels agencies(lead), USCG, using the Peconics regularly NYSDEC that would require retrofits.) P-7.3 Implement and enforce Vessel No NYSDOS& Peconic Summer 2002 Towns—0.25 FTE each/yr R Priority Waste Discharge Area throughout Baykeeper NYSDEC—0.5 FTE/yr the estuary. (implementation); USCG—0.25 FTE/yr NYSDEC, U.S. Coast Guard,Town Bay constables(enforcement) P-8 Use Administrative and Regulator Measures to Control Pollution from Boaters and Marinas. Objectives 1,3,and 4 P-8.1 Investigate the administrative, SCDHS Spring 2000 Cost to be determined R regulatory,and programmatic elements of the Suffolk County a Law to investigate reported nuisances at marinas in order to determine if this law could be applied to evaluate and manage a pollution from marinas and other o sources. P-8.2 Examine existing site plan review SCDHS(lead)with Begin: Spring 2000 SCDHS— 1.0 FTE R °3 process and special permit stormwater contractor(see Towns—0.2 FTE each n legislation and amend to Action P-12); Towns of East accommodate close scrutiny of Hampton, Southampton, \a marinas and all waterfront projects Southold, Shelter Island, , to address pathogen sources. and Riverhead Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) m Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status P-9 Promote the Use of Best Management Practices to Control Pathogen Loadings from Marinas,Mooring Areas,and Boatyards. (Objectives 1,3 and 4 b P-9.1 Select and promote the use of NYSDOS(lead);Towns of Ongoing NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr C/O n BMPs to control pathogen loadings East Hampton, NYSDOS—0.1 FTE/yr from new and existing marinas, Southampton, Southold, mooring areas, and boatyards in Shelter Island,and O accordance with section 6217 of Riverhead;NYSDEC � CZARA. P-9.2 Include BMPs in accordance with Towns of East Hampton, Ongoing NYSDEC-0.1 FTE C/0 x section 6217 of CZARA to permit Southampton, Southold, NYSDOS-0.1 FTE a conditions for new marinas, Shelter Island, and mooring areas, and boatyards. Riverhead;NYSDEC;DOS n P-10 Ensure Adequate Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. (Objectives],2,3,and 4) b P-10.1 Ensure that adequate disinfection NYSDEC(lead);operators Ongoing NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr C/O at sewage treatment plants of the Town of Riverhead, continues. Shelter Island Heights, BNL,NWIRP, Village of Sag Harbor,and Plum Island Disease Control Center STPs P-10.2 Encourage all sewage treatment PEP(lead) Ongoing Included in Action P-10.1 C/O plants to use ultraviolet disinfection. P-11 Monitor Effluent from the Corwin Duck Farm. Ob ectives 1,3,and 4 P-11.1 Monitor Meetinghouse Creek NRCS(lead), Suffolk Monitoring is ongoing Base Programs C/0 receiving waters to determine County Soil and Water through 1999 (Included in$71,579 Near n efficacy of the wetland treatment Conservation District Coastal grant funds; $3,500 2 system installed to treat effluent from Corwin Duck Farm) Y from the Corwin Duck Farm. ro Table continued on next page m z m n Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status -o to P-12 Identify Sources and Loadin s of Non oint Sources of Pathogen . (Objectives 1,2 3,and 4 A P-12.1 Identify and assess the major PEP(lead)with contractor Start Spring 2000 through EPA—0.1 FTE C/O �n nonpoint source and stormwater assistance;Towns of East Summer 2001 NYSDEC—0.1 FTE inputs and quantify loadings of Hampton, Southampton, SCDHS—0.1 FTE M pathogens to local harbors in the Shelter Island, Southold, Towns—0.1 FTE each Peconic Estuary System. Riverhead,and Brookhaven; villages;NYSDEC; SCDHS;EPA P-12.2 Develop a DNA"library"of Cornell Cooperative Fall 1996 though Spring Base Programs C/O coliform bacteria isolated from Extension(lead) in 2000 ($85,000 grant) feces of animals, including cooperation with PEP humans. (See POE-3.1) P-12.3 Pilot the use of a DNA library to Cornell Cooperative Spring 1999 through Base Programs C/O assess coliform sources in selected Extension(lead)in December 2000 ($75,000 grant) embayments.This knowledge can cooperation with PEP potentially be used to identify loading pathways and,thus,the means by which to remediate those loadings. P-12.4 Perform land cover analyses for PEP through contract with Fall 1999 through PEP—0.1 FTE C/O the study area which can be used to NYSDOS(lead) December 2000 ($88,019($40,500 from determine stormwater runoff PEP APDP; $47,519 from o loadings. Include tabulation and EPA 104(6)(3)funds)) �. mapping of existing land cover types and analyses of land cover 4 changes over time. �? Table continued on next page a 0 x a 3 n n Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) „neyF o Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status P-13 Develop and Implement Non'hint Source Control Plans for Patho ens. (Objectives 1,2,3 and 4 P-13.1 Develop nonpoint source control PEP(lead),with contractor December 2000(start) Base Program R Priority plans for specific embayments for assistance in concert with EPA—0.1 FTE/yr o each nonpoint source category state and local government; NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr a associated with potential pathogen SCDHS;NYSDEC; EPA SCDHS—0.1 FTE/yr contamination(such as stormwater Towns—0.1 FTE each yr runoff,on-site disposal systems, SCDPW—0.1 FTE/yr Q and marinas/boating)through the NYSDOT—0.1 FTE/yr i "Regional Stormwater w Management Plan"and o subwatershed management pilot projects for each town(see Action n P-12). P-13.2 Continue to promote nonpoint SCWQCC,chaired by the Ongoing SCS&WCD—0.2 FTE/yr R source management of pathogens Suffolk County Soil and through the Suffolk County Water Water Conservation District Quality Coordinating Committee (lead), PEP (SCWQCC),and coordinate Committee activities with the PEP. P-14 Obtain Funding to Address Storm waterRunoff. Objectives 1,2,3,and 4, P-14.1 Include an annual amount in the Suffolk County DPW; Post-COMP PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R highway operating budget Towns of East Hampton, Towns—0.1 FTE each/yr specifically for the correction of Southampton, Shelter existing road runoff problems. Island, Southold, Riverhead, Implementation of this action and Brookhaven; would support the effort described incorporated villages; PEP in Action P-4. n Table continued on next page S D ro m z m n Table 5-5. Pathogens Management Actions. (continued) x D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status IV m P-14.2 Identify projects in the Peconic Suffolk County DPW; Ongoing PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R yy Estuary watershed that are Towns of East Hampton, Towns—0.1 FTE each/yr -n fundable under the Transportation Southampton, Southold, SCDPW—0.1 FTE/yr Efficiency Act and NYSDOT Shelter Island, Riverhead, NYSDOT-0.1 FTE/yr rn capital budget that will improve and Brookhaven; water quality by preventing or incorporated villages; PEP remediating road runoff. HRWG;NYSDOT; SCDPW P-14.3 Identify projects in the Peconic Suffolk County;Towns of Annually NYSDEC—0.2 FTE/yr R Priority Estuary watershed under the New East Hampton, Towns—0.1 FTE each/yr York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Southampton, Southold, SCDPW-0.1 FTE/yr Act that will improve water quality Shelter Island, Riverhead, by preventing or remediating road and Brookhaven, runoff. incorporated villages; PEP HRWG;NYSDEC P-15 Conduct Water Quality Monitorin . Objectives 1 3,and 4 P-15.1 Maintain the water quality NYSDEC, SCDHS Ongoing Base Programs C/O sampling programs run by the (co-leads) NYSDEC Shellfish Sanitation Program and the SCDHS Bureau of Marine Resources in order to monitor pathogens in shellfish z beds and public beaches and to assess the results of mitigation M measures,respectively P-15.2 Conduct Pfresteria piscicida NYSDEC, SCDHS Summer 1998 through Suffolk County - Base C/O sampling effort to characterize (co-leads),NYSDOH,NYS Summer 2001 Program. b embayments with respect to this Pfiesteria Workgroups NYSDEC -included in organism. Pfiesterio Rapid Response Grant from EPA n .}t Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • This Page Intentionally Left Blank. • i CHAPTER FIVE 5-52 Peconic Estuary Program • CHAPTER SIX TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES 1) Measure the levels of toxics in the environment to discern trends in environmental quality and to determine the effectiveness of management programs. • 2) Minimize human health risks due to the consumption of shellfish,finfish, and drinking water.* 3) Protect and improve water and sediment quality to ensure a healthy and diverse marine community. 4) Eliminate where possible,and minimize where practicable,the introduction of toxic substances to the environment,through regulatory and non-regulatory means. 5) Where toxic contamination has occurred,ensure clean-ups occur quickly, and according to the most appropriate and stringent environmental standards. * The Peconic Estuary Program is not primarily a drinking water protection program. However, many actions in this Plan, if implemented, may result in protection and improvement to • groundwater resources. CHAPTER SIX 6-1 it Peconic Estuary Program CCMP r MEASURABLE GOALS • The PEP'S measurable goals with respect to toxics include: • Improve the quality of the ambient environment(surface waters, groundwaters, sediments,and biota)where there is evidence that human inputs impair or threaten these resources(as measured by surface water, groundwater, sediments, and biota monitoring programs). [See Actions T-2, T-3, T-4,T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8, POE-4] • Comply with schedules for conducting site characterizations, remedial actions, and post- remedial monitoring at hazardous waste sites; effectively characterize risks and protect human health and the environment at hazardous waste sites; ensure compliance with permit limits for point source discharges(as measured by compliance with schedules at hazardous waste sites; conducting effective characterizations; and point source monitoring). [See Action T-2] • Decrease overall emissions of reportable toxics from the five East End towns(as measured by the Federal Toxics Release Inventory). [See Action T-71 • Eliminate holdings of banned, unneeded, and unwanted pesticides and hazardous substances by 2005 (as potentially measured by collections during"Clean Sweep" programs,household hazardous waste collection programs and events, or surveys of farmers/commercial landscapers/homeowners). [See Action T-4] • Decrease overall agricultural/residential/institutional pesticide applications in the five East End towns(as potentially measured by point-of-sale surveys, surveys of residents,or commercial applicator tallies). [See Actions T-4, POE-4] • Eliminate to the maximum extent practicable, pesticide applications on turf grass on all publicly held land by 2003 (as potentially measured by municipal resolutions passed [or equivalent]). [See Action T4] • Eliminate underground storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements via incentive programs and public education and outreach(as potentially measured following baseline established of number of underground storage tanks(USTs)and monitoring of the number of underground tanks removed,retired, and replaced). [See Actions T-6, POE-4] • Decrease the total amount of treated lumber installed in the marine/estuarine environment (as potentially measured by baseline established from shoreline surveys and monitoring of permits issued for bulkheading installations,replacements,and removal). [See Actions T-6, POE-41 • Reduce the number of two stroke marine engines in use in the estuary (as potentially measured by harbormaster conducted surveys). [See Action POE-41 • CHAPTER SIX 6-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4 • INTRODUCTION Toxic contaminants refer to either man-made or naturally occurring substances that,when found in certain concentrations, can cause adverse ecosystem or human health effects. Within the estuary system, toxic substances can be found in surface waters and groundwater, attached to sediments and Toxic substances can enter the estuary system from soils, and in plants and animals. These substances either point sources or nonpoint sources. Point source can directly affect the ability of fish, shellfish, pollution is pollution that comes from discrete, wildlife,and plants to survive or reproduce. Some identifiable locations or sources such as a discharge toxic contaminants can accumulate in the tissues p+Pe from a sewage treatment plant. Nonpoint source of edible fish and shellfish, making them pollution originates from a variety of dispersed and diffuse .sources, including pollutants deposited within dangerous to wildlife and unsuitable for the watershed and then carried to the estuary through unrestricted human consumption. Toxics of freshwater flows from rivers, runoff, and stormwater, concern in the Peconic Estuary System are listed as well as watershed drainage through groundwater in Table 6-1. undertow. The Peconic Estuary System generally has low levels of toxic materials in the water, sediment,and organisms,especially when compared to other regional coastal areas. There are, however, impairments that prevent the goals of the Peconic Estuary Management Conference from being fully realized and threats that should be addressed now to prevent impairments from occurring in the future. OVERALL QUALITY AND USE IMPAIRMENTS Environmental Criteria and Standards for Toxic Substances The Federal and State governments generally take a chemical-specific approach to regulating toxic contamination. Under this approach,the concentration of pollutants in the environment(water column, fish tissues, or sediments) is measured and compared to numeric criteria, standards, or effect levels. These criteria are generally developed in such a way so as to be protective of aquatic life, wildlife,and humans. These criteria, standards, and effect levels serve as surrogates for direct measurements of adverse pollution effects and are used as guidelines for pollution control and management programs. An ecosystem or effects-based approach can be utilized as a substitute for the chemical-specific approach or as a check on the chemical-specific approach. Under an effects-based approach, direct field and laboratory studies of the adverse effects of toxic contamination in plants and animals are used to try to determine the level of contamination that results in an observed effect. Surface Water Quality Criteria The State,under Federal and State Laws, establishes water quality criteria to protect both aquatic life and wildlife,ensure their propagation and survival, and prevent tainting of species consumed by humans or other wildlife. These criteria also are designed to protect human health from oncogenic (tumor-forming)effects and chronic non-oncogenic effects from the consumption of fish, shellfish, and drinking water. • CHAPTER SIX 6-3 ,P° Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Groundwater Quality Criteria Groundwater ultimately enters the estuarine system and contaminants that the groundwater delivers can affect aquatic life, wildlife, and humans. While groundwater is especially important as a source of nutrients to the estuary, it can also be an important source of toxic substances, particularly pesticides that are applied to the landscape. The extent of pesticide contamination of groundwater has been extensively studied on Long Island. Most groundwater quality criteria are based on the protection of human health, and are expressed as Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLS)or New York State Maximum Contaminant Levels. Federal MCL standards are applicable for treated drinking water sources and are based on a one-year average concentration of more than one sample. Other applicable criteria are Federal Lifetime Health Advisories(HA)and New York State Class GA standards. Class GA standards are for fresh groundwaters whose best usage is as a source of potable water supply. New York State includes general standards of 50 ug/L for unspecified organic contaminants and 5 ug/L for principal organic contaminants. Sediment Quality Criteria/Dredged Material Guidelines Toxic contaminants in bottom sediments create the potential for continued environmental impact even where water column levels comply with established criteria. The EPA is in the process of establishing sediment quality criteria for chemicals which cause or have the potential to cause adverse effects to the pelagic(water column dwelling)and benthic (bottom dwelling)organisms and their food chains, including humans. Guidelines already exist for assessing dredged material. The U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)has • specified "Effects Range" values for toxics in sediments to indicate contaminant concentrations at which bottom dwelling organisms may be adversely affected,and as an indicator of overall ecosystem health. While the NOAA Effects Range values are not sediment quality criteria for regulatory purposes,they provide a benchmark for evaluating sediment contaminant measurements. Finfish,Shellfish, and Game The State routinely monitors contaminant levels in fish and game and issues advisories on eating sportfish and game because some of these foods contain chemicals at levels that may be harmful to human health. These advisories are updated yearly. At the present time, chemical contaminants are present or believed to be present at elevated levels for a number of species throughout the State and within the Peconics which has led to the consumption advisories shown in Table 6-2. Criteria for Radioactive Materials The presence of radioactive materials in the environment is of concern in the Peconic Estuary System, primarily due to the presence of Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL) in the headwaters of the Peconic River. Safe drinking water standards can be used to assess observed radiological measurements in the freshwater portion of the Peconic River, even though the Peconic River is not used as a source of drinking water. Standards for radionuclide concentrations in sediments or fish do not exist. Sediments and fish are normally evaluated in terms of their potential contribution to the radiation dose to the public. New York State has established limits for the effective dose equivalent to an individual from any facility. The NYSDEC has established guidance for evaluating clean-up plans for radioactively contaminated soils and specifies an annual exposure(greater than background • 64 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP t F • radioactive exposure)goal after the remedial action is complete, while also requiring that the radiation exposures to the public from residual radioactive material in soil after clean-up be"as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA). Risk Based Criteria The EPA and New York State both take a risk-based approach toward the protection of human health from known, probable, and possible carcinogenic substances. In the scientific literature and as a matter of public policy, it is recognized that for some chemicals,the presence of any amount, however small, is associated with some adverse effect,though the risk of this adverse effect may likewise be small. Recognizing that achieving a"zero level" in the environment for some contaminants is not possible at this time,these agencies have established risk based criteria (i.e., levels in the environment associated with a one in one million incremental cancer risk). This type of approach is not used for developing environmental criteria for the protection of aquatic life and wildlife. It is possible that the presence of some chemicals at any concentration may affect aquatic life and wildlife both at the level of the individual as well as populations, and,therefore, complex food webs. Individual criteria also do not, at this time,take into account additive or synergistic toxic effects. The risk associated with individual man-made radionuclides is, however, considered additive, and the allowable risk reflects the additive effect of exposure to multiple man- made radionuclides. For these reasons,the Peconic Estuary Program participants do,therefore, recognize that zero discharge(from point and nonpoint sources)of toxic and manmade radionuclide pollutants, and particularly of bioaccumulative chemicals, is a goal. SOURCES OF TOXIC CONTAMINANTS WITHIN THE PECONIC ESTUARY SYSTEM Both point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution contribute toxic contaminants to the estuary system. Because there are a limited number of point source surface water discharges in the Peconic Estuary System, most toxic pollutants found in the area are nonpoint in origin,carried into the bays via groundwater and runoff. Point Sources ofPollution Point source discharges in the Peconic Estuary consist of wastewater discharges, certain stormwater discharges,and a limited number of industrial discharges. Point source discharges to surface and ground waters are regulated under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program administered by the NYSDEC. Permits are written to ensure that the discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of ambient water quality standards. Under Phase I of the SPDES stormwater program, permits are required to be issued for municipal separate storm sewer systems serving large or medium-sized populations(greater than 250,000 or 100,000 people, respectively), and for stormwater discharges to surface waters associated with industrial activity, including certain types of marinas. At the present time,nine establishments in the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area have been issued SPDES stormwater general permits. • CHAPTER SIX 6-5 /6"%_ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP �r Table 6-1. Toxics of Concern in the Peconic Estuary System.* • Contaminant Measured Levels and Area of Impact Potential Sources Polychlorinated ER-La exceeded for sediments in Meetinghouse Creek; Potential sources are Biphenyls(PCBs) elevated levels in freshwater fish at BNL(on-site only); outside of the Peconics Statewide consumption advisories in place for lobster and aside from evidence of crab hepatopancreas,snapping turtles,and waterfowl; local historical discharges from consumption advisory in place for striped bass, bluefish, BNL and American eels Mirex Statewide consumption advisory in place for waterfowl Statewide problem Chlordane Statewide consumption advisory in place for waterfowl Statewide problem (banned from use in the 1980s) DDT"(banned ER-Ls exceeded for sediments at Upper Sag Harbor Cove, Agricultural areas from use in the East Creek,and Meetinghouse Creek containing residual DDT 1970s) Aldicarb(an Does not exceed State water quality criteria for toxics; Agricultural areas insecticide which widespread groundwater contamination along North Fork; containing residual is no longer in detected in surface waters of East Creek and other North Aldicarb use) Fork creeks MTBE(methyl Does not exceed State water quality criteria for toxics; Octane booster in gasoline tert-Butyl Ether) detected in surface waters of Sag Harbor Creek near Havens Beach, Peconic River,and other surface waters PAHs ER-Ls exceeded for sediments in East Creek,mouth of Atmospheric deposition Peconic River, Upper Sag Harbor Cove,and Meetinghouse from the burning of fossil Creek fuels,road runoff,and boat wet exhaust Arsenic ER-Ls exceeded for sediments in six sites(Great Peconic Pesticides and stormwater Bay, West Neck Bay,Fish Cove, East Creek,Mouth of the runoff;treated lumber Peconic River,and Meetinghouse Creek) Copper Elevated levels in Peconic River sediments at BNL BNL Lead ER-Ls exceeded for sediments in four sites(West Neck Primarily historic Bay,East Creek,Upper Sag Harbor Cove,and anthropogenic sources Meetinghouse Creek) such as lead additives in asoline Mercury ER-Ls exceeded for sediments at two sampling sites(West Stormwater and urban Neck Bay and Meetinghouse Creek);elevated levels in runoff;BNL Peconic River sediments outside BNL Silver ER-Ls exceeded for sediments at two sampling sites Stormwater and urban (mouth of Peconic River and Meetinghouse Creek); runoff,BNL elevated levels in Peconic River sediments outside BNL Table continued on next page • CHAPTER SIX 6-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jf r • Table 6-1. Toxics of Concern in the Peconic Estuary System. (continued) Contaminant Measured Levels and Area of impact Potential Sources Radionuclides Water, sediment, and fish samples taken from Peconic BNL` River outside BNL contain measurable levels of radioactive materials;however,observed concentrations are well below State established criteria 'Toxics of concern and potential sources are based on currently available data and information. Additional toxics of concern may be identified in the future. .Under NOAA's effects range values for toxics in sediments,concentrations below the ER-l.(effects range-low)represent conditions in which adverse effects on bottom dwelling organisms would rarely be observed. Concentrations equal to and above the ER-L,but below the effects range-median(ER-M)represent a possible effects range within which effects would frequently be observed. bConcentrations of other organochlorine pesticides did not exceed ER-1,concentrations in any of the tested sediments. `Natural occurring radioactivity and fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapon tests also contribute to measurable levels of radioactivity,including areas not affected by releases from BNL. Permits also are issued on a case-by-case basis if the EPA or the State determines that a stormwater discharge to surface water contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. • No permits of this type have been issued to date in the Peconic Estuary Study Area. There are eight permitted surface water dischargers in the Peconic Estuary system: Discharges to ground waters include sanitary wastes Brookhaven National Laboratory (discharge from residences and commercial establishments and non- includes sanitary wastewater and cooling contact cooling waters. There are no permitted wafers as well as wastewater from industrial- discharges of wastewater from industrial activities to type activities), Navy Weapons industrial groundwater in the Peconic Estuary Study Area(aside Reserve Plant (NWIRP) at Calverton, Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant, Plum from a permit at BNL). Businesses which generate Island Animal Disease Center, Riverhead wastewater containing toxic substances dispose of such Foundation Aquarium (discharges wastewater wastewater by containing the limited volumes on-site, from animal display and rehabilitation and then removing them by approved hazardous waste operations), Bayview Ventures (discharges handlers/transporters for treatment off-site. This method filter backwash from a potable water is often referred to as "hold and haul." treatment plant), Shelter Island Heights Sewage Treatment Plant, and Sag Harbor Sewage Treatment Plant. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution There are numerous nonpoint sources of toxic substances in the Peconic Estuary. These nonpoint sources frequently contribute a wide variety of pollutants to the estuary in addition to toxic contaminants,such as pathogens and nutrients. Groundwater undertlow and stormwater runoff are the primary pathways by which nonpoint pollution enters the estuary system. Loadings from suburban and urban areas(residential and commercial uses), roads, agricultural land, marinas, boating, and industrial sites contribute pollutants to the estuary system. In addition, some toxics enter the estuary system via atmospheric deposition. Once deposited on land within the estuary, stormwater runoff and groundwater can carry these substances into receiving waters. While each of • CHAPTER SIX 6-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ?5. these diffuse sources of pollution may seem unimportant,the cumulative effect of the nonpoint source • loadings can be significant. Pesticides, an emerging concern, may be introduced to the Peconic System from suburban and urban sources as well as from agricultural operations. Though no causal link has been identified, low levels of pesticides may be affecting aquatic resources, including eelgrass, sensitive larval stages of commercially and recreational important finfish and shellfish, including lobsters,and other ecologically important species. Even pesticides that are banned or not being applied can cause or contribute to environmental problems if they are not disposed of or improperly stored. In 1995, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County conducted an "Agricultural Clean Sweep" to provide Long Island farmers and agribusiness associates(such as those involved with landscape and turf maintenance)with an opportunity to dispose of, in an environmentally sound manner, a variety of pesticide products that could no longer be used legally or effectively in current operations. The collected unusable/unwanted pesticides became the property of the contracted hazardous waste disposal firm and were properly disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Participation was voluntary and free of charge. Waste pesticides for collection were pre-registered only after the participants attended a training session which prepared them to safely transport their own pesticides. In this single two-day collection 28,150 pounds of waste pesticides were collected from 76 participants. At the Suffolk County Pesticide Collection Project conducted on July 10, 1999 in Riverhead and on July 12, 1999 in Huntington, a total of ninety-nine 55-gallon drums of unwanted and unusable • pesticide were collected for appropriate disposal. This$75,000 program was funded by Suffolk County in connection with an Environmental Benefit Project associated with an enforcement action by the NYSDEC. Among the pesticides turned in were such outlawed agents as DDT and aldicarb (Temik). Working in cooperation with NYSDEC,two trade groups sponsored the event: the Professional Certified Applicators of Long Island, Inc. and the Nassau/Suffolk Landscape Gardeners Association. Agricultural Inputs When rainwater drains agricultural lands where pesticides are in use or were used in the past,the water can carry contaminants into the estuary system. Both DDT and Aldicarb have been found in sediment and water samples in the Peconics, despite the fact that these substances can no longer legally be used. Pesticides are also believed to be a source of arsenic found in the estuary system. Suburban and Urban Inputs Stormwater runoff and groundwater can carry many different substances from parking lots, roads and highways,and residential and commercial areas. When contaminants are introduced to these areas, they can be swept into receiving waterbodies with groundwater and stormwater runoff during rainfall events. Suburban and urban areas are believed to contribute a variety of chemicals, including arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, silver, cadmium, zinc, MTBE(methyl tert-Butyl Ether),and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs)to the Peconic Estuary System. • CHAPTER SIX 6-8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP dd" F Potential sources of toxic substances include: Historically, spills or leaks of contaminants within the Peconic Estuary System have not been • Leaks from industrial facilities due to a major source of pollution. Records from poor housekeeping practices, October 1985 through August 1988 indicate that, insufficient containment and improper of the 25 reported.spills or leaks within the study storage; area, approximately 25 percent involved volumes greater than 100 gallons. The predominant type • Improper storage, use, and disposal of ofspill or leak during this review period involved household hazardous chemicals, electrical transformers on poles that spilled or including automotive fluids, solvents, leaked coolant oil. Such spills have on occasion cleaning fluids, and lawn and garden contained PCBs. Most of these spills were pesticides; reported to be one gallon or less in volume. • Operation and maintenance of on-site Major fuel storage sites pose a potential threat, in disposal systems, including organic the event of catastrophic failure. In the Peconics, solvents improperly used as septic bulk storage exists at Plum Island, Shelter Island, system"cleaners"containing and at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Spillage in Northville also could conceivably drift halogenated and aromatic around the North Fork into the Peconics. hydrocarbons, which are now banned; Recommendations regarding the State Oil Spill • Discharge of pollutants in storm drains, Areawide Contingency Plan for the Peconic such as waste oils; Estuary are discussed in the Habitat and Living Resources Chanter of this Plan(see HLR-15.7). • Commercial activities and land uses, • including parking lots, gas stations,and other entities not under SPDES permit purview; and, • Existing underground storage tanks under 1,100 gallons for storage of heating oil,for use on premises,that are not double walled, constructed of non-corrodible materials and equipped with leak detection or overflow prevention systems. Pesticide use on residential and commercial properties, publicly owned lands,and golf courses is a concern. The Peconic Estuary Program encourages the management of lawns and landscaped areas in accordance with integrated pest management(IPM)principles(properly applying only those pesticides when needed). As reported in the Consumer Unions 1996 piece Pest Management at the Crossroads,"Consumer lawn care products and the formulation applied by lawn care companies tend to be mixtures of fertilizers and herbicides, insecticides and sometimes fungicides. By selling a few common mixtures,the industry keeps costs down, but on the downside, many applications include one or more active ingredients not really needed on a particular lawn or only marginally useful in many areas." Improper storage and disposal of pesticides can also result in impacts to groundwater and surface waters. Vector control ditches(mosquito ditches)are maintained by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works(SCDPW),which typically applies sprays for larval control of mosquitoes. Problem areas are monitored to determine effective treatments. The primary insecticide used is Bti (bacillus thuringiensis var, israelensis); in some areas methoprene is used. The use of the mosquito larvicides in storm drains and catch basins has been advocated as a mosquito control measure. This could contribute larvicides to surface waters following rainfall events. Recently,the pesticide malathion has been applied in residential areas. Malathion is labeled for use on adult mosquitoes and cannot be applied to water. • CHAPTER SIX 6-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Pollutants associated with construction sites Harbor Protection overlay Districts . (including roads, highways,and bridges)and road, highway and bridge operation, maintenance and The Town of East Hampton recognizes that those who runoff systems include pesticides, petrochemicals own property bordering on the Town's harbors (including flag lots,fag strips, and flag access strips) (oil, gasoline, and asphalt degreasers); construction derive many benefits from proximity to these waters chemicals such as concrete products, sealers, and and therefore have a special responsibility to help paints; wash waters associated with these products protect them. The Town has established a Harbor and paint chips. Road runoff can contain Protection Overlay District(HPOD)whereby all lots in this district are subject to special requirements for petroleum products (including the octane booster maintaining or protecting wildlife habitats and surface MTBE), heavy metals(lead,zinc,copper, water quality to protect aquatic life. This includes: cadmium, chromium, nickel, and manganese)and cyanide from vehicle and tire wear-and-tear and • Requiring new parking lots and driveways to have exhausts. "unimproved"surfaces or be constructed of one or more of the following: poured concrete, hot plant asphalt,rapid curing cut-back asphalt or MTBE is a special concern nationally, in New quartz gravel; York, on Long Island, and in the Peconic Estuary Requiring that runofffrom new paved roads, study area. Congress required in the Clean Air Act parking lots and driveways be managed on-site; of 1990 that areas of the country with the worst ozone smog problems use reformulated gasoline • Requiring that fuel tanks be double walled fiberglass if installed below ground or include (RFG). MTBE is the oxygen additive most specified containment provisions ifinstalled commonly used by the petroleum industry to elsewhere; satisfy the RFG mandate. Ethanol is the second Requiring that swimming pools:be constructed or most commonly used additive. MTBE is very installed with a system to reduce the use of • soluble in water, does not"cling"to soil well and chlorine,such as an ozonator, ionizer, or ultra has a tendency to migrate much more quickly than violet disinfectant system;have drywells other components of gasoline. Most detections of constructed for evacuation of water from the pool, MTBE are below levels of public health concerns not be drained anywhere but to the dry well;and not be cleaned by means ofan acid wash unless and are within the range EPA has set for a taste and the acids used are neutralised prior to discharge odor advisory(at 20 to 40 ppb). Small individual from the swimming pool,and, fuel spills and stormwater runoff contribute to low- Allowing the use ofwood treated with copper level detections of MTBE in water supplies. Even chromated arsenate(CCA), ammontacal copper though significant air quality gains have been made quat(ACQ), or creosote in tidal waters only when using RFG,these air benefits can be maintained it can be shown that no reasonable alternatives without using MTBE and without endangering exist to using these treated woods. water resources, through the use of safe alternatives like ethanol. In March 2000, EPA and the USDA released a legislative framework to encourage immediate congressional action to reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE and promote renewable fuels like ethanol,through amendments to the Clean Air Act. Further, EPA announced the beginning of a regulatory action to eliminate MTBE in gasoline, issuing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This section gives EPA the authority to ban, phase out, limit or control the manufacture of any chemical substance deemed to pose an unreasonable risk to the public or environment. EPA expects to issue a full proposal to ban or phase down MTBE, that will be followed by a time period required by law for analysis and public comment before a final action can be taken. • CHAPTER SIX 6-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP .s° • Golf Courses The use of pesticides and fertilizers on golf courses is a potential groundwater problem. A SCDHS 1999 study detected pesticides in seven of the 31 golf course wells tested, with two of these wells exceeding the drinking water MCLS. However, in shallow wells that would show impacts from recent pesticide and fertilizer applications, no pesticides were detected and average nitrate concentrations were below state and Federal MCLS. Thus, the recent implementation of Best Management Practices appears to have greatly reduced the risk of pesticide and fertilizer contamination in the golf courses tested. Marinas and Boating National Toxic Substance Control Efforts During the course of normal marina In developing management strategies for toxics, some actions operations, various activities and occur at the national level, such as decisions regarding pesticide locations in the marina can generate use and toxic substance bans. For example, among its provisions, polluting substances. Such activities the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) include waste disposal, boat fueling,and authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten ground water and surface water. FiFRA provides for registration of boat maintenance and cleaning; such enforceable label re locations include storage areas for pesticides and requirements, which may include maximum rates of application, restrictions on use practices, and materials required for these activities classification of pesticides as "restricted use"pesticides (which and hull maintenance areas. Of special limits use to certified applicators trained to handle toxic concern are substances that can be toxic chemicals). Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and • to aquatic life, pose a threat to human FiFRA, the sale, use or distribution of certain toxic substances health, or degrade water quality. Paint has been banned or reduced sandings and chips, oil,grease, and fuel are examples. Because marinas are State Pesticide Program located at the water's edge, there is often Under the Pesticide Use Program, NYSDEC regulates the sale no buffering of the release of pollutants and use of restricted and general use pesticides in order to to waterways. There are 69 marinas in prevent the unsafe or excessive application of pesticides. This the Peconics. program is implemented through certification of pesticide applicators and backed up by examinations to ensure that only The principal pollutants in runoff from knowledgeable, qualified people are permitted to handle and marina parking areas and hull apply these chemicals. A certification is required by commercial applicators if they handle and apply restricted or general use maintenance areas are suspended solids pesticides, and by private applicators (e.g.,farmers) if they plan and organics(predominately oil and to use a restricted use pesticide. It has been estimated that 50 grease). Toxic metals from boat hull percent oJ'the commercial pesticide applicators on Long Island scraping and sanding are part of, or tend may be operating without the required approvals. While to become associated with, the pesticides have not been identified as impairing water quality or suspended solids. For example, lead is living resources, the potential for misuse or unintended off-site used as a fuel additive and ballast, and impacts exists, particularly from uncertified applicators. The may be released through incomplete fuel NYSDEC is currently working with involved government agencies and other organizations to develop a Long Island Pesticide combustion and boat bilge discharges. Management Plan that will further address pesticide use in the Arsenic is used in paint pigments, Estuary. pesticides, and wood preservatives. Zinc anodes are used to deter corrosion of metal hulls and engine parts. Copper and tin are used as biocides in anti-foulant paints. Other metals(iron,chrome, etc.)are used in the construction of marinas and boats. Petroleum hydrocarbons(including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs)can be elevated in marina waters due to refueling activities and bilge or fuel • discharge from nearby boats. CHAPTER SIX 6-ll Pecon(c Estuary Program CCMP It is important that marina operators and patrons take steps to control or minimize the entry of toxic • substances into marina waters. For the most part,this can be accomplished with simple preventive measures such as performing boat cleaning and repair activities on protected sites, locating servicing equipment where the risk of spillage is reduced, providing adequate and well-marked disposal facilities, and educating the boating public about the importance of pollution prevention. The benefit of effective pollution prevention to the marina operator can be measured as the relatively low cost of pollution prevention compared to the potentially high cost of environmental cleanup. A marina is required to obtain a SPDES stormwater discharge permit if vehicle maintenance activities,such as vehicle(boat)rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication or equipment cleaning operations are conducted at the marina. SPDES permits apply only to the point source discharges of stormwater from maintenance areas at the marinas. Marinas not involved in equipment cleaning or vehicle maintenance activities are not covered under the SPDES stormwater program. Likewise,a marina that has no point source discharges of stormwater is not regulated under the SPDES stormwater program, regardless of its classification and the types of activities conducted. In addition, some marinas are marine service stations which are not regulated under the SPDES stormwater program. These types of marinas are primarily in the business of selling fuel without vehicle maintenance or equipment cleaning operations. Marine Engine Wet Exhaust Small boat engines commonly use seawater to both cool and quiet their exhaust. Seawater passes • through the heat exchanger, gear oil cooler,and aftercooler(if equipped), and is then injected into the exhaust. When injected, some of the gaseous and solid component of the exhaust transfers into the cooling water. The cooling water then discharges into the receiving water. Small boats are powered by either inboard or outboard engines. Inboard engines are generally diesel fueled while outboard engines typically use gasoline. Inboard and outboard engines can be either two-stroke or four-stroke. The majority of small boat outboard engines are two-stroke gasoline engines. The moving parts of gasoline-powered,two stroke outboard engines are lubricated with oil that is pre-mixed with gasoline. Thus,the oil is continuously burned with gasoline. In four-stroke engines, lubricating oil is circulated and not intentionally introduced into the combustion chamber. The discharge consists of water injected as a cooling stream into the exhaust system of small boat engines. Exhaust constituents generated during the operation of the engines can be transferred to the engine's water cooling streams and discharged as wet exhaust. Inboard engines usually discharge wet exhaust above the water line, outboard engines generally discharge their wet exhaust through the propeller hub. The main discharge constituents from all engines are oxides of nitrogen, organic compounds (including hydrocarbons [HCs]), carbon monoxide(CO), and particulates. The hydrocarbon constituents are primarily the result of incomplete combustion. Since diesel fuels have a different composition than regular gasoline the distribution of constituents in their exhaust differ between the two engine types. In general,diesel engines produce higher particulate emissions and lower organic emissions than gasoline powered engines. Some limited studies have been done on the impact of marine engine exhaust on water quality. A 1995 study measured the rate of introduction of volatile organic compounds(VOCs)into water during the operation of gasoline powered two-stroke and four-stroke outboard engines. The VOC compounds found in the water were almost exclusively aromatic hydrocarbons, including pollutants such as benzene,toluene,ethylbenzene, and napthelene. In most cases, other types of hydrocarbons • CHAPTER SIX 6-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP � r • were not found No bioaccumulative pollutants are suspected to be present in these discharges. For many toxic constituents,there is a significant reduction in the individual pollutant loadings in two- stroke vs. four-stroke engines. While the reduction varies by pollutant, it typically ranges from 90 percent reduction to over 99 percent reduction. Treated Lumber in the Marine Environment As reported in "Assessment of the Risks to Aquatic Life from the Use of Pressure-Treated Wood in Water"(T.J. Sinnott,NYSDEC,June 1999), when wood is used for in-water construction such as pilings, breakwalls, abutments or other submerged or partially submerged structures,the potential exists for toxic preservatives to leach from the wood and harm adjacent aquatic ecosystems. Wood preservatives are chemical pesticides that are applied to wood to protect it from decay brought about by fungi or insect attack. While preservatives can be brushed on, sprayed on,or soaked into wood, the most effective treatment is to force preservative solutions deeply into the wood under high pressure. Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and inorganic arsenicals are the three most widely used preservative compounds. Creosote is a mix of PAHs that are products of the fractional distillation of coal tar. Pentachlorophenol is a manufactured organochlorine pesticide. Inorganic arsenicals are various blends of metallic salts such as CCA (chromated copper arsenic)or mixtures of metallic salts, arsenic, and organic compounds such as ACA (ammoniacal copper arsenate)or copper naphthenate. All three wood preservatives work because they are toxic to insects and fungi. Available scientific data for each of the three types of preservatives have been evaluated to attempt to assess the potential risks to aquatic life from the use of pressure treated lumber in water. For all three wood preservatives, the greatest amount of leaching occurs when the treated wood is first put in place. The rate of leaching drops off significantly after a short period of relatively high leaching. In general, any impacts to aquatic life are most likely to occur during the initial period of high leaching. The area where adverse effects occur is likely to be highly localized. The greater the distance from the treated wood, the more dilute the concentration of leached pesticide. For each of the preservative pesticides, fate processes such as volatilization, photolysis, sediment sorption, and microbial degradation work to degrade and reduce the concentration of the pesticide in the water even while it is leaching. For each specific type of wood preservative, recommendations are provided for minimizing the risks to aquatic life. In recent years,a number of products made out of recycled plastic have come available. These products are designed to replace treated wood for fencing, pilings, and decking. Products made of recycled plastics appear to be safer. They do not function by inherent toxicity, rather they are simply unsuitable substrate for fungi or insects to subsist in or on. Whether or not recycled plastic products have the necessary structural or functional integrity or are economically viable replacements to pressure treated lumber is not assessed for this report. CHAPTER SIX 6-13 � 6° Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4fir 1, Nonpoint Sources Addressed in the Coastal Zone Act Atmospheric Deposition Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 Acid rain has traditionally been a concern In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 with respect to lowering the pH of (CZA RA), Congress recognizes that nonpoint source pollution freshwater ecosystems due to excessive is a key factor in the continuing degradation of many coastal loadings of acidity. In the context of the waters and establishes a new program to address this Peconic Estuary Program, acid rain is not a pollution. In enacting CZARA, Congress calls upon states to primary concern with respect to direct develop and implement State Coastal Nonpoint Source Control impact on surface water pH,due to the Programs, which must he approved by both the National buffering capacity of the marine system. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) and EPA. However,there may be a concern with Congress gives the EPA the responsibility to develop technical guidance for state development ofsuch programs. respect to indirect impacts of rainfall acidity on the Peconic Estuary System. Under CZARA, EPA specifies "management measures" for Such indirect impacts may be related to the three categories of nonpoint source pollution that may effects of acidity on the Peconic River and potentially contribute toxics to the Peconic Estuary: on the solubility and transport of agriculture, urban areas, and marinas and recreational contaminants through soil, groundwater, boating. "Management Measures" are defined in CZARA and sediment. section 6217(g)(5) as "economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants, which reflect the While dry and wet deposition of toxic greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control contaminants present in the atmosphere practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating occurs,no particular toxic pollutants have methods, or other alternatives." been identified as being of concern from this source. PAHs,organic compounds derived from pyrogenic(combustion)and petrogenic(petroleum-based)sources,have been detected in sediments within the estuary. The distribution of PAHs suggests loadings are airborne(pyrogenic)PAHs, which are deposited directly on surface waters, as well as in the watershed, and then carried to the estuary through freshwater flows from rivers, runoff,and stormwater,and watershed drainage through groundwater underflow. Nationally,programs are being implemented by the Federal and State governments under the Clean Air Act Amendments to further study and reduce toxic emissions. Dredged Material Placement At the present time, no toxic-related restrictions have been imposed on the placement of dredged materials in the Peconics. All dredged material from the Peconics is put to beneficial uses, such as beach nourishment or wetland restoration,or is otherwise placed upland(i.e., above the spring high tide water line). The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)have identified the likely need to continue marine placement of dredged material in the Long Island Sound Area. In 1999,the EPA in cooperation with the Corps issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to consider the potential identification of one or more placement sites for Long Island Sound dredged material. EPA and the Corps have decided to consider the use of four existing sites and their identification as dredged material placement sites under Section 102(c)of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Other alternatives will also be evaluated, including other open water placement sites and other placement and management options. Identification of a site does not itself result in placement of any particular material, it serves only to make the site a placement option available for consideration in the alternatives analysis for each individual dredging project in the area. CHAPTER SIX 6-14 Peconic F,stuary Program CCMP 3t h • The PEP participants consider it unlikely a placement site will be proposed within the PEP study area. (See also the Habitat and Living Resources Chapter of this Plan.) Site Specific Concerns There are a number of sites within the Peconic Estuary that contribute or have the potential to contribute toxic contaminants to the estuary system through point source discharges and/or from stormwater runoff. The sites that are of particular concern are shown in Figure 6-1 and described briefly below. Sewage Treatment Plants The Riverhead, SL r, and Shelter Sewage treatment plant(STP)effluents are subject to Island Heights ive and treatdisinfection to limit the discharge of pathogens. The wastewater generaences and localmost common method of disinfection is chlorination. commercial estaBrookhavenChlorinated discharges to surface waters are of concern National Laboratoe Plum Islandbecause, in systems like the Peconics which contain high Animal Disease ve their ownlevels of organic matter, chlorinated compounds can be sewage treatment p formed which, although short lived, can be quite toxic to aquatic organisms. The complexity of the reactions of chlorine in the environment increases the difficulty of assessing its impact. Increased attention is being given to addressing the possible need to limit all uses of chlorine as a means of reducing the input of chlorinated compounds into the environment. Disinfection methods other than chlorination, such as ultraviolet(UV)radiation and ozone,appear to be as effective as chlorine for reducing bacteria and may be more effective in reducing other pathogens. UV disinfection is now used at both the BNL and Plum Island Animal Disease Center STPs. UV has been proposed for use at Riverhead and Sag Harbor and has been tested on a pilot scale at Shelter Island Heights. Effective disinfection by methods other than chlorination can reduce impacts on aquatic life and human health while still being protective of human health from pathogens. These issues are discussed further in the Pathogens Chapter. North Sea Municipal Landfill Site,North Sea,NY Remedial actions at this Superfund site have been completed and EPA has determined that no further action(other than air and groundwater monitoring) is necessary. Impacts on surface waters were considered in the selected remedy. Contaminants of concern included volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), PAHs, metals(arsenic and lead)and other organics. Based on the monitoring that has taken place,the EPA will be requiring the Town of Southampton to conduct additional benthic community and sediment toxicity testing, in accordance with an EPA approved plan. Based upon EPA's review of the monitoring, sampling and analysis results, EPA will evaluate the efficacy of the remedy under the Superfund law. If warranted, the Superfund record of decision will be amended and the remedy revised. • CHAPTER SIX 6-15 lroeNa A TIWC CHMI tYDNrrouNeSFAIl % SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HFALTH SERVICES 00 • 'D fNr/A' fa DIVISION OFENVIRONMENTAL C1m Na AYFNNAr1 QUALITY J CALVEON NWYFMW p WVMfDAffN7FSANrWPJ 0)fANCtAGN)CWTURVAtDIGIJ) OFFICE OFECOLOGY OAFSEA"NDLt DWWfINDLQrMESJlI! / / � 1 �✓l C � KCO.YK l77UAJYNNICJAMADDYAJG f�p� y \U�--� A .J "• t S VAL OLOGiIALS POi[N71Al SOOJClSA�EFNd NICASAMIY NOrStWO![d ALS NDfAAdAC dNfJ&JE%E7UI WIAC6AJf �� V F \ -1 11'r A NdBHOWNIJYAu JTfSJYA GOIfCWM4lifJeb i 110 O e 16 ��e 6 15 w QQ •o • s' 1 C) r .SP�5. y e } �' l " �u�wi�g?i' PECONIC ESTUARY PROCRAM TOXIC CHEMICAL MONLTORLNG STATIONS AND rfl Y � . .. POTENTIAL TOXIC SOURCES• NO SCALE k Peconic Estuary Program COMP e 4 • Rowe Industries Site, Sag Harbor, NY The Federal Superfund hazardous Remedies selected for this Superfund site include in-situ substance cleanup program was created vapor extraction, soil excavation and disposal,treatment of by the Comprehensive Environmental contaminated groundwater, and long-term monitoring. The Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Act authorizes toxic contaminants of concern are volatile organic the Federal government to respond to chemicals, tetrachloroethylene(PCF,)and trichloroethylene spills and other releaser (or threatened (TCE). The soil that required excavation has been releases) of hazardous substances, as well excavated and disposed of off-site. The in-situ vapor as leaking hazardous waste dumps. There extraction system is presently being operated. The are three Federal Supertimd Sites on the groundwater remedy is currently under construction. National Priority List in the study area: the North Sea Municipal Landfill, Rowe Industries, and a portion of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory Site.(BNL), Upton,NY Two other sites in the PEP Study Area Point source discharges at BNL include sanitary wastewater have been identified as inactive hazardous and cooling waters as well as wastewater from industrial- waste disposal sites by the NYSDEC -- Maitituck Airbase and the East Hampton type activities. The BNL SPDES permit requires Landfill Lagoons. These sites are not monitoring of effluents from industrial-type activities prior known to be impacting the Peconic to discharge into the wastewater collection system. Estuary and the State is addressing known Information collected due to this monitoring requirement and potential contamination problems, will be reviewed and considered when the BNL discharge permit comes up for renewal. EPA completed a Multi- Media Compliance Evaluation inspection at BNL, beginning May 5, 1997. This comprehensive inspection evaluated BNL's compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements including the effectiveness of its treatment and disposal practices,pollution controls,operations and maintenance procedures,and self-monitoring/reporting records and practices. BNL has,as a result of the inspection,entered into a memorandum of agreement(MOA)to implement a facility-wide environmental management system, and EPA has issued enforcement orders to BNL for the violations found during the inspection. As described in the MOA, it is both EPA's and U.S. Department of Energy's(DOE)objective that BNL be operated so as to maintain full compliance with applicable environmental requirements and to protect the environment and the health and safety of workers at the facility and the general public. While DOE as a generator of hazardous waste at BNL is subject to various legal requirements,the commitments in the MOA extend beyond such requirements and include a voluntary initiative on the part of DOE. The goal of these voluntary undertakings is to enhance environmental management at BNL through the development and implementation of an Environmental Management System(EMS) that is focused on environmental compliance and pollution prevention. Specifically, BNL has agreed to develop and implement an expedited process evaluation of all experimental and industrial operations at BNL for the purpose of identifying all waste streams produced at the facility. The evaluation will also include determining the proper regulatory status of each waste stream to ensure the wastes are managed in accordance with applicable local, State and Federal environmental regulations and in such a manner as to pose no threat to the environment. The evaluation establishes a baseline of on-going BNL operations and will also be used to assess future activities. All experimental and industrial-type operations will be inventoried and pollution prevention/waste minimization and assessment/prevention/control opportunities will be identified, tracked and assessed for implementation. • CHAPTER SIX 6-17 ,¢ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP fr �, c` Actions under the Superfund Program • Tritium Contamination Affecting the Peconic Estuary Study Area Concerns have been raised about possible tritium at Brookhaven National Laboratory contamination from BNL in the Peconic River and adjacent areas with possible impacts to human health BNL has been placed on the Federal Superfund and the ecosystem, including possible implications Site National Priority List. Because of the regarding Brown Tide. However, the NYS Department complexity of the site, it has been broken into of Health (NYSDOH) has estimated the potential several "operable units"(OU). OU V contains radiation dose to a person to be small, less than one the portion of the site which influences the Percent of the applicable standard in NYSDOH Peconic Estuary Study Area. The Superfund regulations, and less than 10 percent of the NYSDEC remedial action threshold. Radiation experts from status based On preliminary studies which EPA have reviewed the NYSDOH report and concur indicate that contamination at BNL is impacting with the findings. This contamination is separate and the Peconic River. A Remedial Investigation distinct from the groundwater tritium plume detected (RI) for OU V has been completed to in December 1996 associated with BNL's High Flux characterize the nature and extent of Beam Reactor (HFBR). The HFBR groundwater contamination and identify areas that pose an tritium plume is out of the Peconic Estuary Program unacceptable risk to human health and the Study Area. The Peconic Estuary Program will environment. The conclusions drawn from the continue to involve radiation experts from the RI form the basis for the remedial action NYSDOH and EPA to assist in data interpretation and alternatives to be conducted. Surface soil, evaluation. subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, sediments, and fish tissue samples have been collected and analyzed as part of the remedial investigation process. Samples have been analyzed for a comprehensive list of inorganic,volatile i organic,and semi-volatile organic substances, as well as for pesticides, PCBs, radionuclides, ammonia, phenols, and cyanide. The concern with respect to the Peconic Estuary watershed is elevated concentrations of metals in Peconic River sediments and other co-located contaminants including radionuclides. No significant off-site migration of these contaminants above sediment screening levels was found, aside from one depositional area just outside the Laboratory boundary on Suffolk County-owned property. A baseline risk assessment was prepared to evaluate potential risks from exposure to contaminants in the absence of remediation. The baseline risk assessments conducted for Operable Unit V were reported in the Final Operable Unit V Remedial Investigation Report(May 27, 1998)and the Final Operable Unit V Plutonium Contamination Characterization and Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment Report(January 31, 2000), in which the risk assessment also includes all radiologic data included in the Remedial Investigation Report. The results from the combined studies are reflected in the proposed remedy. An ecological risk assessment was also performed to determine if any contaminants posed an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Ecological receptors include any plants and animals that could be exposed to contaminants now, or in the future. In the spring of 2000,the DOE released a plan proposing a remedy for Operable Unit V at BNL. This Proposed Plan provides a description of site concerns and discussion of completed investigations, a summary of risk assessments performed, evaluations of remedial alternatives, and recommendations for the preferred alternative. This area includes BNL's sewage treatment plant and the headwaters of the western branch of the Peconic River. The proposed remedy included excavating Peconic River sediment containing copper, mercury, and silver at concentrations above cleanup goals. PCBs and DDD are largely co-located with the elevated metals,and will be cleaned up during remediation of the metals. Radionuclides, mainly cesium-137 • 6-18 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP s# F r • and low levels of plutonium, are below acceptable levels established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (15 millirem/year above background), but will also be removed during sediment cleanup where they are co-located with the elevated metals. The sediment will be dewatered and shipped to a licensed off-site disposal facility. The proposed remedy also included a localized removal of soil at the Lab's sewage treatment plant and additional monitoring and characterization of contaminants in groundwater. Soils in the sand filter beds and adjacent berms at the STP contain elevated levels of mercury, silver, chromium, lead and radionuclides as well. A best management practice, localized removal of soil contamination, is proposed to remove high levels of mercury and cesium-137. This removal of contamination will reduce the potential for leaching and subsequent migration to groundwater and the Peconic River and will reduce potential risks associated with cesium-137 in soils. Soils from the sand filter beds and berms exceeding cleanup goals would be removed through excavation. Excavated portions of the sand beds would be replaced with sand or gravel,and excavated areas on the berms would be backfilled with clean fill, compacted and graded. Excavated materials will be disposed of in a licensed off-site disposal facility. Low levels of VOCs, primarily trichloroethene(or trichloroethylene, TCE)were detected in groundwater both on and off site. The highest concentration of TCE found on site was 32 parts per billion(ppb), and offsite levels had a maximum of 8.5 ppb(the drinking water standard is 5 ppb). These values are reported in the Remedial Investigation Report. A more recent sampling in 1999 found a maximum TCE concentration on site of 17 ppb and a maximum off-site concentration of 8.2 ppb. Tritium was found with maximum levels about one-tenth of the drinking water standard of 20,000 picoCuries per liter(pCi/1). To be sure that the health of the residents located downgradient of OU V is protected, homes and businesses in the OU V area were offered public water in 1997. Outpost monitoring wells have been placed along the predicted path of the groundwater and additional monitoring data will be collected. If future monitoring data suggest a need for a groundwater remedy, the OU V remedy will be modified. During the public comment period on the Proposed Plan,the community raised numerous concerns with the proposal to remove contaminated sediments from the Peconic River. The concerns included wetland restoration considerations;the exact extent of contamination, particularly in the County Park east of BNL;and other technologies. After considering all of the public comments, DOE has made a determination to work with the community to develop additional information regarding the best cleanup approach to the contaminated river sediments. DOE, EPA, and NYSDEC will make a final decision on the cleanup of the contaminated soil at the STP and the groundwater. The decision will be formalized in a document called the Record of Decision(ROD). Attached to the ROD will be a Responsiveness Summary, which will summarize public comments and DOE responses to those comments. Following final remedy selection,these documents will be available for public review. Finally,the public will be kept informed during the remedy implementation phase. After DOE works with the community to resolve the concerns related to the sediment cleanup, a new Proposed Plan will be issued for public comment on the portion of the OU V remedy related to the Peconic River sediments. • CHAPTER SIX 6-19 jo", Peconic Estuary Program CCMP •Underground Storage Tanks Navy Weapons IndustrialReserve Plant(NWiRP) Site Leaks in excess of a thousand gallons from underground storage (Calverton,NY) tanks are known to have occurred in the past in the Peconic Estuary, on Long Island, and nationally. The extent of these sources of The N WIRP formerly engaged in the pollution is potentially large because the contamination is manufacture of aircraft parts and sub- underground and may go unnoticed for an extended period of time. assemblies. The facility has phased New York State law includes provisions for preventingspills of out all of its manufacturing process petroleum. These provisions require all facilities with a minimum operations and the former operator of capacity of 1,100 gallons to be registered, set forth standards for the the property,the Northrop Grumman handling and storage of petroleum, and set forth standards for new Corporation, vacated the property in and substantially modified underground and aboveground storage February 1996. Since that time all facilities. Owners and operators must notes NYSDEC of any spills. property contained within the Another State program addresses the requirements for the bulk perimeter fence,with the exception of storage of other hazardous substances, including the registration of four parcels of land totaling storage tanks, spill reporting procedures and specifications for the approximately 350 acres which have sale and delivery ofsuch substances. been retained by the Navy to continue Suffolk County sanitary code requirements(Article 12) are even more the installation restoration(IR) stringent than state requirements. The County law went into effect in Program, have been conveyed to the 1980 and addresses all underground and aboveground tanks storing Town of Riverhead. There are no fuels, solvents, and chemicals, anything that could contaminate longer any process-type operations groundwater or surface water. New underground tanks are required that generate hazardous waste to have secondary containment and be constructed of non-corrodible conducted on the Navy's 350 acres. materials, and must have leak detection and overflow protection Any waste(solid or hazardous) systems. All existing facilities had to be brought up to new generated will be the result of the construction standards by 1990. continuation of the IR program. An initial assessment was completed by The County law exempted existing tanks from the replacement the Navy in 1986 and a site requirement that were under 1,100 gallons and used for the storage investigation has been completed. of heating oil for on-premises use. However, new tanks of this type The site is currently being handled must be made of non-corrodible materials. The Financing chapter of this CCMP includes several recommendations regarding incentives under the Federal Resource for private homeowners to address this potential threat to Conservation and Recovery Act groundwater and surface water. (RCRA)corrective action program. Corrective action implementation includes a RCRA Facility Assessment,a RCRA Facility Investigation(RFI), and a Corrective Measures Study(CMS). If determined necessary,the State will issue a permit for carrying out corrective measures selected from the corrective measures alternatives evaluated in the CMS. The RCRA Facility Assessment has been completed at this site for all identified solid waste management units/areas of concern(SWMUs/AOCs). The RFI has been completed for a majority of the SWMUs/AOCs identified with contamination. The RFI process is still in progress at eight SWMUs/AOCs. Solvents including toluene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane(TCA), and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK or 2 butanone)have been identified by the State as of concern in groundwater. The most recent permit for this facility was issued on April 24,2000 and will expire on April 30,2010. • CHAPTER SIX 6-20 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP -jt 6"/ r • The (Bulova) Watch Case Factory Site (Sag Harbor, N3) At this site,New York State is requiring continued operation of ongoing soil and groundwater remediation systems to treat VOCs. The VOCs include 1,1,1-trichloroethane(TCA)and trichloroethylene(TCE)which were the solvents used in intermediate cleaning operations during watch manufacturing. A fate and transport model demonstrated that chemicals at the site are not anticipated to impact Sag Harbor Cove. The treatment systems will operate until remediation goals are achieved or it is demonstrated to the State that achieving the goals is not technically practicable. Plum Island Animal Disease Center The Plum Island Animal Disease Center surface water discharge to the Peconic Estuary System consists of a wastewater treatment plant,which includes boiler blowdown and diked tank farm stormwater discharges. The wastewater treatment plant effluent is disinfected by ultraviolet light (UV)treatment process. This facility also has a separate general stormwater permit for the other stormwater outfalls that discharge to surface waters. The permit for this facility includes a special condition requiring the development and implementation of a Best Management Practices Plan to prevent or minimize the potential for the release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous substances through runoff, spillage, leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and stormwater discharges, including but not limited to drainage from raw material storage. • CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE PECONIC ESTUARY WITH RESPECT TO TOXICS The characterization of the resources of the Peconic Estuary with respect to toxics is based on an analysis of existing and new data on toxics in the estuary's surface water,groundwater, sediments, and living resources, along with information that has been collected on specific areas of concern (such as Super-fund sites). To supplement historical data and data collected through other environmental studies(i.e., pesticides in groundwater), the Peconic Estuary Program commissioned a study of toxic chemical distributions in Peconic Estuary sediments for 12 sites that was completed in 1996- In 1998,the EPA conducted a survey of sediments from 34 tidal creeks and embayments. The sediments in this later study were evaluated both for chemical specific contamination and overall toxicity to a marine organism ("toxicity testing"). EPA conducted additional sediment sampling for chemical specific analyses and toxicity testing in 2000. In 1999, EPA collected finfish, shellfish and crustaceans and will be analyzing the edible portions for toxic substances, including radiological contaminants. "A Characterization of the Resources of the Peconic Estuary with Respect to Toxics" (PEP,January 2001)may be consulted for additional information and detail. Some toxic substances, which enter the estuarine system break down fairly rapidly and cause few, if any, problems. Others tend to be very slow to break down, often accumulating in bottom sediments, where they may eventually be ingested or absorbed by bottom-dwelling organisms. Some toxic substances have a tendency to travel through the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of finfish, shellfish and crustaceans. For these reasons,the emphasis of the recent sampling efforts for toxics in the Peconic Estuary involved investigations of sediments and tissues of aquatic animals. • CHAPTER SIX 6-21 J6' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP e Surface Water Quality • Monitoring for toxics in the estuarine water column has occurred on a limited basis in the Peconic Estuary System. Detailed new investigations have focused on sediments and fish tissues where toxics tend to accumulate. The available data show no exceedances of State water quality criteria for toxics. Therefore,there are no identified surface water quality impairments due to toxics in the estuarine water column. Data analysis has, however, indicated widespread contamination of groundwater from Aldicarb (nematocide used on potato plants), particularly along the North Fork. Aldicarb also has been detected in the surface waters of East Creek and other North Fork Creeks. While Aldicarb is no longer in use, its presence in surface waters is likely due to inputs from groundwater. Another emerging concern is MTBE(methyl tert-Butyl Ether)which has been showing up in surface water samples, including Sag Harbor Creek near Havens Beach(perhaps related to an active recovery operation nearby),the Peconic River, and other surface waters. In 1997,New York State and the U.S Geological Survey began a cooperative effort to monitor pesticides in State waters, including one station in the Peconic Estuary watershed on the Peconic River. Samples were analyzed for 47 pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and their degradation products. The pesticide concentrations measured in this survey probably do not reflect maximum annual concentrations because most of the samples were collected during base flow(low- flow)conditions. While no pesticides with available water quality criteria were identified present in excess of the applicable criteria,the pesticides atrazine and simazine were detected in surface water samples(USGS, 1997). • Some trace metals analysis has been performed on Peconic Estuary waters(see Distribution of Trace Metals and Dissolved Organic Carbon in a Brown Tide Influenced Estuary: The Peconics, E. Breuer, May 1997). Although results for the metals sampled for which New York State has adopted and EPA has approved aquatic life based water column criteria(cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,and silver) showed evidence of anthropogenic(man-made) inputs,they did not exceed the established criteria. Observed radiological measurements in the freshwater portion of the Peconic River have been compared to safe drinking water standards, even though the Peconic River is not used as a source of drinking water. While the tritium concentration in a few samples exceeded the drinking water standard,the annual average concentrations have consistently been less than the drinking water standards. Sediment Quality Under the Peconic Estuary Program, sediments from 12 locations were sampled for the presence of 98 naturally occurring and man-made substances(Arthur D. Little, 1996). Five stations were selected to characterize"main bays"water quality. The other seven were chosen because of specific management concerns. In this study, pollutant concentrations were compared to"Effects Range-Low"(ER-L)and"Effects Range-Median"(ER-M)values developed by NOAA. ER-L values generally correspond to concentrations below which contaminant induced effects are unlikely. Values at or above ER-M levels indicate that contaminant induced effects are likely. None of the samples collected exceeded ER-Ms. Some ER-Ls were exceeded,which indicates the need for actions to reduce sources to prevent problems in the future. Sediments with levels above the ER-L tended to be in sheltered bays • 6-22 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 6-2. Summary of New York State Health Advisories for Chemicals in Sportfish and Game Applicable to the Peconic Estuary System. For additional and related information on these advisories,please consult the complete text of the NYSDOH Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, available from the NYSDOH or on the NYSDOH web site on the Internet at http://www.health.state.ny.us. Potential Toxic(s) ofConcernSpecies Advisory Applicable Areas Lobster and Crab Do not eat hepatopancreas(also known Cadmium,PCBs, All marine waters of as the tomalley, mustard,or liver) and other the State contaminants Marine Striped Limit consumption to no more than '/� PCBs' Peconic Bay, Bars, Bluefish, and pound per week Gardiners Bay,and American Eels Block Island Sound All Freshwater Fish Limit consumption to no more than '/, Multiple All fresh waters of the pound per week contaminants State Waterfowl: Do not consume PCBs,mirex, Statewide Mergansers chlordane,and DDT All Other Skin and remove all fat before cooking; PCBs, mirex, Statewide Waterfowl discard stuffing after cooking; limit to chlordane,and two meals per month DDT Snapping Turtles Remove fat, liver,and eggs prior to PCBs Statewide cooking meat or preparing soup;women of childbearing age, infants,and children under 15 should avoid eating snapping turtle meat or soups made with their meat. 'The source of PCBs leading to this advisory is not in the Peconic Estuary system and,therefore,management actions addressing this concern are not included in this CCMP. and harbors in the vicinity of rivers where fine-grained sediments and decaying organic matter tend to accumulate. ER-Ls for metals were exceeded 18 times(based on 12 stations and 9 metals with available ER-L values). Two metals, arsenic and lead, accounted for 10 of the exceedances of the ER-Ls. The other metals are copper, mercury, silver, cadmium and zinc. Overall,the Peconic Estuary has clear instances of elevated metal concentrations,especially in East Creek and Meetinghouse Creek. There is the potential for occasional adverse biological effects due to the presence of metals in sediments. Pesticide concentrations in sediments were low, except DDT residues, which were present in some locations. This is very likely due to the drainage of agricultural areas containing persistent residues of DDT. DDT was banned from use in the United States in the 1970s. • CHAPTER SIX 6-23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The total PCB concentrations at Meetinghouse Creek exceeded the ER-L. This measurement,when compared to the other PCB measurements in Peconic Estuary sediments, suggests a potential localized source of PCBs to Meetinghouse Creek. In 1998,the EPA collected Endocrine Disruptors sediments for analysis under Injury to endocrine function by environmental contaminants is potentially the"Peconic Estuary debilitating to a variety ofphysiological systems. The endocrine system in Tributaries Sediment Toxics animals consists of glands that produce hormones that enter the Survey." Locations were bloodstream to regulate important bodily functions such as growth, selected to be representative of development, reproduction, and behavior. Previous studies have found the typical land uses in the correlations between specific impairments of reproductive activity and estuary(undeveloped, elevated tissue concentrations of certain contaminants. These contaminants may mimic or block endocrine system processes,potentially affecting critical developed residential, bodily functions. The reproductive injuries reported to date include: agricultural, mixed-use reduced fertility; impaired hatchability and viability of offspring; impaired urban/industrial). A total of 34 reproductive hormone activity; and altered sexual development and sites were selected. The behavior. There are also reports of slow growth, atrophy, and lower rates samples consisted of a of metabolic behavior. At least 45 chemicals have been identified as composite of equal grab potential endocrine disrupting contaminants, including industrial samples collected from three contaminants (such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins), locations at each sampling site. insecticides (such as DDT) and herbicides (such as dichlorophenoxy acetic Sediments were analyzed for a acid(2,4-D)and atrazine). total of 108 toxic At the present time, environmental criteria are not being derived specifically contaminants, including PCBs, to take into account endocrine disruption impacts. It is possible that these PAHs, pesticides, and metals. effects may occur when contaminant concentrations are below current In addition to the analysis for criteria and standards. individual chemical constituents,the sediment was evaluated for overall sediment toxicity using the marine amphipod Arnpelisea abdita. These toxicity tests lasted 10 days and the endpoint measurement is mortality.Toxicity testing is a valuable gauge because the results provide an assessment of the overall toxicity resulting from exposure to multiple contaminants. A complete report is not yet available for the chemical-specific results of the EPA Tributaries Sediment Toxics Survey. A majority of the analysis results, which have been subjected to a quality assurance crosscheck,are available,and some preliminary observations can be made. The preliminary results for metals are comparable with the A.D. Little Toxics Survey(1996), and as in that [sandy esting of dredged material for toxic substances is survey, some ER-Ls for metals were exceeded, most equired only under certain conditions (depending noticeably for arsenic, but also for mercury and n factors including: volume; make up of the aterial (i.e., percent sand); place of origin; copper, and perhaps silver. In addition, kelihood of contamination; and proposed Meetinghouse Creek sediments exhibited the only lacement location). Typically, there are betweexn ER-L exceedances of zinc, copper,and nickel. No 0 and 100 permit applications approved per year in ER-M values for metals have been exceeded at those he Peconics involving dredging and dredged stations for which data are available. Also similar to aterial placement. Generally, dredged material the A.D. Little Toxics Survey, levels of the pesticide om the Peconic Estuary consists of coarse-grained DDT and its breakdown products(DDD and DDE) material, and testingfor the presence of toxics in excess of the ER-L were observed in numerous as not been required locations. This included one station,Jockey Creek, where the level of DDT exceeded the level of its breakdown products, suggesting an ongoing or • CHAPTER SIX 6-24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,s� • continuing source or application of DDT. The individual levels of DDD and DDE in Sawmill Creek exceeded the ER-M for total DDTs. Because of the special nature of the DDT-related results for Jockey Creek and Sawmill Creek,these sites have been referred to the NYSDEC for further investigation. An analysis of the EPA sampling results for PCBs and PAHs has not been completed. A final complete report on chemical-specific results with a rigorous analysis of the data is being prepared by the EPA. A final report on the sediment toxicity testing results, for the 34 sites tested, is available(Sediment Toxicity Testing in the Peconic Estuary/Watershed Using the Amphipod,Ampelisca abdita, EPA Region ll, August 1998). The survival rate was relatively high across all stations, from 76 percent to 97 percent. A percent survival result of less than 80 percent can indicate some toxicity, and this result occurred at five stations: Little Bay(76 percent), Paynes Creek(78 percent), West Neck Bay(78 percent), Sag Harbor STP(79 percent), and Northwest Creek(79 percent). Paradoxically, the stations with the highest survival rates included sites which had some of the most frequent incidences of exceedances of ER-Ls for metals. The five stations with the highest Ampelisco survival rates were: the Peconic River at Riverhead(97 percent), Downs Creek(96 percent), Reeves Creek(95 percent), Meetinghouse Creek(95 percent)and Peconic River at the STP outfall (94 percent). These results illustrate the importance of investigations involving both chemical-specific analyses and overall toxicity testing in assessing sediment quality. The toxicity testing results will be further assessed in light of the results on the chemical-specific report now under preparation. EPA conducted additional sediment sampling for toxicity analyses in 2000. Results of this sampling will be available in 2001. iFinfish,Shelyish and Crustacean Quality Based upon the relative paucity of data available on the concentrations of toxics in the living resources of the Peconic Estuary, EPA initiated a"Peconic Estuary Fish, Shellfish and Crustacean Toxics Survey." The objectives of this survey were to: • Determine whether the toxic compounds identified by the NYSDOH as being important for the issuance of human health advisories for the consumption of aquatic species are relevant in edible tissues of selected fish and shellfish, and tissues and hepatopancreas (tomalley)of selected crustacean species in the Peconic Estuary; • Assess and compare concentrations of toxics identified by the NYSDOH as being important for the issuance of human health advisories in legal sized finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans in open areas or tributaries, as applicable to a given species, for the four Peconic Bays and selected tributaries; • Assess and compare the general quality of representative open and closed shellfish areas in creeks of the Peconic Estuary with respect to toxics in hard clams; • Assess and compare the general quality of representative open shellfish areas in creeks of the Peconic Estuary with respect to toxics in bay scallops; and, • Evaluate whether radiochemicals associated with Brookhaven National Laboratories are present in blue crabs and fluke above background (reference site) levels. The species that were collected for analysis included: striped bass(bluefish and weakfish were alternate species), American eel, fluke/summer flounder(bluefish and weakfish were alternative species), hard clams, bay scallops, blue crabs, and lobsters. Samples will be analyzed for a comprehensive suite of toxic chemicals including metals, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, furans, as well as • CHAPTER SIX 6-25 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP radiological isomers of strontium, cesium, and plutonium and gross alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. • The complete results of this survey should be available in 2001. NOAA's Mussel Watch Program includes one sampling site in the Peconic Study area(in Gardiners Bay). While samples from mussels from Gardiners Bay did not show concentrations of chemicals exceeding public health guidelines, concentrations of dieldrin and PAHs were identified as"high" relative to concentrations in other locations,though NOAA reported there is no reason to suppose such concentrations cause harm to marine organisms or to humans. Dredged Material Quality At the present time, no restrictions have been placed on the placement of dredged material from the Peconic Estuary due to the presence of toxic substances. All dredged material from the Peconic Estuary presently is put to beneficial use, such as beach nourishment or wetland restoration,or is otherwise placed upland(i.e.,above the spring high tide water line). Groundwater Quality Significant pesticide contamination of groundwater resources in the Peconic Estuary watershed has been found in connection with at least two recent studies. One, entitled Water Quality Monitoring Program to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY (June 1999)relates to an 18-month study conducted by the SCDHS in cooperation with the NYSDEC. The second study is entitled Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk County, New York 1998(June 1999)and was conducted by the USGS in cooperation with the NYSDEC. Pesticides and their Metabolites in Wells of Suffolk County,New York 1998 (June 1999) As described in this report,the permeable soils in Suffolk County make the surficial sand-and-gravel aquifer highly susceptible to contamination from activities on the land surface. This highly permeable aquifer is a source of water for domestic and public supply systems in the county and is hydraulically connected to underlying aquifers that are also used for public water supply. Because of this vulnerability and the importance of the surficial sand-and-gravel aquifer and in response to the documented contamination of the surficial aquifer by Aldicarb in the early 1980's,the SCDHS established a groundwater monitoring program for pesticides and other chemicals of concern. The SCDHS has consistently demonstrated the presence of older persistent residues from pesticides like Aldicarb, which are no longer used on Long Island. In a joint study conducted by USGS,NYSDEC and SCDHS,wells(including water supply wells)with known or suspected pesticide residues were sampled. The primary purpose of this study was to supplement the SCDHS monitoring program. Because all of these samples were from raw, untreated water from the surficial aquifer,the results are not representative of chemical characteristics of drinking water. Pesticides monitored included many of the most commonly used pesticides in the country. The laboratory methods used to analyze the samples collected had lower detection limits for many pesticides than do the methods used by SCDHS. Because this study was intended to complement the SCDHS program,however, many pesticides that are commonly detected by the SCDHS(including Aldicarb and its degredates)were not investigated. Thus,the results do not represent a complete description of all pesticide residues in groundwater in Suffolk County. The report presents data on the concentration and frequency of detection of the 60 pesticide residues monitored and discusses the 6-26 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jt° concentrations in relation to Federal and State water quality standards. The report also relates the detection of selected herbicide residues to the predominant land use around 50 wells sampled and discusses the concentrations of these residues in relation to one another. Of the 60 pesticide residues monitored, 25 were detected. Five of these were insecticides or insecticide metabolites(i.e., pesticide breakdown products). At least one pesticide or metabolite was detected in 44 of the 50 samples. Some samples contained as many as I I different pesticides or pesticide metabolites. Many of the compounds had not been previously monitored. The data collected indicated that some pesticides that are commonly monitored by the SCDHS are present at trace levels,well below the level of detection provided by the laboratory analytical methods used by the SCDHS. The concentrations of only a few compounds detected in the samples collected exceeded applicable State or Federal water quality standards. However,no Federal drinking water standards have been established for many of the pesticides and pesticide metabolites that were detected. Comparison of the presence of seven frequently detected herbicides or herbicide metabolites with land use around the wells indicates that the occurrence of these pesticides is related to land use, such as weed control associated with agricultural production and at utility substations and utility rights-of- way,and possibly residential uses. The 25 pesticide residues that were detected are as follows: Insecticides: p,p,-DDE; Carbof n-an; Dieldrin;Carbaryl; Lindane. Herbicides:Atrazine; Simazine; Deethylatrazine; Metolachlor; Metolachlor ESA; Metolachlor OA;Tebuthiuron; Deisopropylatrazine; Metribuzin; Prometon; Alachlor, Alachlor ESA; EPTC; Linuron;Trifluralin; 2,6-Diethylanaline; Alachlor OA; Cyanazine; Hydroxyatrazine;Terbacil. Water Quality Monitorine Proeram to Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties,NY(June 1999) As stated in this report,the goal of this study was to obtain water quality information across the full geographic area of both Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The main objective of the sampling program was to identify pesticides and metabolites that leach to groundwater and to help define where these pesticide impacts have occurred. The sampling program was not randomly conducted. In addition to obtaining the geographic coverage needed, specific areas thought to be vulnerable to pesticide impacts were targeted by the testing program. The results of the testing are representative only of the specific locales tested, and should not be considered representative of groundwater quality in all areas. The sampling program was conducted by collecting groundwater samples from monitoring wells, private domestic wells, and public supply wells,and analyzing them for a wide range of pesticide and metabolite compounds. In cases where a public or private well contained water treatment, only the raw water was sampled for this project. A total of 2,306 samples were collected and analyzed for this project, including 1,901 from Suffolk County. Fifty percent of the samples were collected in Suffolk's five eastern towns to determine pesticide impacts to private wells and because the region contains the bulk of Long Island's agricultural acreage. Pesticides were found in every type of well tested, and were detected at levels exceeding drinking water Maximum Contaminant levels(MCLS) in all well types. All of the community supply wells found to exceed MCLS were either removed from active service or fitted with granular activated carbon filtration for contaminant reduction. CHAPTER SIX 6-27 40". Peconic Estuary Program CCMP The results indicate that 89 percent of the wells exceeding pesticide related MCLS are located in • Suffolk's five eastern towns,that is 15.4 percent of the wells tested in eastern Suffolk exceeded an MCL. Private wells in agricultural areas of Suffolk's five eastern towns are at the highest risk of pesticide contamination,with 50.5 percent(324 of 642 wells tested)containing detections of pesticides. The data show that 30 different pesticides(including metabolites)were detected in (western and eastern) Suffolk wells. Ten pesticides(in Nassau and Suffolk)exceeding drinking water MCLS are now banned from use on Long island due to concerns of potential adverse health effects and ability to leach to groundwater. Banned or discontinued pesticides accounted for 88 percent of the wells that exceeded MCLS. The stability and persistence of pesticide residues in Long Island groundwater is clearly demonstrated by the fact that six of the 10 chemicals found to exceed drinking water MCLS have been banned from sale or use for 10 to 20 years. Due to the movement of groundwater,and the migration of contaminants with it, private wells located hundreds to thousands of feet downgradient of the points of likely chemical applications,were found impacted by agricultural pesticides. Groundwater impacts resulting from pesticide use at golf courses were examined by testing 31 wells located at 18 Long Island golf courses. One pesticide/pesticide metabolite was found above the MCL in the golf course monitoring, in one well in each county. The monitoring results indicate that turf management practices can effectively control impacts to groundwater at golf courses. The implementation of Best Management Practices can even further reduce the levels of pesticides found in the groundwater. The SCDHS has done a follow-up study of golf courses with an expanded list of analytes and with new monitoring wells at five more courses in the county, including Shinnecock,National,and Maidstone. Preliminary data suggests that a few low concentrations of pesticides exist. The • NYSDEC has been funding the monitoring program for three years at about$100,000 per year. The pesticide chemicals detected in Suffolk County Wells were: alachlor; aldicarb sulfoxide+sulfone; arsenic; atrazine; his 2-ethylhexyl phthalate; cadmium; carbofuran; 2,4-D; dicamba; 1,2 dichloroethane; 1,2 dichloropropane, 1,3 dichloropropane; dieldrin; dinoseb; ethylene dibromide(EDB); endosulfan sulfate; ethofumesate; MCPP; metalaxyl; methomyl; metolachlor;metribuzin; 4-nitrophenol; oxamyl; prometon; propachlor; simazine; tebuthiuron; tetrachloroterephthalic acid; 1,2,3-trichloropropoane (Note: In this study chlordane and propoxur were detected in Nassau, but not Suffolk,County wells). Environmental Impacts in the Peconic Estuary Study Area Associated with Brookhaven National Laboratory (see Figure 6-2) New York State Department of Health Sampling Water,sediment and fish samples taken from the Peconic River outside of BNL, as part of the New York State Department of Health monitoring program,contain measurable levels of different radioactive materials. The detected radioactive materials included tritium(H-3),cobalt-60(Co-60), strontium-90(Sr-90), cesium-137(Cs-137), and americium(Am-241). The observed concentrations of these radionuclides are more than can be attributed to fall-out(from above ground atomic weapon tests). This indicates that discharges from BNL have contributed to these observed concentrations. The radiation dose from the observed radionuclide concentrations in fish is small. At less than one millirem per year,the average committed effective dose equivalent from radioactive materials that • 6-28 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,¢ 4 • Table 6-3. Pesticide Chemicals Detected in Suffolk County Wells in Two Recent Studies. Pesticides and Their Water Quality Monitoring Program Metabolites in Wells of to Detect Pesticide Contamination Suffolk County,New in Groundwaters of Nassau and Pesticide Chemical York 1998 June 1999)* Suffolk Counties,NY June 1999 Alachlor X X Alachlor ESA X Alachlor OA X aldicarb sulfoxide+sulfone X arsenic X atrazine X X his 2-eth Ihex 1 phthalate X cadmium X Carbaryl X carbofuran X X Cyanazine X 2,4-D X p,p,-DDE X Deeth latrazine X Deisopropylatrazine, X dicamba X 1,2 dichloroethane X 1,2 dichloro ro ane X 1,3 dichloro ro ane X • dieldrin X X 2,6-Dieth lmaline X dinoseb X ethylene dibromide EDB X endosulfm sulfate X EPTC X ethofumesate X H drox atrazine X Lindane X Linuron X MCPP X metalaxyl X methom I X metolachlor X X Metolachlor ESA X Metolachlor OA X metribuzin X X 4-nitrophenol X oxam 1 X rometon X X ro achlor X simazine X X tebuthiuron X Terbacil X Tebuthiuron X tetrachlorotere hthalic acid X 1,2,3-trichloro ro ome X Trifluralin X -Because this study was intended to complement the SCDI IS program,many pesticides that are commonly detected by the • SCDHS(including aldicarb and its depredates)were not investigated in this study. CHAPTER SIX 6-29 ,ge° p'". Peconic Estuary Program CCMP may be attributed to releases from BNL is less than one percent of the established New York State • limit of 100 millirems per year. The projected radiation dose from Sr-90 and Cs-137 contamination in the river is less than 10 percent of the New York State guidance value for remedial action, and therefore no remedial action to reduce contamination in the Peconic River is called for. The overall trend of the concentration of Sr-90 and Cs-137 in fish shows a decrease with time. Brookhaven National Laboratory SamnlinQ BNL is a DOE laboratory conducting research in physical, biomedical,and environmental sciences, as well as in selected energy technologies. Brookhaven Science Associates, a not-for-profit research management organization, operates BNL under a contract with DOE. In 1980, the BNL site was placed on the NYSDEC list of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. In 1989, it was included on EPA's National Priorities List of Superfund sites. BNL's inclusion on the Superfund and NYSDEC lists was primarily due to the effects of discontinued past operations, which could impact Long Island's sole source aquifer,the Island's sole primary drinking water source. As reported in the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit V.- Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant(BNL, February 9,2000)BNL has a total of 29 Areas of Concern. To ensure effective management of them, these areas were grouped into six distinct Operable Units(see Figure 6-3). Only Operable Unit V potentially influences the Peconic Study area. Operable Unit V consists of three Areas of Concern: the Sewage Treatment Plant(AOC 4))(see Figure 6-4); Capped and Retired Formerly Leaking Sewer Pipes within the Operable Unit(AOC 21); and the Former Eastern Tritium Plume (AOC 23). The Sewage Treatment Plant AOC includes Peconic River sediment and surface water,the soils in the area of the Sand Filter Beds, Hold-up Ponds,and the Satellite Disposal Area. • An OU V Remedial Investigation was conducted to identify the nature and extent of soil, sediment, groundwater,and surface water contamination. The investigation included geophysical and biological surveys; sampling of soil, groundwater, surface water,and sediments; chemical and radiological analyses; benthic invertebrate toxicity testing; fish bioaccumulation studies; data validation; and preparation of the Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report. Subsequent to the final Remedial Investigation report, BNL conducted a more comprehensive sampling of soils, sediment,and water for plutonium, uranium, and other radionuclides. The results of this study are presented in BNL's Plutonium Contamination Characterization and Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment Report(January 21,2000). State and Federal standards, criteria and guidance values were reviewed to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination in soil, sediment, groundwater and surface water. Screening criteria used to identify contamination were derived from these requirements. These screening criteria are given in the Operable Unit V Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment Report. The principle contaminants that have been released to the STP include metals,solvents,and radionuclides. Elevated levels of metals and PCBs,and low levels of pesticides and radionuclides,were detected in Peconic River sediment. Concentrations were highest in on-site surface sediments and most prominent in the on-site depositional areas located approximately 0.5 mile, 1 mile, and 1.5 miles downstream of the STP. The following is a summary of the range of contaminants found in the Peconic River sediments, STP soils, fish, sludge inside and soils surrounding the retired and capped sewer lines,and groundwater. Peconic River Sediments: Fourteen inorganic contaminants were detected at concentrations greater than the sediment-screening levels(see Figure 6-5). Of these,the metals mercury(maximum 24.5 mg/kg), silver(maximum 171 mg/kg),and copper(maximum 1140 mg/kg)were detected most often, and at the highest concentrations above the screening level. Other analytes detected at concentrations • CHAPTER SIX 6-30 Peconic Estuary Program CCAV • above the screening level included the PCB Aroclor-1254 (maximum 1.5 mg/kg), DDD(maximum 0.096 mg/kg), DDE(maximum 0.089 mg/kg), alpha-chlordane(maximum 0.073 mg/kg), gamma-chlordane (maximum 0.043 mg/kg), and endesulfan (0.018 mg/kg). Contamination was highest in surface sediments and was most prominent in a depositional area approximately one mile downstream of the STP. Cesium-137, americium-241, and plutonium 239/240 were found at higher activities in the Peconic River sediments than in the reference sediment samples collected from the Connetquot River, a river with similar characteristics as the Peconic River and outside the influence of the BNL site. The maximum cesium-137 concentration in sediments on site was 21.1 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g). The maximum americium-241 and plutonium-239/240 concentrations were also found on-site at 1.91 pCi/g and 0.158 pCi/g, respectively. Similar to the inorganic contaminants,the low-level radionuclides detected were highest in the surface sediments and were most prominent in a depositional area approximately 1 mile downstream of the STP. Sewage Treatment Plant Soils: Surface soils and subsurface soils in, or in the vicinity of,the STP (including the sand filter beds and related berms)were found to contain elevated levels of several inorganic constituents including mercury, silver, copper, chromium, lead, zinc, and thallium. The maximum concentrations were 15.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for mercury, 112 mg/kg for silver, 80.7 mg/kg for copper, 157 mg/kg for chromium, 95.5 mg/kg for lead, 60.7 mg/kg for zinc, and 1.2 mg/kg for thallium. Elevated levels were concentrated in the top 6 inches and did not extend beyond a depth of 3 feet. In the soils of the sand filter beds and berms, the most frequently detected radionuclides were naturally occurring uranium-233/234 and uranium 238; all detected activities of both were within the range of background. Plutonium was detected less frequently, and at low activities. The maximum activity of plutonium-239/240 in the berms was 7.31 pCi/g,and in the sand filter beds was 0.399 pCi/g. The radionuclide with the highest levels was cesium-137; its levels were highest in the berms and areas adjacent to the sand filter-beds, with a maximum concentration of 98.8 pCi/g. Americium-241 was highest in the sand filter beds with a maximum concentration of 3.74 pCi/g. Generally,the activities of the radionuclides were highest in the top one foot of soil. Peconic River Fish: Fish collected from the Peconic River headwaters had bioaccumulated PCBs (the average Aroclor-1254 concentration in fish on site was 1.8 mg/kg). Naturally occurring uranium radionuclides were detected in some of the fish samples, with highest activities in the inedible portions of the fish. The radionuclide cesium-137 was detected most frequently. It was found in higher concentrations in fish collected on-site, and generally in slightly higher concentrations in the flesh and skin than in the bone and viscera. The highest activity of cesium-137 in fish was in a whole-body sample of pickerel taken on site(2.712 pCi/g). Sludge and Soil (retired and capped sewer line): The Laboratory sampled soils surrounding the areas where leaks were identified along the retired and capped sewer line during the Operable Unit V investigation. The results of the investigation identified only a few areas with low concentrations of inorganic constituents. This indicates that the sewer line leading to the STP is not a likely source of significant contamination to the surrounding soils. The formerly leaking pipes in Operable Unit V were replaced in 1993. As part of a more recent investigation, sludge was collected from the bottom of manholes along the retired and capped sewer line and analyzed for radionuclides. The results identified elevated activities of a few radionuclides. Americium-241 and cesium-137 were found at the highest activities relative to screening levels, and plutonium was detected, generally at low levels. • CHAPTER SIX 6-31 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Groundwater: Current groundwater sampling results indicate that levels of tritium in the • groundwater are well below the drinking water standard. The highest concentration of trichloroethene(TCE)found on site during the Remedial Investigation was 32 ppb. Maximum off-site levels were 8.5 ppb, slightly greater than the drinking water standard of 5 ppb. Concentrations of VOCs are decreasing in magnitude. A more recent sampling in 1999 found a maximum TCE concentration on site of 17 ppb and a maximum off-site concentration of 8.2 ppb. The elevated levels of TCE in groundwater off site were found at depths(200 feet) below the depths at which residential wells are typically screened, and public exposure to TCE in groundwater is unlikely. Homes and businesses in the Operable Unit V area were offered public water in 1997. Seventeen new monitoring wells have been installed as outpost wells on the eastern perimeter of the public water hookup area. Monitoring of contaminants in groundwater will continue. Both soil and groundwater samples were collected in the area of the Hold-up Ponds during the investigations, and no evidence of leakage was found. No further action is planned and these ponds will remain as part of the operating Sewage Treatment Plant. A groundwater monitoring network will be put in place as part of the Lab's Groundwater Improvement Program (Phase II)to assure continued effectiveness of the Hold-up Ponds. Extensive sampling and exploratory excavations were conducted at the Satellite Disposal Area and no evidence of contamination was found. In 1985, bromine trifluoride cylinders and two boxes of laboratory chemicals were removed from the Satellite Disposal Area. No additional remediation is planned for this area. • CHAPTER SIX 6-32 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP gt 4 F r • GF Nnw YaRc P Noa of dotag.Long Island Ouaona 9ulfdk i Canty Nassau I ti' ll.County i Brookhavon Natiord Laboratory Brooklyn Figure 6-2. Brookhaven National Laboratory's Location with Respect to New York State and Long Island (from Proposed Plan for Operable Unit V.•Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant,Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL,February 9,2000)). Env ror"131 Resto-albn Dvon Operable Unnt and Atom* 91 :;* t n • • Cpwzk.6 Jnl:a Vvf 0 wsx>KU�ga.wv ' 1 \ Uaab Heeaig+ ILVn M Mt>nnnrc Oalc .. i[1 ow�r*m Ctmpwd m `� !D ❑ Mzbk vd",Nu7r ��� 1 GGr A WEV , UA S S a 7 �Il�vu 1 � .WE `T N � C--LW 9ef+ F,uYly v Q sa,.ogr i©Ym.rc {HSi11 I 23 it" � '11 f AMM Gi A. o1 cancem nil V V c{ 4A E uNm#'tAtl ;nt vAit {d-.9MrvA Prrylru rWI, 8 " Farcy Exch C.InME1 TarMn: Nnpoa E-BoteEte rPipal Aas} 3: LurJr T1116 MUM ;n%aaEaxig a Ea:1 ExtCR'Tn'lum PWmc Figure 6-3. Brookhaven National Laboratory's Six Operable Units and OU V Areas of Concern (from Proposed Plan for Operable Unit V,Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant,Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL: February 9,2000)). • CHAPTER SIX 6-33 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP lr'�� re•cge Trey:rent f`hnt f :', lid _ ♦. I fz r4�^_,10C 421 • Irw l l W It. ' rc V SQA- 14—`3.mec Sand ____tl,♦ `�`__ _7 l __ Vntn k'em• melte �.i. ••fit LX-.4q;;din; ai Im rent Figure 6-4. BNL's Sewage Treatment Plant(AOC 4) and the Sub-Areas of Concern within the plant(from Proposed Plan jor Operable Unit V:Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant,Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL: February 9,2000)). KEY ,tn,, Proposed Cleanup Goals Minimum-Maximum above mg?Kup goal W+�E (e ( Q Mercury 9.emgAg • -0-Mercury 1lo 12 Ckh'Vl Ys ` ' SIIucir 089 mglig Copper 310 mgrkg IBROOKHAVEN ` NATIONAL i ( ( LABORATORY` AREA 49� Mercury 10-10 AREA B .2 Bihar 09-89 �t• Capper 310-385 Mercury 11 -11 q, Shier 93-93 Copper 311 -363 AREA Sewage Treatm ant Mercury 12-25 Plant(SIP) Silver 90-156 Copper 373- 1140 AREA E Copper 357-357 4 C`� q� 14 Poo Wft unain n Ii�j p ` of eiF curtain V m LEGENDrM St z ® Surface yra[er ® Roads AREA 0 Areas proposed for remediation o Mercury 11 -21 ® slle 97-171 STP sand flier beds `•� an Copper 434-773 STP lined water holding ponds Figure 6-5. Areal Extent of Sediments Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated with Metals above Toxicity-Based Cleanup Goals(from Proposed Plan jor Operable Unit V. Peconic River/Sewage Treatment Plant,Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL: February 9,2000)). • CHAPTER SIX 6-34 Peconic Estuary Program CC/VIP .t gvf 49 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The Toxics Action Plan addresses research and monitoring, specific strategies for sites of concern and nonpoint sources of pollution, and general management strategies for pollution prevention and regulation of toxics within the estuary. The actions encompass a wide scope of management strategies, including: • Remediation at specific sites or sources; • Enforcement of existing and new regulatory requirements that control toxics; • Reduction of the use of toxics; • Pollution prevention programs; • Research, monitoring, and data analysis;and, • Public Education(included in the Public Education and Outreach Management Plan). In the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities,as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing, commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions will not require any new or additional resources because they are being undertaken through "base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, new or additional resources need to be • secured by some or all of the responsible entities in order to complete the priority actions. • CHAPTER SIX 6-35 f" Peconic Estuary Program CCMP TOXICS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS T-1. Review Historical Monitoring Data and Conduct New Monitoring Studies Where Needed to Further Characterize Sources, Loadings, and Impacts of Toxic Contaminants. T-2. Continue Remedial Efforts and Review of Regulatory Compliance at Sites of Concern in the Peconic Estuary. T-3. Assess Alternatives to Chlorination for Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. T-4. Reduce Loadings of Pesticides and Herbicides within the Peconic Estuary. T-5. Develop Requirements Regarding Proper Storage and Disposal of Toxic Substances and Chemicals Associated with Construction Sites and Road, Highway, and Bridge Operation and Maintenance and Construction Activities. T-6. Adopt Requirements for Controlling Toxic Loadings in Stormwater Runoff and Activities in Developed Areas. T-7. Explore Management Strategies that Emphasize the Elimination or Reduction of Toxic Substances. T-8 Ensure that Dredged Material is Managed and Placed in Such a Way as to Reduce Toxic Impacts Associated with Contaminated Sediments. • CHAPTER SIX 6-36 Peconic Esluary Program CCMP ..0 4 • T-1 Review Historical Monitoring Data and Conduct New Monitoring Studies Where Needed to Further Characterize Sources, Loadings, and Impacts of Toxic Contaminants. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives I and 5. Periodic monitoring of the groundwater, surface water, sediments, and organisms of the Peconic Estuary is necessary to identify new or emerging problems and to assess and measure the impact of ongoing programs and CCMP management actions. In particular, additional sampling and analysis of sediments in creeks and peripheral embayments may be warranted as metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and zinc,as well as PAHs have been detected in various surveys, and the potential for pesticide contamination also exists in the estuary. Investigations should focus on agriculturally influenced creeks(including sampling for pesticides), as well as creeks influenced by development and those with significant stormwater runoff inputs. Former agricultural land may also be a continuing source of pesticide inputs. Past and present marinas and boatyards are potential sources of heavy metal contamination if boat bottom scraping and painting takes place and paint scrapings(which are almost entirely copper)were not collected and disposed of properly. Additional metals of concern in these sites include lead, zinc, mercury and tin. Historic aerial photos could be used to identify sites where boat bottom maintenance • activities took place in the past. Additional related actions are included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter of this CCMP, including an action addressing fish consumption advisories. Steps T-l.l Include toxics monitoring in the PEP Long-Term Monitoring Plan. T-1.2 Conduct toxicity testing as well as chemical-specific analyses of Peconic Estuary Priority sediments, including open water areas, tidal creeks,and peripheral embayments. Where toxicity is observed, identify the toxic agent(s)of concern. T-1.3 Continue to collect and evaluate data on concentrations of bioconcentratable chemicals in mussel tissue through NOAA's Mussel Watch Program. T-1.4 Analyze new data collected in EPA's 1999 "Peconic Estuary Fish, Shellfish and Priority Crustacean Toxics Survey." Review data on organic chemical and metal residues in fish and shellfish tissues to determine whether consumption advisories are due to sources and loadings of toxics within the Peconic Estuary System, and the appropriateness of existing NYS consumption advisories. T-1.5 Re-evaluate PEP sediment survey data to identify chemicals present above known effects Priority levels. Identify toxics present at low levels that individually or cumulatively may be affecting aquatic resources. • CHAPTER SIX 6-37 dio" '*X Peconic Estuary Program CCMP T-1.6 Determine the potential local source of PCBs in Meetinghouse Creek and, once • Priority identified, control or otherwise remediate the source. T-1.7 Monitor progress on research on endocrine disruptors, and encourage pollution prevention programs to reduce loadings or address potential sources of these contaminants. T-1.8 Identify past and present marinas/boatyard sites as potential sources of heavy metal Priority contamination to the estuary; quantify the extent of the problem and possible effects on the estuary. Responsible Entities T-1.1 PEP(EPA,NYSDEC and SCDHS), other public and private groups T-1.2 EPA(lead), PEP T-1.3 Data collection:NOAA(lead); data evaluation: EPA(lead), PEP,NOAA T-1.4 EPA(lead for data collection and report preparation); EPA,NYSDEC,NYSDOH for data interpretation T-1.5 PEP • T-1.6 Investigation:NYSDEC; control/remediation: NYSDEC, responsible parties T-1.7 EPA (lead),NYSDEC T-1.8 PEP(through contract) • CHAPTER SIX 6-38 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,t" F fi • T-2. Continue Remedial Efforts and Review of Regulatory Compliance at Sites of Concern in the Peconic Estuary. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 4 and 5. There are three Federal Superfund Sites on the National Priorities List in the study area: the North Sea Municipal Landfill (North Sea,NY), Rowe Industries(Sag Harbor,NY), and a portion of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Site(Upton, NY). The(Bulova) Watch Case Factory Site (Sag Harbor, NY)and a portion of the Navy Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant(NWIRP) Site(Calverton, NY)are also under investigation or being remediated or otherwise permitted at the Federal or State level. These sites are contributors or potential contributors of toxic contaminants to the estuary. The following actions address site-specific concerns at Superfund sites, inactive hazardous waste disposal sites, remediation efforts under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)sites, and the facilities regulated under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES). Marinas and boatyards represent areas of particular concern due to their proximity to the water and certain maintenance and repair actives that may occur there. Steps T-2.1(A) Continue remedial efforts and evaluate impacts, monitoring, and ensure consistency with local requirements associated with the surface water discharge for the Rowe Industries site. T-2.1(B) Continue groundwater monitoring at the North Sea Municipal Landfill; implement benthic community and sediment toxicity testing to ensure remediation efforts are achieved. T-2.1(C) Continue oversight and remedial efforts at the(Bulova) Watch Case Factory site. T-2.2 Complete inventory of RCRA facilities within the Peconic Estuary System; review compliance history of facilities; ensure all facilities comply with regulatory and permit requirements. T-2.3 Ensure that upon Environmental Benefits Permitting Strategy(EBPS)review,the effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements in BNL SPDES Permit(NY-0005835)for Outfall 001 (the sewage treatment plant discharge)will be revised if findings from the industrial-type effluent monitoring program or any other available data indicates that increased protection is needed. Permit elements that will be evaluated,as appropriate, include: pretreatment, BMPs,toxicity testing,and bioaccumulative contaminants. T-2.4 Ensure that BNL adequately implements its Environmental Management System focused Priority on environmental compliance and emphasizing pollution prevention as specified in the EPA/DOE March 1998 MOA. • CHAPTER SIX 6-39 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP T-2.5 Implement environmental clean-up remedies under Superfund for Operable Unit V at • Priority BNL. Ensure that the remedial investigation currently underway adequately addresses human health (chemical and radiological)and ecological impacts, including potential downstream and off-site impacts. T-2.6 Continue to implement the RCRA corrective action program at the NWIRP. Ensure that the Corrective Measures Study adequately addresses human health and ecological impacts, including potential downstream and off-site impacts. T-2.7 Conduct seasonal inspections of marinas and boatyards to ensure maintenance and repair activities are being done properly and there is proper disposal of wastes. Responsible Entities T-2.1(A) EPA T-2.1(B) EPA(lead) T-2.I(C) NYSDEC (lead) T-2.2 EPA(lead) T-2.3 NYSDEC (lead), BNL T-2.4 EPA(lead), USDOE, BNL T-2.5 EPA(lead),NYSDEC, BNL, USDOE,NYSDOH T-2.6 EPA(lead),NYSDEC T-2.7 NYSDEC • 6-40 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,,0 .01 T-3. Assess Alternatives to Chlorination for Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 3 and 4. Disinfection of effluent from STPs is essential to prevent the spread of disease. Disinfection can be accomplished by a variety of methods, all of which have been proven effective under specific conditions. Chlorine may have toxic effects on living organisms following discharge when it becomes complexed in seawater with organic compounds. Ultraviolet(UV)disinfection has proven to be an effective disinfectant alternative. Presently,the Brookhaven National Laboratory and Plum Island Animal Disease Center STPs use and the Riverhead and Sag Harbor STPs have proposed UV disinfection in planned plant upgrades; use of UV has been piloted on a portion of the Shelter Island Heights STP flow. The STP at the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant(NWIRP) in Calverton,New York, continues to use chlorine disinfection. The permit for this facility is expected to be modified significantly as redevelopment plans for this property move forward. This STP may ultimately discharge to groundwater(outside of the Peconic Estuary watershed) in place of the current surface water discharge to the Peconic River System. Steps T-3.1 Install UV disinfection at the Riverhead and Sag Harbor STPs. Evaluate alternatives to chlorine disinfection at the Shelter Island Heights STP and the NWIRP STP if the effluents are of sufficient quality for alternatives to be effective and protective of human health. See related action P-10 in the Pathogens Management Plan. Responsible Entities T-3.1 Treatment plant operators at Riverhead, Sag Harbor, Shelter Island Heights, and the former NWIRP; NYSDEC • CHAPTER SIX 641 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP T-4. Reduce Loadings of Pesticides and Herbicides within the Peconic Estuary. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 2,3,and 4. Significant pesticide contamination of groundwater resources in the Peconic Estuary watershed has been documented in at least two recent studies. This includes some pesticides that were found in raw untreated groundwater at levels exceeding drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels. However, at the present time,there are no known environmental impairments due to pesticides in the Peconic Estuary. There is also the potential for pesticide use to increase and change, particularly with shifts to intensive agriculture systems(e.g., vineyards,turf grass, ornamentals)and increased residential development. Some pesticides may enter surface waters directly with stormwater runoff. Efforts to manage stormwater primarily due to concerns of pathogens contamination may also result in the prevention of direct loadings of pesticides(and other toxic substances)to surface waters(see Pathogens Management Chapter of this Report). It may be particularly important to ensure commercial applicators of pesticides are properly certified, and to eliminate or reduce pesticide use on or in the vicinity of wetlands. A"Clean Sweep"program was successful in collecting and properly disposing of a large quantity of agricultural and turf/landscape maintenance pesticides that were unusable and unwanted. The public has clearly indicated its preference for farmland preservation in the watershed. Creating additional pesticide program requirements may be in conflict with that goal,though there will continue to be opportunities for applying best management practices. In addition,market incentives should be explored as a possible driving force for producing agricultural products using the specified pesticide management measure or for producing natural/organic agricultural products, particularly for local sale. Standards could be specified, labeling developed,and promotional materials prepared to advertise the availability of products which are produced using Integrated Pest Management techniques or which are pesticide-free. Cornell Cooperative Extension will continue work on the Peconic Estuary Pesticide Reduction Initiative funded under a EPA Pollution Prevention Grant, demonstrating on a pilot scale the use of "scouting"by trained personnel to determine the timing of pesticide applications for insects, diseases and weeds, and provide training to assist farm managers in acquiring their own"scouting"expertise. State agencies have proposed the development/establishment of enforceable State-wide program requirements to manage pesticide use under the State Coastal Nonpoint Source Management Plan under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments(CZARA). However,the extent to which there is compliance with the pesticide use management measure for agricultural areas under CZARA is unknown. State agencies have also proposed the development of a Long Island Pesticide Management Plan. Pesticide use on public lands can effectively be eliminated or significantly reduced,through initiatives such as the Federal government's Presidential Memorandum that addresses "Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds"and Suffolk County's restrictions on pesticide use at county-owned golf courses. "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States" is a program developed by golf and environmental organizations,and includes objectives regarding reductions in pesticide use. • CHAPTER SIX 642 Peconic Estuary Program CC'MP 8* Financial incentives for voluntary compliance by private growers with the pesticide management measure and for Integrated Pest Management(IPM) strategies may be available through the 1995 Federal Farm Bill's Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP). The Suffolk County Office of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) should apply for funding from the NYS NRCS Office for a 5-year comprehensive pesticide management program initially in the Towns of Riverhead and Southold as a priority and in the other towns in future years. Additional related actions are included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter of this CCMP, including actions addressing pesticide use near wetlands,dealing with certified commercial applicators,reducing residential pesticide use, and golf courses. Steps T-4.1 Continue to pursue development/establishment of the Long Island Pesticide Management Priority Plan and enforceable Statewide agricultural pesticide program requirements under CZARA, which reduce the potential for contamination of surface water and ground water due to the application of pesticides. In the meantime, seek commitments on a voluntary basis from landowners to comply with this management measure. T-4.2 Plan, advertise, and carry out a"Clean Sweep" program to collect and properly dispose of Priority banned or unneeded agricultural and turf/landscaping pesticides. T-4.3 Ensure that commercial pesticide applicators and applicators of restricted use pesticides are properly certified. See related Public Outreach and Education Action POE-4.1. T-4.4 Enforce the provisions of the State's Freshwater Protection Law to reduce or eliminate loadings of pesticides and herbicides on or in the vicinity of wetlands and associated waterbodies. See related Puhlic Outreach and Education Action POE-4.2. T-4.5 Develop and implement integrated pest management(IPM)programs that manage pests with minimal impact on human health and the environment. T-4.6 Develop and implement a comprehensive agricultural pesticide management proposal for Priority funding by the USDA. T-4.7 Investigate opportunities for expansion of organic agricultural operations in the Peconic watershed,as well as marketing and labeling to encourage local sale. T-4.8 Implement IPM programs on public lands, such as Suffolk County's IPM/pesticide-free golf course initiative. Ensure that all Federal facilities and operations in the PEP Study Area comply with the Presidential Memorandum of April 26, 1996 that addresses "Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds." T-4.9 Restrict or ban pesticides whose residues are frequently detected at levels of environmental or public health concern in groundwater or the estuary. • CHAPTER SIX 643 j�m Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i Responsible Entities • T-4.1 NYSDEC,NYSDOS (co-leads),NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, NYSDOH, and other public and private groups T-4.2 Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District(lead),with NRCS, EPA, PEP, Towns and the agricultural community T-4.3 NYSDEC (lead) T-4.4 NYSDEC (lead) T-4.5 State(lead); County, Town and Village governments and agencies, homes, businesses and farms T-4.6 USDA-NRCS and SCSWCD(leads) T-4.7 PEP(lead) T-4.8 Federal, County governments; other governmental entities T-4.9 NYSDEC • CHAPTER SIX 644 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP QF" F T-5. Develop Requirements Regarding Proper Storage and Disposal of Toxic Substances and Chemicals Associated with Construction Sites and Road, Highway, and Bridge Operation and Maintenance and Construction Activities. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 3 and 4. While there are existing State requirements regarding pesticide use and handling and solid and hazardous waste disposal on State funded projects, there are no comprehensive regulatory requirements specifically for construction site chemical use for projects at the County or local level. Aside from State pesticide management, spill management, and solid and hazardous waste disposal requirements,there are no comprehensive regulatory requirements regarding chemical controls at road, highway, and bridge construction sites and operation and maintenance activities at the county, town, and village level. Steps T-5.1 Continue to pursue developmentiestablishment of enforceable State-wide program requirements which manage the application,generation, and migration of toxic • substances,and ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials at all construction sites. T-5.2 Adopt requirements consistent with State program requirements at the County,town, and village level regarding chemical controls at construction sites, including road, highway, and bridge construction sites. Until these are adopted, seek commitments on a voluntary basis from highway department personnel and contractors to comply with this management measure. T-5.3 Adopt requirements consistent with State program requirements at the County,town, and village level regarding chemical controls for road, highway,and bridge operation and maintenance activities. In the meantime, seek commitments on a voluntary basis from highway department personnel and contractors to comply with this management measure. Responsible Entities T-5.1 NYSDEC,NYSDOS(co-leads), local governments,contractors T-5.2 NYSDEC,NYSDOS,County, town, and village governments,contractors T-5.3 NYSDEC,NYSDOS, County,town, and village governments, contractors • CHAPTER SIX 645 jPeconic Estuary Program CCMP T-6. Adopt Requirements for Controlling Toxic Loadings from Stormwater 40 Runoff and Activities in Developed Areas. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 3 and 4. There are many toxic pollutants potentially associated with activities in developed areas, such as road, highway, and bridge runoff systems; stormwater runoff and activities from government-owned and operated sites; stormwater and runoff from marinas and activities associated with boating; materials for roads, driveways and parking lot surfaces and management of runoff from these surfaces; fuel storage tanks; swimming pools; solvents used inappropriately in on-site septic systems; and treated lumber. MTBE is a substance of particular concern due to its potential to contaminate both groundwater and surface waters. Roads, highways, and bridges under State jurisdiction comply with the CZARA nonpoint source management measure to develop and implement runoff management systems to: reduce runoff pollutant concentrations and volumes; identify priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities(e.g., improvements to existing urban runoff control structures); and establish schedules for implementing appropriate controls. At the present time,however,there are no regulatory requirements regarding controls for road,highway,and bridge runoff systems under county or local jurisdiction. Additional work is needed to ensure that there is widespread implementation with this management measure. • The Town of East Hampton, recognizing that those who own property bordering on the Town's Harbors(including flag lots,flag strips,and flag access strips)derive many benefits from proximity to these waters and have a special responsibility to help protect them, has established a Harbor Protection Overlay District(HPOD). All lots in this district are subject to special requirements for maintaining or protecting wildlife habitats,and surface water quality to protect aquatic life. The following topics are addressed in this law: parking lots and driveways; runoff management; underground storage tanks; swimming pool disinfection systems, cleaning and evacuation systems; and the use of treated lumber. Some of these requirements may also be applicable in areas beyond the HPOD. Additional related actions are included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter of this CCMP, including actions addressing septic system"cleaners"and the use of treated lumber in the marine environment. Steps T-6.1 Adopt requirements consistent with State program requirements at the County,town,and village level regarding runoff management systems for roads, highways, and bridges. Until adopted, seek commitments on a voluntary basis from highway department personnel and contractors to comply with this management measure. T-6.2 Complete Environmental Management Reviews(EMRs)and Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments(PPOAs)at Federal Installations. • 646 CHAPTER SIX Peconic Estuary Program CCMPc""'"'4� F r T-6.3 Pursue development of enforceable Statewide program requirements to address stormwater runoff at marinas. Seek commitments on a voluntary basis from marina owners to comply with this management measure. T-6.4 Adopt harbor protection overlay-type districts addressing: materials for roads, driveways and parking lot surfaces and management of runoff from these surfaces; fuel storage tanks; swimming pools;treated woods; and other activities as appropriate. See related action P-2.2 in the Pathogens Management Plan. T-6.5 Conduct regular inspections of retail stores to enforce the County ban on the sale of illegal on-site disposal system(cesspool)products. T-6.6 Develop model guidelines for the placement of treated lumber in the marine environment Priority and identify non-toxic structures, consistent with PEP's overall policy of no net increase of shoreline hardening structures. These guidelines should also address disposal of treated lumber following demolition. T-6.7 Support Legislative framework and EPA regulatory action to reduce/eliminate the use of Priority MTBE in gasoline. T-6.8 Determine the adequacy of voluntary programs addressing the replacement of on- premises home heating oil tanks. Determine if regulatory replacement programs should • be instituted watershed-wide or in certain areas. Responsible Entities T-6.1 County,town, and village governments(co-leads), contractors,NYSDOS,NYSDEC T-6.2 EPA(lead with contractor assistance)and other Federal departments and agencies T-6.3 NYSDEC,NYSDOS(co-leads), marina owners T-6.4 Local governments(lead), Towns of Riverhead, Southold, Southampton, Shelter Island, and villages T-6.5 SCDHS T-6.6 PEP T-6.7 PEP T-6.8 PEP • CHAPTER SIX 6-47 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP n Explore Management Strategies that Emphasize the Elimination or • Reduction of Toxic Substances. 11 Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 3 and 4. Existing State regulatory programs are in place to adequately address industrial/commercial hazardous wastes. Additional opportunities may exist to further reduce the potential for toxic pollutants to enter the environment through pollution prevention initiatives involving reduction/reuse/recycling efforts. For example, areas immediately adjacent to surface waters, serviced by sewer districts, storm sewer collection systems, or businesses which create or use toxic substances(e.g., dry cleaners, automotive service stations)can be targeted as priority candidates for pollution prevention initiatives. Town "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants"collection and disposal programs are an effective means of keeping toxics from being stored or disposed of improperly. Programs vary among the towns, some operate all the time, some are limited to particular designated days. Mosquito control is an important human-health issue. Management approaches that do not rely on the use of pesticides should be pursued to the extent possible. When deemed necessary, pesticide selection should be limited to the extent practicable and minimizing adverse impacts on the environment should be considered in their selection. • Additional related actions are included in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter of this CCMP, including actions addressing: pollution from boating, wet exhausts from marine engines,upgrading old heating oil underground oil storage tanks, and general pollution prevention programs. Actions T-7.1 Develop and implement pollution prevention programs targeting establishments and industries, which generate or use toxic materials, such as marinas and boatyards. T-7.2 Continue Town "Stop Throwing Out Pollutants"programs. T-7.3 Reduce the use of insecticides used for mosquito control to the maximum extent practicable that still adequately protect human health and consider adverse impacts on the environment in insecticide selection. Encourage good housekeeping methods of control, such as eliminating/reducing standing water that functions as breeding sites. Responsible Entities T-7.1 PEP(lead) T-7.2 Towns T-7.3 Suffolk County Department of Public Works Division of Vector Control(lead), NYSDEC,NYSDOH • CHAPTER SIX 648 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,40 F4 • T-8. Ensure that Dredged Material is Managed and Placed in Such a Way as to Reduce Toxic Impacts Associated with Contaminated Sediments. Addresses Toxics Management Objectives 3 and 4. Dredging and dredged material placement operations require State and Federal permits. Between 50 and 100 permits are approved annually in the Peconic Estuary. Generally, dredged material from the estuary consists of coarse-grained sandy material that can be used beneficially or otherwise placed upland. A beneficial use determination (BUD)must be obtained from the NYSDEC to place or beneficially use dredged material in an upland setting. Before a BUD can be granted,the dredged material must be physically and chemically characterized. Testing of the dredged material for toxic substances may be required depending on factors including: volume; make-up of the material (i.e., percent sand); place of origin; and likelihood of contamination (i.e., proximity of present or historical sources of contamination). Testing for the presence of toxics has typically not been required in the Peconics, but if required should include both chemical specific and overall toxicity considerations, particularly sediments from tidal creeks where elevated levels of toxics in sediments have been observed(i.e., Meetinghouse Creek). In addition to addressing dredging and dredged material management,there is also a need to continue to implement regulatory and voluntary programs that will reduce toxics that may accumulate on • sediments to ensure that in the future dredged material is suitable for beneficial uses or placement without restrictions with respect to toxic contaminants. There is also a need to continue to implement regulatory and voluntary programs that reduce sedimentation so that dredging and dredged material placement operations are needed less frequently in the future. These actions and programs are contained elsewhere in this Plan. The EPA and the Corps have identified the likely need to continue marine placement of dredged material in the Long Island Sound Area. In 1999,the EPA in cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to consider the potential identification of one or more placement sites for Long Island Sound dredged material. The PEP participants consider it unlikely a placement site will be proposed within the PEP study area, but should remain involved in this process. Actions T-8.1 Ensure that all applications for dredging and dredged material placement are critically evaluated with respect to their potential to cause adverse toxic effects to the Peconics ecosystem, and particularly to pelagic and benthic organisms and their food chains, including humans. T-8.2 Ensure that all permits for dredging and dredged material placement activities are protective of the Peconic ecosystem and particularly pelagic and benthic organisms and their food chains, including humans, from toxic effects. T-8.3 Participate in the EPA/Corps efforts to identify potential placement sites for Long Island Sound dredged material. • CHAPTER SIX 6-49 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • T-8.1 NYSDEC, US Army Corps of Engineers(co-leads), EPA,NYSDOS, USFWS,NMFS T-8.2 NYSDEC,US Army Corps of Engineers(co-leads),EPA,NYSDOS, USFWS,NMFS T-8.3 NYSDEC (lead), PEP 0 • CHAPTER SIX 6-50 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The Toxics Management Actions focus on reducing the levels of toxic contaminants within the estuary system through remediation, source reduction, and pollution prevention and education programs. The benefit of these actions is an environment free from toxic substances in toxic amounts, which supports a healthy and diverse marine and terrestrial community. Specific benefits include: • Reducing acute(short-term) and chronic(long-term)effects on aquatic life and wildlife or their progeny; • Limiting the public's exposure to toxics through consumption of seafood and wildlife; • Ensuring that dredged material is available for beneficial uses; • Minimizing costs associated with environmental cleanup and remediation; and, • Restoring contaminated areas to productive uses. COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Because the Peconic Estuary is generally of high quality with respect to toxics, many management • actions call for a continuation or expansion of ongoing efforts, resulting in no new program costs. Other actions are tied to different action plans,and therefore the benefit and cost information is included elsewhere in this document(i.e., roadway stormwater runoff management). The actions calling for new programs tend to emphasize preventing or reducing the introduction of pollutants to the ambient environment. This approach is a more cost effective means of achieving or maintaining compliance with environmental standards, as compared to remedial and restoration programs which are generally expensive and time-consuming, particularly for persistent or bioaccumulative substances. The total cost of all new actions proposed for the toxics management in this chapter is$1,845,000 in one-time costs and$1,977,500 annually. (See"Action Costs"in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) • CHAPTER SIX 6-51 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 41TOXICS ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE • Table 6-4 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"B" for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities; "N" indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action • implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing$75,000 per year which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides a expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTER SIX 6-52 n Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status —7 T-1 Review Historical Monitoring Data and Conduct New Monitoring Studies Where Needed to Further Characterize Sources,Loadings, and Impacts of Toxic Contaminants. '(Objectives I and S X T-l.l Include toxics monitoring in the PEP(EPA,NYSDEC and Post-CCMP See environmental C/N PEP Long-Term Monitoring Plan. SCDHS), other public and monitoring plan(Action M- C-R/O-N private lZrouris 2.1) T-1.2 Conduct toxicity testing as well as EPA(lead), PEP Summer 1998: sampling New annual sample C/O chemical-specific analyses of completed; winter 2000: collection,analysis, R-N for Peconic Estuary sediments, final report interpretation: funding for including open water areas, tidal Summer 2000;sampling EPA: I FTE/yr new creeks,and peripheral completed; fall 2001: final SCDHS: 0.1 FTE/yr analyses embayments. Where toxicity is report 525,000/yr for analyses observed, identify the toxic Annually thereafter. agent(s)of concern. T-1.3 Continue to collect and evaluate Data collection:NOAA Ongoing;annually Base Program(NOAA) C/O data on concentrations of (lead);data evaluation: EPA bioconcentratable chemicals in (lead), PEP,NOAA mussel tissues through NOAA's Mussel Watch Program. T-1.4 Analyze new data collected in EPA(lead for data Summer 1999(sample Data analysis: C/O EPA's 1999"Peconic Estuary collection and report collection) EPA: 0.1 FTE Fish, Shellfish and Crustacean preparation), EPA, Spring 2001: final report NYSDEC: 0.1 FTE 3 Toxics Survey." Review data on NYSDEC,NYSDOH for NYSDOH: 0.1 FTE organic chemical and metal data interpretation Data report preparation: 5 residues in fish and shellfish EPA: 0.2 FTE tissues to determine whether consumption advisories are due to sources and loadings of toxics a within the Peconic Estuary system, 3 and the appropriateness of existing n n NYS consumption advisories. Table continued on next page / P e3 U } W A Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status n 3 T-1.5 Reevaluate PEP sediment survey PEP Post-cGMP $10,000(estimate) R �. Priority data to identify chemicals present m above known effect levels. Identify toxics present at low levels that individually or b cumulatively may be affecting aquatic resources. a T-1.6 Determine the potential local Investigation: NYSDEC; Post-CCMP $10,000-$20,000 R ' Priority source of PCBs in Meetinghouse control/remediation: (preliminary estimate for Creek and,once identified,control NYSDEC,responsible identification) b or otherwise remediate the source. parties NYSDEC: 0.1 FTE Remediation: to be determined T-1.7 Monitor progress on research on EPA(lead),NYSDEC Post-CCMP EPA: 0.1 FTE/yr RM endocrine disrupters,and NYSDEC: 0.1 FTE/yr encourage pollution prevention programs to reduce loadings or address potential sources of these contaminants. T-1.8 Identify past and present PEP(through contract) Post CCMP $20,000(estimate) R/N Priority marina/boatyard sites as potential sources of heavy metal contamination to the estuary; quantify the extent of the problem and possible effects on the estuary. n T-2 Continue Remedial Efforts and Review of Regulatory Com liance at Sites of Concern in the Peconic Estuary. Objectives 4 and S x T-2.1 (A) Continue remedial efforts and EPA Ongoing Base Program C/O '.. Y evaluate impacts, monitor, and ensure consistency with local m requirements associated with the X surface water discharge for the Rowe Industries site. k Table continued on next page x Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status H m T-2.1 (B) Continue groundwater monitoring EPA Ongoing Base Program C/O at the North Sea Municipal k Landfill; implement benthic community and sediment toxicity testing to ensure remediation efforts are achieved. T-2.1 (C) Continue oversight and remedial NYSDEC Ongoing Base Program C/O efforts at the(Bulova) Watch Case Factory Site. T-2.2 Complete inventory of RCRA EPA(lead) Pilot inventory/inspections Base Program C/O facilities within the Peconic ongoing. Estuary system; review compliance Fall 2001: Final report history of facilities;ensure all facilities comply with regulatory and permit requirements. T-2.3 Ensure that upon Environmental NYSDEC(lead), BNL Ongoing Base Program C/O Benefits Permitting Strategy (EBPS)review,the effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements in BNL SPDES r Permit(NY-0005835)for Outfall 001 (the sewage treatment plan discharge)will be revised if findings from the industrial-type c effluent monitoring program or any other available data indicate that increased protection is needed. '0 Permit elements that will be 3 evaluated, as appropriate, include: n pretreatment, BMPs,toxicity testing,and bioaccumulative T contaminants.``* Table continued on next page ' Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status n T-2.4 Ensure that BNL adequately EPA(lead),USDOE, BNL Ongoing Base Program C/0 �. Priority implements its Environmental m Management System focused on e environmental compliance and emphasizing pollution prevention as specified in the EPA/DOE oT°o March 1998 MOA. c T-2.5 Implement environmental cleanup EPA(lead),NYSDEC, Ongoing Base Program C/O 3 Priority remedies under Superfund for BNL,USDOE,NYSDOH Operable Unit V at BNL. Ensure that the selected remedy adequately addresses human health (chemical and radiological)and ecological impacts, including potential downstream and off-site impacts. T-2.6 Continue to implement the RCRA EPA(lead),NYSDEC Ongoing Base Program C/O corrective action program until completed at the NWIRP. Ensure that the Corrective Measures Study adequately addresses human health and ecological impacts, including potential downstream and off-site impacts. T-2.7 Conduct seasonal inspections of NYSDEC Post-CCMP and Annually NYSDEC: 1 FTE/yr R n marinas and boatyards to ensure as Needed S maintenance and repair activities > are being done properly and there is proper disposal of wastes. � I m Table continued on next page � I N k Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status T-3 Assess Alternatives to Chlorination for Disinfection at Sewage Treatment Plants. Objectives 3 and 4 T-3.1 Install UV disinfection at the Treatment plant operators at Ongoing Base Program (costs for UV R kRiverhead and Sag Harbor STPs, Riverhead, Sag Harbor, disinfection at Riverhead Evaluate alternatives to chlorine Shelter Island Heights, and and Sag Harbor included in disinfection at the Shelter Island the former NW IRP; NYS Bond Act Proposals. Heights STP and the NWIRP STP NYSDEC Cost for full scale UV at if the effluents are of sufficient Shelter Island Heights not quality for alternatives to be yet determined.) effective and protective of human health. See related Action P-10 in NYSDEC: 0.5 FTE the Pathogens Management Plan. T-4 Reduce Loadings of Pesticides and Herbicides within the Peconic Estuar . (Objectives 2,3 and 4). T-4.1 Continue to pursue NYSDEC,NYSDOS(co- Post-CCMP Estimates: R Priority development/establishment of the leads),NYS Department of Long Island Pesticide Management Agriculture and Markets, NYSDEC: 2 FTE Plan and enforceable Statewide NYSDOH, and other public NYSDOS: TBD agricultural pesticide program and private groups NYSDOH: TBD requirements under CZARA, NYS Ag&Markets: TBD which reduce the potential for contamination of surface water and ground water due to the application of pesticides. In the meantime, seek commitments on a voluntary t" basis from landowners to comply o with this management measure. T-4.2 Plan,advertise,and carry out a Suffolk County Soil and Post-CCMP $150,000(estimate) R o Priority "Clean Sweep"program to collect Water Conservation District and properly dispose of banned or (lead),NRCS, EPA, PEP, unneeded agricultural and Towns and the agricultural n turf/landscaping pesticides. community b rn Table continued on next page y� J Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status 0 T-4.3 Ensure that commercial pesticide NYSDEC(lead) Ongoing Base Program for existing C/O applicators,and applicators of Post-CCMP program y restricted use pesticides,are NYSDEC: 1 FTE/yr for R/N properly certified. See related program enhancement Public Outreach and Education v Action -4.1. T-4.4 Enforce the provisions of the NYSDEC(lead) Ongoing Base Program for existing C/O State's Freshwater Protection Law Post-CCMP program n to reduce or eliminate loadings of n pesticides and herbicides on or in NYSDEC: 1 FTE/yr for PIN b the vicinity of wetlands and program enhancement associated waterbodies. See related Public Outreach and Education Action POE-4.2. T-4.5 Develop and implement integrated State(lead);County,town Post CCMP NYSDEC: 2 FTE/yr R/N pest management(IPM)programs and Village governments that manage pests with minimal and agencies,homes, impact on human health and the businesses and farms environment. T-4.6 Develop and implement a USDA-NRCS and FFY2001 Base Program for proposal R/N Priority comprehensive agricultural SCSWCD(leads) development pesticide management proposal for 5 FTE/yr and$1 M/yr for funding by the USDA. implementation T-4.7 Investigate opportunities for PEP(lead) Post CCMP PEP: 0.5 FTE/yr(estimate) R/N expansion of organic agricultural n operations in the Peconic watershed,as well as marketing Y and labeling to encourage local 0 sale. rn Table continued on next page W to k T Table 6-4. Taxies Mana emeat Actions. continued D ro Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m T-4.8 Implement IPM programs on Federal, County Post-CCMP Base Program for existing C/O z public lands,such as Suffolk � p governments;other efforts County's IPM/pesticide-free golf governmental entities To be determined for new RN k course initiative. Ensure that all initiatives Federal facilities and operations in the PEP Study Area comply with the Presidential Memorandum of April 26, 1996 that addresses "Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds." T-4.9 Restrict or ban pesticides whose NYSDEC Post CCMP Base Program C/O residues are frequently detected at levels of environmental or public health concern in groundwater or the estuary. T-5 Develop Requirements Regarding Proper Storage and Disposal of Toxic Substances and Chemicals associated with Construction Sites and Road,Highway,and Bridge O eration and Maintenance and Construction Activities. Ob ectives 3 and 4 T-5.1 Continue to pursue NYSDEC,NYSDOS(co- Ongoing Base Program C/O development/establishment of leads), local governments, enforceable Statewide program contractors o requirements which manage the 3 application,generation and m migration of toxic substances,and a ensure the proper storage and �? disposal of toxic materials at all construction sites. Table continued on next page 3 n n � P AIN X U � II a sf� 0 Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) ; Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status T-5.2 Adopt requirements at[he county, County,town,and village Post-CCMP Towns: 1 FTE/town R town,and village level regarding governments,contractors, County: 1 FTE chemical controls at construction NYSDOS,NYSDEC PEP: I FTE e sites, including road, highway,and (Resources also address bridge construction sites. Until Action T-5.3 and T-6.1) b these are adopted,seek o commitments on a voluntary basis c from highway department 3 personnel and contractors to n comply with this management b measure. T-5.3 Adopt requirements consistent County,town,and village Post-CCMP See Action T-5.2 R with State program requirements at governments, contractors, the county,town,and village level NYSDEC,NYSDOS regarding chemical controls for road, highway,and bridge operation and maintenance activities. In the meantime,seek commitments on a voluntary basis from highway department personnel and contractors to comply with this management measure. T-6 Adopt Reuirements forControllin11 Toxic Loadin s in Stormwater Runoff and Activities in Developed Areas. Objectives 3 and 4 T-6.1 Adopt requirements consistent County,town,and village Post-CCMP See Action T-5.2 R n with State program requirements at governments(co-leads), z the County,town, and village level contractors,NYSDOS, > regarding runoff management NYSDEC ° systems for roads,highways, and ..1 t*f bridges. Until these are adopted, h seek commitments on a voluntary basis from highway department k personnel and contractors to comply with this management measure. x Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) a a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status rriy T-6.2 Complete Environmental EPA(lead with contractor Summer 1999: Inventory/ EPA: 0.1 FTE C/O Management Reviews(EMRs)and assistance)and other coordination with Federal X Pollution Prevention Opportunity Federal departments and agencies Assessments(PPOAs)at Federal agencies Fall 2001: Final Report installations. T-6.3 Pursue development of enforceable NYSDEC,NYSDOS(co- Post-CCMP NYSDEC I FTE R Statewide program requirements to leads),marina owners address stormwater runoff at marinas. Seek commitments on a voluntary basis from marina owners to comply with this management measure. T-6.4 Adopt harbor protection overlay- Local governments(lead), Post-CCMP Towns: 1 FTE/town R type districts addressing: materials Towns of Riverhead, for roads, driveways and parking Southold, Southampton,and lot surfaces and management of Shelter Island,villages runoff from these surfaces; fuel storage tanks;swimming pools; treated woods and other activities as appropriate. See related action P-2.2 in the Pathogens °a Mana ement Plan. T-6.5 Conduct regular inspections of SCDHS Post-CCMP SCDHS: 1 FTE/yr R 5' retail stores to enforce the county ban on the sale of illegal on-site b disposal system(cesspool) products. o Table continued on next page 7 i Table 6-4. Toxics Management Actions. (continued) v Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status ° a T-6.6 Develop model guidelines for the PEP Post-CCMP $100,000(estimate) R y Priority placement of treated lumber in the NYSDEC: 1 FTE marine environment and identify non-toxic structures,consistent Z with PEP's overall policy of no net �c'o increase of shoreline hardening 4 structures. These guidelines 3 should also address disposal of n treated lumber following b demolition. T-6.7 Support Legislative framework and PEP Post-CCMP Base Program C/N Priority EPA regulatory action to reduce/eliminate the use of MTBE in gasoline. T-6.8 Determine the adequacy of PEP Post-CCMP $50,000 R voluntary programs addressing the PEP: l FTE replacement of on-premises home heating oil tanks. Determine if regulatory replacement programs should be instituted watershed- wide or in certain areas. T-7 Explore Management Strategies that Emphasize the Elimination or Reduction of Toxic Substances. (Objectives 3 and 4) T-7.1 Develop and implement pollution PEP(lead) Post-CCMP $100,000(estimate) R prevention programs targeting PEP: 1 FTE n establishments and industries S a which generate or use toxic � materials, such as marinas and y boatyards. m� T-7.2 Continue Town"Stop Throwing Towns Base Programs C/O Out Pollutants" Erograms. k Table continued on next page a Table 6-4. Toxics Mana ern at Actions. continued ro Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M T-7.3 Reduce the use of insecticides used Suffolk County Department Post-CCMP Base Program R for mosquito control to the of Public Works Division of maximum extent practicable that Vector Control (lead), X still adequately protects human NYSDEC,NYSDOH health and consider adverse impacts on the environment in insecticide selection. Encourage good housekeeping methods of control, such as eliminating/reducing standing water that functions as breeding sites. T-8 Ensure that Dredged Material is Managed and Placed in Such a Way as to Reduce Toxic Impacts Associated with Contaminated Sediments. Objectives 3 and 4 T-8.1 Ensure that all applications for NYSDEC, USACE(co- Ongoing Base program C/O dredging and dredged material leads), EPA,NYSDOS, placement are critically evaluated USFWS,NMFS Enhanced program: R with respect to their potential to NYSDEC: I FTE/yr cause adverse toxic effects to the Peconics ecosystem,and (Resources also address particularly to pelagic and benthic Actions T-8.2 and T-8.3) organisms and their food chains, o including humans. ,3^, T-8.2 Ensure that all permits for dredging NYSDEC, USACE(co- Ongoing Base program C/O and dredged material placement leads), EPA,NYSDOS, a activities are protective of the USFWS,NMFS Enhanced program: see R Peconic ecosystem and particularly Action T-8.1 pelagic and benthic organisms and �°To their food chains, including humans, from toxic effects. n T-8.3 Participate in the EPA/Corps efforts NYSDEC(lead), PEP Post-CCMP Base Program C/O n to identify potential placement sites o, for Long Island Sound dredged Enhanced program: see R material. Action T-8.1 W Table continued on next paged Jt°�'""`^�, Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP � s • This Page Intentionally Left Blank. . • CHAPTER SIX 6-64 Peconic Estuary Program CHAPTER SEVEN CRITICAL LANDS PROTECTION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES 1) Compile a Geographic Information System(GIS)database of lands already identified for • protection in the Peconic Estuary watershed by various levels of government. 2) Apply the PEP criteria developed to achieve water quality and habitat protection goals for the Peconic Estuary to land available for development in the Peconic Estuary watershed. 3) Determine the degree to which Community Preservation Fund(CPF)plans address PEP watershed management needs. 4) Identify additional parcels, not on CPF protection lists, appropriate for estuarine and watershed protection, satisfying the PEP land prioritization criteria. 5) Estimate funding needed for land protection, quantify benefits(where feasible), and evaluate funding sources available for that protection. 6) Involve a broad cross section of stakeholders in the process. 7) Accelerate land protection in the Peconic Estuary. 8) Coordinate protection recommendations,to the extent possible,with the protection recommendations of the Pine Barrens and special groundwater protection area initiatives. 9) Integrate and coordinate the PEP Critical Lands Protection process with Smart Growth and Sustainable Development tools, initiatives, and ordinance modifications, etc.to assist communities in assigning development to appropriate areas. 10) Develop a strategy for the management of underwater lands which preserves and enhances the region's critical natural resources. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-1 'iO Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS The PEP's measurable goals with respect to critical lands protection include: • Develop a systematic,watershed-wide evaluation and identification of lands in need of protection with respect to estuarine management concerns and evaluate the funding available for that protection. • Integrate and coordinate the PEP Critical Lands Protection process with related land use initiatives and ordinance modifications affecting the Peconic Estuary. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP "4.6* 'e • INTRODUCTION This chapter represents the Peconic Estuary Program's strategy for developing a Critical Lands Protection Plan,a recommendation that arose from the public comments of the September 1999 draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan(CCMP). The Critical Lands Protection Plan (CLPP)will ultimately evaluate the land available in the Peconic Estuary Study Area and identify priorities for protection with respect to estuarine management concerns. It is the intent of the Critical Lands Protection Plan to prioritize the available land"through the lens"of habitat and water quality protection. In the reality of acquiring/preserving land, other factors including drinking water, public access, and upland habitats and species,among others come in to play. The Critical Lands Protection Plan is not designed to be the sole reference for land protection in the Peconic region. However, it will be a useful tool for State and local agencies that make land acquisition decisions in part on estuarine considerations. Rationale for Land Protection Ever-increasing development is consuming open space and natural habitat, and stressing watersheds and natural communities. At the current rate of development, nearly two-thirds of our remaining open space and farmland will be lost forever and developed within the next ten years. As is documented in other parts of this CCMP,the pressures development can place on the estuary include: • • loss of natural habitat; • increased amounts of fertilizers and pesticides from lawns; • petroleum spills and leaks from underground oil storage tanks; • septic system inputs; and, • road runoff. The loss of natural habitat to development fragments natural communities leading to their eventual decline. Contaminants migrate into ground and surface waters, leading to the decline and death of aquatic communities, including shellfish and finfish. Increased development also brings increased traffic,congestion,and air pollution. It is not prudent or economically feasible to acquire or protect all of the remaining land available for development in the estuary. Although drawbacks to land protection exist,there is ample justification that land acquisition has significant environmental and public benefits. Environmental Benefits of Land Protection include: • preservation of concentrated or unique species or natural communities; • control of total nitrogen loads; • protection of watersheds and surface water quality; and, • protection of groundwater recharge areas. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-3 j4Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Public Benefits of Land Protection include: • • aesthetic values that contribute to our quality of life including economic benefits from tourism and resort homes; • limiting development costs related to traffic congestion and infrastructure investments (water mains, septic and sewer systems, schools and fire departments, electric and telephone lines); • protection from erosion and flooding-related damages, and other physical hazards; • drinking water protection; • increasing public access and recreational opportunities; • economic compensation to landowners who sell their property for open space and enhanced economic values to the nearby property owners and the community; and, • protection of productive finfish and shellfish habitats for recreational and commercial purposes. Drawbacks to Land Protection include: • reduces the tax base available to a municipality; • reduces the supply of land available for additional housing and businesses; and, • • possible increase in property values, thereby increasing housing costs and property taxes, which could"squeeze out" low income residents. Public Willingness to Preserve Land The public has a strong attachment to the environmental and amenity resources of the Peconic Estuary System,even if they do not use the resources directly. In response to an inquiry of willingness to support undeveloped land preservation and estimating the monetary value that the survey responses implied,the public would spend at least$14.0 thousand per acre for undeveloped land, using a 25-year time horizon and a seven percent discount rate in 1995 dollars. The$14.0 thousand per acre underestimates the actual value the public would be willing to pay because the survey solely focused on the values for protecting"undeveloped lands"; it did not incorporate the value to the public with respect to drinking water protection, critical habitat/species concerns,and estuarine protection. The survey was carried out in August 1995, polling 968 year-round and seasonal residents of the East End of Long Island. The intrinsic values of many natural resources are difficult, if not impossible,to measure. Attempts have been made to measure elements of value,however. For example,the economic value of eelgrass, intertidal salt marsh, and sand/mud bottoms was estimated, based on the value of the fish, shellfish,and bird species that these ecosystems help"produce"(EAI, 1999). The results suggest an asset value per acre of approximately$12.4 thousand for eelgrass, $4.3 thousand for salt marsh, and $786 for mud flats,using a 25-year time horizon and a seven percent discount rate in 1995 dollars. Numerous other benefits of open space were determined and quantified including the public's willingness to pay for additional travel to access cleaner waters resulting from open space. A • CHAPTERSEVEN 74 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • recreational survey found that swimming was the most popular water-based activity within the Peconic Estuary and accounted for 42 percent of all the water-based recreation trips that year. Using travel cost model estimates,the public was found to be willing to pay $8.59 per swimming trip above and beyond the amount they actually spend to engage in the activity. (Note: The PEP is not recommending the public's willingness to pay be translated into any new or increased fees at public recreation areas.) Swimming use was found to be dependent on the public's perception of the water quality. A benefit- cost analysis was used to simulate hypothetical, uniform improvements in water quality. A ten percent uniform improvement in water quality in each bay would increase the estimated number of annual swimming trips by 151 thousand and would add a yearly benefit of $1.3 million. This is an increase of about l 1 percent in use and in benefits. Most of the benefits($754 thousand) are due to hypothetical improvements in water clarity (as measured by Secchi depth). If the ten percent hypothetical water quality improvement were maintained for 25 years,this improvement would have a present value of$15.1 million, using a seven percent discount rate and 1995 dollars. This number represents the change in asset value for swimming due to the quality improvement, all else remaining the same. Thus, if the cost of preserving land and other policies to improve water quality did not exceed $15.1 million over the same period, it is a good investment of scarce resources. Open space has a significant,positive effect on nearby property values. A property value analysis was conducted for the Town of Southold by applying the hedonic method to a database comprised of GIS parcel coverage data and real estate sales data from 1996. A parcel of land adjacent(or within 25 ft.)to open space was found to have, on average, a 12.83 percent higher per-acre value than a similar parcel located elsewhere. To illustrate the impacts of open space to property values, it can then be estimated that a hypothetical contribution of a parcel of approximately ten acres of open space would increase adjoining property values by$410,907. For this illustration, if the ten acres of undeveloped property could be protected for less than$410,907,the benefits would be greater than the costs. Note that even if the property to be protected costs more than $410,907,the benefits may still exceed the costs. This is because not all the benefits of open space are captured in the hedonic analysis(i.e., general amenity benefits enjoyed by all local residents, regardless of the location of their homes)and, since the study, real estate values have drastically increased in all towns, some more dramatically than others. Population and Land Use in the Peconic Watershed The population of eastern Suffolk County continues to grow. While the five eastern towns of Suffolk County comprise eight percent of Suffolk County's total population,the year-round population has steadily grown since 1960(SCPD, 1997). From 1960 to 1995 the population in eastern Suffolk increased by 67 percent. Tourism and the presence of summer homes increase the population during the summer months. It is estimated that the population in the five eastern towns nearly triples during peak seasonal times,expanding from the 1990 year-round figure of 106,593 up to 289,000 during peak seasonal times(an increase of 171 percent). The population growth continues to stress the natural resources of this region. While the population in eastern Suffolk increased by 67 percent from 1960 to 1995,the number of year-round households increased 118 percent. Thus,the growth of housing has outpaced population growth(SCPD, 1997). Forty percent of the acreage in the Peconic Estuary watershed was subject to development in 1995 (SCPD, 1997). If open space programs were not implemented and all 40 percent were developed at • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-5 l# Peconic Estuary Program CCMP low density residential land uses,the current total nitrogen loads to the western estuary, South Fork, • and Shelter Island would more than double,as compared with existing conditions(SCDHS, 1999) assuming that typical lawn care practices continue and there is no change in septic system technology. Given the region's growing population and the significant increase in the rate of development in the last five years,the need for protecting open space and undeveloped land is further underscored. The ownership pattern of underwater lands in the open bays has to a major extent been the result of past oyster ground management activities (SCPD, 1997). The Suffolk County Planning Department inventoried over 121,000 acres of underwater lands in the Peconic/Gardeners Bay system,contiguous bays and tidal creeks, and the bottom of the Peconic River above the head of the tide(SCPD, 1997). The majority of the area(54 percent)is owned by New York State while Suffolk County has control over roughly 25 percent of the underwater lands. About seven percent of the bottom (8,659 acres) is controlled by the towns or Town Trustees. Villages own only 27 acres and more than 11,000 acres are privately held. The title and exact locations of many underwater land parcels have become clouded. The titles to underwater parcels that are held jointly by Suffolk County and private interests and to parcels that have unknown owners need to be clarified. In some instances, reference points on adjacent uplands that were used a century ago to locate underwater land parcels are no longer in existence. Boundary disputes are likely to arise in the future as well. Unless addressed and resolved,these issues will hamper development of management plans for the marine portion of the Peconic Estuary. Recreational Use and Value of the Watershed • The Peconic watershed is used by our residents,second homeowners, and visitors for a vast amount of recreational activities. A PEP-funded recreational survey estimated that in 1995: • 127,762 people took some 3.3 million swimming, boating, fishing, or shellfishing outings; and • 156,184 people engaged in about 5.2 million beach use, bird watching, wildlife viewing, or hunting trips. Swimming and beach use were the most popular activities, followed by bird and wildlife viewing, boating, and fishing(EAI, 1999). Shellfishing and hunting had the fewest estimated number of trips. Activities such as hiking/walking and bicycling were not included in the estimates of recreational activity. Outdoor recreation is enormously valuable to the Peconic Estuary users. The unpaid benefit individuals receive,on average, from a recreational trip(e.g., consumer surplus)was estimated using a travel cost model(EAI, 1999). The estimated values per recreational trip ranged from$49.83 for viewing birds and wildlife to$8.59 for swimming(in 1995 dollars). Fishing and boating values per trip fall within that range at$40.25 and $19.23, respectively. The total annual benefit from each recreational activity can be estimated by multiplying the average consumer surplus for an activity by the estimated total number of trips to engage in that activity over the year. Viewing birds and wildlife was the most valued of the activities studied on a total annual benefit basis($27.3 million). Of the water-based activities,recreational fishing was the most highly valued ($23.7 million). Boating and swimming had annual values of $18.0 million and $12.1 million, respectively. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP p- • Estimated asset values for recreational activities in the Peconic Estuary System range from $318 million for bird watching and wildlife viewing to $141 million for swimming. The estimated asset value is$276 million for recreational fishing and $210 million for boating. These figures were estimated using a seven percent discount rate,a time horizon of 25 years, and 1995 dollars. It was assumed that the estimated value rates remain the same over the 25-year period. Great Peconic Bay was the most popular waterbody in the Peconic Estuary System for recreational activity, accounting for 28 percent of the recreational trips in the Peconic Estuary System, while Flander's Bay is the least frequently used with eight percent. Great Peconic Bay is the most popular location for swimming(30 percent), fishing(29 percent),and boating(25 percent). Gardiners Bay is the most popular location for shellfishing, accounting for 33 percent of all the shellfishing trips in the Peconic Estuary System. Overall,the residents and visitors of eastern Long Island enjoy a plethora of access points and activities from edges of roads, marinas,and public beaches. Even though the survey revealed that some parts of the estuary are more frequented than others, all bay areas are cherished by the residents in the Peconic system. Non-Recreational Use and Value of the Watershed Resource-related businesses play an important role in the Peconic Estuary watershed. Specific uses include commercial fishing, aquaculture, agriculture, fish processing, marinas, ship building and repair,bait and tackle shops, hotels, ferries,petroleum product transfer stations, and educational • facilities. The estuary also receives sewage treatment plant effluents as well. A conservatively low estimate of 1,149 establishments(24 percent of those in the Peconic watershed) were estuarine dependant in 1993 (EAI, 1996). A quarter of the establishments were marine-related (marinas,boating, commercial fishing)while the rest of the establishments included in the study were tourism-related(hotels, motels,restaurants,retail,etc.). More than 7,300 people are employed in these businesses(twenty percent of the employment in the region),with a combined annual income of more than $127 million. Tourism in the region is based on the water quality of the Peconic Estuary and agriculture. Farmland is an important component of the".sense of place"felt by many of the residents on the East End, who enjoy the rural quality of the area and shopping at numerous local farm stands. A survey of 968 residents, second homeowners and tourists in 1995 revealed that the public's overall priority for land protection was protecting farmland. The survey responses imply that the public would be willing to spend $74.5 thousand per acre of farmland protection, using a 25-year time horizon and a seven percent discount rate in 1995 dollars(EAI, 1999). Criteria for Land Protection Priorities The dual goals of water quality and habitat protection in the PEP drive the choice of criteria for land acquisition priorities in the Peconic Estuary. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-7 N. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP lr Proposed criteria for determining priorities for protection include: • • PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas(CNRAs). These areas contain multiple regional attributes of ecological significance as described in Chapter 4 of this Plan. • New York State Natural Heritage Program element occurrences. The NYS Natural Heritage Program has identified locations of particular ecological significance, including areas containing rare,threatened, and endangered species. • United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) 1994 National Wetlands Inventory. The USFWS 1994 National Wetlands Inventory catalogued the freshwater and tidal wetlands in the area. • Source control of nitrogen, bacteria,and toxics. The PEP recognizes that protection of parcels within a 1000-foot boundary from freshwater streams and bay coastlines,and parcels in the groundwater contributing area to nitrogen-stressed subwatersheds, may help manage the inputs of nitrogen, pathogens,and toxics into the estuary. Using GIS and available information about the watershed,the CLPP Work Group has developed the following coverages(assemblages of spatial information): 1. PEP Watershed Boundary; 2. Suffolk County Tax Map Base; 3. PEP Land Available for Development(minus agricultural land available for • development); 4. PEP Critical Natural Resource Area boundaries;* 5. New York State Natural Heritage Elements;* 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory— 1994;* 7. PEP Groundwater Water Contributing Areas to Nitrogen Stressed Subwatersheds;* 8. 1000 foot boundary from freshwater stream and bay coastlines;* 9. Community Preservation Fund Project Plan parcels from the five East End towns; 10. Protected lands(includes Federal, State, County, town,village parks, and privately owned conservation lands); and, 11. Suffolk County Greenways proposed acquisition parcels. * If land is available for development, these criteria are factors that contribute to its "criticality." The acquisition or purchase of development rights on farmland was not chosen as a criterion for the PEP Critical Lands Protection Plan. The CLPP Work Group recognizes that protection of farmland is the highest priority of locally adopted Community Preservation Fund plans. There are,however, options,tools,and techniques that can be incorporated into acquisition efforts to decrease the nitrogen and biologically harmful chemicals that reach the Peconic Estuary from farmland. The PEP Agricultural Nitrogen Management Work Group is addressing these issues. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • Means of Achieving Land Protection There are many funds and programs available for land protection in the Peconic watershed. While several are noted in CCMP Chapter 9(CCMP Financing),there are programs within them specific to land acquisition as well as other funding sources that warrant mention here. New York State Land Acquisition Proerams New York State Open Space Conservation Plan: Released in 1998 by the New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation and the Office of State Parks, Recreation,and Historic Preservation,this is the current State-wide plan for open space acquisition and protection. The plan identifies sites that are priorities for protection and preservation of farmland, historic and archaeological resources,water quality, natural and scenic environments, and open space/recreational opportunities. This plan is being updated with the assistance of regional advisory committees,with public hearings scheduled on a draft updated plan in the winter of 2001. New York's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): This fund provides low-interest rate loans to municipalities to carry out projects that reduce or prevent water pollution. As the loans are repaid, money is available to be used again for new loans. The CWSRF program, in existence since 1990,has made over$4.3 billion in loans. The CWSRF program funds projects involving construction of wastewater facilities that reduce or prevent point-source water pollution. Projects that reduce nonpoint source pollution are also eligible for CWSRF financing. Such projects include restoration of riparian vegetation,wetlands and other waterbodies; land purchase or conservation • easements for water quality protection such as for wellheads or watersheds; and certain EPA designated estuary projects, such as aquatic habitat restoration and protection. New York State Environmental Protection Fund (EPF): This fund provides approximately $30 million per year for open space preservation. It is funded primarily through real estate transfer taxes. Decisions regarding the use of these funds are made according to the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act: This Bond Act provides$150 million for State Open Space conservation projects undertaken by either the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation or Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and farmland preservation projects administered by the Department of Agriculture and Markets. An additional $50 million is dedicated to municipal parks and historic preservation projects administered through Office of Parks, Recreation,and Historic Preservation; this also includes funds for land acquisition. Suffolk County Land Acquisition Prorrarns Farmland Preservation: This program,the first of its kind in the United States,was created in 1977 for the purpose of acquiring development rights to working farms. The easement acquired eliminates all development rights other than those necessary for agricultural production,and establishes oversight and approval of new farm structures with the County Farmland Committee. Since the inception of the program, approximately$40 million in general obligation bonds have been spent by Suffolk County to preserve 7,000 acres of farmland. Open Space: This program was created in 1986 and funded through general obligation bonds initially at$60 million. Subsequent appropriations have raised expenditures to$84 million. Approximately 5,000 acres have been acquired by the County to date. It is designed to acquire lands under • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-9 d 3rPeconic Estuary Program CCMP development pressure that cannot be clustered, rezoned,or partially developed. Lands acquired are managed generally as passive open space. Drinking Water Protection: This program is funded with one-quarter cent of the sales tax, which has been generating approximately$35 million annually depending on the economy. The County has acquired 12,000 acres,mostly in the Pine Barrens. Since the inception of the program in 1987, over $220 million has been spent on acquisitions. The program was set to expire in 2001, but has been reauthorized (see"Sales tax extension program" below). The program has three components: 12.5.A requires that acquisitions must relate directly to drinking water supply anywhere in Suffolk County, generally in one of the Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs). There are seven designated SGPAs within the deep aquifer recharge areas of Suffolk County. The bulk of the money continues to pay for debt service on acquisitions made in the 1989-91 time frame. 12.5.D is a revenue sharing component based on population and is set aside by each town. The towns can elect to spend all or a portion on landfill costs, but Brookhaven and the five eastern towns are still requesting their yearly shares be spent on land acquisition. 12.5.E is the residuary or leftover, which voters in 1996 mandated be spent totally for land acquisition. It is divided into two segments: one-third goes to the four western towns and Shelter Island on a population basis and can be spent to acquire any properties which are authorized by the County Legislature;two-thirds goes to the • other, or so-called Pine Barrens towns, on an undifferentiated basis to be spent on Drinking Water-related parcels. Sales tax extension program: This program, authorized by referendum in 1999,extends the 1/4% sales tax starting in 2001 and ending in 2013. The program will be funded annually depending on the economy and sales tax revenues. It is divided into the following five separate and dedicated accounts: • Sewer rate relief(projected total $300 million over life of program); • Tax relief(projected total $270 million over life of program); • Farmland for the continued purchase of development rights (projected total $62 million over life of program); • Drinking Water and Open Space for land acquisitions, including the Peconic Estuary and the South Shore Estuary Reserve(projected total $114 million over life of program); and, • Water Quality to fund wetland cleanups and rehabilitation, stormwater runoff cleanups, demonstration projects, and other environmental improvements(projected total $95 million over life of program). Community Greenways: Authorized by referendum in 1998,this program is funded at$62 million over the life of the program. In 1999,the County Legislature authorized the Open Space component ($20 million)principally for drinking water protection parcels, stream tributaries, greenbelt,and habitat enhancement, which comprises about 1,000 acres scattered throughout Suffolk County. Parcels have been targeted for acquisition and negotiations are proceeding. Individual authorizations are also proceeding for lands to be used for Active Recreation($20 million available),where the County buys the land and a town,village or community group is required to design, build, and • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i • maintain the recreation improvements. Golf courses are specifically excluded. In early 2000,the Legislature authorized the Farmland component($20 million), for the purchase of development rights to active farms anywhere in the County, provided another level of government commits to 30 percent of the cost of acquisition. This program should be able to preserve another 2,000 acres of farms. Two million dollars are set aside for the construction of a natural history interpretive center. Land Preservation Partnership: This funding program from general obligation bonds calls for the acquisition of land for various purposes, not including active recreation, in partnership with a town or village primarily. All associated costs are split 50-50, and the land can be divided or held in common ownership as the partners choose. Development rights and conservation easements can also be acquired under this program, funded thus far at approximately $9 million in County dollars. Review of tax lien properties for environmental value: The Suffolk County Planning Department reviews all tax lien parcels for environmental evaluation after the redemption period has expired to determine if the County should retain these parcels for open space/park/municipal purposes or sell them at auction. This procedure was first initiated by Suffolk County nearly 15 years ago. In 1999 alone, Suffolk County transferred over 350 acres to its Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation. Town Community Preservation Fund Proieet Plans In November 1998,the voters of the five East End Towns approved a referendum that added a two percent tax to real estate transfers in their communities. Revenues generated by the tax go into a is Community Preservation Fund in the Town in which the transaction occurred for the purpose of protection and acquisition of open space and historic properties. In each of the Town's Community Preservation Fund Project Plans, parcels have been identified for protection through fee simple acquisition or other means such as conservation easements. When the program was conceived, it was estimated the transfer tax would generate approximately $10 million annually until the year 2010 when the program either expires or is renewed. After the first several months of tax receipts, it appears that$10 million is an underestimate of the potential amount generated by this program. For instance,the total revenue generated by all five towns in the year 2000 exceeded $35 million. This total reflects a robust real estate market. Fluctuations in the economy may affect future Community Preservation Fund revenues. Agencies and Organizations that Protect Land It may appear from the above noted funding sources that more than enough dollars exist to achieve any set of protection objectives. However, land values are high and escalating, and competing demands on these funds are so great that efforts to prioritize are necessary. The agencies, communities, and organizations that call upon and expend these funding sources are numerous, staffed with professionals, and actively involved in protecting land in the Peconic Estuary. Land acquisition/protection is occurring now in the absence of a plan that is solely focused on regional estuarine and land management concerns. In fact,almost any reduction in density of certain areas of the watershed will have a positive effect on the natural community. But with limited funds available, it is incumbent on the community of the Peconic Estuary to seek out the best means by which collective resources can be spent for the greatest benefit to the watershed. The CLPP is intended to provide this guidance. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP All of the organizations acting on behalf of land acquisition are either represented on the CLPP Work • Group or will be contacted in the stakeholder input process. They include the following: • United States Fish& Wildlife Service; • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; • Suffolk County Department of Planning; • The Nature Conservancy; • Group for the South Fork; • North Fork Environmental Council; • Peconic Land Trust; • Southold Town; • Riverhead Town; • Southampton Town; • East Hampton Town; • Shelter Island Town; • Brookhaven Town; • Village of Dering Harbor; . • Village of Greenport; • Village of North Haven; and, • Village of Sag Harbor Tunes of Protection Tools Available In addition to the many sources of funds available to protect land in the Peconic Estuary,there are also many tools available to the organizations and agencies who complete the transactions that protect the land. These include many creative approaches,some of which are described below: • Fee Simple Acquisition— Outright purchase of full title to land at fair market value; • Purchase of Development Rights—Landowner sells all or part of a property's development rights to a municipality or non-profit conservation organization, while still retaining ownership and the right to certain land uses such as farming; • Transfer of Development Rights—Landowner sells all or part of a property's development rights and transfers those development rights to another parcel of land within the same Groundwater Management Zone or sells the development rights to other landowners whose property can support increased density in the same Groundwater Management Zone; • 7-12 CHAPTERSEVEN Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 3� • • Conservation Easements—Conservation easements are restrictions landowners voluntarily place on their property that legally bind the actions of present and future owners. Easements are used to preserve wildlife habitat,open space, agricultural land, or the historic features of a building while allowing the landowners to continue owning and using the property. Easements can provide tax advantages and/or tax abatement provided that easement is long term or perpetual; • Bargain,Sale Sale/conveyance of title to land or development rights to a charitable organization at less than fair market value; • Outright Land Donation Donation by a landowner of all or partial interest in a property; • Option—An option signed between a property owner and a conservation organization that provides temporary protection for a parcel while allowing the organization to secure funding for the parcel's acquisition; • Right of First Refusal--A right of first refusal granted to a conservation organization or agency that allows the agency to be notified when a parcel of land is being considered for purchase by another party; • Like-kind Land Exchange—A tax-free transaction whereby a public agency or a non- profit conservation organization exchanges like-kind developable land with property identified for protection; • • Tax-exempt Installment Sale—A long-term contract to sell property or associated development rights negotiated between the landowner and municipality and/or non-profit organization,providing significant tax relief; • Management Agreements—An agreement between a property owner and another agency, such as a non-profit conservation organization,on how the property will be managed. For example, a management agreement on a parcel of farmland could state that buffer areas of native vegetation be maintained at the border of active farmland for the purpose of reducing nitrogen runoff to an adjacent water-body; • Limited Development/Reduced Density—Property that is subdivided at a reduced density to better protect open space. Limited development plans can provide tax advantages, reduced infrastructure building costs, and enhanced marketability; and, • Clustering—Land subdivision/proposed development that is clustered on a portion of property to protect open space. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The management actions make use of available information, resources,and public opinions to help decision-makers choose protection priorities that have the greatest benefit for the most critical areas of the watershed. Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing, commitments, or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through "base • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority • actions,new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. CRITICAL LANDS PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CLPP-1 Develop a PEP"Critical Lands" Map and List Based on Applying the PEP Criteria. CLPP-2 Continue to Refine the CNRA Boundaries with Results of the Work from the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee. CLPP-3 Estimate Funds Needed for Land Protection,to Quantify Benefits (Where Feasible)and Evaluate Funding Sources Available for that Protection. CLPP-4 Prepare the PEP Critical Lands Protection Plan Report. CLPP-5 Accelerate Land Protection in the Peconic Estuary. CLPP-6 Identify a Process for Using Smart Growth Tools, Sustainable Development Initiatives,and Ordinance Modifications, etc. to Assist Communities in Assigning Development to Appropriate Areas. CLPP-7 Develop a Strategy for the Management of Underwater Lands Which Conserves and Enhances the Region's Critical Natural Resources. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-14 Peconic Estuary Program COMP F • CLPP-1. Develop a PEP "Critical Lands" Map and List Based on Applying the PEP Criteria. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objectives 1,2,3,4,and 6. The identification of all parcels meeting the criteria for protection with respect to estuarine land management concerns can be facilitated by using GIS(for criteria, see pages 7-8). Following the production of a draft map illustrating these parcels,the CLPP Work Group will meet with each town within the Peconic Estuary Study Area to discuss the draft map and list of parcels. Meetings with town and village elected officials,planning and natural resource staff, and additional stakeholders will be an opportunity for the merits of each parcel to be considered individually. Input from each town will be incorporated into the final list and map of recommended protection priorities for the CLPP. The town-by-town meetings will be held in 2001. Steps CLPP-1.1 Identify parcels currently recommended for acquisition in the Peconic Estuary • Priority by various levels of government. (i.e.,CPF lists). CLPP-1.2 Finalize GIS data coverages that allow selection of parcels within the watershed. Priority CLPP-1.3 Develop a draft map of parcels(for discussion) selected for protection with respect to Priority estuarine management concerns. CLPP-1.4 Hold town-by-town meetings with town officials to discuss individual parcels. Priority CLPP-1.5 Incorporate suggestions from the towns and develop a final map illustrating parcels Priority recommended for protection with respect to estuarine management concerns. CLPP-1.6 Incorporate suggestions from the towns and develop a final list of parcels recommended Priority for protection with respect to estuarine management concerns. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-15 aF Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • CLPP-1.1 Suffolk County Planning Department(SCPD)(lead)and five East End towns CLPP-1.2 SCPD (lead), CLPP Work Group, and Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), PEP Program office CLPP-1.3 SCPD(lead), PEP Program Office, and CLPP Work Group CLPP-1.4 The Nature Conservancy(TNC), PEP Program Office(co-leads), SCPD, CLPP Work Group, five East End towns,and villages CLPP-1.5 SCPD(lead),TNC, PEP Program Office,and CLPP Work Group CLPP-1.6 TNC (lead), SCPD, PEP Program Office, and CLPP Work Group • • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-16 Peconic Estuary Program ('CMP • CLPP-2. Continue to Refine the CNRA Boundaries with Results of the Work from the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objective 2. Steps CLPP-2.1 Continue to refine the CNRA boundaries with results of the work from the PEP Natural Priority Resources Subcommittee. Responsible Entities CLPP2.1 NYSDEC, PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee(co-leads), CLPP Work Group,and SCPD,and PEP Program Office • • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-17 £4Peconic Estuary Program CCMP CLPP-3. Estimate Funds Needed for Land Protection to Quantify Benefits • (Where Feasible) and Evaluate Funding Sources Available for that Protection. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objective 5. Once the parcel list is generated, there is comparable sales data available to estimate the costs of purchasing, in whole or in part,the parcels. It is then necessary to determine the gap, if any, between the cost of protection and the funds available to achieve it. This analysis must be set in the context of how these funds might be spent on other competing acquisition priorities, such as farmland and non- PEP open space lands. Thus based on prior patterns of acquisition funding,the PEP will assume that the future revenue stream will be similar for purposes of developing finance plans and cost estimates. Finally there are methods available to evaluate the benefits of land protection to the community and the neighborhoods in which it occurs. Steps CLPP-3.1 Determine the costs of acquisition efforts if particular parcels were purchased. Priority Determine the additional cost if all parcels were purchased. CLPP-3.2 Assess the funding gap between needed protection and available funding sources. Priority • CLPP-3.3 Analyze and estimate the economic benefits of land acquisition to the community as a Priority whole and to the neighborhood in which protected land is located. Responsible Entities CLPP-3.1 TNC, Suffolk County,and towns(co-leads) CLPP-3.2 TNC, Suffolk County,and towns(co-leads) CLPP-3.3 PEP Program Office(lead)Consultant EIA, Inc., Group for the South Fork(GSF), and TNC • 7-18 CHAPTERSEVEN Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • CLPP-4. Prepare the PEP Critical Lands Protection Plan Report. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,and 6. The Critical Lands Protection Plan will be the culmination of evaluating the land available for development in the Peconic Estuary Study Area. The Plan will document the PEP's priorities for protection"through the lens"of habitat and estuarine water quality protection. Estimates of the funds needed for this protection and possible funding sources will be identified. Steps CLPP-4.1 Prepare the PEP Critical Lands Protection Plan report. Priority Responsible Entities CLPP-4.1 TNC (lead), PEP Program Office, SCPD, SCDHS, NYSDEC, USFWS, and EPA • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-19 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP CLPP-5. Accelerate Land Protection in the Peconic Estuary. • Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objective 7. With abundant available funds for land acquisition and a robust real estate market, it may be essential for the public sector to hire more people to work on acquiring land for preservation. This work is time intensive and manpower dependent. The shortage of qualified staff can delay or stall the pace of land acquisition. To assist in purchasing land while it is still undeveloped and before realized sources of public funding become available,the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation ("EFC")can offer below market rate financing, including zero percent short-term loans and 50 percent subsidized long-term loans for implementing National Estuary Program CCMPs, such as the Peconic Estuary. Another means of increasing the rate at which land is protected is provided by"public benefit"or "current use"property taxation methods. In such programs, property tax relief is given on land containing one or more "sensitive areas," such as public access, extra surface water buffer, habitat restoration area, or scenic or conservation easements. The incentive functions by establishing a "current use taxation"property tax assessment that is lower than the"highest and best use" assessment level that usually applies. The reduction in taxable value ranges from 50 percent to 90 percent for the portion of the property in "current use" Penalties for withdrawal from the program are necessary to limit conversions after receiving tax relief. This concept could also be employed in valuing property for New York estate tax purposes. Finally, income tax credits offer a much greater dollar amount compared to income tax deductions, and thus a greater incentive to give. This is a very effective and high-leverage land protection tool. A tax credit program in North Carolina revealed that for every$1 of tax credit given, $8 worth of land was protected. This type of program is especially useful in higher tax states like New York where the benefits of tax credits are more valuable and where land prices are high and rapidly escalating. Steps CLPP-5.1 Increase staff at the town and County level to meet the need for more and faster land acquisitions. CLPP-5.2 Secure zero percent short-term financing through the NYS EFC for land protection measures. CLPP-5.3 Develop a"Public Benefit"or "Current Use" ranking system for assessment of property taxes. CLPP-5.4 Create a State income tax credit program for qualified charitable gifts of land for conservation purposes. • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-20 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jP°"'"'a.. Cx i r • Responsible Entities CLPP-5.1 Five East End towns and Suffolk County(co-leads) CLPP-5.2 TNC, all towns, and Suffolk County(co-leads) CLPP-5.3 TNC, GSF, and all town tax assessors(co-leads) CLPP-5.4 TNC, GSF, and State Legislature(co-leads) • • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-21 g' @ Peconic Estuary Program CCMP E 6. Identify a Process for Using Smart Growth Tools, Sustainable • Development Initiatives, and Ordinance Modifications, etc. to Assist Communities in Assigning Development to Appropriate Areas. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objectives 8 and 9. Smart Growth activities can benefit homeowners and developers as well as farmers and conservationists by encouraging compact development in areas already developed and leaving open space and farmland alone. Smart Growth and"neo-traditional villages"keep residential and commercial development"clustered" in one area,thus reducing the pressure to develop into surrounding open space and farmland("sprawl"). Keeping future development"clustered"also makes it easier to affect future nitrogen and pesticide reduction strategies, on the assumption that economies of scale prevail if houses are closer together. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has just released the report entitled"Smart Communities Through Smart Growth: Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and Villages" (Suffolk County Planning Commission,2000). This document should be integrated with the recommendations of the CLPP. The Suffolk County Planning Commission is in the process of integrating the principles of Smart Growth into its Zoning and Subdivision Guidebook. Government-sponsored incentive programs currently available include the State Quality Communities • program and the Federal Livable Communities program. There are also several private foundations offering grants to create and implement Smart Growth policies. Steps CLPP-6.1 Review local ordinances to allow incorporation of Smart Growth initiatives. CLPP-6.2 Implement Smart Growth initiatives. Responsible Entities CLPP-6.1 Towns(lead),and SCPD CLPP-6.2 Towns(lead),and SCPD • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-22 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP , 6F N 4 • CLPP-7. Develop a Strategy for the Management of Underwater Lands Which Conserves and Enhances the Region's Critical Natural Resources. Addresses Critical Lands Protection Plan Objective 10. Steps CLPP-7.1 Develop a strategy for the management of underwater lands which conserves and enhances the region's critical natural resources. Responsible Entities CLPP-7.1 Suffolk County and PEP Program Office(co-leads),NYSDEC, and PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee • • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-23 ,it Peconic Estuary Program CCMP BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The most significant benefits of the management actions are not easily quantified. If the actions are successfully implemented,the benefits are manifested in such terms as quality of life, a thriving recreational fishery, clean water in which to recreate, and a healthy and diverse ecosystem. Economic analyses can and will quantify some of these benefits, such as enhanced property values and successful commercial fisheries harvests. But the most significant benefit is the protection of an irreplaceable asset that will only become more expensive to obtain and may not even be obtainable if action is not taken to protect it now. COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The total cost of implementing the acquisition recommendations remains to be determined. It is in fact a management action to assess this cost and evaluate whether funds exist to meet it or whether a gap exists that needs to be filled. There are additional costs associated with the following(to be funded by in-kind matches): • stakeholder input meetings; • GIS analysis, map production,and distribution; and, • economic analyses. The total cost of all actions proposed for critical lands protection is$292,500 in new one time costs; • this estimate does not include cost estimates for land protection (including acquisition). (See"Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) CRITICAL LANDS PROTECTION ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 7-1 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O"refers to ongoing activities; "N" indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. • 7-24 CHAPTERSEVEN Peconic Estuary Program CCMP JF 6"'N • cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing $75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs" description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • • CHAPTERSEVEN 7-25 rn Table 7- 1. Critical Lands Protection Strategy Actions. Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status AYMq� Id CLPP-1 Develop a PEP"Critical Lands"Map and List Based on Applying the PEP Criteria. (Objectives 1,2,3,4„and 6) CLPPI.I Identify parcels currently SCPD(lead)and five East 2001 SCPD: Base Program CM Priority recommended for acquisition in the End towns Peconic Estuary by various levels of government.(i.e.,CPF lists) Q CLPP-I.2 Finalize GIS data coverages that SCPD(lead),CLPP Work 2001 SCPD-0.1 FTE CM o`oa Priority allow selection of parcels within Group, SCDHS, PEP the watershed. Program Office 3 CLPP-L3 Develop a draft map of parcels(for SCPD(lead), PEP Program 2001Included in Step 1.2 CM C) Priority discussion)selected for protection Office,CLPP Work Group b with respect to estuarine management concerns. CLPP-1.4 Hold town-by-town meetings with TNC, PEP Program Office 2001 EPA—0.05 FTE C/N Priority town officials to discuss individual (co-leads), SCPD, CLPP NYSDEC—0.05 FTE parcels. Work Group, five East End SCDHS—0.05 FTE towns, villages Towns—0.05 FTE each SCPD—0.05 FTE TNC-0.05 FTE CLPP 1.5 Incorporate suggestions from the SCPD(lead),TNC, PEP 2001 SCPD—0.1 FTE C/N Priority towns and develop a final map Program Office,CLPP TNC—0.05 FTE illustrating parcels recommended Work Group for protection with respect to f7 estuarine management concerns. Y CLPP 1.6 Incorporate suggestions from the TNC(lead), SCPD, PEP 2001 Included in Step 1.5 C/N > Priority towns and develop a final list of Program Office,CLPP -1 parcels recommended for Work Group m protection with respect to estuarine management concerns. Table continued on next page In z n Table 7-1. Critical Lands Protection Strategy Actions. (continued) z y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status CLPP-2 Continue to Refine the CNRA Boundaries with Results of the Work from the PEP Natural Resources Subcommittee. (Objective 1) M M CLPP-2.1 Continue to refine the CNRA NYSDEC and PEP Natural 2000-2001 Base Program C/O mPriority boundaries with results of the work Resources Subcommittee < from the PEP Natural Resources (co-leads),CUP Work M Subcommittee. Group, SCPD,PEP Program z Office CLPP-3 Estimate Funds Needed for Land Protection,Benefits(Where Feasible)and Evaluate Funding Sources Available for that Protection. Objective 5 CLPP-3.1 Determine the costs of acquisition TNC, Suffolk County, 2001 Base Program C/N Priority efforts if particular parcels were towns(co-leads) purchased. Determine the additional cost if all parcels were purchased. CLPP-3.2 Assess the funding gap between TNC, Suffolk County, 2001 Base Program C/N Priority needed protection and available towns(co-leads) funding sources. CLPP-3.3 Analyze and estimate the economic PEP Program Office(lead) 2001 $30,000 NEP Grant C/N Priority benefits of land acquisition to the Consultant EIA, Inc.,GSF, community as a whole and to the TNC neighborhood in which protected s land is located. CLPP-4 Prepare the PEP Critical Lands Protection Plan Report. (Objectives 1,2,3,4,S,and 6) M a CLPP-4.1 Prepare the PEP Critical Lands TNC(lead), PEP Program 2001 Base Program C/N2 Priority Protection Plan report. Office, SCPD, SCDHS, o NYSDEC, USFWS, EPA a Table continued on next page 9 n n � o N J eT Table 7-1. Critical Lands Protection Strategy Actions. (continued) N Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status CLPP-5 Accelerate Land Protection in the Peconic Estuary. (Objective 7) shy CLPP-5.1 Increase staff at the town and Five East End towns, 2001 To be Determined. R County level to meet the need for Suffolk County(co-leads) o more and faster land acquisitions. ? -term TNC, all towns, Suffolk 2001 Base Program R CLPP-5.2 Secure zero percent short y' financing through the NYS EFC County(co-leads) o for land protection measures. CLPP-5.3 Develop a"Public Benefit' or TNC, GSF,all town tax 2001 To be determined R o "Current Use"ranking system for assessors(co-leads) assessment of property taxes. 7LPP-5.4 Create a State income tax credit TNC,GSF, State 2000-2001 Base Program R r) program for qualified charitable Legislature(co-leads) gifts of land for conservation b purposes. CLPP-6 Identify a Process for Using Smart Growth Tools,Sustainable Development Initiatives,and Ordinance Modifications,etc.to Assist Communities in Assigning'Develo ment to Appropriate Areas. 'Objectives 8 and 9 CLPP-6.1 Review local ordinances to allow Towns(lead), SCPD 2000-2001 To be determined R incorporation of Smart Growth initiatives. CLPP-6.2 Implement Smart Growth Towns(lead), SCPD 2000-2001 To be determined R initiatives. CLPP-7 Develop a Strategy for the Management of Underwater Lands Which Conserves and Enhances the Region's Natural Resources._ Ob ective 10 CLPP-7.1 Develop a strategy for the Suffolk County and PEP 2001 To be determined R n management of underwater lands Program Office(co-leads), S which conserves and enhances the NYSDEC, PEP Natural Y region's natural resources. Resources Sub-Committee 'o m x m m z Peconic Estuary Program • CHAPTER EIGHT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES • 1) Improve the understanding of human interactions with, and impacts on,the estuary. 2) Promote action-oriented stewardship of the system's resources. 3) Increase awareness of the Peconic Estuary as a regional and national resource. 4) Increase communication and cooperation among the estuary's many and diverse stakeholder groups. 5) Engender support for the PEP CCMP and its recommended management actions. CHAPTER EIGHT 8-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS • The PEP's measurable goals with respect to Education and Outreach are: • Annually, embark on one new, substantial public education effort addressing each of the following areas: - Conducting Brown Tide education and outreach; - Reducing residential fertilizer use in the Peconic watershed; - Improving,protecting or enhancing habitats and living resources; - Reducing pathogen loadings to the estuary; and, - Reducing the use and loadings of toxics substances to the estuary. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Actions POE-3, POE-4,POE-5, POE-6, POE-7] • Annually,conduct one major watershed effort involving students in estuary management (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Action POE-7] • Annually,conduct one major watershed-wide event to educate those who live,work,or recreate in the Peconics(as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Actions POE-7, POE-8] • • Annually, support the establishment of one new local embayment or tidal creek association(as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office and the PEP Citizens Advisory Committee). [See Action POE-7] • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP f1° 4 • INTRODUCTION The Peconic Estuary System is an integral part of the Long Island economy and ecology. In order to sustain this valuable resource, we must achieve a balance between the needs of the estuary's resources and the sometimes conflicting demands of the region's populace. Key to establishing this balance is an educated citizenry that is willing to support, promote, and actively participate in measures to protect the estuary system at home, at work, and while recreating, and collectively act as wise stewards of a shared public resource. Achieving this requires an intensive education, outreach, and participation effort that is aimed at key audiences/stakeholders as well as the public in general. Effective public participation in the PEP Management Conference through the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC)continues to develop the broad-based public support needed to ensure that estuary program actions are successfully carried out in the implementation phase. The ultimate goal of public participation in the Peconic Estuary Management Conference is to establish the public consensus that ensures long-term support and implementation of the CCMP. The public participation strategy supplements and complements Management Conference activities and advances the CAC's lead role of providing for public input to estuary program decision-making. Citizen's Advisory Committee The CAC is one of the many committees that make up the PEP Management Conference. The CAC was initially established to act as the conduit for public involvement in the Program; provide • communication between the Management Conference and the public; and promote awareness and understanding of PEP issues, goals, and recommendations through a public outreach and education strategy. The PEP CAC also acts as both an advocate on the recommendations in the CCMP and an education entity for government officials in cooperation with other public policy and interest groups. Early in the PEP planning process,the many and diverse stakeholders of the bays were identified and invited to become members of the CAC. The following focus groups were established to concentrate on specific estuarine issues: Commercial Fishermen; Recreational Fishermen; Marine Industry; Recreation (including all forms of recreation on the bays and in the watershed); Educators; Civic Groups; Macro-economic Group(including tourism related businesses, real estate, etc.); Agriculture (farming, wineries, etc.); and Environmentalists. Ongoing input proves invaluable in developing and implementing an effective outreach/education strategy as well as an effective CCMP. The members' differing, and at times competing, interests have helped to create a colorful, imaginative, and varied outreach strategy as well as thrusting the CAC into yet another important role in the Program—that of a consensus building entity. Public Education and Outreach Strategy In the Peconic Estuary System, nonpoint source pollution is a major issue of concern. Nonpoint source pollution is primarily generated by users of the estuary, from many ordinary, every day activities. Thus the citizens, collectively, contribute both to the problems and threats to the estuary system and to the solutions to these problems. Each and every one of us living,working and recreating on the East End impacts the Peconic Estuary System through everyday actions— in both positive and negative ways. Few, if any, individual actions made as a part of our day-to-day living are likely to significantly affect the overall water quality, living resources,or habitats of the Peconic Estuary. Consider,however,what happens if each of these impacts are multiplied by the thousands • and thousands of residents, workers,and visitors in the watershed. It is not long before the CHAPTER EIGHT 8-3 Peconic Estuary Program COMP 9 _ cumulative impact does affect the estuary. Because of this,the Peconics could die the "death of a • thousand cuts" or be cherished, nurtured,and healed by thousands of environmentally thoughtful actions. Thus a creative, innovative, and effective public outreach and education strategy is all- important in motivating and making a lasting positive impression on our East End citizenry and stakeholders and thus a lasting positive impact on our most important natural and economic resource —the heart of our region—the Peconic Estuary System. Because of the extensive work carried out during the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program(BTCAMP),the PEP Management Conference had a solid foundation on which to build a well organized,active, and successful public education program. The Public Opinion Poll commissioned in 1994 by the PEP CAC set a benchmark on the public's perception of the bays at the commencement of the PEP. In this poll, conducted by the Center for Community Research, 91 questions were asked in a random telephone survey. The results showed that 78 percent of the individuals polled realized the connection of the bays to our local economy and that there was a high level of willingness to pay taxes and take action for the good of the bays, especially among the users of the bay system. In addition to defining stakeholder and estuary users' "In the end, we will conserve only what we love, knowledge about and levels of commitment toward Love only what we know, the estuary system, the poll identified the sources And know only what we are taught." people use to get information on the bays. It showed Baba Dioum that the primary sources of bay information were from personal observation, local newspapers,and . environmental groups. It also revealed that television, radio,the business community, and children's education were low on the list of bay information sources. In fact, only one half of one percent of those polled felt that bay information was disseminated through children's education. The PEP CAC has utilized this information to create its outreach and education program. The program started by saturating the already well read local newspapers with press releases and ads,and bringing estuarine information into the areas of television, radio,schools, and the business community,where before there had been little or no information. The overall strategy has targeted both the general public and specific stakeholders with information and projects to foster stewardship for estuary resources. Specific program efforts are highlighted below. This strategy was successful during the Plan development phase,and will continue to be used for Plan implementation. We have every reason to believe that the current strategy, identified herein, along with the Action Plan contained in this chapter,will be successful in effectively reaching the public as the Plan is implemented. The Bay Show is a monthly,hour-long news magazine format television show that showcases the projects and recommendations of the Peconic Estuary Program. The show features a call-in segment with a guest panel of experts,allowing for interaction with the viewing audience. The Bay Show is aired on local access television that has a wide East End,thus Peconic watershed, viewing audience. A few of the many Bay Show topics include: "Scallops and the Brown Tide"; "Toxics in the Peconics: from Superfund to the Kitchen Sink'; "Marine Recreation on the Peconics: Video Boater's Guide and No-Discharge Zone"; "Rare and Endangered Species in the Peconics: Critical Areas Mapping, Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles,and Terrestrial Species";"Economic Assessment of the Bays'; "Land Use and Zoning';and a"Comprehensive Look at the PEP CCMP and its Recommended Actions". • CHAPTER EIGHT 84 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 3t° • The Adopt-A-Sign project has involved the East End business community in "Saving the Bays in Many Ways" as hundreds of businesses now display the PEP CAC watercolor poster in an 11" x 14" Incite frame/brochure rack with matching brochures. The brochure provides information on basic estuary issues of concern and stresses how the public can be part of the solution in stopping water pollution. This project has been very popular with the public and participating businesses. The PEP CAC looks forward to continuing to work on future outreach projects in cooperation with the business community. The "East Enders Speak Out" campaign is a series of 60-second radio public service announcements (PSAs)about the bays, using edited taped conversations from East Enders representing different stakeholder groups, such as commercial and recreational fishing, business and real "The largest hurdle in controlling water estate,agriculture, students, families, and local pollution is lack of understanding. The government officials. Billy Joel,the famous East End general public... must understand and singer/composer, did a radio commercial on the acknowledge the connection between importance of the PEP Program. Other radio PSA individual activities and land use practices to campaigns will utilize the CCMP's recommended actions, water quality... With understanding through as well as the experiences of our younger stewards of the education, individual and collective efforts to bays—the participants in the Annual Peconic Bays change behavior and to become good Children's Conference. stewards of our water resources can happen and can make a difference..." Coastal Waters in Jeopardy: Reversing the Decline, an The Annual Peconic Bays Children's Conference is an oversight report of the Congressional inspiring, multi-dimensional educational effort that brings Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, • 2nd through 12th grade students and teachers from the published by Congress in 1989. five East End Towns together. This three-month multi- generational marine leaming experience culminates at the Long Island University- Southampton Campus in an educational, problem-solving event known as the Peconic Bays Children's Conference. Each year the Conference reaches a thousand East End students and,through these students,their families, neighbors,and community. The major topics of the Peconic Bays Children's Conferences are: 1) Estuarine Ecosystems and Marine Life in the Peconics(the wonders of the bays); 2)Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution (the problems of the bays); and 3) Bay Stewardship in the Home, at School and in the Community(the solutions to the bays). The component parts of the Peconic Bays Children's Conference include: 1) Pre-Conference: teachers'orientation meeting; teachers'workshop; curriculum guides and creative teaching aids; Project Solve—"bay audits" at home and at school; teachers'website development workshop; coordinator/volunteer interaction with the students in the form of Chat Room meetings, website development, and action plan demonstration projects; student creation of Action Plan Demonstration Projects(APDPs)with companion outreach/education materials developed by the student participants; exhibits; art; and performances; 2) Conference & Concert: Student performances; student art; student exhibits with round-robin discussions; student brainstorming among the Conference participants and on our international intemet chat room; inspirational, educational games and workshops;and a Billy B! Ways of the Bays concert. 3)Post Conference: Continuation of APDPs and distribution of student outreach materials; continuation of the Project Solve auditing program. The PEP Youth Advisory Committee(PEP YAC) was created at the first Children's Conference. Although only 6-12th grade students were originally involved, now all participating Conference students, from Grades 2-12, are members. Meetings had initially been held via a hookup with local access television. The Save the Peconic Bays website will now have "bulletin board" capabilities for • more instantaneous communication among students in all five East End Towns. Among other CHAPTER EIGHT 8-5 pt Peconic Estuary Program CCMP r projects, PEP YAC members have created bay scallop sanctuaries at local marinas; planted beach • grass filter strips at stormwater runoff sites;created a mesocosm for scientific experimentation; mapped and stenciled storm drains; tracked endangered species via the internet; created Some of the actions proposed in this chapter call for the and monitored plover and tern nesting continuation of ongoing, successful outreach programs, sites; and created wetland kayak tours for such as The Bay Show, The Annual Peconic Bays Children's the general public. Conference, and PEP YAC, as well as continued outreach media campaigns in radio, print, and television. Other Other Projects within the PEP CAC actions call for new hands-on stewardship projects, such as: Outreach and Education Program include: a • The creation and promotion of a Peconic Yards and speakers' bureau that goes out to the public Neighborhoods Program,focusing on the creation of with a slide show,traveling wall display, water conserving landscapes and attractive home and Bay Show video clips; The Ultimate vegetative buffer zones andfilterstrips; Guide to the Peconics, including vessel • Expanded citizen Action Plan Demonstration Projects waste No Discharge Area education, for all ages; information on Public Access to the Bays, • Small business auditing and pollution prevention and education on safe and ecologically programs; sound usage of the bays and watershed; • Expanded boating safety and vessel waste No Consensus Building Workshops; "State-of- Discharge Area education; the Bays" Conferences;PEP CCMP public • Yearly updates to the Ultimate Guide to the Peconics; meetings; PEP CCMP Issues Conferences; and a follow-up Public Perception Poll; • Annual State-of-the-Bays Conference. continued newspaper and radio advertising; • and lots of press releases, press conferences and media interviews. The CAC public outreach program also set aside funding for citizen Action Plan Demonstration Projects, in addition to the previously mentioned student APDP projects. A few of the citizen APDPs funded and completed thus far include monitoring projects and scallop reseeding projects. The PEP CAC is looking to expand citizen APDP-type programs in the future. In addition to the efforts of the CAC public outreach and education program,there are many valuable adjunct outreach and education projects in the Peconic Estuary System, sponsored by groups such as Save the Peconic Bays,the Cornell Marine Learning Center, Group for the South Fork,The Nature Conservancy,and the Peconic Baykeeper Program. Public Participation for Soliciting Input on the Draft CCMP On September 2, 1999 the Peconic Estuary Program Policy Committee met and agreed to release the draft CCMP for public comment. The Policy Committee meeting was followed by a press conference alongside the Peconic River in downtown Riverhead. Copies of the Draft CCMP,public summary, and dates for 12 public meetings were made available that day,though the public comment period did not formally begin until September 16, 1999. The public comment period ended 60 days later on November 16, 1999. In all, 12 public meetings were held,one in the afternoon and one in the evening in an accessible location in each of the six towns in the watershed: Southampton(October 4, 1999), Brookhaven (October 12, 1999),East Hampton(October 18, 1999), Riverhead(October 27, 1999), Southold(October 28, 1999)and Shelter Island(October 29, 1999). Each public meeting consisted of a presentation on each of the chapters of the draft CCMP followed by a period for questions and comments by members of the public. The public was also encouraged to submit written comments. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP aro° 'q F A live televised "call in" meeting was held on the evening of October 21, 1999 on a local cable channel available in the 5 East End towns. Large newspaper advertisements were purchased in local papers announcing the meetings and the availability of the draft CCMP document. Poster size reproductions of the advertisement were also posted in public and private places in the estuary to bring attention to the meetings and the availability of the draft CCMP document. Two 30-second radio spots were also created; they ran for a 6-week period informing the public of the availability of the draft CCMP. The full text of the draft CCMP and the Public Summary document was also available on the Internet. Press releases accompanied all these efforts. Perhaps the largest public exposure of the draft CCMP was through the availability of an attractively designed public summary document prepared as an 18 page newspaper supplement that was inserted in six local weekly papers, with a combined circulation of over 65,000 watershed wide. Most households in the watershed subscribe to one or more of these weekly newspapers. There was also coverage, including information on public meeting dates, in the major regional newspaper,Long Island Newsday. Additional copies of the newspaper supplement were made available in town halls and in other public and private locations. A subsequent 30-day public comment commenced on August 10, 2000, and ended on September 9, 2000. Public meetings were held in the afternoon and evening in Riverhead on August 21,2000. Three sections of the CCMP not made fully available for public comment earlier were released. These were the Base Program Analysis,the Environmental Monitoring Plan,and the Federal Consistency Report. The Peconic Estuary Program issued a press release and coverage was included in various local newspapers. A document summarizing and responding to all public comments has been prepared and is available from the PEP Program Office. Public Participation Strategy during Implementation of the CCMP The Public Participation Strategy during implementation of the CCMP stresses the need to continue to bring together the stakeholders in the watershed, participate in decision-making affecting the estuary, encourage participation in programs to protect, enhance, and restore the estuary and its watershed,and conduct education and outreach efforts on priority topics. A hallmark of the Peconic Estuary Program has been and will continue to be the preparation and use of innovative and high quality participation, education and outreach methods, including printed materials,television and radio spots,and conferences. The elements of the Public Participation Strategy itself are embodied in the actions in this chapter,as well as through the representation of the Citizens Advisory Committee chair on the Management Committee. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Upon approval of the CCMP,the PEP transitions from the characterization and planning phase into plan implementation. The management actions in this chapter reflect the need for a continued PEP CAC outreach and education and participation program during CCMP implementation to ensure continuity of outreach, education, and participation efforts. The CAC also proposes continued funding for the public outreach and education program, including a paid public participation coordinator to implement the strategy and coordinate the post-CCMP CAC activities. This chapter also brings together recommendations for both new and continuing public education and outreach • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP „?A activities that support the other management actions found in this CCMP, including pathogens, • nutrients,toxics, and habitat and living resources. Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through "base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions, new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY POE-1. Increase Awareness of the Peconic Estuary as a Regional and National Resource and Improve the Understanding of the Social and Economic Value of the Estuary. POE-2. Increase Communication and Cooperation Among the Estuary's Many and Diverse Stakeholder Groups. POE-3. Develop and Implement New Programs and Continue and Expand Existing Programs for Estuary Stakeholders about Controlling the Introduction of Pathogens into the Estuary System. • POE-4. Develop and Implement New Programs for Estuary Stakeholders about Controlling the Introduction of Nutrients into the Estuary System. POE-5. Develop New and Continue or Expand Existing Education and Outreach Efforts Related to Toxics in the Estuarine System. POE-6. Develop and Implement Public Education Programs for the Protection of Habitat and Living Resources in the Estuary and the Sustainable Use of Estuary Resources. POE-7. Promote Action-Oriented Stewardship of the System's Resources. POE-8. Engender Support for the PEP CCMP and its Recommended Management Actions. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP aF'" N r." r • POE-1. Increase Awareness of the Peconic Estuary as a Regional and National Resource and Improve the Understanding of the Social and Economic Value of the Estuary. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 3. According to the Public Perception Poll taken in 1994, children's education,television, and radio were poorly rated as sources of bay information. The PEP CAC strategy took that into consideration in creating the successful Annual Peconic Bays Children's Conference,the television news magazine format local cable show, The Bay Show, and numerous radio campaigns. These have proven to be invaluable outreach tools and their use should be continued. Many agencies and organizations have effective environmental education programs, such as the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. These programs should continue, and to the extent possible, be revised to address estuary related topics and be consistent with this CCMP. The Ultimate Guide to the Peconics is another effective outreach tool. The guide contains information on a wide array of topics and reaches a broad audience of stakeholders in the Peconics. This Guide should be updated and reprinted annually, and should be expanded to include information for Peconic Estuary watershed residents on topics such as environmentally safe household products • and practices. Other methods for increasing awareness about the Peconic Estuary include establishing an Information Resource Center and conducting and using the results of public perception polls to guide education and outreach efforts. Steps POE-1.1 Continue existing effective environmental programs such as the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Public Environmental Education Programs. POE-1.2 Continue/expand PEP CAC's successful outreach programs—The Bay Show and the Annual Peconic Bays Children's Conference—and continue/expand outreach media campaigns in radio,print, and television. POE-1.3 Establish and promote an Information Resource Center appropriate for all ages to service the community with accurate information. This would include a library of PEP and other estuarine materials, as well as a website. Secure donated space for the resource center. POE-1.4 Conduct follow-up public perception polls every three years to guide refinements to the education/outreach strategy. POE-1.5 Continue to update, print, and distribute the Ultimate Guide to the Peconics, addressing a wide range of watershed activities and issues, including topics such as boating safety and vessel waste no discharge area education. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities POE-1.1 Suffolk County Department of Health Services; other education/outreach entities (Peconic BayKeeper,The Nature Conservancy, Group for the South Fork, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, Save the Peconic Bays,New York Sea Grant) POE-1.2 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities POE-1.3 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities POE-1.4 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) POE-1.5 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities • • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i POE-2. Increase Communication and Cooperation Among the Estuary's Many and Diverse Stakeholder Groups. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 4. Consensus building workshops and sessions can be important in bringing together diverse stakeholders and developing outcomes that are acceptable to all parties. These sessions can help to create mutual understanding for differing points of view. They are often led by professional facilitators with experience in the field of environmental consensus building. The Consensus Building/Negotiation Workshop the PEP CAC held in 1996 proved invaluable in the Vessel Waste No Discharge Area process. Such workshops should be held as needed to assist in CCMP implementation. Steps POE-2.1 Sponsor Consensus-Building Workshops,when needed, in the CCMP implementation phase. Responsible Entities • POE-2.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP POE-3 Develop and Implement New Programs and Continue and Expand Existing • Programs for Estuary Stakeholders about Controlling the Introduction of Pathogens into the Estuary System. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 1. Pathogens are viruses, bacteria, algae, and protozoans that cause diseases in humans, plants,and other animals. Pathogens can enter the water in untreated or partially treated human sewage and possibly in wild and domestic animal waste. Pathogens increase health risks associated with the consumption of contaminated shellfish and water contact. Domestic animal waste, fecal material from waterfowl, septic tank wastes, and boater waste are a few of the sources of pathogens that can be eliminated or reduced through simple actions or changes in behavior. It is believed that domestic animal waste contributes at least a portion of the coliform bacteria to the estuary system. Owners who allow their pets to defecate in areas that are subject to strong stormwater flows(e.g., streets)may be contributing unnecessarily to the overall loading. Proper disposal of pet waste will prevent this source of pathogens from entering the Peconic Estuary via runoff. Fecal material from wildlife also can be a significant source of pathogens to the estuary. Waterfowl, • in particular, aggregate on and near the water and in large numbers, can cause water quality problems in small, poorly flushed embayments. In many areas such as parks, local citizens like to feed birds. Feeding increases the number of birds and the amount of waste material they produce and,thus,the levels of coliform bacteria,which are then released directly or carried via stormwater into the estuary. Food scraps may also attract gulls and crows,which are predators of endangered colonial nesting birds, such as tems and plovers. Malfunctioning septic systems can introduce untreated or partially treated human wastes into groundwater or nearby surface waters. One of the simplest and most effective methods of pinpointing septic system problems is through the placement of dye in the toilets of the suspected system. The appearance of the dye in nearby surface waters indicates a compromise of the leaching field. These tests can only be done with the cooperation of the homeowner, however, and it is often difficult to obtain permission to run the tests since a positive result may end in a requirement for the homeowner to repair, upgrade,or replace the system. In addition,these tests are only typically effective at pinpointing improper hookups or leaks from systems located near waterbodies. One of the ways to reduce the potential for pollution in marinas and mooring areas from the discharge of treated human sewage from vessels is to minimize the waste produced on boats in these areas. The use of shoreside facilities by boaters would help achieve this end. In addition,Type III marine sanitation devices(MSD),which are holding tanks,combined with the use of pumpout facilities at marinas,would also minimize the potential for release of pathogens into the water. A successful plan to reduce the potential of pathogen contamination from vessel waste must involve education of the boating public about the need for and availability of pumpout stations for Type III MSDs as well as the appropriate use and disposal of wastes from portable toilets. Studies done in other areas have shown an increase in the use of pumpouts following aggressive education programs on the topic. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP dt • Steps POE-3.1 Develop and implement a comprehensive education/media program for owners of domestic animals about the need to properly dispose of pet waste. (See related Pathogens Action P-12.) POE-3.2 Develop and implement a comprehensive education/media program to educate residents and visitors not to feed wildlife, particularly waterfowl. POE-3.3 Develop and implement a program whereby waterfront residents can volunteer to have dye tests done on their septic systems to determine if the system is working properly. (See related Pathogens Action P-S.) POE-3.4 Develop and distribute materials to promote the use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on boats, and pumpout stations, especially in areas of heavy boat traffic or in environmentally sensitive areas. (See related Pathogens Action P-6.) POE-3.5 Continue the public awareness campaign about the availability of vessel waste pumpout facilities through distribution of information prepared by New York Sea Grant and the New York State Department of State. (See related Pathogens Action P-6.) Responsible Entities POE-3.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities POE-3.2 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities POE-3.3 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with homeowners POE-3.4 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities(NY Sea Grant Extension Service pumpout education program, Association of Marine Industries, local governments,NYSDEC,NYSDOS, and marina owners POE-3.5 New York Sea Grant Extension Service(lead)and PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program in concert with other education/outreach entities • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-13 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP POE-4 Develop and Implement New Programs for Estuary Stakeholders about • Controlling the Introduction of Nutrients into the Estuary System. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 1. The general public can play an important role in reducing nutrient loads to the estuary. Excessive nutrients can contribute to problems such as harmful algal blooms and reduced dissolved oxygen and decreased water transparency that may follow. These conditions can adversely affect eelgrass, finfish,and shellfish. Excessive nitrogen may also affect eelgrass directly. Some sources of nitrogen are difficult to control, such as atmospheric deposition and nitrogen associated with historic loadings currently in bottom sediments. Other sources are expensive to manage and may have only site specific impacts, such as loads from sewage treatment plants. Residential fertilizer use, is however, readily manageable. Most, if not all, residential applications of fertilizers can be eliminated entirely. Eliminated or reduced fertilizer applications can also reduce water requirements for lawns and increase the interval between lawn cuttings. Steps POE-4.1 Develop and implement a comprehensive education/media program to reduce residential Priority fertilizer use in the watershed. Responsible Entities POE-4.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMPIs F°""""h • POE-5 Develop New, and Continue or Expand Existing Education and Outreach Efforts Related to Toxics in the Estuarine System. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 1. Toxic contaminants include man-made and naturally occurring substances that can cause adverse ecosystem or human health effects in certain concentrations. Some toxics in the estuary can accumulate in the tissue of fish and shellfish, making them dangerous to wildlife and unsuitable for unrestricted human consumption. The Peconic Estuary System generally has low levels of toxic materials in the water,sediment,and organisms. However,there are impairments which should be addressed, and residents and visitors to the estuary should be made aware of any potential threats. An adequate program is in place to develop and update finfish, shellfish,and wildlife consumption advisories. However,consumers of seafood and wildlife within the Peconics may not be aware of the advisories. The Peconic Estuary Program should expand dissemination of consumption advisory information, and to the extent possible, accommodate Spanish and Greek speaking populations,among others. Further, any materials developed specifically for the Peconics should fully and adequately address the issue of low level radionuclide contamination and associated risks. Estuary users can help to minimize the introduction of toxic substances to the estuary system by • controlling pesticide and herbicide use, preventing pollution from marinas and boating activities, and properly using and disposing of household hazardous wastes. Decisions by consumers and residents regarding marine engines,toxics associated with shoreline hardening structures such as bulkheads and docks, and underground storage tanks can also affect loadings of toxics to the estuary. Pesticides and Herbicides While pesticides have not been identified as impairing water quality or living resources, the potential for misuse or unintended off-site impacts exists, particularly from uncertified applicators and due to improper residential applications by homeowners. Agricultural uses of pesticides are discussed in the Toxics Chapter of this Plan. The PEP strongly encourages residents desiring to manage pests to do so in accordance with integrated pest management(IPM)practices. Many common lawn care products and formulations applied by homeowners and lawn care companies tend to be mixtures of fertilizers and herbicides, insecticides and sometimes fungicides. Applications,therefore, likely include one or more ingredients not really needed on a particular lawn or only marginally useful in many areas. Any unnecessary application of a pesticide increases the threat of groundwater contamination and potentially, contamination of the bays. In and around freshwater wetlands, provisions of the State's Freshwater Wetlands Law prohibit the use of pesticides and herbicides on or in the vicinity of wetlands and associated waterbodies. However, many residents may be unaware of this law. For golf courses, "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States," developed by golf and environmental organizations, describes sound objectives for golf course planning and siting, design, construction,maintenance,and facility operations, including reduction of pesticides. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-15 14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Marinas and Boating Activities • The best method of preventing pollution from marinas and boating activities is to educate the public about the causes and effects of pollution and methods to prevent it. Education outreach programs currently underway can be continued and expanded to address solid waste disposal, liquid material disposal, petroleum control, and boat cleaning. Much of this information can be included in the Ultimate Guide to the Peconics. (See Action POE-1.) Household Septic Systems and Household Hazardous Wastes Many activities around the home can lead to the introduction of toxic substances to the estuary. For example, organic solvents used as septic system "cleaners"may hinder effective septic system operation by destroying useful bacteria that aid in the degradation of waste,resulting in disrupted treatment activity and the discharge of contaminants. In addition, since the organic chemicals in the solvents are highly mobile in soils and are toxic(some are suspected carcinogens),they can easily contaminate ground water and surface waters and threaten public health. State and County laws restrict/prohibit the sale and distribution of illegal disposal system products in Nassau and Suffolk counties. This includes deodorizers and drain cleaners,as well as cesspool additives. However, sewage system "cleaners"may still be used by unsuspecting residents. There are many other potentially toxic pollutants associated with everyday activities within a developed watershed. Some of the major sources include household hazardous wastes, garden and lawn care activities,turf grass management, on-site disposal systems, dumping of wastes into storm drains and commercial activities. It is important that estuary residents understand the potential threats of toxics on the ecosystem and take measures to use and dispose of toxics properly. The Peconic • Estuary Program will also identify environmentally safe (or less toxic) products and practices. Three other sources of toxic substances to the environment(discussed in greater detail in the toxics chapter)are marine engines,treated lumber and underground storage tanks. The public can play a role in eliminating or reducing the impacts or threats from these sources through alternatives. Steps POE-5.1 Develop and carry out an education campaign to eliminate or reduce domestic pesticide Priority use in the watershed. Educate home and business owners about the importance of dealing only with certified commercial applicators of pesticides. (See related Toxics Action T-4.3) POE-5.2 Increase awareness of the provisions of the State's Freshwater Wetlands Law to reduce or eliminate loadings of pesticides and herbicides on or in the vicinity of wetlands and associated waterbodies. (See related Toxics Action T-4.4) POE-5.3 Endorsement,adoption, and implementation of"Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States" by all golf courses in the Peconic Estuary Study Area. As necessary,provide additional detail to the principles to reflect local conditions and concerns. POE-5.4 Continue/expand dissemination of fish and wildlife consumption advisory information. Expand program to target non-English speaking consumers in the Peconics. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP .4' " • POE-5.5 Continue/expand education outreach programs to specifically address potential boating pollution issues, including: solid waste disposal, liquid material disposal, petroleum control, and boat cleaning. POE-5.6 Continue/expand ongoing education and outreach efforts to prevent the use of organic solvents as septic system cleaners. POE-5.7 Continue/expand existing education and outreach activities for pollution prevention; develop/consolidate materials for distribution within the watershed, relying on existing materials and information to the extent possible. POE-5.8 Develop and carry out a program to encourage rapid conversion to four stroke or in- board dry exhaust marine engines to reduce hydrocarbon loadings to the estuary. POE-5.9 Develop and carry out a program to encourage alternatives to treated lumber for shoreline hardening structures, particularly maintenance of or restoration to natural shoreline features. POE-5.10 Develop and carry out a program to encourage voluntary replacement of underground oil storage tanks that are exempt from current county replacement requirements. Responsible Entities • POE-5.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities,NYSDEC, home and business owners POE-5.2 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities POE-5.3 Golf course owners,operators,and superintendents(lead), PEP Program Office, PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program in concert with other education/outreach entities, U.S. Golf Assoc., Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Assoc. POE-5.4 NYSDEC (lead),NYSDOH, PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program with other public and private education groups and trade/industry groups POE-5.5 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program with other public and private education groups and trade/industry groups,Association of Marine Industries POE-5.6 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program in concert with education/trade groups POE-5.7 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program in concert with education groups and local governments POE-5.8 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-17 .4 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP POE-5.9 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead)in concert with other • education/outreach entities POE-5.10 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with other education/outreach entities • • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-18 Peconic Estuary Program CCAfP 411 • POE-6 Develop and Implement Public Education Programs for the Protection of Habitat and Living Resources in the Estuary and the Sustainable Use of Estuary Resources. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 1. Additional outreach is needed regarding the protection of habitats and living resources, including actions that members of the public can take or avoid in order to protect rare and endangered species and important habitat areas, such as bird nesting sites. Existing information and materials can be combined into a larger education packet. Information provided could include reasons for not walking on dunes and wetlands, encouragement to "pack-in-pack-out" garbage and trash, not feeding wildlife (including waterfowl), which can attract gulls and crows, which are predators of colonial nesting birds, and discouragement from the use of disposable plastic at the shore. Additional actions recommended for the protection of habitat and living resources include education and outreach to minimize boat encounters with sea turtles and marine mammals and the importance of proper fish waste disposal. Other actions are targeted at commercial and recreational fishermen and focus on both habitat protection and the sustainable use of marine resources. The need for each of these actions is discussed briefly below. As the number of boats and other commercial and recreational activities in the Peconic Estuary • increases, encounters and collisions with sea turtles and marine mammals will continue to occur. Many boaters are not aware of the presence of these animals in the estuary nor of the fact that it can be dangerous both to the animals and to the boaters themselves should they collide. Information on where these animals are generally found, what they look like, and the procedure to follow if a collision occurs could greatly reduce the chances that these animals will be injured or killed in these encounters. It is also important to educate the public on actions that should be taken should these animals be encountered on beaches or in the water. Existing materials from Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation should be incorporated into educational and outreach activities. The waste generated by fishermen from cleaning fish is often discarded back into the water in the mistaken belief that because it is biodegradable it will not harm the estuary system. In fact, this material attracts scavengers, both aquatic and terrestrial, and adds to the organic matter already decaying in the sheltered embayments. Shellfish harvesters typically concentrate their efforts in the unvegetated mudflats. In some cases, however, harvesters may work their way right up to the edge of the vegetated zone where salt marsh peat forms. Digging for shellfish at this edge destabilizes the vegetation and renders these areas vulnerable to erosion. This may contribute,over time,to the loss of vegetated wetlands. Overfishing of finfish stocks that are highly desirable has been a concern for decades. Both commercial and recreational fishermen contribute to this problem. Fishery management plans and fishery regulations have been designed for sustainable use of these stocks by humans. In order to ensure that people understand the threats to finfish and the need to comply with regulations, education materials should be developed which specifically address this issue. Existing educational material should be used as much as possible and both written materials and signage should be used, focusing on areas where fisherman congregate, including marinas,bait and tackle shops,and fishing piers. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-19 "'Its Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Tf Implementation of steps under other actions in this chapter, particularly those addressing toxics and • nutrients will also protect and enhance the habitats and living resources of the Peconic Estuary. Steps POE-6.1 Develop and implement a public education program about: 1)terns, plovers, diamondback terrapins, and other plants and animals that depend on tidal wetlands, beaches, and dunes; 2)the processes necessary for creating and maintaining these habitats;and 3)what people can do to participate in these conservation actions. POE-6.2 Develop education and outreach materials aimed at minimizing encounters between boats and sea turtles and marine mammals. Educate the public on actions that should be taken should encounters or collisions occur. POE-6.3 Educate boaters and fishermen regarding the importance of proper fish-cleaning waste disposal practices. Develop public education materials for distribution at marinas, bait and tackle shops and other related businesses detailing these BMPs. (.See related Habitat Action HLR-12.) POE-6.4 Develop and carry out a public education program to discourage the harvesting of shellfish at the edge of vegetated salt marshes,to protect this important habitat. (See related Habitat Action HLR-4) POE-6.5 Develop and carry out a public education program about the value of commercial and • recreational fishing regulations and the importance of compliance with these regulations. (.See related Habitat Action HLR-12.) Responsible Entities POE-6.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with education groups POE-6.2 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with education groups including the Riverhead Foundation,NYSDEC POE-6.3 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program,AMI, Fishing related businesses POE-6.4 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program,NYSDEC,the five East End Towns, commercial and recreational shell fishermen POE-6.5 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program,NYSDEC, AMI, Fishing related businesses • CHAPTEREIGHT 8-20 Peconic Estuary Program COMP • POE-7 Promote Action-Oriented Stewardship of the System's Resources. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 2. Hands-on activities and personal involvement in estuary activities are excellent ways to build stewardship and encourage collaboration among businesses, industries, local and regional governments, individuals, and groups on estuary projects. Hands-on workshops and training sessions can be used to provide information and materials for projects at the household or community level. In some cases, a small amount of seed money may be all that is needed to spark interest in a local effort aimed at preserving, enhancing, or restoring a local waterbody. Funding may be used for activities such as citizen monitoring and "Adopt a Creek" programs. Students and youths can be some of the most conscientious stewards of the environment. The PEP Youth Advisory Committee has been used successfully to involve these groups in estuary protection efforts. Local small businesses also can play an important role in the education and outreach efforts and serve as examples of good environmental stewards through participation in small business partnership programs. A potential priority area for these partnerships may be in areas serviced by sewer districts(Riverhead and Sag Harbor)and storm sewer collection systems, which may result in the discharges of contaminants to surface waters. • Steps POE-7.1 Promote and support the establishment of local watershed associations, focusing around local waterbodies,embayments and especially tidal creeks. Encourage community efforts to understand,protect, and restore these waters. POE-7.2 Develop and carry out a"Peconics Yards and Neighborhoods" project in which watershed neighborhood groups would be trained in xeriscaping and the utilization of native plants in creating water conserving landscapes. This would also include training in creating attractive home-vegetated buffer zones and filter strips as a way to further mitigate stormwater runoff. POE-7.3 Establish a Mini Grant Program to provide funding to local citizens groups to encourage the establishment of and participation in local protection and restoration efforts. Identify an agency/organization to administer the program. POE-7.4 Establish a small business partnership program. Encourage businesses to undertake environmental management reviews and pollution prevention opportunity assessments. Establish criteria to qualify as a"Business for the Bay"and encourage patronage of these businesses. POE-7.5 Continue/expand the PEP Youth Advisory Committee. POE-7.6 Encourage the establishment of citizen's monitoring programs. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-21 .F° Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Responsible Entities • POE-7.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead), PEP Program Office, Peconic BayKeeper POE-7.2 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) in concert with education groups and local civic associations, PEP Program Office POE-7.3 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program(lead) in concert with education groups and local civic associations POE-7.4 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program in concert with education groups and local business associations POE-7.5 PEP Program Office,PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead) POE-7.6 PEP Program Office,Peconic Baykeeper, Accabonac Protection Committee, other local groups • • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-22 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jt'� 4 ,r • POE-8 Engender Support for the PEP CCMP and its Recommended Management Actions. Addresses Public Education and Outreach Objective 5. Without support from the community, implementation of the recommended actions in the CCMP will not be possible. For this reason, stakeholder input has been crucial to formulating actions in this Management Plan. Continued efforts will be needed to reach new audiences and ensure that public support for implementing the CCMP remains strong. Distributing information on CCMP projects and proposed actions, as well as eliciting feedback from the community are good ways of creating stakeholder interest and spurring dialogue about implementation issues. An annual "State-of-the-Bays" Conference would be a good conduit for reporting progress on CCMP implementation and focusing the public's attention on the estuary. An annual evaluation by citizens of the progress of public agencies and private organizations in implementing the CCMP can also help to keep attention focused on implementation issues. A dedicated public education and outreach coordinator can work with citizens and the private sector to ensure the public is involved in carrying out the CCMP. Steps • POE-8.1 Convene an annual "State-of-the-Bays" Conference focusing on PEP CCMP recommended actions and issues. POE-8.2 Develop and annually complete a citizen based"report card"to highlight successes and identify weaknesses,and provide an overall citizen perspective of implementation of the CCMP. POE-8.3 Provide funding for an education and outreach coordinator to work with citizens and the Priority private sector in carrying out the CCMP. Responsible Entities POE-8.1 PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program (lead); PEP Program Office POE-8.2 PEP CAC POE-8.3 PEP Program Office(lead); PEP Public Participation and Outreach Program; PEP CAC i CHAPTER EIGHT 8-23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP BENEFITS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS • The benefits of funding an effective education and outreach program for residents and visitors to the Peconics are as difficult to quantify as they are important. Can we measure the individual benefit of one less bulkheaded piece of waterfront property, one less pound of fertilizer or pesticide applied to a lawn, or dog waste that has been scooped up and prevented from washing in to a tidal creek? Individually, we probably cannot discern differences. Cumulatively, however, if we are successful in educating the citizens of the watershed about the role they can play in preserving, protecting and restoring the bays, in time and in concert with the implementation of other actions in this CCMP,we can expect to see improvements in water quality,habitats, and living resources. COST OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS It is often said that"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"and surely this is true with respect to limiting the release of pollutants to the environment and limiting disturbances to habitats and living resources. In fact, many perturbations can be avoided or eliminated through simple practices and actions brought about through education and awareness on the part of individuals,be they homeowners, visitors, business owners, workers, or recreational boaters. The cost of restoration is often prohibitive or not technically feasible. It is,therefore, important to invest in activities that prevent problems from occurring. The total cost of all new actions proposed in the Public Education and Outreach Chapter is$190,000 • for one-time costs and$1,003,500 annually. One-time costs include activities such as developing and preparing education and outreach materials. Annual costs typically include costs associated with planning and carrying out a structured, focused and coordinated education and outreach plan,and activities such as an annual "State of the Bays"conference, children's conferences, and actions with citizens groups, private businesses,etc. For many actions, inclusion of educational materials in a single document such as the Ultimate Guide to the Peconics allows for significant cost savings. Actions that can be incorporated in the Guide, which is described in action POE-1.4, include POE- 5.7, POE-6.2, POE-6.3,and POE-6.5. (See"Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) i CHAPTER EIGHT 8-24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP jP* " • PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 8-1 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an "R" for"Recommendation" or a"C" for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O" refers to ongoing activities; "N" indicates new actions. Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed as dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing$75,000 per year,which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-25 Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status POE-1 Increase Awareness of the Peconic Estuary as aRegional and National Resource and Improve the Understanding of the Social and Economic Value of the Estuary. Ob ective 3 0 POE-1.] Continue existing effective SCDHS,other Post-cGMP Base Programs of various C/O 3 environmental education programs, education/outreach entities. govemmental and non- m such as the SCDHS Public governmental entities Environmental Education Program. POE-1,2 Continue/expand PEP CAC's PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP The Bay Show, R o successful outreach programs— and Outreach Program $70,000/year; The Annual The Bay Show and the Annual (lead)in concert with other Children's Conference, Peconic Bays Children's education/outreach entities. $20,000/year;general n Conference—and radio/print campaigns, n continue/expand outreach media $20,000/year. Total = campaigns in radio,print and $110,000/year television. POE-1.3 Establish and promote an PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000/year(provided R Information Resource Center and Outreach Program space is donated) appropriate for all ages to service (lead)in concert with other the community with accurate education/outreach entities. information. This would include a library of PEP and other estuarine materials,as well as a website. Secure donated space for the resource center. POE-1.4 Conduct follow-up public PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000 every three years, R perception polls every three years and Outreach Program starting in 2001 n to guide refinements to the (lead). S y education/outreach strafe 'v Table continued on next page y m m L) x .t • i • n Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status b -� POE-1.5 Continue to update,print, and PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $35,000/year R m A distribute the Ultimate Guide to the and Outreach Program tr, Peconics, addressing a wide range (lead)in concert with other n of watershed activities and issues, education/outreach entities. including topics such as boating .-� safety and vessel waste no discharge area education. POE-2Increase Communication'and Cooperation among the Estuary's Many and Diverse Stakeholder Groups, Objective 4 POE-2.1 Sponsor Consensus-Building PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000 per workshop R Workshops,when needed, in the and Outreach Program (Estimate 1 workshop/yr) CCMP implementation phase. (lead). POE-3 Develop and Implement New Programs and Continue and Expand Existing Programs for the Estuary Stakeholders about Controlling the Introduction of Pathogens into the Peconic Estuary Pro ram. Ob ective I POE-3.1 Develop and implement a PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000 R comprehensive education/media and Outreach Program program for owners of domestic (lead)in concert with other animals about the need to properly education/outreach entities. dispose of pet waste. (See related Pathogens Action P-12.2.) POE-3.2 Develop and implement a PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000 R 3 comprehensive education/media and Outreach Program program to educate residents and (lead)in concert with other m visitors not to feed wildlife, education/outreach entities. earticularly waterfowl. Table continued on next page o w � 3 n n N J ti Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status POE-3.3 Develop and implement a program PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP. Relatively inexpensive for R whereby waterfront residents can and Outreach Program test and time spent; may volunteer to have dye tests done on (lead) in concert with be considerable for 3 their septic systems to determine if homeowners. homeowners if there are the system is working properly. improper hookups or y (See related Pathogens particularly if the septic o Action P-5.) system is found to be '2 malfunctioning. PEP: IFTE/yr ., POE-3.4 Develop and distribute materials to PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $25,000 R 3 promote the use of shore-based and Outreach Program n toilets,holding tanks on boats,and (lead)in concert with other stations es ro pumpout peciall y in e ducation/outreach entities areas of heavy boat traffic or in (NY Sea Grant Extension environmentally sensitive areas. Service pumpout education (See related Pathogens Action P- program,Association of 6.) Marine Industries, local governments,NYSDEC, NYSDOS,)and marina owners. POE-3.5 Continue the public awareness New York Sea Grant Ongoing Base program C/O campaign about the availability of Extension Service(lead) vessel waste pumpout facilities and PEP Public through distribution of information Participation and Outreach prepared by New York Sea Grant Program in concert with f7 and the New York State other education/outreach _ Department of State.(See related entities. 9 Pathogens Action P-6. v y Table continued on next page m m C x n Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) S D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status -o POE-4 Develop and Implement New Programs for Estuary Stakeholders about Controlling the Introduction of Nutrients into the Estuary ;o System. (Objective 1 m POE-4.1 Develop and implement a PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $250,000/yr R Priority comprehensive education/media and Outreach Program y program to reduce residential (lead)in concert with other —1 fertilizer use in the watershed. education/outreach entities. POE-5 Develop New and Continue or Expand Existing Education and Outreach Efforts Related to Toxics in the Estuarine System. (Objective 1 POE-5.1 Develop and carry out an PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 annually R Priority education campaign to eliminate or and Outreach Program reduce domestic pesticide use in (lead) in concert with other the watershed. Educate home and education/outreach entities business owners about the (lead),NYSDEC,home and importance of dealing only with business owners. certified commercial applicators of pesticides. (See related Toxics Action T-4.3.) POE-5.2 Increase awareness of the PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 annually R provisions of the State's and Outreach Program Freshwater Wetlands Law to (lead)in concert with other reduce or eliminate loadings of education/outreach entities. pesticides and herbicides on or in the vicinity of wetlands and a associated waterbodies. (See 2 related Toxics Action T-4.4. c Table continued on next page o 3 41 n � n b N b 9° Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) rt Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status POE-5.3 Endorsement, adoption,and Golf course owners, Post-CCMP PEP: I FTE/yr R implementation of"Environmental operators,and Principles for Golf Courses in the superintendents(lead), PEP United States" by all golf courses Program Office, PEP Public in the Peconic Estuary Study Area. Participation and Outreach y As necessary, provide additional Program in concert with a detail to the principles to reflect other education/outreach local conditions and concerns. entities, U.S.Golf Assoc., o Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Assoc. 3 POE-5.4 Continue/expand dissemination of NYSDEC(lead),NYSDOH, Ongoing for State Base program for State C/O for State n fish and wildlife consumption PEP Public Participation program. Post-CCMP program, $10,000/year for program. advisory information. Expand and Outreach Program with for expanded outreach expanded outreach. program to target non-English other public and private program. R for expanded speaking consumers in the education groups and program. Peconics. trade/industry groups. POE-5.5 Continue/expand education PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 annually R outreach programs to specifically and Outreach Program address potential boating pollution (lead)with other public and issues, including: solid waste private education groups disposal, liquid material disposal, and trade/industry groups, petroleum control,and boat Association of Marine cleaning. Industries. n POE-5.6 Continue/expand ongoing PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $25,000 R y education and outreach efforts to and Outreach Program Y prevent the use of organic solvents (lead) in concert with ° as se tics stem clearers. education/trade rou s. 1 f't Table continued on next page m_ C1 x n Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) x D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status o POE-5.7 Continue and expand existing PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $20,000 R m � education and outreach activities and Outreach Program rr, for pollution prevention; (lead)in concert with M develop/consolidate materials for education groups and local X distribution within the watershed, governments. -j relying on existing materials and information to the extent possible. POE-5.8 Develop and carry out a program PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 R to encourage rapid conversion to and Outreach Program four stroke or in-board dry exhaust (lead) in concert with other marine engines to reduce education/outreach entities. hydrocarbon loadings to the estuary. POE-5.9 Develop and carry out a program PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 R to encourage alternatives to treated and Outreach Program lumber for shoreline hardening (lead) in concert with other structures,particularly education/outreach entities. maintenance of or restoration to natural shoreline features. POE-5.10 Develop and carry out a program PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $15,000 R $ to encourage voluntary and Outreach Program ' n replacement of underground oil (lead) in concert with other y _ storage tanks that are exempt from education/outreach entities. a current county replacement requirements. o Table continued on next page a 9 n w O0 Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) d1 Kr, Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status � POE-6 Develop and Implement Public Education Programs for the Protection of Habitat and Living Resources in the Estuary and the Sustainable Use of Estuary Resources.''Ob ective 1 POE-6.1 Develop and implement a public PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000(information can R a education program about: 1)terns, and Outreach Program be incorporated in the plovers,diamondback terrapins, (lead)in concert with Ultimate Guide to the m and other plants and animals that education groups. Peconics) o depend on tidal wetlands,beaches, 2 and dunes;2)the processes o necessary for creating and maintaining these habitats;and 3) 3 what people can do to participate in these conservation actions. r) POE-6.2 Develop education and outreach PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000(information can R materials aimed at minimizing and Outreach Program be incorporated in the encounters between boats and sea (lead) in concert with Ultimate Guide to the turtles and marine mammals. education groups including Peconics) Educate the public on actions that the Riverhead Foundation; should be taken should encounters NYSDEC. or collisions occur. POE-6.3 Educate boaters and fishermen PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $10,000(information can R regarding the importance of proper and Outreach Program be incorporated in the fish-cleaning waste disposal (lead);AMI; Fishing related Ultimate Guide to the practices. Develop public businesses. Peconics) education materials for distribution at marinas, bait and tackle shops n and other related businesses x detailing these BMPs. (See related Y Habitat Action HLR-12. a Table continued on next page m x m C) x n Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) x Y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status v m POE-6.4 Develop and carry out a public PEP Public Participation Post-cGMP $ 15,000 R A education program to discourage and Outreach Program m the harvesting of shellfish at the (lead);NYSDEC;the five C1 edge of vegetated salt marshes,to East End Towns; y protect this important habitat. (See commercial and recreational —1 related Habitat Action HLR-4.) shell fishermen. POE-6.5 Develop and carry out a public PEP Public ParticipationPost-CCMP $10,000(information to R education program about the value and Outreach Program be incorporated in the of commercial and recreational (lead),NYSDEC, AMI, Ultimate Guide to the fishing regulations and the Fishing related businesses. Peconics) importance of compliance with these regulations. (See related Habitat Action HLR-12.) POE-7 Promote Action-Oriented Stewar hip of the System's Resources. Objective 2 POE-7.1 Promote and support the PEP Public Participation Post-COMP $10,000/yr R establishment of local watershed and Outreach Program associations,focusing around local (lead),PEP Program Office, waterbodies,embayments and Peconic BayKeeper especially tidal creeks. Encourage community efforts to understand, s protect,and restore these waters. n' Table continued on next page M r 41 b e o°a e D 3 n a w w ?° Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) 44. A Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status POE-7.2 Develop and carry out a"Peconics PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $75,000/yr R Yards and Neighborhoods"project and Outreach Program in which watershed neighborhood (lead)in concert with s groups would be trained in education groups and local xeriscaping and the utilization of civic associations. m native plants in creating water- a conserving landscapes.This would also include training in creating o attractive home-vegetated buffer zones and filter strips as a way to further mitigate stormwater runoff. n POE-7.3 Establish a Mini Grant Program to PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $50,000/yr R provide funding to local citizens and Outreach Program groups to encourage the (lead) in concert with establishment of and participation education groups and local in local protection and restoration civic associations. efforts. Identify an agency/organization to administer the vrogram. POE-7.4 Establish a small business PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $50,000/yr R partnership program. Encourage and Outreach Program in businesses to undertake concert with education environmental management groups and local business reviews and pollution prevention associations. opportunity assessments. Establish n criteria to qualify as a"Business x for the Bay"and encourage D patronage of these businesses. v ,--I Table continued on next page M A M M H • r • n Table 8-1. Public Education and Outreach Management Actions. (continued) x D Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status v POE-7.5 Continue/ex and the PEP Youth PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP m P p (Costs for a continued PEP R Advisory Committee. and Outreach Program YAC program are incorporated m (lead). in both the Annual Peconic Bays Children's Conference x budget as well as the proposed `-� Mini Grant Program) POE-7.6 Encourage the establishment of PEP Program Office, Post-CCMP $10,000/yr R citizen's monitoring programs. Peconic Baykeeper, Accabonac Protection Committee,other local rou s POE-8 Engender Support for the PEP CCMP and Its Recommended Management Actions. Objective S POE-8.1 Convene an annual "State-of-the- PEP Public Participation Post-CCMP $30,000/yr R Bays" Conference focusing on PEP and Outreach Program CCMP recommended actions and (lead); PEP Program Office. issues. POE-8.2 Develop and annually complete a PEP CAC. Annually, Post-CCMP Base Program C/N citizen based"report card"to highlight successes and identify weaknesses,and provide an overall citizen perspective of implementation of the CCMP. m POE-8.3 Provide funding for an education PEP Program Office(lead), Post CCMP $150,000/yr for public R c Priority and outreach coordinator to work PEP Public Participation participation and outreach staff with citizens and the private sector and Outreach Program;PEP salaries in carrying out the CCMP. CAC. o°�c c 3 n n b w Peconic Estuary Program CCMP z FA • This Page Intentionally Left Blank. • • CHAPTER EIGHT 8-36 Peconic Estuary Program • CHAPTER NINE CCMP FINANCING OBJECTIVES 1) At a minimum, continue to fund Federal, State,County, and local programs at current levels. 2) Aggressively seek additional public and private funds. • 3) Utilize innovative financial sources and incentives to fully implement the CCMP. • CHAPTER NINE 9-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Ih* MEASURABLE GOALS The PEP'S measurable goals with respect to financing are: • Effectively use existing funding and secure new or additional governmental funding for CCMP implementation from the following sources: - Federal Government, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture; - State Government, particularly the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and State Revolving Loan Fund; - County Government,particularly the Suffolk County '/% Sales Tax Program; - Town Governments; and, - Village Governments. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). [See Actions F-2,F-31 • Secure new or additional private sector funding for CCMP implementation, from the following sources: - Businesses; and, - Not for profit organizations. (as measured by the Peconic Estuary Program Office). [See Actions F4, F-7] • • CHAPTER NINE 9-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 4� F • INTRODUCTION This Management Plan contains both committed and recommended actions for the protection and restoration of the Peconic Estuary System. These actions and this Plan have been created as part of the characterization and planning phases of the PEP. Funding for the planning process has been provided by the National Estuary Program under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Upon CCMP approval,the PEP will begin implementation of the Management Plan and its actions. Funding for the continued operation of the PEP and for the implementation of each action in the Plan will need to be secured. The estimated cost of plan implementation is shown in Table 9-1. Commitments, previous funding allocations, and available funding to implement the PEP CCMP are shown in Table 9-2. It is anticipated that a wide variety of funding sources will need to be secured to ensure full implementation of the CCMP. Securing this funding is a responsibility of the Peconic Estuary Program. Without a comprehensive strategy for funding the implementation of all aspects of the plan, the PEP runs the risk of not fully achieving its goal of becoming a guide to managing water quality, living resources, and habitats of the Peconic Estuary. The ability of the PEP to achieve its goals and objectives, and the pace at which progress is made, will clearly be a function of the availability of funding. The PEP will continue to use, where possible,cutting edge resource valuation techniques to guide decision-making and implement this Plan. • MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The PEP supports implementation through a combination of existing resources and additional funds, including donations for project implementation and program enhancement. Early work on the financing strategy has identified four major categories of funding that are known to be available or that will be pursued:NEP Dedicated Funds,the NY State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, Base Program Funding/Services, and Additional Funding Sources. Each of these categories is discussed below. NEP Dedicated Funds Although the EPA provided funds under the Clean Water Act for the development of the CCMP, Congress has not dedicated any long-term funding to the implementation of CCMPs. EPA's intent is generally to provide post-CCMP funding to each National Estuary Program, contingent upon sufficient annual funding and adequate progress in implementing actions described in annual workplans. In Federal fiscal years 1998-2001, it is estimated that the PEP will receive $300,000 per year in National Estuary Program funds, subject to availability of funds in EPA appropriations. An annual workplan required to receive these funds will be developed by the Management Conference (or its successor)and submitted to EPA for approval. These funds are designated for demonstration of CCMP actions and require a 50 percent non-Federal match. Priorities for the use of these funds include support of the PEP program office(or its successor), State and County staff support, and education/outreach actions. Beyond the first four years of post-CCMP status, continued National Estuary Program funding is dependent on the results of an EPA conducted Implementation Review. The purpose of the Implementation Review is to perform a comprehensive review of the PEP's progress in implementing its CCMP. • CHAPTER NINE 9-3 Table 9-1. Cost Estimates for Implementing Recommended' Actions in the Peconic Estuary Program ' Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. New One-time = b Management Plan Element Costs'= New Annual Costs Notes Brown Tide $ 3,250,000 - Includes cost estimate for a one time$2.8M research plan Nutrients $ 767,500 $ 1,372,500 Does not include costs for implementing agricultural BMPs M Habitats and Living $ 9,088,750 $ 1,881,250 Includes cost estimate for a one-time$3M research plan Resources Pathogens $ 1,718,750 $ 1,530,000 Does not include cost estimates for remedial stormwater projects ` 0 Toxics $ 1,845,000 $ 1,977,500 c Critical Lands Protection $ 292,500 - Does not include costs estimates for land protection(including acquisition) 3 Plan r7 n Public Education/Outreach $ 190,000 $ 1,003,500 Financing $ 1,162,500 $ 600,000 Post-CCMP Management $ 1,525,000 $ 1,060,000 Includes costs for one time and annual environmental monitoring programs Sub-Total $19,840,000 $9,424,750/ ear Habitat Restoration Plan $59,156,560 - Preliminary estimate in PEP(draft)Habitat Restoration Plan(July 15, 2000) Agricultural BMPs To be determined To be determined CAC Estimate: $100 million($10 million per year for 10 ears) Stormwater Remediation To be determined To be determined CAC Estimate: $50 million Land Protection To be determined To be determined CAC Estimate: $100 million Total $78,996,560 $9,424,750/year Does not include costs for agricultural BMPs,stormwater remediation,or land protection These estimates do not include costs for actions already funded or underway or for which governmental or non-governmental commitments have been secured. Z Personnel costs are estimated at$75,000 per year per position. n S D 'o ..3 m z z m x > Table 9-2. Commitments, Previous Funding Allocations, and Available Funding to Implement the PEP CCNIP. b -a M Past and One Time Allocations Potential Annual Income X Note: Funding may be available Town,County, State or nationwide (2001 and beyond) z Suffolk County 1/4%Sales Estimate(for PEP efforts) $2.5M/year Z Tax Program(2000-2013) m Suffolk County Open Community Greenways $ 62 M Open Space $1 M/year Space Initiatives Preservation Partnerships $ 16.6 M Farmland Development Rights $1.5M/year Community Preservation Original Estimate: $110 M Funds Note: Estimate may be exceeded as$45M generated 4/99-12/00 Suffolk County Capital Brown Tide Research(1995-present) $ 1.1 M Brown Tide Research $ 150,000/year Program PEP Program Support(1995 - resent) $ 700,000 PEP Program Support S 100,000/ ear NYS Clean Air/Clean Allocation for Peconic Estuary and South Shore Estuary $ 30 M Water Bond Act Awards to date 1997-1999: (SSER: $4,299,600)Peconic $ 9,647,150 2000 Allocation for SSER/PEP $ 2 M 2001 and beyond $ 14,053,250 Clean Water Act/EPA; -National Estuary Program $ 4,5115644 National Estuary Program target: $310,000'/year Suffolk County Match; -Stormwater Demonstrations S 702,629 Suffolk County Match(Program Office& and -Action Plan Demonstration Projects $ 285,000 Marine Monitoring): $310,000/year NYSDEC Match -Other $ 680,800 Note: Increased appropriations are now Total EPA funding(1993 -2000) $ 6,180,073 authorized for the National Estuary Program in Suffolk County Match(estimate;actual amount is greater) $ 1,600,000 2001 and beyond NYSDEC Match estimate S 1505000 Table continued on next page 0 a o� 0 3 ' n 3 P continued Q, Table 9-2. Commitments, Previous Funding Allocations, and Available Funding to Implement the PEP CCMP. (continued) `� a Governmental/ EPA: 1.80 FTE _ $ 135,000 EPA: 1.80 FTE/year= $135,000/year Organizational NYSDEC: 2.95 FTE _ $ 221,250 NYSDEC: 2.00 FTE/year= $ 90,000/year Commitments SCDHS: 1.65 FTE _ $ 123,750 SCDHS: 1.25 FTE/year= $ 93,750/year o (Expressed as Full Time PEP: 0.70 FTE _ $ 52,500 PEP: 0.90 FTE/year= $ 67,500/year 3 Equivalents or FTEs at Towns: 2.25 FTE _ $ 168,750 Towns: 0.50 FTE/year= $ 37,500/year $75,000 per FTE/year) Other Entities: 4.15 FTE _ $ 311.250 Other Entities: 0.60 FTE/year= $ 45,000/year Note: Includes resources Total 13.5 FTE _ $ 1,012,500 Total: 6.25 FTE/year= $468,750/year for new actions in the t CCMP and does not include"base program" resources Estuaries and Clean Portion of$275M available nationwide Waters Act of 2000 b NOAA Coastal Ocean Brown Tide Research(1997-2003) $ 3M Program Other potential funding sources: -Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund -USDA EQIP& WHIP(Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program) -Clean Water Act Section 319(nonpoint source management) -NYS Environmental Protection Fund -Other funding under the NYS Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act categories(i.e.,open space) -State Revolving Fund(loans) n x 9 ro m z z M Peconic Fstuary Program CCMP .#i .r • New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act In November 1996,New Yorkers proclaimed their commitment to a clean environment by approving the $1.75 billion Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. Five types of projects may qualify for funding under the Bond Act: • Clean Water- $790 million; • Safe Drinking Water-$355 million; • Solid Waste-$175 million, • Municipal Environment Restoration(Brownfields)- $200 million; and • Air Quality-$230 million. With passage of the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act,tremendous opportunities are available to restore, preserve, and protect the State's valuable environmental resources. Section 56-0303 of Title 3 of the Bond Act provides$495 million to municipalities and soil and water conservation districts for water quality improvement projects. This includes$30 million for water quality improvement projects identified by the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans of the Peconic Estuary and the South Shore Estuary Reserve. No decision has been made at this time regarding the allocation of the $30 million between the two areas. Guidance from New York State has limited eligibility for Peconic Estuary projects to: • • Water quality improvement projects which address elimination of raw sewage, failing individual septic systems, and advanced wastewater treatment(beyond secondary); • Nonpoint source pollution abatement and control projects;and, • Aquatic habitat restoration. $295 million is available statewide for other clean water projects that are applicable in the Peconic Estuary, including open space acquisition and programs to help small businesses protect the environment. Eligible applicants for Bond Act funds are municipalities and soil and water conservation districts. In the case of aquatic habitat restoration projects,the term municipality includes the State itself. In determining eligibility and evaluating applications,the State has noted that due consideration will be given to: • The suitability and feasibility of the project in relation to the goals of the respective management program,plan, or project; • The priority of the project in relationship to other projects proposed under the same program or plan. Highest priority shall be given to projects that provide the greatest reduction in pollutants or most significant habitat improvement and are identified as priorities in the respective management program, plan, or project; • The availability of matching funds on the part of the applicant, where applicable; and, • The urgency of the need for Bond Act funds based on availability of other funding sources. • CHAPTER NINE 9-7 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP State assistance payments from the Bond Act will vary, depending on the type of project. For • example, State assistance payments will fund: 1)up to 85 percent of the cost of the project for wastewater treatment improvement projects;2) 50 percent of the cost of aquatic habitat projects; 3) 50 percent of the cost of pollution prevention projects; and 4) 50 percent of the cost for nonagricultural nonpoint source abatement projects. For agricultural nonpoint source abatement projects, up to 75 percent of the project costs may be granted with no landowner or operator contribution,or up to 90 percent with such a contribution. Project costs incurred after November 5, 1996 are eligible for consideration. While the Bond Act funding for the Peconic Estuary is substantial, it is not likely to be sufficient to meet all needs,and there are limitations on the use of funds (Le.,private individuals or organizations cannot receive Bond Act funds; research activities are ineligible). Therefore,while it will provide much needed funding for many important projects, additional funding will still need to be identified and secured. Base Program Funding It is anticipated that a great many of the actions in this Plan can be implemented through the efforts and resources of existing programs. The costs for these actions are described in this Management Plan as"base program." This term is used to refer to actions that can be funded within the existing programmatic support of the implementing entity. In many cases, these actions are ongoing elements of existing agency workplans; in other cases the actions can be accomplished by refocusing agency activities without identifying additional funding. The PEP has not estimated costs for individual base • program actions since these actions are accomplished within existing programs and workplans. This CCMP includes numerous commitments on behalf of EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS, other Federal, State and County agencies, local governments,and other implementing entities to continue the implementation of ongoing programs. These commitments assume that base programs continue to be funded,at a minimum, at current levels. Additional Funding Sources Actions that do not fit within the scope of ongoing programs and existing agency efforts will require additional funding or resources. The Peconic Estuary Program will establish a Finance Work Group to develop a financing strategy and seek funding to carry out these recommended actions during the implementation process. In particular, special efforts may be needed to obtain funding for education, outreach,and participation efforts,as relatively little government agency funding seems to be available for those sorts of actions. Because of the significant role local governments bear in implementing many of the actions in this Plan, local governments will play a key role in identifying and securing additional funding sources. In all cases,the PEP will continue to consider the ability of local governments to pay for projects prior to their implementation. In addition,the PEP and participating agencies will: • Ensure that local governments are actively involved in the Management Conference and are aware of CCMP actions that may impact them; • Actively work with local governments to ensure their understanding and gain their support for the environmental benefits of proposed projects; • Continue to develop cost estimates for project implementation and refine and update cost estimates as necessary; • CHAPTER NINE 9-8 Peconic Fstuary Program CCMP F T • 0 Actively work with local governments to identify funding sources; and, • Foster the development of low-cost approaches to address environmental problems and implement such approaches whenever possible(for example,encouraging non- structural, low tech, and low maintenance means to reduce runoff and pollutant inputs). Action Costs Information in the cost column of the management action tables in the back of each chapter represents the Peconic Estuary Program's best estimate of the costs associated with each action implementation. "Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where practicable,the Peconic Estuary Program has made estimates of the costs of base programs, either in terms of dollars or work years. Where this Plan recommends or commits to new,expanded, or enhanced efforts beyond those tasks that may be described as base programs,the Peconic Estuary Program has attempted to quantify the necessary resources to carry out the new, expanded, or enhanced work. Resources were expressed as a dollar amount, typically for projects suitable for contracting out, or as "work years"or full time equivalent"employees(or"FTEs")for work that is most likely to be carried out by governmental staff. Some activities require both contracting dollars and FTEs. Resource needs expressed as FTEs are usually estimated to the nearest one-tenth of a work year(i.e., approximately one month or 20 work days). For some of the smaller tasks that are likely to be undertaken with other separate but related tasks,the FTE estimates may be combined, and this is • indicated in the table. For estimating the overall cost of implementing this Plan,the Program will use an estimate of$75,000 per FTE per year, which includes salary, fringe benefits, and indirect costs. The actual cost of a full time worker may be more or less than this amount and will likely vary by agency, complexity of task, and point in time at which work is initiated. Carrying out some tasks requires an annual and ongoing investment of resources. Other tasks have been expressed as one-time investments. This distinction is made for each action in the Plan, and is also reflected in the total cost of implementing the Plan. For programmatic resource allocation analysis, a significant effort has been made to quantify time commitments for actions involving PEP sponsoring agencies(EPA,NYSDEC, or SCDHS). For such actions,a commitment has been indicated and resource needs have been estimated. Carrying out these actions forms the core workplan for the PEP coordinators from the sponsoring agencies and the PEP office staff. In many cases,the Peconic Estuary Program was unable to quantify resources(either in dollar amount or in work years)associated with these base programs. This is because elements related to recommendations and actions are frequently inextricably linked to regional management initiatives targeted at areas larger than the PEP watershed, making segregation of PEP resources exceedingly difficult or impossible(e.g., coastal zone management programs for all of Long Island; endangered species management, etc.). Also,recommendations and actions are often intertwined in larger and/or related programs, making their individual cost isolation impractical(e.g., staff working on wetland mapping and trends analysis also work on numerous other natural resource efforts, such as permitting and enforcement as well). Finally, parties responsible for implementing actions use diverse and often incompatible methods of accounting and cost/time analysis,making efforts to discretize costs difficult and ultimately, inherently inaccurate, and thus, unhelpful. is CHAPTER NINE 9-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP V # Is Not all resource needs have been estimated at this point in time,and the costs of some activities will • be subject to further refinement in the future. Many costs have not been estimated for the private sector, because the planning processes have not developed actions specific enough to do so(e.g., septic tank management recommendations, since recommended pump-out intervals have not yet been specified and upgrade incentive programs have not been fully agreed upon). The PEP will attempt to estimate these costs in the future as needed and will attempt to identify funding for compliance assistance where possible. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The remainder of this chapter presents proposed actions for securing funding sources for CCMP implementation. These actions address each of the four major categories of funding discussed above: NEP Dedicated Funds,the NY State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, Base Program Funding/Seryices,and Additional Funding Sources. Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing, commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through "base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions, new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. • 9-10 CHAPTER NINE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP dE r CCMP FINANCING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS F-1. Establish a Finance Work Group to Formulate/Refine Financing Options. F-2. Effectively use NEP Funding,the NYS Bond Act Funding, the Suffolk County '/<% Sales Tax Program, and Base Programs to Implement the CCMP. F-3. Explore Options for Federal, State, and County Funding. F-4. Encourage Non-Profit Organizations to Administer Funding for Estuary Protection Efforts. F-5. Fund Actions under the State Revolving Loan Fund. F-6. Use Municipal Bonds for Project Financing. • F-7. Identify and Obtain Sources of Private Sector Funding. F-8. Utilize Funds from Fines and Settlements. F-9. Utilize Tax Abatements and Other Tax Incentives to Encourage Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvements. F-10. Establish Municipal Improvement Districts to Pay for Qualified Projects. F-11. Identify Sources of Funding for Land Preservation and Acquisition. F-12. Encourage Citizen Initiated Environmental Legislation. F-13 Investigate the Feasibility of Establishing Selective Sales Fees to Fund Environmental Management Programs. • CHAPTER NINE 9-11 #„#F "' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F-1 Establish a Finance Work Group to Formulate/Refine Financing Options. • Addresses Financing Objectives 1,2 and 3. A financing work group should be formed to assist in the further refinement of financing options to implement the CCMP. Steps F-l.l Establish a finance workgroup to formulate/refine financing options Priority Responsible Entities F-l.l PEP(lead) • • 9-12 CHAPTER NINE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP f i� F r • F-2 Effectively Use NEP Funding, the NYS Bond Act, the Suffolk County '/4% Sales Tax Program, and Base Programs to Implement the CCMP. Addresses Financing Objective I. NFP Dedicated Funds,the NY State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, and Base Program Funding/Seryices are major funding sources that have already been identified. Additional funding sources that may be used for CCMP action implementation are described on the pages that follow. The information regarding these and other possible sources will be refined by the Finance Work Group during CCMP implementation. The sales tax revenues from the Suffolk County '/4% Sales Tax Program, approximately $260 million over 13 years(beginning December 1,2000), will be used for three distinct categories: open space acquisition ($100 million),farmland easements($60 million), and water quality improvement projects ($100 million). A portion of the funding for water quality improvement projects will be available for use in the Peconic Estuary for projects including nonpoint source abatement and control, pollution prevention initiatives, and aquatic habitat restoration projects recommended by the PEP. • Steps F-2.1 Provide post-CCMP funding to implement eligible CCMP actions; strive to obtain additional funding based on the results of EPA conducted Implementation Reviews. F-2.2 Ensure that funding reserved for the PEP in the New York State Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act is used effectively for the highest priority eligible projects. F-2.3 Effectively use funding for PEP recommended projects from the Suffolk County '/% Priority Sales Tax Program. F-2.4 Utilize existing base program funding from Federal, State, County,and local government programs to implement actions as appropriate; ensure that funding for these agencies remains, at a minimum, at current levels. Responsible Entities F-2.1 EPA (lead), PEP F-2.2 NYSDEC (lead), PEP F-2.3 Suffolk County(lead), PEP F-2.4 EPA,NYSDEC, SCDfIS,other Federal, State,and county agencies, and local governments(co-leads) • CHAPTERNINE 9-13 6� Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F-3 Explore Options for Federal, State, and County Funding. • Addresses Financing Objective 2. A number of Federal statutes and programs provide grants or matching funds for projects related to conservation planning and management, including the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Vessel Act,Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, and others under EPA, NOAA, USFWS, and NYSDOT. There are numerous provisions in the Federal Clean Water Act that can provide funding for CCMP actions, such as the Nonpoint Source(NPS)Management Program under Section 319 and the Water Quality Management Planning(WQMP)Program under Section 604(b). Opportunities exist when the State carries out these and other Federally funded programs, and through other State programs, including those under the Environmental Protection Fund. There are also provisions which have established and capitalized the State Revolving Fund program, funds from which can be used to carry out CCMPs. Candidate funding sources exist in other Federal and State statutes and agencies. Two USDA programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)are sources of funding and technical assistance for farmers, ranchers, and landowners. EQIP was established to provide a single voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers to address significant natural resource needs and objectives. Nationally, it provides technical, financial, and educational assistance, half of it targeted to livestock-related natural • resource concerns and the other half to more general conservation priorities. EQIP is available primarily in priority areas where there are significant natural resource concerns and objectives. Assistance includes: cost sharing at up to 75 percent of costs of certain conservation practices; incentive payments to up to 100 percent for three years; and a maximum payment of$10,000 per person per year and $50,000 over the length of the contract. $3.495 million was available in New York State in 1997; $3.63 million in 1998. The FY99 budget included a 50 percent increase($100 million nationwide)for EQIP. The majority of these funds have been allocated to upstate projects. Future allocations should include significant allocations to priority projects in the Peconic Watershed. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program(WHIP) is a voluntary program for people who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on private lands. It provides both technical assistance and cost sharing to help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. Participants work with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service to prepare a wildlife habitat development plan in consultation with the local conservation district. The plan describes the landowner's goals for improving wildlife habitat, includes a list of practices and schedule for installing them, and details the steps necessary to maintain the habitat for the life of the agreement. Suffolk County is the leading agricultural county in New York State, based upon the value of products produced. Much of this agriculture is concentrated on the East End. Even though the Peconic Estuary supports the largest number and greatest concentration of rare and endangered species in the State,and aside from the fact that East Enders rely exclusively on groundwater for drinking water,to date,neither EQIP nor WHIP funds have been awarded to the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. • 9-14 CHAPTER NINE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP tF F4a • Steps F-3.1 Support the Clean Water Act reauthorization, including grants to States for continued capitalization of State Revolving Loan Funds. F-3.2 Advocate 100 percent funding of Clean Water Act Sections 319 and 604(b) by the Federal government and 100 percent funding of the New York Nonpoint Source Management Program through the State Environmental Protection Fund. F-3.3 Fund CCMP Actions under non-C WA statutes, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Vessel Act, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, and others. F-3.4 Provide funding under the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (EQIP/WHIP) for the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District for priority projects consistent with the goals of the PEP. F-3.5 Actively seek government agency funding for program enhancements and projects mentioned in the CCMP. Develop a list of government funding sources that matches CCMP recommendations with mission/authorities of various government agencies. Responsible Entities F-3.1 NYSDEC(lead), PEP CAC F-3.2 NYSDEC,NYSDOS (co-leads) F-3.3 NOAH, USFWS,NYSDOT(leads)with input from PEP F-3.4 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service(lead); Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District in cooperation with PEP F-3.5 PEP(lead) • C H A P T E R N I N E 9-15 ,;r Peconic Estuary Program CCMP FF-4F Non-Profit Organizations to Administer Funding for Estuary • Protection Efforts. Addresses Financing Objective 2. Funding for proposed CCMP actions need not always be provided by government agencies. There are individuals and corporations interested in making contributions to implement estuary protection, preservation, and restoration efforts. Non-profit organizations under section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code are ideally suited to receive such contributions and disburse funds for the purposes of furthering their mission as well as the PEP's mission. One such fund that can be established and administered by non-profit entities is an "Environmental Improvement Fund." Private citizens as well as private industry can receive monies from the Environmental Improvement Fund to install improved environmental systems and other environmental improvements that require large capital funding. The PEP will encourage non-profit organizations to fund appropriate CCMP actions. To accomplish this,the PEP will: • Identify CCMP actions that may be appropriate for funding by non-profit organizations. (Examples include research studies,environmental monitoring, and educational programs); • • Identify existing non-profit organizations with missions that overlap with the PEP's; • Seek expressions of interest from non-profit organizations to work in partnership with the PEP to identify those actions they can implement;and, • Work with interested non-profit organizations to develop a coordinated strategy to further mutual goals, including: soliciting private sector funds; funding appropriate CCMP actions; and, including non-profit organization activities in CCMP updates. Steps F-4.1 Identify actions suited for funding by non-profit organizations. Identify existing non- profit organizations with missions that overlap PEP's and seek expressions of support from them. Work with interested organizations to further mutual goals and solicit private sector funding. F4.2 Investigate opportunities for establishing an Environmental Improvement Fund to provide funding for private citizens and industry for funding environmental improvements. Responsible Entities F-4.1 PEP(lead) F-4.2 PEP(lead) • CHAPTER NINE 9-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP it • F-5 Fund Actions under the State Revolving Loan Fund. Addresses Financing Objective 2. The Federal Clean Water Act's State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF)provision was established to provide low interest loans to localities for water pollution control projects. A SRF has been established by the State within EPA guidelines. The New York State SRF was capitalized initially by a combination of Federal grants and State matching funds with the intent of recycling money back into the SRF as the loans were repaid, making the fund self sufficient over time. Since 1990,New York State has received over$1.6 billion in Federal capitalization grants and provided over$314 million in State matching funds. The State has executed over 590 loans totaling over$4.2 billion to over 250 communities throughout the State. Funding decisions are made based on the State's intended use plan(IUP)and priority project list. The SRF was primarily established to provide financing for conventional sewage treatment projects. However, the Clean Water Act and EPA guidance specifically allow the use of the SRF for nonpoint source projects consistent with the State's Nonpoint Source Management Program, such as structural and vegetative stormwater management controls; sediment and erosion control practices; and certain waterbody and wetland restoration techniques. The Clean Water Act and EPA guidance also specifically allow the use of the SRF for activities in an approved CCMP that are listed on the State's • IUP, such as land acquisition, habitat enhancement, monitoring and enforcement, education, and training. The SRF is an important funding source for nonpoint source management and CCMP actions, particularly for capital improvements that have a substantial useful life and for which a strong case can be made that funding is available to repay the debt over time. Examples of CCMP projects for which long term borrowing may be appropriate include activities such as: • Building sewage treatment facilities; • Improving or upgrading on-site septic systems; • Building stormwater management systems; • Installing nonpoint source pollution controls or equipment; and, • Building boat pumpout facilities for vessel waste. The SRF may also be an important mechanism for land acquisition for preserving environmentally sensitive areas and open space. Land acquisition for drinking water source protection is currently eligible under the State SRF. Land acquisition can be through purchase(fee simple)or easement. For eligibility,the land to be acquired must be identified in a plan or report that includes a technical basis for the land acquisition; parcels must be excluded from future sale considerations; and the municipality must agree to protect the land from incompatible uses. Costs related to land acquisition that is eligible for SRF financing may include: cost of purchase(based on fair market value)or easement; property appraisal; survey; site assessment; and title search and other legal fees. Utilizing financing available under the SRF may similarly be important for land acquisition in the Peconic Estuary for preserving environmentally sensitive areas and open space. • CHAPTERNINE 9-17 ,ato" \ Peconrc Estuary Program CCMP ?I The New York State SRF does not presently provide financing to private entities(individuals, • businesses, or organizations). This precludes the SRF from directly financing certain environmental improvement or protection measures that may be important to the success of the CCMP. The establishment of special districts(as described elsewhere in this chapter)can provide a vehicle for financing certain specified environmental improvement or protection measures. Constitutional, statutory, or regulatory changes are necessary at the State level to provide funding to private entities. Providing SRF funding to private entities could enhance implementation of some CCMP actions. Most entities may be under the misconception that grants are always a better deal than SRF loans. Most State and local government officials are more familiar with grants,and consequently, many misconceptions exist. In fact,a loan may often be a better deal than a grant for the following reasons: • Most grant programs require significant cost shares(as much as 50 percent or more). A State Revolving Fund Loan can cover 100 percent of project costs with no cash up front; • SRF loans provide significant cost savings over the life of a loan. For example,a zero percent SRF loan will cost approximately 50 percent less than the same project financed by a commercial loan at 7.5 percent. Additionally,a zero percent SRF loan is equivalent to receiving a 50 percent grant(where the other 50 percent(match)is financed at market rate); and, • Financing a project with an SRF loan means fewer Federal requirements than any other Federal grant. The SRF program is experienced in helping applicants through the loan application process and providing extensive technical assistance. • Steps F-5.1 This CCMP includes both specific and general management actions aimed at preserving, protecting and restoring water quality, living resources, and habitats to ensure their eligibility for SRF financing. Ensure that CCMP projects are included on the State's priority list and intended use plan. Identify priority nonpoint source projects and ensure that they are included on the State's priority list and intended use plan. F-5.2 Educate municipalities and other potential recipients on the possible benefits of SRF loans. F-5.3 Make necessary constitutional, statutory,or regulatory changes necessary at the State level to provide SRF funding to private entities F-5.4 Provide zero percent loans under the SRF for land acquisition consistent with this Plan. • C H A P T E R N I N E 9-18 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP .4 • Responsible Entities F-5.1 NYSDEC (lead), NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation(EEC), PEP, Towns and Villages F-5.2 PEP,NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation(co-leads) F-5.3 NYS Legislature,NYSDEC, EEC F-5.4 EEC, NYSDEC • • CHAPTER NINE 9-19 ;"00 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP T r 11 F-6 Use Municipal Bonds for Project Financing. • Addresses Financing Objective 2. If the SRF cannot be accessed, CCMP implementors may look to traditional municipal finance markets to fund capital projects. The substantial advantage of municipal bonds is that there is a lower effective interest rate than if the funds were borrowed directly by corporations or individuals to finance environmental projects. The capital requirements must meet the minimum threshold size for cost effective underwriting. The minimum recommended size for a bond issue is typically no less than one million dollars. While technically feasible to issue bonds with a smaller total issue size,the cost of issuing may be prohibitive. Consolidating capital requirements is a general approach that integrates the financing needs of numerous localities to achieve economies of scale during the financing process. Approaches for consolidating municipal debt include: • Creating special multi jurisdictional districts; • Using State bond banks/State financial agencies; and, • Pooling bonds from multiple localities in a joint issue. The fundamental advantage of these methods is that they allow individual municipalities more • efficient access to capital. Consolidating debt is a logical approach to implementing CCMP actions where several municipalities must take similar actions to address a particular problem. Steps F-6.1 Consider traditional municipal finance markets to fund capital projects where appropriate. Responsible Entities: F-6.1 Towns,villages(leads), with input from PEP • CHAPTERNINE 9-20 Peconte Estuary Program CCMP 04 i • F-7 Identify and Obtain Sources of Private Sector Funding. Addresses Financing Objective 2. Some of the capital required to implement CCMP initiatives may be obtained either directly or indirectly from private sources. This approach is particularly effective in funding initiatives that are below the minimum threshold size for a viable municipal debt offering as well as for those projects for which funds are not available through traditional financing mechanisms. Using private capital has a number of advantages: it does not encumber the tax base of local and regional governments or constrain future borrowing; it links some of the contributors to estuary or watershed pollution with the costs of mitigating impacts; and it has the potential to create commercial opportunities for the private sector. Developer Financing: Developer financing consists of securing funds to finance either mitigation or environmental protection activities from land developers. It is generally secured around impact fees, capacity credits,and negotiated extractions. Impact fees are an assessment on real estate development activities to fund additional infrastructure capacity. Intended to compensate for additional demands placed on existing services by new development, they are most applicable to capital improvements directly related to needs such as • traditional sewage treatment and stormwater management. Typically a fee(usually on the order of a few thousand dollars for each residential unit) is charged to the developer;the sum of the accumulated impact fees provide a capital fund which may be used to finance any number of projects, although they are most commonly used to expand municipal infrastructure, such as sewage treatment facilities and stormwater management measures. Capacity credits are essentially prepaid impact fees. They permit developers to protect the viability of a future development project by"reserving"an increment of capacity in a new or expanded facility. Although voluntary,developers often choose to pay them in order to ensure their ability to undertake development in the future. Negotiated extractions, a type of impact fee, are assessments established on a case-by-case basis. They are most appropriate for large development projects, particularly commercial or industrial ventures. Negotiated extractions are considerably more complex to administer than impact fees, but they ultimately provide more flexibility. Privatization: Privatization refers to the use of private firms to build and operate facilities, such as sewage treatment plants,or to provide services such as environmental inspections. Capital for financing the necessary investment is provided by the private firm, which then operates the project as a commercial venture. Privatization may be an effective approach for small-scale capital projects that can be tied to a revenue stream for a private operator. An example would be procuring vehicles and equipment for septic system maintenance. In this instance,a private operator provides the necessary capital items,the revenue streams to finance the investment are provided by commercial and residential owners of septic systems, and incentives in the form of requirements to maintain septic systems facilitate private investment by ensuring a need for the services. Industry-Sponsored Initiatives: Private capital may be available in the form of voluntary, industry- sponsored initiatives. Increasingly, private firms are voluntarily financing environmental projects. CHAPTERNINE 9-21 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 40 1 This approach depends on the availability of one or more firms that are able and willing to make the • necessary investment in meaningful projects. Potential revenues or benefits from this approach may not be predictable or consistent. Opportunities for firms to publicize their achievements can encourage voluntary donations of capital. For example, donated equipment or facilities could identify the provider, special plaques or citations could commemorate a donation,and local officials could participate in dedication ceremonies. Candidate firms include those who have a stake in potential regulation or who are otherwise interested in environmental protection. While it is important to ensure that projects are consistent with CCMP or watershed goals, industry-sponsored initiatives can be particularly attractive for small scale projects where the capital requirements are below the threshold for cost effective municipal debt financing. Leasing: Leasing can be used to obtain capital equipment, facilities,or property,or in overcoming a funding shortfall. Examples include leasing oil spill containment equipment or vehicles and equipment used for nonpoint source abatement or wetlands restoration. Mechanisms for leasing arrangements are generally available through standard local government procurement. While leasing does not circumvent the need for revenues to cover the carrying cost of the leased item, it does potentially allow a capital item to be procured in a more timely fashion. Assessments of the financial reasonableness of the lease include comparisons of the annual lease fee with the equivalent annual cost of buying equipment and should be based on estimates of useful life, residual value,and the cost of capital. Steps • F-7.1 Collect and use developer fees from firms undertaking land development to finance mitigation and environmental protection activities. F-7.2 Identify and promote opportunities for private firms to build and operate facilities and to provide services. F-7.3 Identify and promote opportunities for voluntary, industry-sponsored initiatives. F-7.4 Utilize leasing arrangements,where appropriate, for small-scale capital purchases or equipment or in overcoming a funding shortfall. Responsible Entities F-7.1 Towns,villages(leads) F-7.2 PEP(lead),town and local governments, PEP, private entities F-7.3 PEP(lead), PEP CAC, private entities, industry groups and trade associations, PEP, local governments F-7.4 Towns, villages • CHAPTER NINE 9-22 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,f • F-8 Utilize Funds from Fines and Settlements. Addresses Financing Objective 3. Occasionally, sufficient funds become available through fines, negotiated settlements, orjury awards to fund significant capital improvement programs. Although these are essentially unpredictable sources, it can be useful to establish a process for securing, using, and perhaps sustaining these funds when appropriate occasions arise. For example, an existing entity such as an environmental trust can be designated as the recipient for various punitive or restitution payments flowing to the State or local governments. Some Federal statutes, such as the Oil Pollution Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA), provide that penalties for damages to natural resources be shared with State or local trustees to implement restoration activities. Where such opportunities present themselves,the results can be particularly attractive. Major cases may produce substantial revenue, and public acceptability is high based on the"polluter pays" principle. Projects funded through these means offer a vehicle to turn penalties and fines to positive purposes. Disadvantages of this source of funding are its uncertainty and vulnerability to competition for other uses. The PEP should identify an appropriate legal entity with established administrative procedures for using funds, including clearly defined objectives, project eligibility and selection criteria,and fund • recipient eligibility. A list of priority projects or funding needs to which proceeds can immediately be applied should be maintained. The need for establishing legislation to establish an endowment, including an assessment of the specific legal procedures in the State for distributing funds from penalties or litigation, should be further investigated. Steps F-8.1 Establish a program to utilize funds from fines, negotiated settlements,or jury awards for CCMP actions, should they become available. Responsible Entities F-8.1 EPA,NYSDEC and local governments(leads), PEP • C H A P T E R N I N E 9-23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP FF-9Utilize Tax Abatements and Other Tax Incentives to Encourage • Conservation Projects and Environmental Improvements. -J Addresses Financing Objective 3. A variety of tax incentives can be used to encourage property owners to undertake improvement projects that benefit the environment, including real property tax abatements, income tax deductions, and real property tax reductions. Real Property Tax Abatements: Real property tax abatements could be effectively used to support qualified environmental projects, such as replacement of underground gasoline and home heating oil tanks, septic system upgrades, commercial/residential stormwater abatement projects,certain environmental improvements at marinas, restoration of wetland buffers,re-establishment of native vegetation,and the removal of hardened shoreline structures. The Real Property Tax Law(RPTL) will need to be amended to enable towns to grant these real property tax abatements. The real property tax law requires that all real property in the State be taxed unless exempt from State law. While the State law lists numerous exemptions to promote certain public policy objectives,the environmental protection and improvement measures mentioned above are not listed. The Municipal Home Rule Law prohibits towns from superseding a"State statute relating to...creation or alteration of areas of taxation." Therefore, specific State legislation is necessary to enable towns to give tax relief to those who undertake qualified environmental projects. • Specifically, Section 487-a of the RPTL should be amended to include the conservation methods mentioned above, or a new section could be added specifically listing these exemptions from taxation of improvements which aid in environmental protection. Towns willing to implement this tax abatement would need to do so pursuant to a locally adopted plan outlining the condition needing remediation,the extent of the problem,the incentive to the recipient, and the impact on the tax base. Towns can establish programs to be limited and targeted to specific needs, with sunset provisions and other limits so as not to create unpredictable and unforeseen administrative complications and unnecessary negative fiscal impacts to the tax base. Environmental Improvement Income Tax Deduction: Revisions to the New York Tax Law can encourage certain qualified environmental protection measures by providing for interest deductions for these measures and permitting lending institutions to be exempted from earned income for loans for these projects. Tax credits(similar to those currently provided for solar and wind energy systems) could encourage replacement of underground gasoline and home heating oil tanks, upgrading of septic systems, commercial/residential stormwater abatement projects, certain environmental improvements at marinas,restoration of wetland buffers, reestablishment of native vegetation,and the removal of hardened shoreline structures. Further, interest income earned by lending institutions is factored in to compute net income and thus is taxable in New York State. Lending institutions that receive interest income from municipalities are exempt from State tax, which provides for lower municipal interest rates. This action envisions banks developing environmental improvement loan portfolios with exemptions similar to those afforded municipalities whose interest payments are exempt from State taxation. This would enable businesses and residents to make environmental improvements to their property at less than prevailing market interest rates. • C H A P T E R N I N E 9-24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i • Homeowner Associations: Homeowner associations typically control the open lands created by reserved areas resulting from a subdivision. Regulations for the reserved area are typically written by the developer for the association; most regulations are without regard for the resource that constitutes the reserved area, be it farmland, woodlands, wetlands or dunes. Homeowner association land should be afforded an additional real property tax reduction if the reserved area conforms to a management plan for the reserved area. For example, agricultural reserves that are not farmed in accordance with a management plan would be taxed at a higher rate than those that are. Steps F-9.1 Amend the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL)to enable towns to grant real property tax abatements for qualified environmental protection measures. F-9.2 Amend the New York State Tax Law to provide for deductions for certain qualified environmental protection measures and to exempt lending institutions from taxes on earned income for loans for these projects. F-9.3 Identify the necessary mechanisms and feasibility providing for real property tax reductions for homeowner associations whose lands are managed in accordance with a management plan(i.e., amendments to the Real Property Tax Law). • Responsible Entities F-9.1 State Legislature(lead),Towns, PEP(for coordination) F-9.2 State Legislature(lead),Towns, PEP (for coordination) F-9.3 Local governments, PEP(lead) • CHAPTER NINE 9-25 jfd QN, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F-10 Establish Municipal Improvement Districts to Pay for Qualified Projects. • Addresses Financing Objective 3. Municipalities can establish improvement districts(such as sewer, drainage,water, water quality treatment,water supply, harbor improvement, and others)and provide improvements or services wholly at the expense of the district. Such districts and the properties within the districts would receive the benefit of municipal finance rates, favorable terms to pay for certain improvements, and municipal requests for proposals to undertake certain improvements. Qualified improvements could include: replacement of underground gasoline and home heating oil tanks, septic system upgrades, commercial/residential stormwater abatement projects, certain environmental improvements at marinas, restoration of wetland buffers,reestablishment of native vegetation, and the removal of hardened shoreline structures. Town-wide septic system and fuel oil tank districts might be desirable, but State law may need to be amended to allow such districts. Instead of creating new districts, it may also be possible to amend existing districts to achieve the same ends. While the existing legislation for Wastewater Disposal Districts makes reference to"on-site wastewater disposal systems," it is unclear if this provision pertains to private septic systems or simply to collection districts for the purpose of transporting sewage to treatment plants. This section could be amended or clarified to provide for private on-site septic system improvements. Steps • F-10.1 Establish appropriate improvement districts(or amend existing districts)to encourage the adoption of certain qualified environmental improvements. F-10.2 Amend the State Town Law to allow the establishment of town wide septic systems and fuel oil tank districts to encourage environmental improvements. Also,the existing legislation for Wastewater Disposal Districts should be amended or clarified to provide for private on-site septic system improvements. Responsible Entities F-10.1 Towns, PEP F-10.2 State Legislature(lead),Towns, PEP • CHAPTERNINE 9-26 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP i • F-11 Identify Sources of Funding for Land Preservation and Acquisition. Addresses Financing Objective 3. Open space preservation through conservation planning, land acquisition, or the use of easements can be used to protect important habitats of rare or endangered species and can have social, environmental, and economic benefits. Open space planning involves identifying and saving what is most important or most valued in a community or region while still accommodating desirable or sustainable growth. The environmental benefits of open space preservation are discussed in other chapters of this CCMP. Community Preservation Fund: The Community Preservation Fund establishes a two percent real estate transfer tax to support farmland and open space conservation in the five East End towns. It is estimated that this tax will raise $110 million over 10 years. Elements of the program include: • Exemption of up to$250,000 on improved property (to ameliorate concerns regarding affordable housing); • A sunset provision in which the tax would expire in the year 2010; • Creation of an advisory committee to identify lands to be preserved and oversee • implementation; • An agricultural land exemption; • The tax is subject to mandatory referendum before any East End town can levy the tax; • The buyer pays the tax; • Money raised in a town stays in the town in which the tax is levied; and, • The tax applies only in the East End towns and nowhere else in New York State. New York State Open Space Conservation Plan: Statewide, significant funding is available through the New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act specifically for open space preservation under the Clean Water provisions of the Act($150 million). The New York State Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), which is funded primarily through real estate transfer taxes, also has funded open space preservation (approximately $30 million per year). Decisions regarding use of these funds are made according to the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. The NYSDEC has established regional advisory committees to solicit recommendations regarding open space resource priorities. This Open Space Conservation Plan proposes strategies for conserving various types of areas. Acquisition is only one of many suggested approaches to conservation of open spaces. The plan also recommends voluntary landowner initiatives and establishment of partnerships between public agencies and private organizations for achieving the objectives of the plan. County and Town Open Space Initiatives: Suffolk County and each of the East End towns have set aside significant funding for open space and farmland preservation. Preservation may take the form of outright acquisition or the purchase of development rights. Suffolk County programs include the /a% Sales Tax Drinking Water Program (raising approximately$20 million per year for use county- wide through 2013 via '/a%sales tax); Open Space Program ($1 million per year through annual appropriations);Farmland Purchasing of Development Rights(PDRs)($1.5 million per year through • CH AP TER NINE 9-27 p- Peconic Estuary Program CCMP annual appropriations); Community Greenways Fund($62 million in bonds for the acquisition of • farmland development rights, open space,and parklands for active recreational use); and Preservation Partnerships. Funding available through town governments are as follows: East Hampton: $5 million; Riverhead: $2 million; Shelter Island: $0.6 million; Southampton: $5 million; and Southold $4 million. Additional match from Suffolk County may be available through Suffolk County Preservation Partnerships. This funding is for open space and farmland preservation countywide and town-wide and not necessarily limited to land in the PEP Study area. County and town open space and farmland preservation and acquisition programs should consider open space priorities identified by the PEP. Private Land Trusts: Land trusts are private,tax-exempt, non-profit organizations whose primary purpose is to conserve important open land, usually by acquiring it in fee or by conservation easement and ensuring that it is effectively managed for conservation purposes. A land trust may have its own specific objectives or strategies, such as conserving ecologically sensitive lands. Land trusts can also help others acquire land. To obtain an easement or acquire fee title to a parcel of land, a considerable amount of negotiation must take place and land trusts are often in the best position to do this. Land trusts have skills and experience and may already have established good working relationships with key landowners. Land trusts can explain the benefits of donating an easement and are knowledgeable about tax laws. The two primary land trusts in the Peconics are The Nature Conservancy and the Peconic Land Trust. Conservation Easements and Purchase of Development Rights: Conservation easements encompass development rights along with other types of easements. This approach is based on the concept that it is not necessary to transfer ownership of the property, but only to restrict certain uses. • Under a conservation easement,the right to develop a site in accordance with its highest zoned use is given up, in whole or in part, in return for certain financial and tax benefits. This separation of rights from the property is legally binding, is recorded along with the title and deed records, and is conveyed along with ownership of the land. Conservation easements are intended to be tradable, and thus enjoy much more flexibility to define specific rights and conditions. This makes it easier to tailor easements to the distinctive needs of property owners, who define the restrictions they wish to observe. The principle is similar to owning land in a development subject to legally binding covenants against subdividing property. Although easements can be structured for a given period of time,easements generally must give up development rights permanently in order to qualify for tax advantages. This is primarily because it is difficult to value fixed period easements, such as a 10-year moratorium on developing a property. Easement donors can take advantage of three different tax benefits. First,the value of the easement (defined as the difference in value between the land with and without development rights)can be deducted from the donor's income for Federal and State income tax purposes. Second, property values are assessed on the consequent lower value of the land,thus reducing the owner's property taxes. Finally,the land is subject to lower estate taxes when the land passes on to the donor's heirs, an advantage particularly relevant when farmland is at issue. These tax advantages can be significant in higher growth areas where development pressures create a high value for development rights and render purchase of such rights too expensive to undertake. In lower growth areas, on the other hand, the value of development rights may be low enough that the property owner would prefer to be paid for the rights because the tax advantages are so small, and the costs might be low enough that the agency or organization could more easily afford a purchase. One of the greatest challenges in this approach is gaining the serious consideration of donors. In addition, it is essential to identify lands that are likely to provide the most environmental value. This • CHAPTER NINE 9-28 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ; is particularly crucial in purchasing development rights,which are not tradable and whose purchase price is not likely to be recovered. Because donations create a monitoring responsibility, it is also important to focus resources on critical areas. Conservation Improvement Districts: In a conservation improvement district,willing landowners/neighbors finance the purchase of critical open space or environmentally sensitive land through their respective local property tax bills. The landowner is a willing seller, and neighboring property owners apply to the town to acquire the land pursuant to the provisions of the Conservation Improvement District. The town acquires the land using funding raised through a special assessment applied to the tax bills of the petitioning landowners. The landowners preserve the open space and their tax bills rise incrementally. This type of program facilitates the direct participation of concerned citizens in environmental conservation. Agricultural Assessment Districts: The New York State Legislature allows the establishment of Agricultural Assessment Districts to help farmers keep land in agricultural production by reducing property taxes. In Agricultural Assessment Districts, farmers agree to keep land in agricultural production for eight years in exchange for reduction in property taxes. A similar program could be established to apply more generally to open space and environmentally sensitive lands. Taxes on these lands would be deferred and not forgiven so that the property owners must pay all back taxes if the land is developed in the future or prorated if there is partial development,thereby encouraging conservation. This process could,for example, reduce taxes by 30 percent or more and be limited to only those parcels identified by the town board as warranting this incentive. In an effort to limit the impact on town revenues/receipts, the town could further limit the percent reduction based on the • importance of the parcel,the gross amount of reductions by any town board in any one year, and other factors. Steps F-11.1 Provide regular input to the NYSDEC Region 1 Open Space Advisory Committee regarding important open space preservation and acquisition parcels. Incorporate priority areas in the State Open Space Conservation Plan- F-11.2 lan.F-11.2 Provide regular input to County and town committees regarding important open space and farmland preservation. Coordinate County and town efforts with the State Open Space Conservation Plan. F-11.3 Implement the Community Preservation Fund and coordinate this program with other Priority open space conservation programs. F-11.4 Private land trusts should continue to acquire and preserve important open space and environmentally sensitive land. F-11.5 Use conservation easements and the purchase of development rights to preserve open space and protect environmentally sensitive areas. F-11.6 Amend the State Town Law to allow the establishment of Conservation Improvement Districts. Encourage open space and environmentally sensitive land acquisition through such districts. • CHAPTER NINE 9-29 �'°e" '-'t' Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ►Ta $ F-11.7 Amend the State Town Law to allow the establishment of Open Space Conservation Assessment Districts. Encourage the preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive lands through such districts. Responsible Entities F-11.1 PEP(lead), Regional Open Space Advisory Committee,NYSDEC F-1 1.2 PEP(lead), Suffolk County Department of Planning,Towns F-11.3 Towns F-11.4 The Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust(co-leads), PEP F-11.5 Local governments, private land trusts(co-leads),willing landowners, PEP F-11.6 State Legislature(lead),Towns, private landowners, PEP F-I 1.7 State Legislature(lead), Towns, private landowners, PEP • • CHAPTERNINE 9-30 Peconic Esluary Program CCMP i • F-12 Encourage Citizen Initiated Environmental Legislation. Addresses Financing Objective 3. The State's Town Law presently allows citizens to place a number of issues on the ballot without Town Board approval, i.e., to initiate legislation. The Town Law is vague with respect to measures regarding certain environmental improvements. The Town Law does provide that town boards may, upon a board motion or upon a petition, submit at special or biennial elections a proposition to dredge, bulkhead, dock, or otherwise improve navigable or other waterways within the town. Whether or not such improvements could include septic tank improvements, fuel tank replacement, or wetland buffer restoration, and the like, is unclear. The Town Law should be clarified or an additional section added. Steps F-12.1 Amend the State Town Law to enable citizens to put environmental protection measures (such as septic tank improvements, fuel tank replacement,or wetland buffer restoration) to a public vote which will result in funding to be allocated to pay for these measures. • Responsible Entities F-12.1 State Legislature(lead), Towns,citizens, PEP • CHAPTER NINE 9-31 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F-13 Investigate the Feasibility of Establishing Selective Sales Fees to Fund • Environmental Management Programs. Addresses Financing Objective 3. In the absence of securing sufficient funds for CCMP implementation,the feasibility of establishing selective fees to fund environmental management programs should be investigated. At least four states(Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon)currently assess a surcharge on fertilizer/pesticide sales or charge producers/distributors directly. These agricultural chemical fees are imposed on fertilizers,pesticides, agricultural additives and minerals, and some herbicides,as a sales distribution fee. Such fees, if employed in the Peconics,could generate significant revenues because of the relatively large volume of fertilizers and pesticides used. For pesticides,there could be a graduated rate structure,which varies according to the toxicity of the ingredients. Fees could be collected to cover both commercial agriculture and residential garden uses. Revenues could be used to fund related education/outreach programs to discourage unnecessary/inappropriate fertilizer/pesticide use, agricultural best management practices, or surface or groundwater remediation projects. Steps • F-13.1 Investigate the feasibility of establishing selective sales fees(on products such as Priority fertilizers and pesticides)to fund environmental management programs. Responsible Entities F-13.1 New York State Legislature, PEP,NYSDEC • CHAPTER NINE 9-32 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,f • COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The total cost of all new actions proposed in the Financing Chapter is $1,162,500 for one-time costs and $600,000 annually. (See"Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) CCMP FINANCING MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 9-3 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R" for"Recommendation"or a"C" for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O" refers to ongoing activities; "N" indicates new actions. • Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP'S best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed as dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE" is estimated as costing$75,000 per year, which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 9 provides an expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • CHAPTERNINE 9-33 a Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status F-I Establish a Finance Work Group to Formulate/Refine Finan cin Options. (Objectives 1,2 and 3. Z 7I.1 Establish a Finance Work Group to PEP(lead). Post-cGMP EPA—0.1 FTE/yr R o Priority Formulate/Refine Financing NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr a Options. SCDHS—0.1 FTE/ r F-2 Effectively Use NEP Funding,the NYS Bond Act the Suffolk County 1/4%Sales Tax Program,and Base Programs to Implement the o COMP. (Objective I F-2.1 Provide post-CCMP funding to EPA(lead), PEP. Federal fiscal years 1998- ($300,000 per year annual C/O implement eligible CCMP actions, 2001 target) strive to obtain additional funding a based on the results of EPA conducted Implementation nr) Reviews. F-2.2 Ensure that funding reserved for NYSDEC(lead), PEP. Annually during 1998-2005 ($30,000,000 [less funds C/O the PEP in the New York State allocated to the South Shore Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act Estuary Reserve Program], is used effectively for the highest additional funds may also be priority eligible projects. available F-2.3 Effectively use funding for PEP Suffolk County(lead), PEP Beginning December 1, (Estimated funding C/N Priority recommended projects from the 2000 available may be$2.5 M/yr Suffolk County ''/.%Sales Tax for water quality Program. improvement 2rojects alone F-2.4 Utilize existing base program EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS, Ongoing Existing agency program C/O funding from Federal, State, other Federal, State, and staff and resources, as County,and local government county agencies, and local applicable programs to implement actions as governments n appropriate;ensure that funding for (co-leads). 7 these agencies remains, at a Y minimum,at current levels. ro —7 Table continued on next page m A z z m • x Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) D d Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m F-3 Explore Options for Federal State and County Funding. Ob ecdve 2 p F-3.1 Support the Clean Water Act NYSDEC(lead), PEP CAC. Annually Base Program C/O Z reauthorization, including grants to z States for continued capitalization M of State Revolving Loan Funds. F-3.2 Advocate 100 percent funding of NYSDEC,NYSDOS Annually Base Program C/O Clean Water Act Sections 319 and (co-leads). 604(b)by the Federal Government and 100 percent funding of the New York State Nonpoint Source Management Programs through the State Environmental Protection Fund, F-3.3 Fund CCMP Actions under non- NCAA, FWS,NYSDOT Annually Base Program R CWA statutes, such as the Coastal (leads)with input from PEP. PEP—0.1 FTE/yr Zone Management Act, Clean Vessel Act, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act,and others. F-3.4 Provide funding under the USDA's USDA Natural Resources Annually PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R Environmental Quality Incentives Conservation Service(lead), USDA-NRCS—0.1 FTE/yr b Program and Wildlife Habitat Suffolk County Soil and SCS&WCD—0.1 FTE/yr o Incentives Program(EQIP/WHIP) Water Conservation District ' n for the Suffolk County Soil and in cooperation with PEP. m Water Conservation District for 4 priority projects consistent with the goals of the PEP. b Table continued on next page a 3 n n 1c b Al n Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) �ikf Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status �( F-3.5 Actively seek government agency PEP(lead). Post-CCMP EPA-0.1 FTE/yr CM funding for program enhancements NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr m and projects mentioned in the SCDHS—0.1 FTE/yr 3 CCMP. Develop a list of �. government funding sources that 5 matches CCMP recommendations c with mission/authorities of various government agencies. b 0 F-4 Encourage Non- rofit Organizations to Administer Fundin .for EstuaryProtection Efforts. Ob'ective 1 ; F-4.1 Identify actions suited for funding PEP(lead). Post-CCMP PEP—0.1 FTE/yr CM 3 by non-profit organizations. n Identify existing non-profit n organizations with missions that b overlap PEP's and seek expressions of support from them. Work with interested organizations to further mutual goals and solicit private sector funding. F4.2 Investigate opportunities for PEP(lead). Post-CCMP PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R establishing an Environmental Improvement Fund to provide funding for private citizens and industry for funding environmental improvements. Table continued on next page x a b m Z Z m i S Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) D 'O Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m F-5 Fund Actions under the State RevoWin Loan Fund. Ob eetive 2 F-5.1 This CCMP includes both specific NYSDEC(lead),NYS Upon approval of the NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr CM z and general management actions Environmental Facilities CCMP for CCMP actions, PEP—0.1 FTE/yr 'z aimed at preserving,protecting and Corporation(EFC), PEP, immediately for nonpoint T� restoring water quality, living Towns and Villages. source management actions resources, and habitats to ensure their eligibility for SRF financing. Ensure that CCMP projects are included on the State's priority list and intended use plan. Identify priority nonpoint source projects and ensure that they are included on the State's priority list and intended use plan. R5.2 Educate municipalities and other EPA,NYS Environmental Post-CCMP EPA—0.1 FTE/yr CM potential recipients on the possible Facilities Corporation NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr benefits of SRF loans. (leads),NYSDEC. EFC—0.1 FTE/yr F-5.3 Make necessary constitutional, NYS Legislature,NYSDEC, Post-CCMP Base Program R statutory, or regulatory changes EFC. necessary at the State level to provide SRF funding to private entities. F-5.4 Provide zero percent loans under EFC,NYSDEC Post-CCMP Base Program R 3 the SRF for land acquisition consistent with this Plan. m e F-6 Use Municipal Bonds for Project Financing. (Objective 2 F-6.1 Consider traditional municipal Towns,villages, with input Upon approval of the Base Program R finance markets to fund capital from PEP. CCMP �'oo projects where app ro riate. o Table continued on next page 7 w � J Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status �( x F-7 Identify and Obtain Sources of Private Sector Funding. Ob ective 2 ' F-7.1 Collect and use developer fees Towns, villages(leads). Upon approval of the Towns—0.1 FTE each/yr R from firms undertaking land CCMP development to finance mitigation and environmental protection activities. e F-7.2 Identify and promote opportunities PEP(lead),Town and local Post-cGMP PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R for private firms to build and governments,private operate facilities and to provide entities. services. 3 F-7.3 Identify and promote opportunities PEP(lead),PEP CAC, Post-cGMP PEP—0.1 FTE/yr R n for voluntary, industry-sponsored private entities, industry initiatives. groups and trade b associations, PEP, local governments. F-7.4 Utilize leasing arrangements, Towns, villages. Post-CCMP Base Program R where appropriate, for small-scale capital purchases or equipment or in overcoming a funding shortfall. F-8 Utilize Funds from Fines and Settlements Ob'ective 3 F-8.1 Establish a program to utilize EPA,NYSDEC, local Post-CCMP EPA—0.1 FTE/yr R funds from fines,negotiated governments(leads), PEP. NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr settlements, or jury awards for CCMP actions,should they become available. F-9 Utilize Tax Abatements and Other Tax Incentives to Encourage Conservation Projects and Environmental n Im rovements. Ob ective 3 x y F-9.1 Amend the Real Property Tax Law State Legislature(lead), Post-CCMP PEP—0.5 FTE R ro (RPTL)to enable towns to grant Towns, PEP(for Towns—0.5 FTE each m real property tax abatements for coordination). qualified environmental protection z measures. z Table continued on next page m s Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) D 'b Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m F-9.2 Amend the New York State Tax State Legislature(lead), Post-CCMP PEP—0.5 FTE R Law to provide for deductions for Towns, PEP(for Towns—0.5 FTE each 'z certain qualified environmental coordination). z protection measures and to exempt to lending institutions from taxes on earned income for loans for these projects. F-9.3 Identify the necessary mechanisms Local governments, PEP Post-CCMP PEP—0.5 FTE R and feasibility providing for real (lead). Towns—0.5 FTE each property tax reductions for homeowner associations whose lands are managed in accordance with a management plan (i.e.,amendments to the Real Property Tax Law). F-10 ; Establish Municipal Improvement Districts to Pay for Qualified Projects. Objective 3 F-10.1 Establish appropriate improvement Towns(lead), PEP. Post-CCMP Towns— I FTE each R districts(or amend existing PEP— 1.0 FTE districts)to encourage the adoption of certain qualified environmental improvements. F-10.2 Amend the State Town Law to State Legislature(lead), Post-CCMP PEP—0.5 FTE/yr R o allow the establishment of town Towns, PEP. ? wide septic systems and fuel oil h� tank districts to encourage e environmental improvements. Also,the existing legislation for ti Wastewater Disposal Districts should be amended or clarified to provide for private on-site septic n system improvements. 1P Table continued on next page A Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) Atorq' o r (� Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status F-11 Identifv Sources of Fundingfor Land Preservation and Ac uisition. Ob ective 3 F-I 1.1 Provide regular input to the PEP(lead), Regional Open Post-CCMP Utilize Base Program; C/N NYSDEC Region 1 Open Space Space Advisory Committee, funding available under the 3 Advisory Committee regarding NYSDEC. Bond Act(initially$150 important open space preservation million)and the y and acquisition parcels. Environmental Protection a Incorporate priority areas in the Fund(approximately$30 State Open Space Conservation million per year) o Plan. PEP-0.1 FTE/yr 4 3 F-11.2 Provide regular input to County PEP(lead),Suffolk County Upon Approval of the Base Program(A portion of CM n and town committees regarding Department of Planning, CCMP the funds available at the important open space and farmland Towns. county level and a portion ^' preservation. Coordinate County of the$16.6 million and town efforts with the State available at the town level) Open Space Conservation Plan. PEP—0.1 FTE/yr F-11.3 Implement the Community Towns. 1999-2010 Base program(Community C/O Priority Preservation Fund and coordinate Preservation Fund expected this program with other open space to raise$110 million in the conservation programs. five East End towns) PEP—0.2 FTE/yr F-l 1.4 Private land trusts should continue The Nature Conservancy Post-CCMP Base program(for R to acquire and preserve important and Peconic Land Trust identifying priorities),to be open space and environmentally (leads), PEP. determined for acquisition sensitive land. F-11.5 Use conservation easements and Local governments(lead), Post-CCMP PEP—0.2 FTE/yr R n the purchase of development rights private land trusts, willing Towns— 1/FTE/town/yr Y to preserve open space and protect landowners, PEP. b environmentally sensitive areas. m Table continued on next page A z Z m x Table 9-3. CCMP Financing Management Actions. (continued) D 'a Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status W F-11.6 Amend the State Town Law to State Legislature(leads), Post-CCMP PEP—0.2 FTE/yr R allow the establishment of Towns, private landowners, Z Conservation Improvement PEP. Z Districts. Encourage open space M and environmentally sensitive land acquisition through such districts. F-11.7 Amend the State Town Law to State Legislature(leads), Post-CCMP PEP-0.2 FTE/yr R allow the establishment of Open Towns, private landowners, Space Conservation Assessment PEP. Districts. Encourage the preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive lands through such districts. F-12 : Encourage Citizen Initiated Environmental Legislation. Objective 3 F-12.1 Amend the State Town Law to State Legislature(lead), Post-CCMP PEP—0.2 FTE/yr R enable citizens to put Towns,citizens, PEP. environmental protection measures (such as septic tank improvements, fuel tank replacement,or wetland buffer restoration)to a public vote which will result in funding to be allocated to pay for these o measures. F-13 Investigate the Feasibility of Establishing Selective Sales Fees to Fund Environmental Management Programs. Objective 3 F-13.1 Investigate the feasibility of State Legislature(lead), Post-CCMP Base Program R Priority establishing selective sales fees to PEP,NYSDEC PEP—0.5 FTE b fund environmental management z programs. � Table continued on next page n b � Peconic Estuary Program CCMP This Page Intentionally Left Blank. i • CHAPTER NINE 942 Peconic Estuary Program CHAPTER TEN POST-COMP MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1) Create a stable and effective management structure for CCMP implementation. 2) Ensure widespread public agency participation/representation and use existing authorities • to the maximum extent possible. 3) Develop and implement an integrated long-term monitoring plan for water quality and habitats/living resources issues with a coordinated data management strategy. 4) Track the progress of CCMP implementation(commitments,outcomes, and environmental effects), providing routine reporting and allowing for refining of management approaches. • CHAPTERTEN 10-1 ,pf Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS • The Peconic Estuary Program's measurable goals with respect to post-CCMP management and implementation are: • Implement the Peconic Estuary Program Environmental Monitoring Plan. [See Action M-2] • Produce status reports. [See Action M-3] • Update municipal officials. [See Action M-4] • Develop sub-watershed implementation plans(as measured by the number of sub- watershed plans initiated). [See Action M-5] • • CHAPTERTEN 10-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP gF • INTRODUCTION The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be measured by implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Plan implementation requires a clear understanding among all participating entities concerning their responsibilities for actions recommended in the CCMP (Battelle et al., 1995). The Peconic Estuary Program has recognized the need for establishing a long-term framework for Peconic Estuary management, as shown by the PEP goals and objectives at the beginning of this chapter. In light of the significance placed upon post-CCMP management and monitoring by Congress, the EPA,and the PEP Management Conference,the PEP Management Conference directed that a separate section of this Management Plan specifically deal with the issue of long-term management. Accordingly,this chapter of the CCMP includes not only a discussion on the critical issue of long-term institutional and organizational framework, but also a summary of other important parameters such as long-term monitoring, mechanisms for measuring progress, and data management. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK The PEP has selected a long-term institutional framework for post-CCMP management,which is to continue the existing management structure. Various alternatives were proposed in the Draft CCMP. These alternatives served as a starting point for the public as well as agencies and resource managers • in the decision-making process. During the public comment period for the draft Management Plan, the PEP Management Conference sought input from interested parties regarding a final long-term institutional framework for post-CCMP management. The three alternative frameworks proposed in the draft CCMP were: I. Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure (Policy Committee; Management Committee; Citizens,Technical, and Local Government Advisory Committees;Natural Resources Subcommittee; and Program Office); 2. Formation of a Regional Advisory Commission (formal, non-regulatory commission of East End town and village representatives); and, 3. Formation of the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Commission (Modification of the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act as a mechanism to involve State, County, and local governments in a regional implementation process). For the foreseeable future,the Management Conference will continue the existing Management Conference structure(see Appendix B). The PEP Program Office at the SCDHS Office of Ecology will continue to be a critical coordinating,management,and administrative body. Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure At the core of the existing PEP Management Conference structure are the Management Committee and Program Office. (See Figure 10.1) The Program Office is located in the SCDHS Office of Ecology. The Management Committee consists of voting representatives from EPA,the NYSDEC, Suffolk County, local government, chairs of Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees,and • CHAPTER TEN 10-3 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP r several other advisory members. (See Appendix B for a full discussion of the Management • Conference Structure.) The existing Management Conference structure remains intact. The Local Government Committee, Technical Advisory Committee,and Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to be integral to the long-term management process. The Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to maintain a vigorous public education and outreach program. The Technical Advisory Committee and the Natural Resources Subcommittee will provide technical guidance regarding long-term monitoring and assessment projects,technical implementation projects,and CCMP assessment and goal attainment. Local governments will be crucial to the implementation process itself with regard to issues such as land use,zoning, and implementation of nonpoint source control programs. Both the Management Committee and Local Government Committee currently report to the Policy Committee. Under the Post-CCMP structure, both will continue to report to the Policy Committee, which will review and approve progress reports on implementation and sanction major new policy initiatives. The Program Office will continue its management, coordination, and administration functions,as they are applicable to post-CCMP management, and as resources allow. Several responsibilities and functions outlined in the PEP Management Conference Agreement(June 1993)which will still be applicable to the post-CCMP period are noted as follows: Manaeement Responsibilities • Communicate regularly with all PEP participants about activities and issues to ensure • consensus and that all views are fairly represented in work products; • Coordinate activities among Federal, State,County,and local agencies as well as the public sector to obtain program objectives; • Manage the preparation of annual workplans and reports, in cooperation with all PEP participants; • Coordinate conference activities in identifying and seeking alternative sources of funding for activities associated with the estuary system; and, • Implement the CCMP. Technical Responsibilities • Oversee and assist in coordinating the planning,development, and implementation of all phases of the PEP; and • Identify,participate in, and ensure the transfer of scientific/engineering information to PEP participants. • CHAPTERTEN 104 n POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE x I a MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE b � t" C POLICY COMMITTEE M o Members: A representative from EPA,NYSDEC, z ! Suffolk County, and Local Government. Purpose: To oversee and ultimately approve fund disbursement and project LOCAL GOVERNMENT progress. w COMMITTEE PROGRAM OFFICE Members: resen. Re iv f d Representatives es o each ,y MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE y p Member: Suffolk Count De t. of Health o East End town and village. Services,Office of Ecology. d Purpose: To provide oversight on Members: A representative from EPA, B development,zoning, NYSDEC,Suffolk County,the Purpose: To serve as the functional arm of 'S7 Chairperson of the Technical o planning, and other local the Management Committee in •y,* issues;to provide guidance Advisory Committee,the Local conducting day-to-day Government Committee,the Citizens n for effective decision- management of technical, (� Advisory Committee, and several b making and financial administrative, and editorial tasks non-voting planning to develop an advisory members. pp 3 Purpose: To develop goals, approve workplans, and advisory committee support. o implementation strategy. n' and oversee the project. M to I y o =; aa A � B A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE a e Members: Scientists,engineers,planners, and managers from various Members: Representatives from citizens' groups, including but not Federal, State,and local institutions,as well as from limited to farmers, fishermen, environmental organizations, ti universities and private organizations. and business and industry. 44A °w Purpose: To provide technical guidance;to recommend and oversee Purpose: To integrate citizens' concerns and guidance into P scientific studies, investigations, and sampling, modeling, evaluation and decision-making processes;to conduct and monitoring programs. public education and outreach. st Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Program Administration • • Manage development of Requests for Proposals; • Oversee the administration and performance of contracts and grants; • Facilitate the convening of conferences and meetings; • Prepare routine PEP status reports and program information. The Program Office and Suffolk County maintain the PEP worldwide web site and the Program Office library that contains a collection of program documents, reports, and maps;and, • Prepare and distribute a periodic newsletter on the Peconic Estuary Program. Administrative Support • Routinely attend meetings of major committees; • Ensure the transfer of all PEP materials(e.g., work products, reports, meeting minutes, etc.)to the appropriate persons and locations; and, • Receive and respond to requests for technical information and assistance regarding the PEP from the public, elected officials, EPA Headquarters, and others. Benefits of Continuing the Existing Management Conference Structure • The structure relies on a pre-existing framework that has been successful in integrating concerns and building consensus in an often complex and contentious process; • • The structure effectively involves numerous stakeholders closely in the management process; • The Program Office,which benefits from decades of institutional environmental management continuity in eastern Suffolk County, is at the heart of the administration and management process; • The NYSDEC (which administers State Bond Act funding)and EPA(which provides post-CCMP funding)will have active roles;and, • The structure would not involve any new or major institutional expenditures and therefore would be relatively low cost(provided that all Committee representatives will continue to participate actively in committee activities without compensation and that staff from the SCDHS Office of Ecology can continue to dedicate a portion of their time to program coordination,as well as long-term monitoring and data management). • CHAPTERTEN 10-6 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,t Drawbacks of Continuine the Existine Manaeement Conference Structure The following drawbacks of continuing the existing management conference structure were identified in the draft CCMP and will need to be considered and addressed in the implementation phase: • The Management Conference structure is centered around the Management Committee that does not itself implement many of the recommended actions in the draft CCMP. This drawback may be overcome by close and active coordination with advisory committees and workgroups. Additional committees, such as a Habitat Restoration Work Group and the proposed Financing Work Group,can be integrated and can report directly to the Management Committee, or, in some cases,other committees, such as the Local Government Committee, as needed; • The structure has no ability to raise revenues. This can be overcome by a coupling with a non-profit arm with fund-raising ability; and, • The Management Conference structure does not have any direct regulatory or enforcement authority. Several Management Conference members have, on numerous occasions, expressed the opinion that a lack of direct regulatory or enforcement authority is highly desirable and is in the spirit of the consensus-building approach of the PEP Management Conference. Also, agencies that sit on the Management Conference do, of course, have regulatory authorities. LONG-TERM MONITORING • Monitoring during CCMP implementation is needed to gather information on the changing state of the estuary system. This information can be used to prioritize activities and measure the success of management actions. Specific details regarding PEP post-CCMP monitoring efforts are included in the various main chapters of this draft management plan and the monitoring plan presented in Appendix 1. The overall strategy for long-term monitoring is summarized below. Monitoring plan elements are summarized in Table 10-1. A diagram of some of the major long-term monitoring topics for the PEP is shown in Figure 10-2. It is critical to emphasize that the PEI' is a management program rather than primarily a research effort. Therefore, all monitoring efforts directly undertaken, coordinated,or overseen by the PEP must be primarily management-oriented. For example,the PEP would probably not perform a long-term zooplankton study merely to determine shifts in regional species composition abundance, but to ultimately enable evaluation of possible linkages to causal factors. PEP projects must be more determinate in terms of hypotheses and probable management utility. An appropriate research project would be to perform synoptic zooplankton and nutrient monitoring to determine whether changes in nutrient loading are adversely affecting that trophic level, in terms of abundance or species composition. More than just an academic or semantic issue,the clear definition of project objectives and management utility will have profound impacts on project types. This is not to discount PEP involvement in long-term research projects. The PEP, as part of the CCMP, will continue to identify long-term research efforts necessary to characterize and understand basic processes and parameters. The PEP will also seek to procure sources of funding to support such research. In the case of Brown Tide,the PEP will actively participate in the Brown Tide Steering Committee. • CHAPTER TEN 10-7 jo""'N, Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F r Several of the PEP monitoring program topics in Figure 10-2 will be performed as part of pre- • existing programs (point source discharge data through SPDES permits; groundwater monitoring programs through the SCDHS,the Suffolk County Water Authority, NYSDEC, and other entities; coliform/shellfish sanitation program through NYSDEC, surface water monitoring program through SCDHS; etc.). Also,the NYSDEC will continue its finfish trawl surveys, and landings data for finfish and scallops will provide some indication of fisheries resources. Finally, Brown Tide research will be addressed through the Brown Tide Steering Committee, in which the PEP will continue to participate actively. Several possible funding sources are outlined in the Brown Tide chapter. Even though the pre-existing long-term efforts will be ongoing, substantial effort will be required to compile, analyze, and use some of the data. The Management Committee will continue to identify entities that will commit resources to such data analysis and use. For example,the coliform and finfish trawl data is routinely collected, but requires substantial resources to compile and report for the PEP. Similarly, groundwater programs collect substantial data at the County and State levels, but compilation and use of data represents a formidable challenge. Long-Term Monitoring Candidates Le end lExisting Pro am �P�'P._�'an_-di_di_1e� .a�r,1c�J Isf • STP Loads Brown Tide Research Surface Water Monitorin Coliforms Groundwater Wn4- - — — — — — — — — Water Finfish Trawl Surve s Column _/ ato Finfish/Scall Landin s SedimentL3enthiicffl_iai , ` 1 =- _ r� Figure 10-2. Long-Term Monitoring Topics. • CHAPTER TEN 10-8 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP e 4 i Table 10-1. Environmental Monitoring Plan. Monitoring Program Base Programs New Costs 'One-Time Annual One-Time Annual Aquaculture and Transplanting Activities X $710,000 $5,000 Bay Scallops(recruitment success and survival $200,000(over dynamics)___ _ three Biota(Fish, Shellfish,Crustacean)Monitoring X for Toxics Brown Tide Research Initiative X _ Brown Tide Steering ittee X Coastal 2000 X _ Dredging $37,500 17S7,500 Endangered Species Program X _ Federal Toxics Release Inventory X Hazardous Waste Site Monitoring_ X National Pollutant Discharge Elimination X System(NPDES)Program NMFS Commercial Landings Pro in X Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas $5,000 NOA_A_Mussel Watch Program X NYS Pesticide Reporting Law X NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System X (SPDES)Program NYS Shellfish Land Certification Program X • NYSDEC Juvenile Finfish Survey i_ _ _ X $645,000 NYSDEC Wetlands Inventory __ X _ $500,000 1$50,000 Os re , Terns and Waterfowl TBD Pesticide Use Monitoring X $25,000 Restoration Monitoring $35,000 $15,000 SCDHS Alexandrium Monitoring X $35,000 SCDHS Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools X Pro am _ SCDHS Groundwater Monitoring(for nitrogen X andpesticides) SCDHS North Creeks Study X _ SCDHS Pfiesteria Monitoring X $25,000 SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring X SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring X SCPD Land Use Monitoring X Sediment Monitories 25,000 Shoreline Hardening Monitoring X 35,000 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term X $30,000 Monitoring Suffolk County Groundwater Model X Surface Water Monitoring for Toxics X Two Stroke Marine Engine Invento $10,000 Underground Storage Tank Inventory $50,000 $10,000 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory X Total $1,332,500 $922,500 • CHAPTERTEN 10-9 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Even more difficult is procuring resources and funding sources for programs which are not pre- existing. For example,there is currently no mechanism to perform routine, ongoing land use and land cover monitoring. Also,there are no long-term monitoring commitments related to baitfish, fish larvae,zooplankton and phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, and benthic communities. The PEP must procure commitments for carrying out and funding priority monitoring projects. This will involve ajoint and cooperative effort between the Management Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. The Management Committee will continue to evaluate costs and benefits of possible monitoring program options. Part of this analysis will include a weighing of the costs of given programs against the likelihood of success and the value of success. For example, it is possible that a prohibitively expensive program may not be possible,even though resulting data could be extremely valuable. Conversely, a project which cannot guarantee a high probability of intended results(e.g.,a usable bio- indicator)could still be desirable, if the possibility of success is reasonable when weighed against modest project costs and a potentially high project utility. The selection of monitoring parameters and programs must include commitments from entities to conduct the programs and dedication of sufficient resources to enable the efforts. The final monitoring plan contained in Appendix I conforms to National Estuary Program Guidance, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, Content and Approval Requirements(EPA 1992). This guidance document emphasizes the need for clearly defined monitoring plans not only to measure the effectiveness of CCMP actions, but also to provide information necessary to redirect and refocus the CCMP. As required by EPA,the monitoring plan defines program objectives and performance criteria, describes testable hypotheses, and specifies monitoring variables and plan • details. Monitoring Priorities EPA funding for establishing a long-term monitoring program is limited. Currently,the following priorities for use of PEP post-CCMP monitoring monies(NEP-funded)are as follows: Water Quality Continuation of the water quality monitoring program for purposes of establishing a long-term program,with linkages not only to Brown Tide and nitrogen and DO management, but also to the tidal creeks study,the submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring program,and, possibly, other programs. This also includes integrating groundwater quality data and input rates,particularly for key subwatersheds. Sediment Benthic mapping is needed to direct further long-term monitoring of sediment communities and other environmental issues. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation A long-term submerged aquatic vegetation program is needed to capitalize upon prior efforts and to establish trends in eelgrass and macroalgae abundance and distribution. Ideally, submerged aquatic vegetation will be linked with water quality as a bioindicator. Eelgrass restoration will be considered based on the results of the PEP habitat criteria study. • CHAPTERTEN 10-10 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP r • Other Projects A small amount of funding will remain for additional living resources/habitat monitoring efforts. This could include establishing a long-tern benthic monitoring study, possibly in conjunction with the tidal creeks study. Hopefully, prior efforts could be continued to evaluate water quality and sediment communities to support development of a meaningful bioindicator,although larger studies may be necessary to accomplish this. Another project option includes evaluating trends of baitfish abundance and distribution. Additional Natural Resources Research and Monitorine Needs The natural resources committee has identified several projects, which would require several hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding,to conduct important long-term monitoring and living resources projects. These projects include system-wide studies of benthic communities, baitfish,fish larvae, zooplankton,and phytoplankton. A formal project list and justification will be prepared by the Management Committee for further evaluation and consideration and additional funding sources will be sought. Candidates for funding may include the New York State Environmental Protection Fund and possibly the Suffolk County Capital Program ($50,000 proposed for zooplankton and phytoplankton characterization,which would assist not only in Brown Tide research, but also in PEP long-term monitoring). Land Use Monitorine The continuing collection and analysis of land use data is, of course, a paramount long-term monitoring priority. It will be critical in linking land use trends with pollution loading, water quality, • and habitat and living resources. It will also be an important tool in tracking the progress of CCMP implementation. The Suffolk County Planning Department will be crucial to any long-term land use monitoring efforts. The Planning Department has a verified Geographic Information System(GIS)database for existing land uses at tax map scale for the Towns of Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, and the Peconic River corridor in the Town of Brookhaven. The Planning Department also has a verified GIS database for existing zoning in this same region. Both of these databases should be updated on an annual basis to reflect conditions as of March 1 (tax status day). The update and maintenance of the GIS databases will require coordination of activities among the Planning Department, Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency(SCRPTSA),town tax assessors and town planners. Suggested agency roles are as follows: • Town tax assessors could provide a list to SCRPTSA of those parcels for which there has been a change in tax assessment code as of March 1. These lists could then be provided by SCRPTSA to the Planning Department for review, conversion into land use classification codes,and incorporation into the GIS land use database. The Planning Department would then make this updated land use database available to the towns for their use. This would include data in map format. Alternatively, the Planning Department could receive Real Property Transfer Reports(RP-5217)for review to monitor land use changes; and • Town Planners could provide a list of any modifications to town zoning codes and maps to the Planning Department,which in turn would correct the GIS zoning database and provide the information to the towns for their use(includes map format). If one or more of these procedures is implemented, annual updates of GIS products(i.e., databases, tabulations,trends, and maps at tax map scale) for existing land use and zoning, can be made • CHAPTER TEN 10-11 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F� available for the PEP study area and towns as a whole. The databases would be maintained by the S Planning Department to assure consistency in methodology application for the region. Livine Resources Monitorine Coordinator The Management Conference recommends coordinating long-term monitoring program needs for field/living resources concems by hiring at least one full-time staff person dedicated solely to conducting and,to some degree, coordinating these programs. This person would serve as an "environmental analyst,""biologist,"or"marine conservation planner" and would oversee routine, limited submerged aquatic vegetation surveys, baitfish surveys, and/or other monitoring efforts. The person would also oversee the efforts of the agencies charged with collecting data and to keep track of those agencies' commitments to compile and report on their databases. Candidate agencies for providing or housing a staff person would be the NYSDEC,Cornell Cooperative Extension,The Nature Conservancy,or the SCDHS. Until such a position is filled,the Management Conference will continue to conduct these monitoring efforts using voluntary contribution of multiple agency resources. An interim option is to contract out long-term monitoring tasks. A possible disadvantage of this approach would be a lack of institutional continuity and precarious annual funding sources. In regard to these issues,the Management Committee will focus on sustainable, long-term databases which can be used to monitor the effects of CCMP implementation, rather than substantial short-term expenditures of funds to obtain limited characterizations which would not likely be useful in long- term monitoring, even though they could be of immediate scientific interest. • Living Resources Research Plan The PEP,through the present Marine Conservation Planner, has prepared a Framework for Developing a Living Resources Research and Monitoring Plan. This Framework,which has been peer reviewed,will be revised based on peer review comments and integrated with other monitoring efforts(e.g., sediment nutrient flux and toxicity)to update the existing plan,and to identify priority research areas and topics. MEASURING PROGRESS OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION The PEP Management Committee evaluated various mechanisms for measuring progress of CCMP implementation, including technical/scientific measurements(e.g., "bay quality indices"), performance standards,and other, more citizen-oriented mechanisms such as"government report cards." Reports summarizing the progress of various implementation mechanisms will be prepared by the PEP. Dual Approach: Reports on Outputs and Outcomes Reporting the status of CCMP implementation,and redirecting effort as needed, is crucial to successful implementation of the Plan. There are two types of measures of CCMP implementation: • Outputs—reviews to determine whether CCMP commitments have been met; and • Outcomes—reviews of progress using appropriate environmental indicators to determine whether the Peconic Estuary is responding as expected to pollution controls, and whether unanticipated environmental problems are emerging. • CHAPTER TEN 10-12 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP dt • The CCMP provides a framework for tracking both outputs and outcomes. For outputs,each action in the CCMP identifies what is to be done, by when,and by whom. The PEP will review these commitments and recommend mid-course corrections as needed. For outcomes,the Environmental Monitoring Plan includes recommendations to periodically measure and report on a number of environmental indicators of the success of CCMP implementation. These indicators will tell us whether our goals and objectives are being met. The most important indicators are those,which involve measuring the ambient environment to assess whether beneficial uses are being restored, and whether the ecosystem is healthier and more productive as a result of actions taken. Other indicators involve measuring continuing loading of pollutants to the ambient environment. Technical Measures A variety of technical criteria or indices can be developed to assist in evaluating the outcomes of CCMP implementation and effectiveness of CCMP activities. Many of these criteria, including non- regulatory guidelines, are described in other chapters of this Management Plan, such as nitrogen guidelines and DO standards. In developing indices,the Management Committee will emphasize integration of water quality and living resources,to the extent possible. Examples include water quality habitat criteria for submerged aquatic vegetation, and possibly use submerged aquatic vegetation as a bio-indicator of water quality and habitat quality. Also, benthic communities used as integrators of watershed stresses may be valuable bioindicators. These are,of course,subject to the findings of ongoing scientific studies being conducted by the PEP. • Coordination of scoping and design of a technical report, and its elements, will be performed by the PEP Management Conference. At a minimum, this report will include parameters such as groundwater quality changes, surface water nutrient trends, dissolved oxygen violations,and alterations in land use and land cover patterns. Non-Technical Measures Non-technical measures also can be used as tools for assessing CCMP implementation. Reports summarizing the progress of various implementation mechanisms will also be prepared as a mechanism for tracking progress. Implementation funding levels and appropriations will be included. New regulatory initiatives and enforcement of pre-existing initiatives also will be important. Mechanisms such as preparing environmental "report cards"and government action"check lists,"as outlined in Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs, A Manual, (EPA 1994)has been recommended. That manual also outlines a bay quality index, an aggregate index of various parameters to attempt to monitor long-term changes in bay quality. The report also emphasizes the importance of surveys and public education in the progress measurement process. CCMP Reaortine Every three years,the PEP will prepare a report on the status and effectiveness of CCMP implementation, focusing on outputs, as required by EPA National Estuary Program Guidance. The report will include commitments for redirection of efforts as needed. One and one-half years after the first CCMP Implementation Report, and every three years after that, the PEP will also prepare a full account of the status and effectiveness of CCMP implementation, measured by the environmental outcomes being tracked through implementation of the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan. • CHAPTER TEN 10-13 jog Peconic Estuary Program CCMP DATA MANAGEMENT • The December 1993 Peconic Estuary Program Data Management Strategy designated the SCDHS Office of Ecology as the repository of water quality data and most GIS data. The Program Office also became the prime repository for natural resource data on a provisional basis. Since that time,the USFWS has worked on several mapping efforts and has provided GIS coverages to the Program Office for storage and distribution. Suffolk County will continue its role as a water quality data repository and data management agency; a permanent long-term habitat and living resources data repository will need to be identified. The Data Management Strategy and related policies and practices will be periodically reviewed and updated,as needed. • • CHAPTERTEN 10-14 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP j' • POST CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing,commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through "base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions,new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities. POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS M-1. Implement a Long-Term Management Structure. M-2. Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research. M-3. Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data. M-4. Update Municipal Officials. M-5. Develop Sub-Watershed Implementation Plans. • M-6. Ensure Consistence with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. • CHAPTERTEN 10-15 4(0'N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP M-1. Implement Long-Term Management Structure. • Addresses Post-CCMP Objectives 1 and 2. Steps M-1.1 Continue the current management conference structure. Review the effectiveness of this Priority structure during Implementation Reviews, or as needed, and make changes as appropriate. M-1.2 Continue to use SCDHS Office of Ecology as the PEP Program Office,to provide Priority program administration, coordination, management, and technical support services. Responsible Entities M-1.1 PEP Management Conference(lead) M-1.2 PEP(lead), SCDHS • • CHAPTER TEN 10-16 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP ,¢ F � • M-2. Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research. Addresses Post-CCMP Objective 3. Steps M-2.1 Implement the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan and integrate/coordinate monitoring Priority with research. M-2.2. Appoint a Living Resources Monitoring and Research Coordinator to develop and Priority oversee the long-tern habitat and living resources monitoring plan- M-2.3. Continue to fund the NYSDEC coordinator,particularly to coordinate management of Priority habitat and living resources issues in the post-CCMP period. Responsible Entities M-2.1 PEP Management Conference(lead) • M-2.2 PEP Management Conference M-2.3 NYSDEC, EPA • CHAPTERTEN 10-17 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP M-3. Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data. Addresses Post-CCMP Objective 4. Steps M-3.1 Produce Implementation Reports on outputs(attainment of CCMP commitments and Priority recommendations), and reports on outcomes(environmental conditions and indicators). M-3.2 Update the PEP Data Management Strategy to establish SCDHS as the continuing long- term data repository for water quality-related information. A permanent habitat and living resources data repository will need to be identified. Responsible Entities M-3.1 EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS,PEP Management Conference M-3.2 PEP Management Conference(lead) • • CHAPTER TEN 10-18 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP • M-4. Update Municipal Officials. Addresses Post-CCMP Objective 3. Steps M-4.1 Update municipal officials on the Peconic Estuary Program. Provide educational Priority opportunities for these officials on the CCMP and technical issues. Responsible Entities M-4.1 PEP(lead) • CHAPTERTEN 10-19 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F[m=c p Sub-Watershed Implementation Plans. • Addresses Post-CCMP Objective 2. Steps M-5.1 Develop sub-watershed implementation plans integrating actions from all CCMP Priority chapters for one waterbody, embayment, or geographic area in each town, per year. Responsible Entities M-5.1 PEP(lead)with local officials, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and citizens • CHAPTERTEN 10-20 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP 'f M-6. Ensure Consistency with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. Addresses Post-CCMP Objective 2. While this Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in and of itself will not have any effect on historic or prehistoric resources,there is the potential that individual actions of this plan that are subsequently implemented might. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if any Federal undertaking performed as part of the CCMP has the potential to have an effect on prehistoric or historic resources as a result of ground-disturbing activities, EPA will evaluate the need for the performance of an initial Stage IA cultural resources survey(CRS)and any necessary additional stages of survey, prior to project implementation,to identify areas sensitive for the discovery of prehistoric or historic resources. Coordination of any further cultural resources investigations will be carried out by the appropriate Federal agency. To the extent that such actions are State undertakings,NYSDEC will be the lead for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Informal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. While EPA believes that the CCMP will not have a negative effect on Federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their habitats, it is possible that some components of the CCMP may have to be modified • based on input from these agencies. Any actions contemplated for the protection or enhancement of habitat for a Federally-listed species should be implemented with the consent of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Steps M-6.1 Ensure consistency with National and State historic preservation laws and the Endangered Species Act when implementing the CCMP Responsible Entities M-6.1 EPA,NYSDEC,PEP • CHAPTERTEN 10-21 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS • The total cost of all new actions proposed in the Post CCMP chapter is $1,525,000 in one-time costs and $1,060,000 annually. The majority of these one-time and annual costs are for implementing the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan. (See"Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.) POST-CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 10-2 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter. Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an"R"for"Recommendation"or a"C"for "Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are "recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. "O" refers to ongoing activities; "N"indicates new actions. Timeframe • This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future. Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP's best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. "Base Program"means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or"FTE"is estimated as costing $75,000 per year, which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The"Action Costs"description in both the Overview and Finance Chapters provides a expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. • 10-22 CHAPTERTEN n x > Table 10-2. Post-CCMP Management Actions. -o I �y Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M-1 Implement a Long-Term Management Structure. (Objectives I and 2) m 'z M-I.l Continue the current management PEP Management Post-CCMP EPA—02 FTE/yr C Priority conference structure. Review the Conference(lead). NYSDEC—0.2 FTE/yr effectiveness of this structure SCDHS—0.2 FTE/yr during Implementation Reviews or as needed, and make changes as appropriate. M-1.2 Continue to use SCDHS Office of PEP(lead),SCDHS. Ongoing $75,000/yr, in EPA NEP C/O Priority Ecology as the PEP Program Fost-CCMP funds. Office, to provide program administration,coordination, management,and technical support services. M-2 Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research. (Objective 3) M-2.1 Implement the PEP Environmental PEP Management Post-CCMP Some monitoring is C/O; Priority Monitoring Plan and Conference(lead). ongoing;costs need to be R/N integrate/coordinate monitoring specified for some new 3 with research initiatives. PEP—0.1 FTE/yr Costs for Environmental 4 Monitoring Plan: Annual costs: $ 910,000 0 One-time costs: $1,512,000 Table continued on next page n n N w x N Table 10-2. Post-CCMP Management Actions. (continued) °n A Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M-2.2 Appoint a Living Resources PEP Management Post-CCMP $50,000 annually for R Priority Monitoring and Research Conference. coordinator. Coordinator to develop and °a oversee the long-term habitat and living resources monitoring Ian. M-2.3 Continue to fund the NYSDEC NYSDEC, EPA. Ongoing g g $75,000 per year, in EPA C/O Priority coordinator,particularly to NEP post-CCMP funds. coordinate management of habitat �o and living resources issues in the a Post-CCMP period. M-3 Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data. (Objective 4) r) b M-3.1 Produce Implementation Reports EPA,NYSDEC, SCDHS, CCMP Implementation EPA—0.1 FTE/yr C/O Priority on outputs(attainment of CCMP PEP Management Reports:June 2001 and NYSDEC-0.1 FTE/yr commitments and Conference. every three years thereafter SCDHS—0.1 FTE/yr recommendations),and reports on Environmental Outcomes outcomes(environmental Reports: Dec 2002 and conditions and indicators). every three years thereafter M-3.2 Update the PEP Data Management PEP Management Post-CCMP for data Base Programs for data C Strategy to establish SCDHS as the Conference(lead). management strategy management strategy continuing long-term data update. update. Costs to be repository for water quality-related determined for long-term information. A permanent habitat habitat and living resources and living resources data data management. repository will need to be PEP—0.1 FTE/yr identified. Table continued on next page 5 D v y [i7 '-3 R7 z s > Table 10-2. Post-CCMP Management Actions. (continued) v H Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status m T M4 Update Municipal Officials. (Objective 3) H Z M-4.1 Update municipal officials on the PEP(lead). Post-CCMP and annually EPA—0.1 FTE/yr CM Priority Peconic Estuary Program. Provide thereafter. NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr educational opportunities for these SCDHS—0.1 FTE/yr officials on the CCMP and technical issues. M-5 Develop Sub-Watershed Implementation Plans. (Objective 2) M-5.1 Develop sub-watershed PEP(lead)with local Post-CCMP I Estimate: $100,000/yr to C/N implementation plans integrating officials,businesses, non- initiate new projects. actions from all CCMP chapters governmental organizations, Technical support: for one waterbody, embayment, or and citizens. EPA—0.1 FTE/yr geographic area in each town,per NYSDEC—0.1 FTE/yr year. SCDHS-0.1 FTE/yr M-6 Ensure Consistency with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. (Objective 2 M-6.1 Ensure consistency with National EPA,NYSDEC,PEP Post-CCMP Base Program,as needed C/N v and State historic preservation laws and the Endangered Species Act when implementing the CCMP. r 0 c b e 0 a 3 n b N N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP F� This Page Intentionally Left Blank. • CHAPTER TEN 10-26